A Weird Weekly Address: Trump’s New Religious Inclusiveness

Christianity, Donald Trump, Judaism & Jews, Religion, Terrorism

Thanks for the transcript of the Weekly Address, Mr. President. Transcripts make America read, save me time (watching YouTube wastes it) and, altogether, MAGA.

Now that I’ve said something nice, let’s get to the weird Weekly Address President Trump has just given. Perhaps this Address is of a piece with the pivot away from Brannon-type nationalism?

Why start the address with an ode to Jews and our Passover? Was this simply because Passover precedes Easter? Still, Easter should have preceded Passover in the president’s address. Must we anticipate hearing about the joys of Ramadan, when it comes up? In that case, I prefer that Passover gets a pass.

However, after 45 Egyptian Coptic Christians were martyred by Muslims on Palm Sunday—to say nothing about candidate Trump’s pro-Christianity talk during the campaign—I’d have expected sometime less wishy-washy than this:

… one of the gravest threats to religious freedom remains the threat of terror.
On Palm Sunday, as Christians around the world celebrate the beginning of Holy Week, ISIS murdered at least 45 people and injured over 100 others at two Christian churches in Egypt.
We condemn this barbaric attack. We mourn for those who lost loved ones. And we pray for the strength and wisdom to achieve a better tomorrow—one where good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu, can follow their hearts and worship according to their conscience.

“Terror”? What ever happened to Islamic terror?

Forty five people murdered and over 100 injured? Those “people” were Coptic Christians. They’ve been targeted for centuries, persecuted in that region by Muslims for their religion.

READ THE REST.

From The Fact That Sarin Was Used In Syria; It Doesn’t Follow That We Know Who Used It

Donald Trump, Middle East, Military, War, WMD

At the end of the war on Iraq, the only document that proved truthful was the one presented by a terrified Saddam Hussein, in which he accounted for his weapons of mass destruction: Hussein had none. At the time, those who killed that country laughed at him, in anticipation of The Kill.

So when a weak leader stands up to the big bullies of the world and says he didn’t do it; it’s worth listening to Bashar-al Assad. (Those of us who hail from the Middle East and know the culture, appreciate how easily Arabs play the idiot superpowers, to get what they want from them.)

In any event, from the fact that Sarin was used in Syria it doesn’t follow that we know who used it: And how do you verify a video? There is certainly no reliable information shared about this attack other than iffy video footage.

Mr Assad accused the West of making up events in Khan Sheikhoun so it had an excuse to carry out missile strikes on the government’s Shayrat airbase, which took place a few days after the alleged attack.

“It’s stage one, the play [they staged] that we saw on social network and TVs, then propaganda and then stage two, the military attack,” he told the AFP, questioning the authenticity of the video footage.

Mr Assad also said the Syrian government had given up its chemical arsenal in 2013, adding “even if we have them, we wouldn’t use them”.

Since 2013, there have been continued allegations that chemicals such as chlorine and ammonia have been used against civilians, by both the Syrian government and rebel groups.

Turkey and the UK say tests show Sarin or a Sarin-like substance was used in Khan Sheikhoun, which would be the first time since 2013 that a prohibited chemical had been used on such a scale.

Doctor Sarin:

Not All Politicians Buy The Blame-Assad Bull

America, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Middle East, War

A few independent-minded, mainstream politicians are questioning “whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack on civilians that prompted US missile strikes.” Like Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, they actually want evidence other than Nikki Haley waving a picture of a kid and Ivanka weeping.

One is Independent Australian MP Andrew Wilkie, also a former senior intelligence analyst. Wilkie “was ‘skeptical’ about who was responsible for the April 4 attack. ‘I’m actually skeptical about some of these claims,’ he told ABC radio on Tuesday. His comments come after US Defence Secretary James Mattis said ‘there is no doubt’ the Assad regime was responsible for planning and orchestrating the deadly attack.”

Wilkie has a history of showing good sense. Via ABC.Net.Au: He “resigned from the intelligence agency Office of National Assessments in 2003 in protest over Australia’s role in the Iraq War, said the Federal Government should have ‘learned from the past.'”

“I think we should be very cautious in Australia and not be too quick to automatically endorse what the US is saying,” said Wilkie.

You’d think!

Hard to believe that after Iraq, against which I railed in columns for years (“Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture”), starting in September of 2002, American leaders are back to doing the same.

When you quote truth disgorged by a liberal, GOPers pounce. But truth is truth no matter who says it.

Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates captured the US’s appetite for destruction:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids … deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

UPDATED (5/3): What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets

Business, Celebrity, Democrats, Donald Trump, Feminism, Gender, Labor

“What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets” is the current column, now on The American Thinker. An excerpt:

“Donald Trump must get those kids out of the White House,” a blunt South African observer of our politics barked at me, weeks back. “You’re looking more and more like us.” She was alluding to the nepotism on display in the Trump White House.

Since the president started strafing Syria, it has become evident that Trump’s favorite offspring needs to be booted from the People’s House. The British press, more irreverent than ours, seconded the broad consensus that Ivanka had nagged daddy into doing it. For The Kids: The First Daughter was, purportedly, devastated by the (unauthenticated) images of a suspected gas attack in Syria.

Brother Eric Trump confirmed it: “Sure, Ivanka influenced the Syria strike decision.” White House spokesman Sean Spicer didn’t deny it.

Eric had headed back to the Trump Organization, as he promised during the campaign. Ivanka just wouldn’t go.

Who could fail to notice that the first daughter, a cloistered, somewhat provincial American princess, has been elevated inappropriately in the White House, while first lady Melania, a cosmopolitan steel magnolia, has been marginalized?

That Ivanka, now her father’s West Wing adviser, drove the offensive in Syria is but a logical deduction.

Ivanka promises that she and her poodle, Jared Kushner, are in compliance with the law. Clever lawyers told her so. Legalistic assurances pertaining to the 1967 Anti-Nepotism Statute mean nothing. Law is hardly the ultimate adjudicator of right and wrong.

Donald’s daughter has no place in the White House, no matter how cutely she “argues” for her ambitions:

“I want to be a force for good.” (Who defines “good,” Ivanka? Limited and delimited government means that it’s not you.)

“I want to pursue my passions.” (Your passions, Ivanka, are not necessarily the people’s passions—or even within the purview of their government.)

Whether she’s tweeting about the accomplishment that is the war on Syria or about inflicting her kids on China’s first couple, Ivanka’s tweets have the insipid emptiness of a contestant in a beauty pageant.

“Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity.”

“Proud of Arabella and Joseph for their performance in honor of President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan’s official visit to the US.”

Such provincialism and solipsism were certainly part of the Obamas’ international persona. Barack and Michelle gave the queen of England an iPod, customized with images and audio from Mr. Obama’s inaugural and DNC addresses.

Wily Arabs are hip to White House dynamics. They know who’s running the White House and whom to flatter. For doing their bidding, Syrian rebels—”we don’t know who they are,” cautioned the Old Donald—have even given President Trump an honorific:

Abu Ivanka al-Amriki: father of Ivanka the American.

I don’t think President Donald Trump’s dispiriting deviation of policy on Syria signaled a lack of core beliefs. What the folly of bombing Syria signals, very plainly, is that what Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets. Republicans and Democrats likely know it but won’t say it. The former because Ivanka is a woman. Republicans dare not wage war on a woman, much less if she wages war on Syria. The latter because Ivanka is a Democrat by any other name. …”

… READ THE “DISPIRITING” REST. “What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets” is now on The American Thinker.

UPDATE (5/3):