Israel And India Becoming Real Friends

From The American Thinker

Braving extremely inclement weather,with a flood-like situation, Singha Bahini, a grassroots organization in India held a pro-Israel rally in Kolkata, India on August 16th, 2019. Over 10,000 people braved the heavy sudden downpour and flooding, which caused bumper-to-bumper traffic and clogged roads. Many thousands more could not make it through the treacherous conditions to the rally site. While the organization SinghaBahini is just a year old, the organizers have been on ground helping in the existential battle for the Hindus in the villages of Eastern India for over a decade.

Pro-Israel rallies are not new to the founder of the organization Devdutta Maji, who was instrumental in organizing two large pro-Israel rallies in India: 20,000 people in 2014 and 70,000 people in 2018. In the rally, demonstrators held placards saying “We Support the Jewish People in their 2000 years Old Struggle,” “India and Israel Friends forever,” and “We Support Israel in her war against terrorism.”

The rally reflects the positive turn in the India-Israel relationship under the leadership of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Indian Prime Minister visited Israel in July 2017 and Prime Minister Netanyahu reciprocated with a visit to India in 2018. With strong trade ties, people-to-people contact and rallies in support of Israel as seen recently, ties between India and Israel and between the Hindus and Jews worldwide are expected to strengthen further.

Devdutta Maji visited Israel in 2018 was hosted by several Israel based organizations and activists including the Israel-Education Office of StandWithUS. He told the audience,

“Today’s rally will help to build on the foundations we have created for the India Israel relationship on a people to people basis. The implications of these are bound to spill over to co-operation between the two communities worldwide, who share similar values, making us strong.”’

Trump Isn’t the One Dividing Us by Race.

From WSJ

Trump Isn’t the One Dividing Us by Race

He hardly mentions it, while his adversaries are obsessed with ‘whiteness’ and ‘white privilege.’

By Heather Mac Donald
Aug. 18, 2019 4:05 pm ET

Long before the El Paso massacre, President Trump’s political opponents accused him of sowing “division” with his “racist language.” Mr. Trump “exploits race,” “uses race for his gain,” is engaged in a “racially divisive reprise” of his 2016 campaign, stokes “racial resentments,” and puts “race at the fore,” the New York Times has reported over the past several months.

Yet Mr. Trump rarely uses racial categories in his speech or his tweets. It is the media and Democratic leaders who routinely characterize individuals and groups by race and issue race-based denunciations of large parts of the American polity.

Some examples: “As race dominates the political conversation, 10 white Democratic candidates will take the stage” (the Washington Post); Mr. Trump’s rally audiences are “overwhelmingly white” (multiple sources); your son’s “whiteness is what protects him from not [sic] being shot” by the police ( Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ); white candidates need to be conscious of “white privilege” (South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg ); “white supremacy manifests itself” in the criminal-justice, immigration and health-care systems ( Sen. Cory Booker ); “ Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri” ( Sen. Elizabeth Warren ); whiteness is “the very core” of Mr. Trump’s power, whereas his “predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness” (Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic).

Liberal opinion deems such rhetoric fair comment, even obvious truth, not “racially divisive.” America’s universities deserve credit for this double standard. Identity politics dominate higher education: Administrators, students and faculty obsessively categorize themselves and each other by race. “White privilege,” often coupled with “toxic masculinity,” is the focus of freshmen orientations and an ever-growing array of courses. Any institutional action that affects a “person of color” is “about race.” If a black professor doesn’t get tenure, he’s a victim of discrimination; a white professor is presumed to be unqualified.

That interpretive framework explains asymmetries in how the political and media elites analyze the Trump phenomenon. Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, recently denounced Mr. Trump’s “almost daily attacks on black and brown people.” But “almost” and “black and brown” are superfluous. Mr. Trump’s attacks on his fellow 2016 candidates—and on more-recent adversaries as homogeneous as Robert Mueller, Rep. Adam Schiff, Joe Biden and Ms. Warren—were as nasty as anything he’s directed at Rep. Elijah Cummings or Rep. Ilhan Omar.

But according to the academic template, to criticize a “person of color” is inevitably “about race.” Mr. Buttigieg ran afoul of this rule after firing South Bend’s black police chief for secretly taping officers’ phone calls. The idea that the mayor fired the chief because he was black is absurd, yet Mr. Buttigieg inevitably faced charges of racial insensitivity. Likewise, advocates and the media deemed Mr. Trump’s nonracial denunciation of Baltimore’s leadership racist. Never mind that the victims of the city’s almost daily drive-by shootings are black. Race shields minority politicians from criticism.

Ms. Warren recently provided an unwitting summary of academic identity politics. Mr. Trump’s “central message” to the American people, she declared, is: “If there’s anything wrong in your life, blame them—and ‘them’ means people who aren’t the same color as you.” She has in mind a white “you,” but change the race and you encapsulate the reigning assumption on college campuses—that white people are the source of nonwhite people’s problems, and any behavioral or cultural explanations for economic disparities are taboo.

The academy’s reflexive labeling of nonconforming views as “hate speech” has also infiltrated popular rhetoric against Mr. Trump. The president’s views on border control and national sovereignty are at odds with the apparent belief among Democratic elites that people living outside the country are entitled to enter at will and without consequences for illegal entry. To the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from “hate.” Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

Identity politics, now a driving force in the Democratic Party, celebrates the racial and ethnic identities of designated victim groups while consigning whites—especially heterosexual white men—to scapegoat status. But its advocates should be careful what they wish for. If “whiteness” is a legitimate topic of academic and political discourse, some individuals are going to embrace “white identity” proudly.

To note the inevitability of white identity politics in no way condones the grotesque violence of men like the El Paso killer. But the dominant culture is creating a group of social pariahs, a very small percentage of whom—already unmoored from traditional sources of meaning and stability, such as family—are taking their revenge through stomach-churning mayhem. Overcoming racial divisiveness will be difficult. But the primary responsibility rests with its main propagators: the academic left and its imitators in politics and mass media.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.”

The Trudeau Tragic Flaw

The Trudeaus And Their Constitutional Violations

As I said today on the Roy Green Radio show the way the Trudeaus treat the Constitution is something to behold.

They seem to be oblivious to what is really operative as it relates to our guiding document. Of course, they really know; it is just that they think they can ignore what does not fit for them and support what does.

Trudeau Sr violated the Constitution when he thought he could patriate the Constitution unilaterally. Even his buddies on the Supreme Court could not go along with that and ruled his action unconstitutional. They told him in no uncertain terms that the Constitution is both the written and what evolves as custom and practice, known as convention.

Well, not to outdone and in true Trudeau tradition, Trudeau Jr comes along and thinks he can ignore the Constitutional convention regarding his involvement with the legal processes of the Federal Government and try and interfere with decisions of the Prosecution Service and the Attorney General. The Ethics Commissioner in his report concerning these actions found that Trudeau Jr had violated the principles of the Shawcross doctrine that had become the practice/custom —convention in Canadian legal circles .

What is it with the Trudeaus? And more to the point what’s with those Canadians who still support such unconstitutional behaviour?

Trump Scores In Democratic States —With Donations. Who Would Have Believed?

A GOOD SIGN, FROM THE BLUEST OF THE BLUE STATES – AT 1:30 P.M. ET:

Flags are being raised for the president in the strangest of places. From the Seattle Times:

When word got out during the last presidential election that Seattle developer Martin Selig would be supporting Donald Trump, the blowback from our liberal town, he said, was “stunning.”

“Do you know what it’s like being a Jewish Republican in Seattle?” Selig told The Seattle Times. “The repercussions of what you hear from people is stunning.”

In reaction, Selig, a billionaire, retreated from any affiliation with Trump in 2016 and said he wouldn’t even vote for him. It had become problematic just getting along in the city while wearing a MAGA hat.

But that was then. This spring, Selig went all-in for Trump, maxing out to the president’s campaign with a donation of $5,600.

What’s interesting isn’t so much that this one local rich guy decided to stop worrying and go full Trump. It’s that he’s hardly alone.

The latest federal-election reports show that Trump is doing surprisingly well getting backers in this bluest of blue places. With nearly 15 months to go before the 2020 election, he already has drawn more donations from Seattle addresses than he did during the entire 2016 campaign.

In Washington state, where his approval rating is 28 points underwater, Trump has still racked up far more donations, big and small, than any of the Democratic candidates — in fact more than the top six Democrats combined.

I’m not talking about total dollars raised — though on that front Trump is a juggernaut, too. But the total number of donations reflects how many people are inspired enough by a candidate to send any amount of money, sometimes repeatedly. As I wrote in 2016, about how Democratic Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders was swamping the field in the donations category, “it’s like a measure of people power.”

Well, now Trump, of all candidates, has nearly three times as many donations from Washington state as Bernie Sanders does. The Vermont senator has 8,080 itemized donations here, while Trump has the most ever recorded at this point in an election, by any candidate in either party, 21,657.
What’s more, these are “itemized donations” — meaning the donors were required to list their names, occupations and addresses, and risk the backlash Selig was so concerned about.

COMMENT: I’d imagine much of this is related to the unpopularity of the Democratic field, and not to a love of Trump. It’s pretty clear that Trump was helped into the White House by the glittering obnoxiousness of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Look at today’s Dem field. Would you trust any of them to baby sit? Oh wait. They don’t believe in babies.

‘The Golden State’, Defecation And Plastic Straws

From The WSJ

California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

Lawmakers ban plastic straws as a far worse kind of waste covers the streets of San Francisco and L.A.

By Charles Kesler
Aug. 16, 2019 6:22 pm ET

They say there’s a smartphone app for everything, and doubters should know there are now at least two dealing with excrement on the sidewalks of San Francisco. The city has its official SF311 app, part of its “San Francisco at your Service” program, and last year a private developer introduced Snapcrap, which allows residents to upload a photo of an offending specimen directly to the SF311 website. This alerts the city’s new five-person “poop patrol,” which will follow up, presumably, with a smile.

Then there are the maps. At least three maps charting the location of “poop complaints” in the city have been assembled, the latest and best by the nonprofit Open the Books. Their map shows most of the city covered by brown pin dots, each marking a report to the Department of Public Works.

The website RealtyHop.com dubs San Francisco “the doo-doo capital of the U.S.” They noted that the city’s poop reports almost tripled between 2011 and 2017.

The problem draws attention because the poop increasingly comes not from dogs but from humans. In partial defense of his city, Curbed SF’s Adam Brinklow explains that the reports submitted to the city didn’t distinguish between human and dog excrement, and that there were 150,000 dogs and fewer than 10,000 homeless people within city limits. But he admits that homelessness was probably the leading edge of the problem in San Francisco as well as Los Angeles, where 36,000 people live on the streets, and many do their business there.

The majority of the nation’s homeless people now live in California. There are myriad causes at work, no doubt. But there was no “defecation crisis”—a term usually associated with rural India—in the 1930s, even with unemployment at 25%, vagabonds roaming the country, and shantytowns and “Hoovervilles” springing up everywhere. Today’s homeless and the hobos of the Great Depression are different in many ways. The triple scourges of drug abuse, mental illness and family breakdown have produced anomie and derangements far deeper than those seen in the 1930s, when the widely shared nature of the economic and psychological distress provided its own grim comfort.

In California at least, one is struck by the contrast between the fastidious attention paid to the social duty of scooping up and disposing of dog feces, and the rather more paralyzed and guilty reaction to the plague of human feces. The former is treated as a moral imperative among the enlightened—and the thin plastic bags used as the means to this moral end have so far escaped the fate of plastic straws, well on their way to being outlawed as an environmental outrage. Even social-justice warriors don’t consider it their personal duty, however, to tidy up after their fellow human beings on the streets.

Confronted on the sidewalk with a nasty fait accompli, most people are indignant. But the questions they then ask often diverge. Those of a more traditional disposition might wonder, “What is wrong with these people?” Those of a more progressive mind-set might exclaim, “Why hasn’t the government designed a program to solve this?”

Each is sincere, and society will have to try to answer both to make things better. But it’s the former inquiry, prepared to make some difficult and unfashionable moral distinctions, that needs encouragement in deep-blue California. “Homeless” was originally an adjective. It became a collective noun, denoting the victims of homelessness, only later, under the influence of the 20th century’s confidence that the first step in solving a social problem is to name it. Not all problems are social, however, and few if any social problems can be “solved,” in the strong sense of the term.

Without wishing to return to the Elizabethan Poor Laws, we ought to consider what was lost when the courts discouraged Americans from thinking of “homelessness” in light of the old laws against vagrancy. Under that understanding, no one had a right to camp out indefinitely on public property, much less to defecate on it. Public property belonged to the public—to everyone—and couldn’t be privatized for the benefit of one or more vagrants, however poor or sick. Though that principle would need to be applied to modern circumstances, it is the indispensable starting point for thinking about the shocking problems of the Golden State.

Mr. Kesler is editor of the Claremont Review of Books, from whose summer issue this is adapted.

Canada Has Crossed The Rubicon, We Are A Corrupt Nation.

Canada has Crossed The Rubicon -We Are A Corrupt Nation

With the release of the Ethics Commissioner’s Report on Justin Trudeau and his actions concerning SNC Lavalin , and just as importantly , the reaction to it , Canada is now officially a corrupt nation.

Those who wish to argue this point, in and of itself, proves my point.

How else to interpret these recent events?

The report:

A. Clearly demonstrates that Justin Trudeau broke the law. This was not the first time . Trudeau broke the law four other times according to the Ethics Commissioner . Remember the visit to the tropical Island with his wealthy friend? Of course, it wasn’t his friend , he said. You just visit people on their tropical island at their expense because they are generous strangers, don’t you?

B. That contrary to Trudeau’s promises all the information was not provided to the Commissioner that he requested. Hence the country does not know the full story. No transparency here.

C. Trudeau is still in denial mode. In other words he believes he did nothing wrong . No apologies. He is entitled. The swamp in full colour!

D. The sheer nature of the nefarious enterprise of collusion with SNC Lavalin is greater as a result of this report than anyone had imagined . The meetings between Trudeau’s office and the lawyers for SNC Lavalin continued AFTER the Prosecution Service had made a decision .

These are very grave actions of commission: violating our law , obstruction of justice, with holding vital information , and denying wrong doing in the face of objective determination.

My headline referenced the words Canada and Nation .

That was deliberate .

Because it is not just a corrupt Federal Government but many of the leadership of this nation seem to be enablers in what is happening.

Are the written press calling for Mr. Trudeau to resign?

Does one not think that a Leader who breaks the law five times and colludes with a corrupt company, with holds information, should loose his job? Well not many it seems.

The written press have been rather soft : John Ibbiston says the people will decide , hardly taking a side on corruption. The Globe and Mail newspaper provides a timeline for all this SNC Lavalin stuff. Nothing more that I can find . John Ivision talks about that this shows Trudeau’s nasty side, nothing about the corrupt nature of it all. CTV talks of Trudeau breaking the Conflict of Interest Act . And so it goes. Of course, billion dollar public subsidy CBC will squirm out some platitudes : Is Trudeau To Take Another Hit In the Polls? And just now , can you believe it, they are carrying a story on how the Ethics Commissioner and Trudeau differ regarding SNC Lavalin! Moral equivalency —- the Ethics Commissioner on the same level with the PM who is a law breaker!

There might even be a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee to see whether the Committee should have a meeting on this affair. How bloody Canadian is that?

There is no consternation, no call for resignation in light of this corruption.

Of course, the written press has a $700 million fund to disperse compliments of this Government. So how critical will they be? Hey, when you take the money you leave yourself open to be attacked , don’t you? And here is exhibit A . This print media is no longer objective. Taking the money taints the whole enterprise.

Is there any National Body that is calling for Trudeau to resign? Where are the Universities , their Presidents —those paragons of virtue dispensing their wisdom to the multitudes —where is their progressivism now. Oh, but they are getting research grants from the Federal Government.

And the Provinces ? Last time I looked Five Provinces receive equalization from the Federal Government and Newfoundland and Labrador which technically does not receive equalization is nevertheless in serious financial difficulty. So one can’t count on many of them to say much . Of course , they all get billions of federal social transfers.

And even the Opposition is only asking for a Parliamentary Committee meeting . You know the Committee that was already shut down to stop anything more from being released on the SNC Lavalin Affair , the Liberals having the majority. So don’t hold your breath on that. The Liberals will find a way to finagle this until it is far off the front page , which it is almost the case already.

And former Attorney General, Judy Wilson Raybould , the person vindicated by the Ethics Commissioner’s report, is only asking for an apology. Bear the pain!!!

I get sick to my stomach when I read the Ethics report. Is this my country?

This corruption is treated like just another news story . Illegal behaviour at the highest levels of our Federal Government no matter how bad , seems to find itself with that of the common place . It is entering our DNA it seems.

According to Trudeau creating jobs tops breaking the law. There’s values, morality for you.

In rural Newfoundland many years ago I was a social worker . Early one summer morning I was walking on the town path near the beech . Just below , off the path , mending his nets was an aged fisherman. The sun was just peaking over the horizon . I shouted to the man:

“Great morning, skipper? ‘

Replying he said:

‘ Yes me son, she’s split right abroad. ‘

And so is Canada , but it is late evening and the Sun is going down .

One Potato, Two Potatoes , Three Potatoes , Four —-Trudeau Law Breaking Again!

One Potato, Two Potato , Three Potato , Four —-Trudeau

And now it’s FIVE ROTTEN POTATOES!

Five times our Princeling has broken the conflict of interest laws.

Imagine if this was Trump —that foreigner that Canadians like to talk about !

Almost every one I talk to mentions Trump —not our dear Princeling ——-a foreign leader comes before our own leader. Condemnation based on rumour is fact on Trump but fact by independent Conflict of Interest Ethics Commissioner is dismissed on Trudeau.

Imagine if CNN and MSNBC —Washington Post, New York Times ——-if they had this juicy material. They would have all gone bonkers by now—24/7 coverage —-the Republic would be finished.

Methinks we have a big, big problem here in ‘ honest Canada.’

Is it a defensive mechanism to ignore Trudeau’s law breaking or what is going on in this country?

One thing is for sure. Judy Wilson-Raybould has been vindicated. Big Time!

The Ethics Commissioner said:

‘Conclusion

I find that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson-Raybould to seek to influence her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement. Because SNC‑Lavalin overwhelmingly stood to benefit from Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s intervention, I have no doubt that the result of Mr. Trudeau’s influence would have furthered SNC-Lavalin’s interests. The actions that sought to further these interests were improper since the actions were contrary to the constitutional principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

For these reasons, I find that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 9 of the Act.’

How do you like those potatoes?

Trudeau Senior suspended our freedoms , inflated our debt, attacked Alberta’s right to their oil and gas , broke a promise to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador , initiated wage and price controls , attempted to unilaterally change our constitution———

Trudeau Junior is continuing in this tradition by breaking his promises : one , to balance the budget, rather to increase it by tens of billions of dollars, and two , to run a transparent , ethical Government. Furthermore he has imposed carbon taxes, helping to undermine the oil and gas industry by contributing to the demise of the energy east and northern gateway projects , spending billions on Trans Mountain pipeline , engaging in international initiatives that have the potential to see decisions concerning our country being made by outsiders , entertaining ideas that could limit our freedom of speech, and otherwise embarrassing our country internationally with his adolescent behaviour.

Enough already!

Justin Trudeau does not deserve to be Prime Minister of this nation.