The Trump campaign held a news conference late last week. Here's what happened (with a video update)

 (Please note: I officially began this blog on March 31, 2011. On that date, I started it all by posting 4 essays at once. Today's essay below is the 1300th essay I have written for publication on this blog since that beginning. I thank HaShem for helping me get to this point. I also thank HaShem for helping me to learn and improve my craft. May His blessings to me and my family continue.)

In case you've been on vacation on Mars, Donald Trump, the current President of the USA, ran for re-election on November 3, 2020. Since that date, two things have happened. First, US news outlets have declared Trump's opponent, Joe Biden, to be the winner. They said, Trump lost.

The second thing that's happened since November 3rd is that Trump has refused to concede. He says he was robbed. He claims Biden won only because of voter fraud.

Therefore, on November 19, 2020, the Trump election campaign held a live-broadcast press conference in order to lay out its position about these claims (here). This press conference ran for app 1.5 hours.

It was a big deal. 

The purpose of this particular event was to have three of the campaign's top lawyers--Rudy Giuliani, (Ms) Sidney Powell and Ms Jenna Ellis--present a brief (note the word, brief) outline of evidence of election fraud so far gathered by the Trump campaign since the election (see 0:29-0:33 of the video cited above). The first--and  main--speaker was lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani began by stating that their work for the campaign did not focus on one voter fraud case in one state, but on a series of voter fraud cases. These cases appear to form a pattern of fraud that was repeated in a number of states--unfolding in each state with almost exactly the same pattern (above, at 1:35-2:05). This pattern, Giuliani said, seemed to center on big cities..and on big cities controlled by Democrats...and particularly on big cities that have a history of corruption (2:03-2:20).

As evidence, he presented sworn and signed affidavits (written under penalty of perjury). (Note: in an American court,  a sworn, signed affidavit is accepted as evidence, unless if it is not first-hand knowledge). Giuliani said most of those who wrote these affidavits did not want their names announced before the campaign went to court, for fear of being harassed and, possibly, threatened. He would discuss only 'a few'.

He focused on two kinds of allegations. First were ballot fraud allegations. He described the details of those allegations (03:17-22:43).Then, he turned to allegations regarding how, he said, Democrats failed to observe what we might call tabulation transparency issues--which, by the way, are primarily illegal and contrary to UN guidelines for holding an honest election (here, chapter 19, p. 250). This section of his presentation begins at 23:44.

He spoke for app 38 minutes. Attorney Sidney Powell followed him, and spoke for app 16 minutes. Her focus was the computerized election software that, she alleged, was used by Democrat election officials to commit voter fraud by 'flipping votes" electronically from Trump to Biden. She explained how that worked, or was designed to work (begins at 38:16). She said the campaign will present proper evidence in court.

The final speaker was attorney Jenna Ellis, senior legal advisor for the Trump campaign. She began, interestingly enough, by saying that she expected the US "fake news" media (her words) to report that the Trump campaign at this press conference did not provide "sufficient" evidence of their case--or, that the lawyers spoke "too long".

She was half right. I don't think any anti-Trump (that is, mainstream media) news outlet accused these attorneys of speaking too long. They were too busy mocking and pretty much "cursing" the Trump campaign as "bizarre"and "insane", and for offering up nothing more than "pathetic bat guano conspiracies".

Nice people, eh?

Attorney Ellis' role, she said, was to explain what the campaign was going to do moving forward: it would go into court with evidence to support the campaign's allegations--and to prove the campaign's case. She described what the audience had heard as 'an opening statement' (52:21-52:40). This  case is not, she affirmed, a "Law and Order" episode (referencing a TV program by that name which ran for 20 years,1990-2010). She suggested that those in the room "clearly" had never been court reporters. She said, "trials take time, evidence takes time; this is just an opening statement so that the American people can understand what the networks have been hiding...because all of your fake news headlines have been dancing around the merits of this case and are trying to delegitimize what we are doing here  (52:33-52:46). 

She spoke for app 8 minutes. 

After the press conference, it seemed--to some at least-- that, at that point in time (November 19, 2020), no one knew if Trump's fraud allegations were correct--or, to what extent they might be correct. That will be for the courts to determine.

You see, contrary to what the US media might have led you to believe, these Trump campaign lawyers did not use this press conference to present any major proof for their allegations. They might have even hinted that they had no obligation, interest or requirement to do so out of court. Their stated purpose was not to prove their case in front of a hostile press cohort, but to give a glimpse of what their court case would focus on. Period.

The media in the US failed to grasp this. With its poorly educated and ignorant analysis, the media (within hours of the news conference), reported only their outrage that the Trump campaign was alleging something they--the media--refused to believe. 

In fact, from US news headlines, one could get the impression that the media in the US failed even to see that the campaign was refusing to try its case in the anti-Trump 'court of public opinion'. This was ironic: the media itself has been trying Trump in the 'court of public opinion' for the last four years. Now they were angered: how dare Trump's lawyers deny the media the ability to continue doing that?

Not to worry. The media in the US has spent so much time "trying" Trump on TV (instead of in court), they appear to have forgotten what the courts are for. This, in part, may explain why the media was so outraged by the press conference: the media took the campaign's refusal to present its proof to them as proof positive that the allegations were totally baseless. 

Nonsense. The media has failed its public responsibilities so horrifically it no longer realized that it is not the campaign's obligation to hand anything over to 'them'; its only obligation is to do that in court--which, by the way, is exactly what the lawyers clearly stated as their intent. The media missed that point. Perhaps they didn't understand what that point meant. 

Given the lawyers' intention, it is patently absurd for the media to term what they heard that day as "baseless"..."insane"... pathetic allegations...that are nothing more than a 'bat guano conspiracy'.  

Such reactions are not journalism. They are temper tantrums--or schoolyard bullying. They are certainly not professional  journalism. Perhaps they're examples of journalistic malpractice. 

The message of these three lawyers was clear: they had presented a broad outline of what they ultimately intended to prove. The details for that proof would be presented to the courts. 

A  proper press reaction to such a legal plan should therefore have been simply to report the allegations. A proper response should have been also to state clearly that no one right now can assess the credibility of the allegations. 

The  only responsible decision the press could have made after the press conference would have been to tell their audiences that 'we must now wait to see what the Trump campaign presents in court as evidence, and how the courts respond'. That's it. There's nothing else to say.

But no one in the US mainstream media did that. Instead, they screamed their outrage.

 Now--November 22, 2020--we learn that the first significant court response to the campaign's allegations came from Pennsylvania, where perhaps some of the most serious fraud allegations occurred. That response was as swift as it was clear: an Obama-appointed Federal judge refused to accept the case. He refused even to hear the case. He rejected it.

Giuliani's reaction was noteworthy. He announced the court's rejection--and thanked the judge for acting so swiftly. 

Why? Because now the campaign can move up to the Third Circuit Court--an important step in taking this case to the US Supreme Court before time runs out (the election must be settled before January 20, 2021; if it isn't settled by then, the selection of the next US President will be determined by the US House of Representatives). 

The court's rejection didn't surprise Giuliani. He had already said that Democrat-friendly judges were not averse to offering judgments in favor of Democrats (see the news conference above at 3:00-3:17).  

I have a prediction for this 'first-election-fraud-legal-decision-in-Pennsylvania: the US press will scream that this court response to Trump's allegations finally shows us proof that those allegations were 100% baseless--and shows us all Americans needs to understand in order to see that Trump intends to steal the election with baseless claims: a Federal court wouldn't even allow the Trump campaign's nonsense to get through the door of the courthouse, let alone into a formal court hearing!

Of course, getting one case of many-to-come tossed doesn't prove a thing. It just takes the Trump case closer to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the media will not let up. Don't be surprised to see headlines that scream, "Trump fraud claims tossed out of court! He must concede NOW". How long must you wait to see such headlines? Five days? Five hours? Five minutes?  Never?

Stay tuned. This movie isn't over.

UPDATE: here's a post-news conference video to update your view of the Trump allegations (here) . Do not overlook this video.

 

US Jews, the canary in the mine, and the face of Liberalism

When Joe Biden ran for President in 2020, he ran on a Liberal agenda. Specifically, he ran on re-imagining the police; more immigration; more affordable health care; more affordable education; higher wages for the lowest-paid; more racial justice--and more taxes to pay for it all. He embraced (in one way or another) the Liberal-Socialism of Democrat Bernie Sanders and in return was "supported" (here) by the Liberal-Socialist-Democrat Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (AOC). 

But the Liberalism Biden embraced isn't all one sided. It has more than one face. 

On one level, Liberalism is indeed a movement that seeks justice, social reform and lower family expenses. This is the good face of Liberalism. Who could object to justice and lower monthly expenses that aim--in theory, at least--to help us all?

But Liberalism has another face. This second face is ugly. It's a face of failure and destruction (here).

Liberalism aims to bring utopia to America. It wants to make the US a place where everyone can see true justice and equality. But, at least in the short run, that hasn't happened. The only thing America has seen recently of Liberalism is riots, a sharp increase in shootings in some US cities--and a sharp increase in crime in others. The Liberalism-at-work we saw this past summer brought damages in the billions to Democrat-Liberal run cities where "protests" raged this past summer.

What is the American face of Liberalism? Is it the good face of social justice and reform--or the ugly face of violence? This past summer, Americans saw neither justice nor reform. They saw Liberal-run cities marked by chaos, violence and destruction. 

There has now appeared a video on youtube about this element of Liberalism. The video was by Conservative Dan Bongino. Here's part of what he said (here, beginning at 53:41):

He introduced this particular segment of this video with a discussion of defunding the police in one of America's most ultra-Liberal cities--Minneapolis, Minnesota.

It seems that, earlier this year, the Minneapolis city council had voted to defund its police. As a result, many police officers quit or retired. Several other officers (who had remained on the force) appeared to be engaging in what some might describe as a form of 'blue flu'--slowing down their work or backing away from attempting to enforce the law. Whatever the police were or were not doing, one thing was certain for Minneapolis: violence and gunfire "raged" (here). 

By November 10, 2020, the city became desperate. It announced it was looking to bring in officers from "other jurisdictions" to help the city's police department. This is where (here, beginning at app 55:28) Bongino spoke of what he believes happens when a Liberal-run city defunds its police (every city in the US which has so far this year voted to defund its police were run by Liberal Democrats). 

Bongino said (my paraphrase): Liberalism is touchable, feel-able and material...this is because the effects of Liberalism are material, touchable and feel-able. How? your kid gets mugged, your car gets broken into, your wallet gets "lighter", your business goes out of business because you've been put on extended lockdown by Liberal political leaders. 

Believe me, he said, that's touchable and feel-able. When some thief in the middle of the street puts his hand on your wallet and knows he won't be prosecuted--that's "Material", and you will feel it. Well, Liberals themselves now also "feel" it. Liberalism is a forest-fire that will burn this country to the ground [emphasis mine].

When I heard these words, I instantly recalled similar words I had  heard years ago--and had forgotten. These now-remembered words were spoken to me by an intelligent but unsocial, irascible man. I remembered his words because they struck me as so very odd. He said, "a Liberal society always sows the seeds of its own destruction". 

Bongino's words about Liberalism in today's America being a "forest fire that will burn this country to the ground" reminded me of what I believe that irascible man was talking about so many years ago. That is, according to Bongino--and perhaps also that irascible man from my past--Liberalism is, ultimately, a fatal ideology. It seems always to destroy (here and here). 

Just look at the riot-torn, Liberal Democrat-run cities of New York, Baltimore, Portland, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and Seattle. Local Liberal leaders did nothing to stop those riots. Some even kneeled before them (remember that?). Some ultra-Liberal Democrat Prosecutors in those cities declared a no-prosecution campaign for those arrested during those riots--a decision which only fueled the riots with an implicit promise of no-prosecution for damage done or violence committed. 

So yes, Liberalism does appear to be touchable, feel-able and material. Just ask the citizens in those Democrat-run US cities who saw their businesses burn to the ground during those so-called "peaceful protests".

That damage is why US Jews better start thinking seriously about the face of Liberalism. Right now, Jews are comfortable in the US. Many embrace Liberalism. 

That embrace of Liberalism is why US Jews should beware. Liberalism isn't the 'cure' many think it is. It has a nasty, violent underside.

US Jews should never forget they are always the proverbial canary in the coal mine (here). That is, Jews are often the first to suffer when the non-Jewish society around them turns violent. Do US Jews appreciate how US Liberalism has the capacity to turn violent and destructive?

We can certainly disagree about what is a Liberal ideology. We can disagree about is the true face of Liberalism, the good face or the ugly face. But I don't think there is any doubt about the billion+-dollars' worth of damage done by "peaceful protests" in Liberal-run cities this past summer.

It might be wise to remember that wiser heads than our own have studied Liberalism more thoroughly than we have. Some have already concluded that Liberalism really, truly does destroy (see here, esp pages 1 and 17). It seems possible that the DNA of Liberalism could well include a built-in flaw--it ends in failure and destruction (ibid).

Therefore, US Jews should beware. Will US Liberalism destroy not only America, but Jews as well (see here, especially the last three paragraphs)? 

If you have any doubts about where Liberalism in America is going, don't wait to see what happens. Make aliyah. Return to the world's premier haven for Jew--Israel. 

That way, at least you'll be safer.

How did Biden win the 2020 US election?

 

Based on reports I have seen, it is not an understatement to declare that the 2020 US national election shocked US Democrats (here). Reason? The election simply did not turn out the way Democrats believed it would. 

But Democrat Joe Biden won, didn't he? If so, why would Democrats be shocked? 

They were shocked because they wanted more. Much more.

For example, just before the election, serious Democrats seriously believed that election night would bring them euphoria (here). That is, they expected that this election would prove to be a complete repudiation of Trump and his policies (ibid). 

But that didn't happen. Instead, it was the Democrat agenda that was 'absolutely repudiated' (here).

Democrats were livid. Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Ortez (D-New York)  blasted Democrats and called them, "incompetent" (here).  Democrat Congressman Conor Lamb (D-PA) said that Democrats' call to defund the police and--in Pennsylvania (where fracking brings in many, many jobs)--the Democrat call to ban fracking cost Democrats seats in Congress (here). Democrat US senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) said the Democrats' "radical Leftist" agenda scared the "Bejeezus out of people" (here). Anti-Trump TV commentator Joe Scarborough complained that the election results demonstrated a "complete [voter] repudiation of the "Democrat 'brand' (not the Trump brand) (here). Democrat Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said that the far-Left messaging that came from some in the Democrat Party "did  not play well" in his district (here). Finally, no less an authority than Biden campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond repeated the idea that the Democrats' 'defund the police' message hurt Democrats (here).

These words were reported after the election. They were made for public consumption. No one even hinted at what Democrats were saying in private.

After the election, if there was any consensus among many Democrats, it was that the election was a disaster. Or, as one internet outlet put it, this 2020 election was a "Dumpster fire" for Democrats (here). 

By the morning after the election, not one GOP in the House had been ousted. Indeed, the GOP actually picked up new seats (here)--exactly when some high ranking Democrats expected to see a major increase in the current (pre-election) Democratic majority in the House. 

That was why this election had become a dumpster fire. The expectation of gaining more Democrat House seats had exploded in Democrats' faces. Democrats had lost seats in the House, not gained.

As this Democrat "dumpster fire" story unfolded, one question seemed obvious: if the Democrat 'brand' frightened the "bejeezus" out of people, how did Democrat Joe Biden win the election?  

Remember, Biden, as the Presidential candidate, represented the 'Democrat brand'. In fact, he was more than just a "representative" of the Democrat Party brand. As he himself said during the campaign's first Presidential debate--before  millions of US vewers-- "I am (Biden's apparent emphasis)the Democratic Party (here and here). He and his Party agenda are linked.. So if his Party's agenda was so soundly repudiated, how did Biden win?

That repudiation, by the way, is no surprise. Watching the evening news, many American TV watchers saw the Democrat Party--fairly or not--as the Party of defund-the-police, open-the-borders, give-illegal-immigrants-free-stuff-that-everyone-else-must-pay-for. Fairly or not, TV viewers this past summer saw how Democrats (most certainly at the local level, and occasionally at the national level) seemed to embrace the Black Lives Matters protests. 

In short, voters didn't buy what some came to call a 'radical-Leftist message'. This message indeed "scared the bejeezus" out of people. 

So if both serious Democrats and anti-Trumpers openly reported (as noted above) that the Democrat agenda clearly didn't sell well on election day--and if the Democrat agenda was actually 'repudiated' by voters, as some said (and if Biden was the Democrat Party)--who voted for him? 

How did he win?

 

On Election Day, 2020, will America choose the President who will preside over the second American Civil War?

Tomorrow is Tuesday, November 3, 2020. It will be the day the US decides who will be its next President--the incumbent, Donald Trump, or his challenger, Joe Biden. Even now, less than 24 hours before election day, no one in the US knows who will win.

America is uncertain. Very uncertain. US polls show Trump consistently behind challenger Biden. The last NBC/WSJ poll taken before the election had Biden ahead by a double-digit margin (here). With an estimated lead this big, it sure looks like Biden will win, right?

Don't be so certain. Are the polls accurate? 

They weren't accurate in the last Presidential election. Remember, on the day of that election (November 8, 2016), candidate Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of winning; Trump, a 15% chance (here). We know how that worked out: Clinton lost.

Now, as of October 28, 2020, Biden's chance of winning was almost the same: 76.4% (here in the next-to-last-paragraph). Was this accurate?

The polls say, yes. But what about the supposed existence of what some call, the "shy" Trump voter (here)--that is, pro-Trump poll respondents who have consistently refused to tell pollsters for whom they will truly vote--for fear of being "judged" (here)? Some speculate (here) that if such voters exist, Biden might not win. 

If all of these supposed "shy" Trump voters vote, they could give Trump another four years--and confound the polls. Will this happen in 2020? 

We don't know. 

Meanwhile, Trump's opponent, Joe Biden, has his own election problems. Will his message resonate with enough Americans to enable him to win? 

Biden's message is clear: he aims to change America for "generations to come" (here). Some Republicans say that Democrat Biden's call for 'change-for-generations-to-come" is a call to make America socialist (here). Will voters believe this  Republican claim--or Democrat Biden? 

No one knows.

Videos on youtube show one candidate as a man who doesn't always seem to know what office he's running for or who is his opponent. Internet essays call the other candidate 'fascist', dictator' and 'murderer'. Voters see these videos and accusations. Will such videos and words affect voter ballot decisions?

No one knows.

One candidate is called corrupt. The other is called liar. At times, one candidate can't seem to speak a complete, coherent sentence. The other candidate, it is said, is simply "unfit" to be President.

Why does America see these candidates in these terms? Because that's how the media presents them. Apparently, the media appears to see this election as a contest between the mentally diminished vs the mentally unfit.

The media has failed America. When 92% of media coverage of one candidate is negative, there's a a problem. The media is supposed to be balanced. When the media chooses to present one candidate through a 92% negative filter, the media is no longer balanced. It becomes partisan. That's not the reason the media exists. It exists to be balanced.

The media has stopped telling the truth. For example, this past summer, while multiple buildings in multiple downtowns in multiple cities across America were set afire by rioters, several national reporters on the scene ignored the rioting . They ignored the fires. Instead,  they reported, 'we have here mostly peaceful protests...' While they spoke, their camera crews pointed cameras directly at the businesses behind the reporters. The businesses were engulfed in sky-high flames.

 While these national media reporters appeared to be saying, 'riots and fires? what riots and fires? I haven't seen any riots and fires', more and more essays about revolution and civil war in America appeared on the internet. More youtube videos began to ask, 'is America on the verge of revolution?'

Privately, ordinary people saw the rioting--and began to worry about civil war. Privately, people began to ignore the media. Privately--very privately--people across America began to prepare for a civil war (here).

Does anyone really believe that America's streets will erupt in open warfare in November, 2020? Well, American businessmen believe this. That's why, in cities like Washington, DC, New York, San Francisco and elsewhere businessmen rush to board up and shut down their main-street businesses. They want to protect their wealth from the oncoming riots--and the firestorms they believe will happen--no matter who wins the election (here).

Is America getting ready to be set alight after the 2020 election? Do more riots in America in turn mean that the next President of the United States will preside over America's second civil war?

From where I sit, America certainly looks like it teeters at the edge of either a civil war--or the beginning of extended "Days of Rage" that will look like a civil war but won't last long enough to become a civil war.  Either way, it certainly looks like America will burn.

Can Americans remain safe in such an environment?  Will Jews be safe? Will the new President be safe? 

You tell me.

America's 2020 Presidential election, Kristallnacht--and the danger of being a Jew in the US

 In just a few days, on November 3, 2020, voting stations in America will "officially" open (many have already opened for 'early voting'). Americans will choose their next President--by either re-electing Republican Donald Trump, or by replacing him with Democrat Joe Biden.

This election will be different. For one thing, unlike some past elections, this election may set a modern record for total votes cast. Already, a week before voting stations officially open, millions of Americans have cast their votes. So far (as of October 29th), more than 77 million votes have been cast (here).

This extraordinary tally (for this year's early vote) suggests that Americans know what's at stake in this election. Both Parties--Republican and Democrat--claim that if the opposing candidate wins, he will destroy America.

Is this true? We don't know. But the record number of votes already cast in the US suggests that members of both Parties believe this to be true. 

Members of both Parties who are voting in this election say they vote because they want to preserve the nation's soul. We just don't know which soul will be preserved--the Democrat's definition of 'soul', or the Republican's definition.

Meanwhile, the majority of US Jews vote, too. But will their vote be plagued by two potentially dangerous beliefs? 

It's possible. The first of these two beliefs is what US voters call, "Liberalism" (here). This could endanger US Jews because "Liberalism" and "Jewish" don't always go together. Yet, some 56% of US Jews identify themselves as "leaning towards Liberal"--or, as "Liberal" (here). If that's true, we can easily assume that US Jews will tend to vote for the most Liberal of the two main Parties in this election--the Democrat Party. After all, the only large US political Party that embraces a Liberal agenda in the US is the Democrat Party. Republicans, by contrast, are called, "Conservative". Republicans are decidedly not "Liberal".

As suggested above, this Jewish commitment to a Liberal political agenda for America might not be good for Jews. The reason for this seems simple enough: a truly Leftist-Liberal political environment is not always good for Jews. In America, for example, it is no accident that, as the Left has become more prominent on the political stage, two things have happened. First, America has become increasingly polarized. Second, anti-Semitism has increased--dramatically (here). This has happened because America's most Liberal writers and politicians have embraced a bevy of anti-Jewish notions--the  Boycott, Divestment and Sanction Movement; the anti-Zionist demonization of Israel as a pariah, illegitimate state; intersectionality (which apparently  believes that all kinds of  ills--including Zionism--must be purged to achieve a more perfect society); and a radicalized feminism which is fundamentally anti-Zionist (here). The more commonplace these ideas become on college campuses, in published essays and in intellectual journals, the more polarized the US becomes--and the more demonized Jews and Israel become. The result? Dramatically increased antisemitism in the US, mostly--but not exclusively--from the Left.

Liberalism and antisemitism connect for another reason: Liberalism is at heart an idea based upon utopia. Liberals promote a utopian, ideal world. Major elements of the modern utopian ideal even appear in the 2020 Democrat election Platform: "racial justice", "leveling the economic playing field" (here), guaranteed safe housing for all, universal healthcare, ending poverty, gun control,  "affordable" education and economic security for all (ibid).

But utopias are--by their very nature--dangerous for Jews. Every utopia in the West has been the same: Jews lose. Even the very first iteration of a social utopia, in Thomas More's 16th century work, Utopia, the perfect society was completely Jew-free. That sentiment has never changed.

No large-scale Western utopian society--most notably Nazi Germany and Communist Russia--treated Jews very well. The same might be true in a now-polarized America (here). That is, the more America polarizes around a Left-Right axis, the greater becomes America's antisemitism (ibid)--partly because anti-Israelism plays so prominent a role in so much Leftist-Liberal rhetoric.

Today, the assumption that Jews will again vote Democrat is supported by a recent poll on the subject. In a Pew survey completed in mid-October, 2020, some 70% of Jews indicated they will indeed vote for the Democrat/Liberal candidate, Biden (here). 

Biden certainly appears to lean Left. He certainly appears to embrace a far-Left political agenda just when antisemitism in American increases. Will a Left-leaning Biden be good to Jews? One answer comes from one of the most anti-Jew Members of the US Congress--Ilhan Omar. She has recently declared that she--and other Leftists in Congress--fully expects Biden to move Left as US President. She also stated that she and her 'colleagues' will "press" Biden to do just that (here). 

Given the history of Liberals-their-utopia-and-the-Jews, it seems dangerous for the majority of America's Jews to vote for a Liberal-utopian political agenda especially when the most Leftist Members of the US Congress now threaten to stall Biden's entire Congressional agenda if he does not 'fall in line' (ibid). Ilhan Omar and her friends will not be the Jews' friend. Their political histories proves that.

There is a second potentially dangerous belief Jews will bring to the voting booth next week--their attitudes towards antisemitism. According to the most recent AJC survey of antisemitism in the US, 54% of American Jews say they believe that Republicans (and, by association, Trump) bear the responsibility for today's antisemitism in the US (here). The media (here) supports this conceit. These same Democrat Jews do not believe the Democrat Party is to blame for America's anti-semitism (ibid). 

Could the majority of US Jews be wrong to believe that it is Republicans who truly foster and support today's antisemitism?

Only 12% of US Jews believe that Democrats are responsible for antisemitism in the US. Antisemitism is no small concern for US Jews. In today's America, 88% of US Jews believe that antisemitism in the US is a problem (ibid). That's a big number--88%. It suggests that  Jews see antisemitism as a daily concern--and daily concerns do motivate voters.

So, when US Jews overwhelmingly see antisemitism as a problem, to whom will they turn for help? Do they turn to Republican politicians--whom they see as responsible for US antisemitism? Of course not. They turn to the Democrat Party, whom they view as primarily innocent when it comes to American antisemitism.

That comforts a lot a people. But then, what happens if these Jews are wrong? What happens if the greater threat to Jews in America is actually from the Left, and from Democrats specifically who have often appeared to support the Left's violence in America (here), (here), (here). 

Certainly, it is Democrats, not Republicans, who support the likes of (Democrats) llhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and AOC, each of whom has said some questionable things about Israel and Jews. If Biden wins, these women  could well become players in the new Democrat Administration.

Do Biden-friendly Jews believe they will be safer with such individuals in positions of power? True, many in America believe that, in a Biden Administration, Jews will not be safer. But then, the people who believe this are not Democrats.

Then, there's the issue of the US's Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews in the US will not vote for  Biden. Another recent poll says that 83% of Orthodox Jews will not vote for a Democrat. They will vote for Republican Trump in the 2020 election (here). 

How can this be? Either the 70% non-Orthodox Jews who will vote Democrat are wrong, or the 83% of Orthodox who vote Trump are wrong. They can't both be right.

Remember, Democrats--and pro-Democrat advocates--seem very sure that Donald Trump is an antisemite (here). Would Orthodox Jews--so potentially sensitive to antisemitism because they are so easily identified as Jewish (how they dress and where they live)--really vote for an antisemite?

I don't think so. As a matter of human nature, most people do not generally vote for those whom they--the voter--believe hate them. So, what do US Orthodox Jews know that their non-Orthodox peers don't know--or, more likely, prefer not to see?

One answer to this question might be summed up with one word: riots. 

Recall for a moment the street riots Americans saw (if they were looking) during the height of the corona pandemic during June-July-August, 2020.  Most news outlets didn't report how badly some Jewish neighborhoods were attacked during these riots. The news outlets ignored those attacks. 

Nevertheless, it is altogether possible that these riots, on pause now during the run-up to the election, will revive. Make no mistake. These riots have been fueled and encouraged by Democrat leaders, both local and national (here and here).  If the riots renew, they could spill into residential neighborhoods. They could spill into Jewish neighborhoods. 

Is it realistic to believe the riots will renew? Ask the FBI, which has already warned Jewish institutions in the US to "brace for possible violence around election day, no matter who wins" (here).

How will local, state and national Democrat leaders deal with these new riots? Will they call them "peaceful protests"--as they'd done this past summer? Will they say "protesting" is a sanctified right of of a democratic nation--and must therefore not be stopped? Will they stand in solidarity with the protesters, as they had done this past summer? Will they say any police interference in these "protests" is fascist?

We will soon find out. 

The likeliest time-frame for renewed rioting in the US could be the time-period just after the election, perhaps between November 4 and November 28, 2020. For Jews, these dates are fraught with historical significance. 

On November 9-10, 1939 in Germany, there occurred an event called, Kristallnacht ("the night of the broken glass) that unfolded across Germany. During the 48 hours of November 9-10,1939, violent mobs, spurred by antisemitic exhortations, plundered 7,500 Jewish businesses, homes and schools. These mobs set afire hundreds of Jewish synagogues (here), destroying them. 

Looking back, this Kristallnacht marked a turning point in Nazi behavior towards Jews. After November 9-10,1939, there was shift in the way Jews were treated. Before November 9, anti-Jew activities were (according to some) primarily verbal.  But after November 10, 1939, that rhetorical abuse turned to outright violence against Jews--a violence that helped prepare Germany for the Holocaust (ibid).

During November, 2020, will US Jews see their own Kristallnacht? You tell me.

 In the meantime, isn't it time US Jews considered aliyah?

Yes, Israel has a "peace" problem--and a 'democracy' problem

 Israel's President, Reuven Rivlin, recently said that this year--2020--"has been a year of peace" (here). On one level, he was correct. But on another level, he was dead wrong.

Rivlin made his "year of peace" comment because of the Abraham Peace Accord. This Accord was announced on August 13, 2020 as a diplomatic and business "normalization" agreement between Israel, the UAE (and then, later, Bahrain). This agreement was historic. It did the supposedly impossible: it brought Jews and Muslims together--in peace. 

That alone could qualify 2020 as a 'year of peace'. A "Normalization" between Jew and Muslim? Since Israel's modern founding in 1948, such a 'normalizing' peace had never been attempted. Never.

This agreement was so stunning, it immediately suggested a redefining of the diplomatic and economic maps of the Middle East. If the innovation and high-tech sophistication of Israel could truly be matched up with the money, contacts and energy of wealthy Arab nations, this deal could transform the Middle East. It could bring modernity, prosperity and increased security to a region more commonly known for its backwardness, tribal conflicts and extensive poverty. An Israel-based non-Iranian confederation could potentially create an entirely new Middle East.

This Accord also has the potential to create substantial peace dividends. One of biggest of these dividends was the possible inclusion into this nascent "confederation" the Middle East's biggest player--Saudi Arabia. 

Saudi Arabia isn't just the largest country in the Middle East. It's got the largest economy of the Middle East. If the Saudis joined with Israel, UAE and Bahrain, the resulting confederation could change the Middle East from a Russia-leaning Region to a Western-leaning Region. Certainly, with Israel acting as its high-tech hub, the Middle East could become the world's greatest science-driven engine.

The timing of this agreement was extraordinary. At this moment in history, the EU teeters on collapse and the US teeters on either some form of Marxism or outright revolution--or both. If both the EU and the US do sink into some kind of political and/or economic chaos, this Jewish-Muslim "confederation" could replace the US and EU as the world's greatest creator of growth, innovation and prosperity. 

But...this prospect for peace and prosperity can only come true if Israel survives its internal wars. Right now, that survival  is not guaranteed. There is some evidence to suggest that Israel could drown under a tsunami of Jew vs Jew hatred (here). 

You see, the truth is, Israel doesn't have a war problem. It's got a "peace" problem. 

Israel has a unique track record fighting wars against external enemies. Israel has always won its wars with external enemies--mostly because it cannot afford to lose. Israel's problem is, it has trouble with peace. 

In general, Israelis unify for war. They're good at doing that. But Israelis fracture when they have no external war to fight.

That is, when no enemy threatens an imminent invasion of Israel, Israelis seem to turn on each other. This is what we see (now almost daily) being reported in Israel's news media.  

 Currently, Israel has experienced an "official peace" for more than 6 years, since the end of the 2014 war with Gaza. How have Israelis chosen to use this time of relative calm? They've gone to war against each other, Jew against Jew. 

Leftists gather in coffee shops and salons to plan to undermine and attack everything Zionists and Religious Zionists do in Israel. Meanwhile, other Jews who are not Leftist--but who appear to have problems with Judaism--plot to attack everything they see as "Jewish" in Israel. 

We see these two groups work to demonize and verbally attack Israel's Ultra-Religious Jews. Why? I believe many within these two groups believe that Israel's Ultra-Religious (the 'Haredi' sector) are Israel's scapegoat. At least, that's how they act.

Perhaps some Jews in Israel tire of being the world's scapegoat. Since many of these Jews profess to 'want to be like everyone else', perhaps they yearn to have a scapegoat of their own--like everyone else has. Perhaps that's why Israel's Haredi are being treated as a hated scapegoat. 

Perhaps. 

By the way, this Israeli inability to live in peace with itself isn't new. Read our Tanach. Our Jewish history is scarred by this Jewish tendency for internecine warfare. Israel today is no different than ancient Israel.

Is the Abraham Accord compelling enough to change that? Can it change Israel's penchant for internal warfare?

Once the business and tourism benefits of the Accord begin, will Israelis drop their political hatreds and dream instead of greater prosperity and international respect?  

Or, are we looking at something else entirely: do today's divisions reveal that Israel has lost its moral compass? Has the world's only Jewish state lost its Jewish compass?

Is that why we see this Jew-vs-Jew behavior? We don't know--and frankly, I don't think Israelis know.

Reading Israel's news, it looks to me like Israelis aren't ready for peace right now. I don't  believe the prospect of a "new Middle East" is a powerful enough motivator for Israelis to be interested in building a better future. Right now, Israelis seem instead more focused on undermining Israel's democracy by attempting to take Israel's democratically-elected Prime Minister out of office through protests--and demanding to do that because, 'democracy' (here).

The Abraham Accord brings with it a potential for a new future. But all Israel can think about right now is the double plague of corona and Netanyahu-hate. 

Peace? Forget it. Israel must protect its democracy. Yes, Netanyahu is indeed so bad a Prime Minister, his corona failures endanger all (here). Israel must remove this democratically-elected man before the next election!!

Was Israel president Rivlin correct? Does the Abraham Accord really bring to Israel the stunning opportunity for real Middle East peace?

Or, was Rivlin wrong? Are Israelis so intent on destroying Netanyahu they would overturn Israel's democracy--for our 'greater good'? Have Israelis so blinded themselves with political hatred that they see no reason whatsoever to think about preparing Israel to take its place as the keystone piece in a new Middle East/Western-leaning confederation? 

Is this what's going on here in Israel? We don't know. Israelis don't know. 

Ready or not, Israel's future lies before us. That future will be either very bright--or very dark.

Yes, Israel has problems, all right. Can Israelis figure out how to solve them? 

You tell me.

US and Israeli polls: are pre-election polls still credible?

 With a US Presidential election now less than three weeks away,  some in Israel took note when a recent news article in an Israeli news outlet (here) reported that US Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, led US President Donald Trump by 14 points in the latest nbc/wsj pre-election poll. Since most Israelis appear to favor US President Donald Trump over Biden (here), such a US poll result means something in Israel. 

Since that article, more US polls have begun to show a widening lead for Biden. The realclearpolitics US poll average now (as of October 14, 2020) shows Biden with a full 10% average lead--across all polls in the US. This suggests that Donald Trump's re-election hopes are probably doomed. Is this true?

One reader of that Israeli article cited above didn't believe the nbc/wsj poll results. In a comment to the article, this reader wrote that the poll was biased because it showed that 46% of poll respondents were Democrats, while only 35% respondents were Republicans.  This 11-point gap in respondent Party affiliation suggested that, even before poll phone-callers began dialing to respondents, Biden appeared to have a built-in advantage.

Why? Because in America today, voters are extraordinarily polarized. Something like 84%-86% of Democrats appear to be hard-core Biden 'advocates', and a similar percent of Republicans appear to be hard-core Trump supporters. 

Such polarization predisposes Democrat respondents to prefer Biden exclusively. It also suggests that Republicans can be expected to remain equally loyal to Trump. 

There appears to be no middle road for voters in today's America. There could be very few voters of either Party who will next month choose to vote for the candidate of the other Party. At least, that's what pundits and politicians believe.

Therefore, given the extreme polarization that exists between Democrats and Republicans in the US during this current election cycle, an 11-point poll oversampling (in favor of Democrats) could indeed suggest a wide gap in voter preference. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what the poll showed. 

But was that Israeli reader (who had pointed out this 11-point Party affiliation gap) really correct? Did nbc/wsj pollsters really tilt respondents chosen for this poll so heavily towards Democrats as to set the stage for a heavily pro-Biden result? 

We got an answer to this question from nbcnews itself. Some 6 days after the nbc/wsj poll came out, nbcnews confirmed that there had indeed been a weighting bias in this poll. The bias favored Biden. But that bias was not, as the Israeli reader had written, an 11-point Biden advantage. This nbcnews article called that bias a 9-point advantage. 

From what most US poll readers knew from past poll reports, this 9-point advantage was greater than the more "normal" US polling tradition of showing a 5-6 point poll oversampling in favor of Democrats. Then, just to give further confirmation to this oversampling 'incident', another article (here) declared that the oversampling of Democrats in this poll had been 8%. 

To understand how serious such a poll oversampling is, consider that, within Gallup pre-US election polls between early March, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the differences between Democrat-Republican Party affiliations fluctuated between 0% to 7% (favoring Democrats), depending upon the poll (here). Most Gallup polls during this 5.5 -month period carried a 3%-5% advantage--to Democrats. Compared to these numbers, a suddenly appearing 8% or 9% advantage is, shall we say, unusual.  

The differences may appear small. But they aren't. If, say, Republicans represent 26% of poll respondents, and Democrats represent 34% of total respondents, this 8-point difference represents a 30+ percent advantage for Democrats (that is, an 8-point advantage for Democrats translates into a 30 percent advantage for Democrats--because the "34" number for Democrats is 30% more than the Republican's "26" number). A 9 point advantage (between, say, 26% and 35%) represents a 34+ percent advantage for Democrats (that "35" number is 34% bigger than "26"). 

With potentially 130 million Americans voting in November 2020, what would a 30%-34% pre-election poll advantage mean for an actual election result? Well, a poll is supposed to give one a 'sense' of how final voting results will end up, right? So, an 8-9 point poll advantage seems to suggest 30%-34%  more votes for Biden.

If Biden really did get 30%-34% more votes than Trump in the  November 2020 election, that would mean anywhere between 25-to-40 million more votes for Biden. That kind of election result would indeed be termed a "landslide" for Biden. 

So far, no one in America's mainstream media claims a landslide for Biden. The fact that no mainstream news outlet right now is calling for a Biden landslide suggests that these outlandish poll numbers might in fact be more propaganda than fact. 

Some in America believe that Biden is winning the hearts-and-minds of voters only in the media--and in faked "polls" (here).  Others say something's missing from these polls (here). 

What do inaccurate polls in the US suggest? That voters are being lied to? 

More important for us in Israel, the American possibility that polls are more propaganda than fact begs an Israeli poll question: how inaccurate are Israel's polls?

For example, how much oversampling of respondents do Israeli polls use? What percent of Israeli poll respondents are committed Netanyahu-haters? How often do Israeli polls print results as suspect as the nbc/wsj poll above?

No one in Israel knows the answer to these questions. 

Do Israeli polls attempt to ferret out oversampling biases? Do Israeli polls attempt to test for respondent hatred toward one or another candidate? Do Israeli polls attempt to make sure there's a balance between respondent Party affiliations?

No one in Israel knows. Or, if they do know, they aren't talking.

These questions are important because there is arguably as much hate spewed by media elites and politicians against Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel as against Trump in America. As we see in America, Israel is also extraordinarily polarized (here). 

With so much hate driving voter passions, how can voters in either country get an accurate sense of a candidate's electability if polls in both countries don't 'correct' for hatred--or, at the very least, account for poll biases and oversampling?

Shouldn't voters in both countries be told if a poll contains an oversampling--or any kind of respondent bias? Shouldn't voters in both countries be told if a poll has used unusual (and perhaps flawed) assumptions/methodologies specifically to support one candidate over another (here)?

If polls never offer such information, polls risk losing credibility. Especially during times when intense passions drive an election, citizens in both Israel and the US need more than simple poll results. We need information about poll respondent Party affiliation. We need information about respondent biases. We need information about poll biases. We need information about poll assumptions and methodologies. We need information about what a poll might be missing (here). Otherwise, who could trust any poll?

Voters in both countries deserve better information. Just don't bet on them getting that information.