What Tucker Carlson actually said about voting rights--why is the ADL getting involved in this when it is not a Jewish matter? and Memorial Day in Israel by Shalom Pollock and The Free World Died of Covid-19 by Jordan Schachtel and Who’s really for ‘replacement theory?’ White supremacists or liberals? By Jonathan S. Tobin, JN
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
For Years Bibi was warned that by becoming too close to Trump, he was risking the rejection of Israel when the administration changed.
He ignored that advice, because Trump supported Israel, in the matter of the moving the embassy, the Golan Heights, and changing the definition of "occupied territory".
Now the ADL has become an arm of the Democratic party. Because Tucker Carlson criticized the voting plans of changing the demography of America, the ADL got involved in something that is not about the Jewish people aligning themselves with the Democratic party while many Orthodox Jews consider themselves as Republicans because of the support of Trump.
The issue below had nothing to do with Jews or Israel. The only connection was that Carlson quoted the ADL's own website to show how impossible it would be for the Jewish state to stay Jewish if a majority of the voters were not Jewish.
It appears that we need a breakaway ADL, similar to how people broke off from the AARP when they become political.
The ADL is no longer representing Jewish interests in Israel.
Love Yehuda Lave
The Three Musketeers at the Kotel
Tucker fires back at criticism over immigration, voting comments
Tucker Carlson Tonight' host says the left is obsessed with 'demographic replacement
Tucker's magnificent statement about Democrats disenfranchising Americans
By Andrea Widburg
The words "epic" or "magnificent" are becoming cliched because they're constantly used as clickbait headlines for things that are anything but "epic" or "magnificent." That's a shame because both words apply with their original force to Tucker Carlson's opening monologue on Monday night. He brought both logic and passion to explaining that the Democrat party's open borders policy is deliberately intended to import people who will vote for Democrats. In hindsight, what he said is completely obvious but too few people think about illegal immigration in the terms Tucker did. [Full transcript below.]
More must do so if we are to preserve our liberty-oriented, merit-based, constitutional republic.
The genesis for Tucker's monologue was a discussion he had with Mark Steyn on Thursday, during which he noted, accurately, that the Democrats are encouraging illegal aliens to enter because they see them as a replacement for Americans who refuse to vote for Democrats. He explained, rightly, that this statement is not racist because the old voters who are being rendered obsolete through this illegal activity aren't just whites. In many ways, the people most affected are Blacks. Every American who is a legal citizen, regardless of race, is affected.
The usual crowd of leftists instantly assaulted Tucker as a rabid white supremacist who should instantly be taken off the air. I wrote yesterday about how Jonathan Greenblatt, an Obama-era hack who is now head of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, tried to claim that Tucker was speaking in code to anti-Semitic white supremacists. Greenblatt's statement was completely dishonest.
One of the things I like about Tucker, who is fortunate to have the weight of the Fox News company behind him, is that he cannot be bullied into backing down from his principles. Unsurprisingly, then, he came back swinging against this latest charge of white supremacy.
US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional
During his 20-minute opening monologue, Tucker explained precisely what's happening. Ironically, it began under Reagan, who was flimflammed into believing the Democrats when they told him that, if he'd just sign an amnesty bill for the illegal aliens already in America, then the borders could be closed. Since then, Democrats have been using illegal immigration as a vehicle to bring in an entirely new voting population that is reliably Democrat in orientation. Every one of these illegal votes dilutes a legal American's vote and denies us a say in our country.
Tucker pointed out that the Democrats don't even try to govern for Americans anymore. Instead, the fundamental transformation about which Obama spoke isn't being done through persuasion; it's being done through population replacement. This isn't about skin color; it's about values. Through the importation of new, illegal voters, we are being transformed from a constitutional republic with a free market into a socialist country, all without the say-so of the American people.
Exhibit A for this transformation is my home state of California. Tucker details exactly how illegal immigration turned California from a solidly Republican state that gave Reagan to America (although he sowed the seeds of California's destruction) into a state that will be Democrat for generations. Tucker also focuses on the way these immigration patterns are marginalizing blacks, something that is seen most obviously in my natal city of San Francisco.
I can't urge you strongly enough to watch Tucker's monologue or read the transcript that follows the video. Miss it and you might find yourself missing 20 of the most important minutes you'll ever see on television.
If enough people take seriously what Tucker said and stop letting Democrats have their way with American voting, we might be able to save our constitutional republic for all people, whatever their skin color, who value liberty.
Full transcript courtesy of Fox News:
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Happy Monday.
Last week, we said something on television that the usual chorus of hyper-aggressive liars is now pretending was somehow highly controversial. Ordinarily, we'd ignore all of this. Once you've been denounced as a white supremacist for quoting Martin Luther King, you realized none of it's real. It's all another form of social control. Honestly, who cares what they think?
But in this one case, we thought it might be worth pausing to restate the original point, both because it was true, and therefore worth saying, and also because America badly needs a national conversation about it.
On Thursday, our friend Mark Steyn guest-hosted the 7:00 p.m. hour here on FOX. He did a segment on how federal authorities are allowing illegal aliens to fly without ID, something that in case you haven't noticed, you are not permitted to do.
The following exchange took place in response to that story. We're going to play the entire clips, you can be certain we're not leaving out context. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: I'm laughing because this is one of about 10 stories that I know you've covered where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, or system itself, and they're being treated better than American citizens.
Now, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement, if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that's -- that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it. That's true.
Look, if this was happening in your house, if you were in sixth grade, for example, and without telling you, your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand-new bikes, and let them stay up later, and helped them with their homework and gave them twice the allowance that they gave you, you would say to your siblings, you know, I think we're being replaced by kids that our parents love more.
And it would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence.
MARK STEYN, FOX NEWS HOST: Right.
TUCKER: So, this matters on a bunch of different levels. But on the most basic level, it's a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there.
So, every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. So, I don't understand we don't understand this. I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Oh, you know, the White Replacement Theory -- no, no, no. This is a voting rights question.
I have less political power because they're importing a brand-new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that?
The power that I have --
CARLSON: -- as an American guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote, and they're diluting it. No, they're not allowed to do that. Why are we putting up with this?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So, it's a political question obviously. At least one prediction came true right away, all those little gatekeepers on Twitter did become hysterical. They spent the last four days jumping up and down, furiously trying once again to pull the show off the air. Once again, they will fail, though it is amusing to see them keep at it. They get so enraged, it's a riot.
But why all the anger? If someone says something you think is wrong, is your first instinct to hurt them? Probably not. Normal people don't respond that way.
If you hear something you think is incorrect, you try to correct it. But getting the facts right is hardly the point of this exercise. The point is to prevent unauthorized conversations from starting in the first place.
Shut up, racists! No more questions! You've heard that before.
You wonder how much longer they imagine Americans are going to go along with this. An entire country forced to lie about everything all the time. It can't go on forever but you can see why they're trying it.
Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions. Let's say that again for emphasis because it is the secret to the entire immigration debate. Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party's political ambitions.
In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country. They're no longer trying to win you over with their program. They are obviously not trying to improve your life. They don't even really care about your vote anymore.
Their goal is to make you irrelevant. That is provably true and because it's true, it drives them absolutely crazy when you say it out loud. A hurt dog barks.
They scream about how noting the obvious is immoral. You are a racist if you dare to repeat things that they themselves probably say. Most people go along with this absurd standard. They dutifully shut up. They don't think they have a choice.
But no matter what they're allowed to say in public, everyone understands the truth. When you change who votes, you change who wins. That fact has nothing inherently to do with race or nationality. It's the nature of democracy. It is always true.
You can watch it happen. You probably have. All across the country, we have seen huge changes in election outcomes caused by demographic change. New people move in and they vote differently.
As a practical matter, it doesn't matter what they look like or where they are from even. All that matters is that they have different political views. This is every bit as true when the migrants come from Brookline, as when they come from Oaxaca.
In Vermont, white liberals fleeing the messed they made in New York turned the state blue. As recently as 1992, Vermont was reliably Republican, hard to believe as that is. Vermont is now a parody of lifestyle liberalism. That's demographic change at work.
You see the same thing happening in the state of New Hampshire. It's refugees from Massachusetts flood north and bring their bad habits with them.
Montana, Idaho, Nevada all faced similar problems. The affluent liberals who wrecked California aren't sticking around to see how that ends. They're running to the pallid (ph) hideaways of Boise and Bozeman, distorting local culture and real estate markets as they do it.
Pretty soon, people who are born in the Mountain West won't be able to live there. They'll be, yes, replaced by private equity barons, yoga instructors and senior vice presidents from Google.
Beautiful places are always in danger of being overrun by the worst people, ask anyone who you grew in Aspen.
But in most of this country, it is immigration from other nations, more than anything else that has driven political transformation. And this is different from what we have seen in Vermont. Americans have every right to move to new states if they want, even if they have silly political opinions.
But our leaders have no right to encourage foreigners to move to this country in order to change election results. Doing that is an attack on our democracy.
Yet for decades, our leaders have done just that. And they keep doing it and they keep doing it because it works.
Consider Virginia. The counties across the river from Washington, D.C., now contained one of the largest immigrant communities in the United States. Most of these immigrants are hardworking and decent people. Many of them have been very successful in business. Good for them.
But they also have very different politics from the people who used to live there. Their votes have allowed Democrats to seize control of the entire state and change it into something unrecognizable.
Governor Blackface Klan Robes in Richmond owes his job to immigrants in Arlington and Falls Church. Similar trends are now underway in Georgia, in North Carolina and many other states. Mass immigration increases the power of the Democratic Party, period. That's the reason Democrats support it. It's the only reason.
If 200,000 immigrants from Poland showed up at our southern border tomorrow, Kamala Harris wouldn't promise them health care. Why? Simple, Poles tend to vote Republican. That's the difference.
Democrats would deport those migrants immediately. No more handwringing about how we're a nation of immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of likely Republicans massing in Tijuana, that would qualify as a national crisis. We have a border wall by Wednesday.
For Democrats, the point of immigration is not to show compassion to refugees, much less to improve our country. It is definitely not about racial injustice. Mass immigration hurts African-Americans may be more anyone else.
Immigration is a means to electoral advantage. It is about power. More Democratic voters mean more power for Democratic politicians. That's the signature lesson of the state of California.
Between 1948 and 1992, the state of California voted for exactly one Democratic presidential candidate, one. Alone, among America's big population centers, in vivid contrast to Chicago and New York, California was reliably, proudly Republican. For eight years, no less a figure than Ronald Reagan ran the state. California, the country's best schools, best infrastructure, the best economy, not to mention the prettiest national environment on the planet. California was a model for the world.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan, its former governor, became president of the United States. In retrospect, it never got any better for California. Midway through his second term, Reagan signed something called the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Though he didn't likely realize it at the time, that law made future Ronald Reagans impossible. The Immigration Reform and Control Act brought about an amnesty and a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million foreign nationals living in the U.S. illegally.
The next year, by executive order, Reagan added to that number. He halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal miners, the Dreamers of his day.
The rest of the world watched carefully as this happened. Would-be migrants everywhere concluded there was no real penalty for breaking America's laws. In fact, there was a reward.
Reagan also signed a law that required hospitals to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status. The Supreme Court had already guaranteed free education to anyone who showed up without a visa. So, free hospitals, free schools, amnesty if you get caught. Why wouldn't the rest of the world come?
They soon did. If you're ever bored, go back and read the coverage of the 1986 amnesty bill the day it passed. Everyone at the time and both parties and the media assured Americans that the new law would control our border. It was called Immigration and Control Act after all.
The opposite happened. Huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately, many of them illegally. California was transformed virtually overnight. It became a Democratic state.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush narrowly won California in the presidential election. No Republican has won that state since. No Republican ever will win in California, not in our lifetimes. There are now about twice as many registered Democrats in California as there are Republicans.
How did that happen? There's not much debate about it. The counties in California with the highest percentage of Republicans are not coincidentally those with the lowest percentage of immigrants and vice versa. California changed because the population changed.
Analysis, for example, the 2012 presidential election showed that if you were actually from there, if you lived in the state of California in 1980, you probably still voted Republican. Your views hadn't really changed.
But as your state swelled with foreign voters, your views became irrelevant. Your political power, the power to control your own life disappeared with the arrival of new people who diluted your vote. And that was the whole point.
That's not democracy. It's cheating. Imagine watching a football game where one team decides to start the third quarter with an extra 40 players on the field. Would you consider that fair play?
The Democratic Party did something very much like that in the state of California. They rigged the game with more people. They packed the electorate. As a result, Americans who grew up in California lost their most basic right in a democracy, which is the right to have their votes count.
This is true for all native-born Americans, by the way, not just Republicans. Los Angeles now has the largest Latin American population outside of Mexico City. Whites are less than 30 percent of the population. They're down for more than 90 percent in 1960.
But a less noticed decline has occurred among African-Americans. According to demographer, Joel Cockton (ph), in the last 30 years, the proportion of black residents in Los Angeles has dropped by half. The city of San Francisco is now just five percent black. In 1980, it was 13 percent.
Now, you've heard a lot lately about the necessity for black political power. In California, that power is evaporating due to mass immigration. Democratic leaders never mentioned this trend, but it's obvious to the people who live there. One poll found that over 60 percent of black people in California would very much like to leave. Many already have.
The exodus of American-born Californians of every color began shortly after the 1986 amnesty. It has grown to a panic rush, as you know. It can now cost you five times as much to drive a U-Haul out of California than to drive a U-Haul in. That's supply and demand at work. Not many Americans are moving to Los Angeles.
Yet for every Californian who abandons the state, several other people arrive from foreign countries. And that's why, since 1990, the total population of California has grown by 10 million people. That's the equivalent of an entirely new Michigan and North Carolina in just 30 years.
That's an awful lot of people in a very short period of time. Most of these new arrivals come from poor places. Their standard of living rises once they get to California.
The state however has become much poorer. In 1986, California was the richest landmass of its size in the world. California now has more poor people than any state in the country.
As of this year, according to the best measurements available from the federal government, California has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi. It's at the highest in the nation.
How did this happen? In a healthy country, one that prides honesty and free inquiry and legitimate social science, we would be asking that question urgently. How did a place as idyllic as California becomes so miserable that huge numbers of people who are born there decided to abandon their homes and flee?
If you cared about the United States, you would want to know the answer. You would want to make absolutely certain it didn't happen anywhere else. Yet the Democratic Party is working to make certain it happens everywhere else.
That's not a slur. It's not a guess. We know it because they brag about it constantly.
The left becomes unhinged if you point out that American voters are being replaced by Democratic Party loyalists from other countries. You're absolutely not allowed to say that. But they're allowed to say that and they do. They say it all the time.
They've done studies on it, written long books about it. Talked about it endlessly on television, often in the ugliest racial terms. They're not ashamed at all. They don't think they have to be ashamed.
In the fall of 2018, a columnist from "The New York Times" wrote a piece that was literally entitled, "We can replace them." In case you want to know the "them" was, the column told you explicitly.
Thanks to demographic change, the author noted with hearty approval, the state of Georgia will soon be controlled by Democrats. Quote: The potential is there. Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic white, end quote.
Again, that's a "New York Times" columnist. It's not some QAnon blogger.
They tell you that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right. No, it's not. They say it's some horrifying right-wing conspiracy theory. The right is obsessed with it.
No, the left is obsessed with it. In fact, it's the central idea of the modern Democratic Party. Demographic replacement is their obsession, because it's their path to power.
Several years ago, future Obama cabinet secretary, Julian Castro, went on CBS to explain why Texas will soon be a Democratic state.
JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER HUD SECRETARY: In a couple of presidential cycles, you'll be on election night, you'll be announcing that we're calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It's changing. It is going to become a purple state and then a blue state because of the demographics, because of the population growth, of folks from outside of Texas.
CARLSON: No one attacked Julian Castro for saying that. No one asked for these, quote, folks from outside Texas might be or why they had a right to control the future of people who already lived in Texas. Nobody said a word about it. It seemed normal. It was normal. It still is normal.
In Washington, what qualifies as shocking is any real attempt to protect democracy.
In the summer of 2019, then President Donald Trump promised, falsely as it turned out, that he was going to deport huge numbers of foreign nationals living here illegally.
Kamala Harris' response to this was revealing. Harris could have argued as Democrats often do argue that deportation is cruel and it's un-American. But she didn't say that. Instead, she told the truth about it.
Quote: Let's call this what it is, Harris wrote on Twitter. It's an attempt to remake the demographics of our country by cracking down on immigrants. That this threat is coming from the president of the United States is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. We will fight this.
But wait a second. Donald Trump had announced he was deporting illegal aliens. Illegal aliens aren't allowed to vote in our elections. They're not even allowed to live here.
How is sending them home to their own countries, quote, an attempt to remake the demographics of our country?
Illegal aliens shouldn't even count in the demographics of our country. They're not Americans.
Kamala Harris' response only makes sense if you believe that the millions of foreigners breaking our laws to live here are future Democratic voters. And that is exactly what Kamala Harris does believe.
It's shocking if you think about it. And that is why you are not allowed to think about it. Thinking about what Kamala Harris is planning, Kamala Harris herself would like you to know, is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. In other words, submit to our scheme or you're immoral.
If you heard prominent people talk like this in any other country, you'd be confused. A nation's leadership class admitting they hope to replace their own citizens? It seems grotesque.
If you believed in democracy, you would work to protect the potency of every citizen's vote, obviously. You wonder if people even debate questions like this in countries that don't hate themselves, countries like Japan or South Korea or Israel.
Go to the Anti-Defamation League's website sometime if you would like a glimpse of what an unvarnished conversation about a country's national interests might look like. In a short essay posted to the site, the ADL explains why the state of Israel should not allow more Arabs to become citizens with voting rights.
Quote: with historically high birth rates among the Palestinians and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees, and their descendants now living around the world, the ADL explains, Jews would quickly become a minority within a bi-national state, thus, likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically and potentially physically vulnerable.
It is unrealistic and unacceptable, the ADL continues, to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory, end quote.
Now, from Israel's perspective, this makes perfect sense. Why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? Isn't that the deepest betrayal of all?
In the words of the ADL, why would a government subvert its own sovereign existence? Good question.
Maybe ADL president, Jonathan Greenblatt, will join us sometime to explain and tell us whether that same principle applies to the United States. Most Americans believe it does.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't have a say in the matter. Most Americans aren't even allowed to have the conversation. So, they watch from the sidelines as their democracy gets murdered by people who claim to be its defenders. "Democracy, democracy, democracy," screams the Twitter mob.
Even as the votes of the people who were born here declined steadily in value, diluted (ph) and increasingly worthless like the U.S. dollar.
This is what it looks like when an entire native population, black and white, but every one of them, an American, is systematically disenfranchised. Middle-class Americans become less powerful every year. They have less economic power, and thanks to mass immigration, they now have less political power.
The leaders making these changes have no sympathy for their victims. They blame the country for its own suffering. You always hate the people you hurt.
That's all true. Every honest person knows that it's true. As long as we're here, we're going to keep saying it out loud.
So, you wake up one morning and you realize corporations are more powerful than they've ever been in American history. They seem to be in charge of our laws. They are silencing news outlets that disagree with them or the party they support.
One senator in the Congress, Josh Hawley, of Missouri, thinks it is time to change this.
The Anti-Defamation League is no longer about protecting Jews
B'nai B'rith, a Jewish service organization, founded the Anti-Defamation League in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism. However, perhaps because most Jews are Democrats, the organization has drifted from its mission. Now, under the leadership of Jonathan Greenblatt, a former Obama administration official, the ADL is just another arrow in the Democrat party quiver.
Therefore, it's no coincidence that the ADL's latest target is the same person as the Democrat party's latest target: Tucker Carlson. Carlson's sin is that he objects to having tens of millions of illegal aliens living in America and millions more flooding into America over the border that Joe Biden has illegally opened.
During his show last week, Tucker Carlson was open about the fact that Democrats are seeking to replace existing Americans with a population who will reliably vote for Democrats:
The discussion [on CNN between "Tater" Stelter and Greenblatt] centered around a segment on Fox News last week in which Carlson said, "I know that the left and all the little gate-keepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement.' If you suggest that the Democratic Party trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it that is true."
He added, "This matters on a bunch of different levels, but on a basic level, it is a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they imported new voters, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. Everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. 'Oh, the white replacement theory.' No, this is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that? The power that I have is an American, guaranteed that birth is one-man and one-vote, and they are diluting it. Why are we putting up with this?"
Carlson is correct. If an illegal alien votes in an election, that nullifies a legal vote. The same is true if illegal aliens are suddenly given mass amnesty and instantly receive the right to vote. This is not about race; this is, as I said, about the Democrat party using illegal means to ensure that legal Americans who disagree with their political agenda lose their voice in elections.
In the past, what Carlson said would not have been of any concern to the ADL. There is nothing in Carlson's words that implicates anti-Semitism. However, that didn't stop Greenblatt from demanding — just as the Democrat party wishes — that Carlson be silenced, something he does by conflating Tucker's accurate words about illegal immigration with the words and deeds of a small fringe of open anti-Semites:
Tucker Carlson has a history of sanitizing stereotypes and of spreading this kind of poison, but what he did on Thursday night really was indeed, as you put it, a new low. The great replacement theory, as it is known, is this toxic idea that there are a cabal of Jews plotting to overrun the country with immigrants, Muslims, Black people and commit what they call "white genocide." It is literally a staple of white supremacist and extremist ideology. And so, when Tucker Carlson introduces it to his 4.5 million viewers, he's serving as a gateway to one of the most damaging and dangerous conspiracy theories out there.
Inevitably, Greenblatt ended up with a claim that Carlson is somehow responsible for Nancy Pelosi's failure to take steps to protect the Capitol when she learned that a small group of provocateurs had been planning for months to use Trump's rally as a reason to storm the Capitol:
First and foremost, Tucker has got to go. Again, it is a risk not just to the corporation. It is a risk to our society to be promoting these anti-Semitic and racist myths that literally were used by people on January 6th to try to not just interfere with the election but to murder lawmakers. I think we've really crossed a new threshold when a major news network dismisses this or pretends like it isn't important. This has deadly significance. So number one, Carlson needs to go, and they need to look at their entire primetime lineup and ask does this work. At the end of the day, let's acknowledge, Fox isn't alone in this. They have advertisers. They have affiliates. There are cable companies who carry their signal. If Fox won't act, it may be time for the advertisers to act. It may be time for again the affiliates and the cable companies to act to finally once and for all say that America is simply put no place for hate.
Did you catch the lies there? Nobody was trying to murder lawmakers, and only one person was armed. Nor was anybody trying to interfere in an election. They simply wanted an accounting.
Greenblatt is a sleazy Democrat party operative who's using a venerable organization as a Trojan horse to smear Tucker Carlson, an honest broker about what Democrats are doing to America. At least, though, it shows that Carlson is over the target when he attacks the administration's lawless conduct.
Memorial Day in Israel.
Each year the country (or most of it) unites in memory of tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters who gave their lives defending the Jewish state or were killed (terror victims) because they dared to be a Jew in the Jewish state. Multiply this number by their families and friends and the day truly touches (almost) everyone very personally.
Because the Jewish people and the Jewish country are unique, this day too is unlike remembrance days around the world. I recall Memorial Day in the USA. Except for a handful of families that I never met and was likely never to hear of, it was a day of sales and shopping. It was not a media item, let alone a twenty-four-hour obsession as in Israel.
Israel's Memorial Day is unique in other ways. The Arab citizens of Israel have their own name for this very solemn day. They call it the "Naqba" day. Naqba in Arabic loosely means disaster.
In 1948 the Arab world, including those who are Israeli Arab citizens today, launched a war of genocide against the small and weak Jewish community. The unlikely results put an end to their dreams of pillage, rape, and murder. Sacrificing her best sons and daughters including many Holocaust survivors, the Jewish state repulsed the Arab onslaught and won her independence. For the Arab world and especially Israel's Arab citizens, the Jewish escape from annihilation was a disaster, a tragedy, and a shame; a "Naqba".
Commemorating "Naqba" day is a growing in popularity. I never heard of it years ago.
It really took off after our (very wise) leaders recognized the "Palestinian" people and their legitimate national aspirations" in our holy land. The PLO and its leader Arafat were given legitimacy along with their "narrative" which is Naqba. Naqba was invited to take its place next to "our narrative" - this was part of the Oslo "New Think".
The attitude is everyone has their own narrative. Does it not behoove us as sensitive Jews to respect and understand theirs? After all, they lost a war.
It must feel terrible!
The myths and hatreds that our enemies cling to I can understand. When some Jews accept and cultivate them is another issue.
In recent years, a very small number of Israeli families whose loved ones were murdered by Arab terrorists insist on sharing their grief with that of the families of the terrorist who killed their loved ones. They don't feel one should differentiate between grief. Good and evil are subjective ideas not relevant if you are a true humanist - a true Jew. must not judge another's pain.
You can't make this up.
In the wake of the latest election, there is a huge historic public debate. Is it legitimate to share a Jewish government with Arab parties that embrace, figuratively and literally terrorist murderers of Jews? These Arab politicians will not recant or promise to discontinue the practice.
On memorial hearts embrace our bereaved families. Others embrace their murderers. As we speak, the latter are courted by Israeli politicians, hoping that they will win their approval to form the government of Israel, of the Jewish state. The very few politicians who will not hear of this "new morality" and will not adapt to the "Newspeak" are labeled extremists and much worse.
Indeed, Memorial Day is unique in Israel. It is becoming more unique with each passing year.
Shalom Pollack is a tour guide, filmmaker and writer in Israel,
His new book, "Despite ourselves - an eye witness account", will be available.
As someone with a background in foreign policy and international affairs, I am often asked to discuss the ramifications of having Joe Biden as the so-called leader of the Free World.
While it is easy to get carried away debating the merits of a heavily compromised man being the physical representation of the Free World, and how cringeworthy and depressing that is, I can't help but get stuck on the possibility that the term itself is no longer viable.
"What Free World?"
The Free World is a term that was originally used to describe the Allied powers during WWII, but it is most applicable here when discussing what united the anti-Soviet bloc to the United States during the Cold War. It was these "Western world" values of free speech, free media, the freedom of assembly, and freedom of association that united our sovereign states against the evils of Communism.
COVID Mania has turned the world's sovereign states into one tyranny after another. And the authoritarian forces of the world won this second "Cold War" against its citizens without firing a shot. Some appear to be under the impression that the ruling class, which just finished the fastest rollup of power in human history, will simply return these stolen liberties when the "national emergency" comes to an end. I'm not particularly convinced that this is the case.
As John Adams once said, "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
In the United States, our federalist system allows for pockets of freedom in places like Florida, Texas, South Dakota and the like. But dare to protest in the Nation's Capital today and you'll quickly find yourself on an FBI watchlist, and almost certainly, with a future date in our nation's kangaroo court system. We continue to see authoritarian states implementing "vaccine passports" and other discriminatory measures in the name of a virus. Throughout most population centers in the United States, there are still heavy "Covid restrictions" on society and the economy. Our nation is no longer united behind these "Free World" concepts, and they are now only considered virtuous ideas in the aforementioned pockets of freedom in America. In the rest of the country, it has been made crystal clear that your rights do not supersede a disease with a 99.8% recovery rate.
Now observe the devastation in the rest of the Anglosphere:
The United Kingdom has placed its citizens under indefinite confinement. Their "Covid restrictions" have lasted well over a year, and there is no end in sight.
Canada, which has also been under a strict lockdown for over a year, has mutilated the free press while simultaneously transforming into a Chinese state colony. Under the "leadership" of Justin Trudeau, Canada has essentially outlawed freedom of movement, free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly in the name of a virus.
New Zealand, another nation that is cozying up to Beijing, is committed to a "Zero Covid" self-siege that has blockaded the island nation from the world for over a year. Citizens who test positive for Covid-19 are forcibly sent to quarantine camps. The government has recently considered legislation punishing people for the act of acquiring Covid-19.
States in Australia have implemented some of the most intrusive lockdowns in the world. In Victoria, lockdowns meant citizens were only allowed to leave their homes for one hour a day, and they were not allowed to travel outside of a certain radius from their homes. The act of protesting is illegal, and it will be met by riot police.
As for other NATO members, and other bumper sticker-labeled liberal democracies in the "Free World," actual freedoms remain difficult to identify. Germany, France, and Italy just entered another round of rights-restricting lockdowns, and countless more "Free World" nations continue chipping away at personal freedoms.
Making things all the more confusing (and eye opening), people living in countries long considered adversarial, authoritarian nations (like Russia, China, Belarus, etc) are enjoying more freedoms than your average citizen in the West. Belarus never implemented lockdowns. Russians have treated their restrictions in a very lax manner. China has been open for well over a year.
The Western values that some of us hold near and dear to our hearts are not shared by our ruling class. The Free World, as a united force, was indeed very sick for the better part of the 21st century, but it has finally died from Covid-19. The concept only lives on in our imaginations and memories. The Covid era has exposed that these values that supposedly united the West are nothing more than a facade.
However, there are reasons for optimism. There are millions and millions of us who have witnessed the atrocities committed by governments over the course of the past year, and have become "red-pilled" to the threat posed by these authoritarian forces. Like-minded people can and will build a new coalition that stands behind our unalienable rights. Whether that comes in the form of an alliance of nation states or a more independent movement of citizens around the world remains to be seen. The demand for the recognition of basic human freedoms will soon become too obvious to ignore. There are many paths for a new Free World to emerge, but for now, the old Free World as a uniting force for Western values is a relic of history.
Jordan Schachtel is an investigative journalist and foreign policy analyst based in Washington, D.C.
Who's really for 'replacement theory?' White supremacists or liberals?
By Jonathan S. Tobin, JN
The ADL wants Tucker Carlson fired for racism. Carlson says his views on immigration are the same as Israel's. Why both assertions are wrong.
Does speaking of immigrants "replacing" Americans amount to white supremacy? Is a desire to prevent the country's character from being irretrievably altered analogous to Israel's desire to preserve its status as a Jewish state? A dispute between the Anti-Defamation League and Fox News has shined a spotlight on both of these questions. But at a time when Americans are deeply divided along partisan and ideological lines in which both sides are prepared to demonize and delegitimize each other, is anyone really interested in honest answers to these questions?
The controversy started with a discussion of the crisis whereby a surge of illegal immigrants crossing the border has overwhelmed the resources of the federal government. President Joe Biden's reversal of former President Donald Trump's border policies, as well as the plans of the administration and congressional Democrats for a "reform' of immigration law that will promise amnesty and the prospect of U.S. citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally, have provided an obvious incentive for those who wish to enter the country without permission.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson reacted to this crisis by saying the following on his program on April 8:
"Now, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening, actually."
The following day, his prediction about the "gatekeepers" was vindicated when Anti-Defamation League national director and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt demanded that Carlson resign or be fired. According to Greenblatt, the mention of the word "replacement" denoted support for white-nationalist conspiracy theories that have been used to justify mass shootings. His claim resonated with those who recalled the video from the August 2017 torchlight parade of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., who chanted "Jews will not replace us."
The accusations of racism that have been directed at Carlson are rooted in assumptions about him that predated this controversy. Liberals have been attacking Carlson because in the wake of the death last spring of George Floyd, he has used his platform on the nation's highest-rated cable-news show to oppose the Black Lives Matter movement's "mostly peaceful" protests that turned into riots, as well as related fashionable toxic ideas about critical race theory, white privilege and cancel culture.
After Trump's defeat, liberal outlets like CNN switched their focus from attacks on the 45th president to Carlson as the network initiated a crusade to deplatform both him and their higher-rated rival Fox News. Their accusations of racism helped chase away advertisers from his show. Yet Carlson's hold on his viewers and his increasing importance as a tribune of conservative opinion have been largely unaffected, which explains why Fox refused to bow to the ADL's demand.
Whatever you may think about Carlson, illegal immigration or BLM, the ADL's case is undermined by three key factors.
One is the fact that it is a brazen attempt to divert the discussion from the crisis on the southern border, and how Biden's statements and actions have acted like a green light for anyone in Central America seeking to enter the United States. Carlson is hardly the only one pondering the long-term consequences of a situation where we may be seeing only the beginning of a huge increase in illegal immigration at a time when realistic estimates of those already here without legal permission—the commonly quoted total is 11 million—could be as high as 22 million or even close to 30 million. If the Democrats' proposed legislation passes—admittedly a long shot as long as the Senate filibuster remains in place—then a major shift in the demographics of the American electorate may well happen.
Another problem is that the ADL's credibility has been shot as it has shifted from being a nonpartisan anti-Semitism monitoring organization to a Democratic auxiliary group since Greenblatt, a former Clinton and Obama White House staffer, took over.
But the real weakness of the arguments against Carlson is that up until recently, the ones talking about immigrants replacing or overwhelming white voters have been liberals. Articles and studies published in recent years from The Atlantic, the liberal Brookings Institution, the pro-immigration Niskanen Center as well as the Pew Research Institute all centered on the idea that a rising tide of immigrants was changing the demographics of the United States and tipping the political balance of power to the Democrats.
These themes were echoed repeatedly by left-wing pundits and Democratic politicians who find it hard to contain their triumphalism when discussing demography.
In 2018, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg actually published a column under the headline, "We Can Replace Them," in which she argued that Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams was leading a tide of newly registered minority and immigrant voters to transform Georgia from a red state to a purple or blue one.
The same year, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) was just one of many members of his party predicting that the growing number of Hispanic voters would mean Texas was turning purple.
Carlson's claim that such changes disenfranchise existing voters is hyperbole and, as Trump proved by doing far better among Hispanic voters than more moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney, demography isn't destiny. Immigration has already altered American politics, especially in states like California. But if it's not inappropriate to cite such efforts to "replace" Republicans with immigrant Democrats as something to be welcomed, how can laments about the same thing be termed racist?
That's especially true when the new administration and its congressional supporters—who seem to think that everyone in Central America who is dissatisfied with their lot ought to be allowed to become U.S. citizens, whether they followed the law in crossing the border or not—enact measures that are morally equivalent to open borders. It is hypocritical of liberals to bash Carlson for noting the obvious political consequences of such policies. Nor has it anything to do with the demented fantasies of neo-Nazis about Jews.
In the course of his defense, Carlson also analogized his alarm over the potential impact of illegal immigration on elections to those, including the ADL, who have defended Israel's right to remain a Jewish state. That's especially true with respect to opposing a so-called Palestinian "right of return" in which Israel would be swamped by the descendants of Arab refugees who would endanger and essentially strip Jews of both their sovereign rights and existence as a nation.
Carlson cited Israel's refusal to be voted out of existence by Palestinians as an example of "a country that doesn't hate itself." That had to make supporters of Israel cringe, especially since Carlson is known for not exactly being a fan of the Jewish state.
But the analogy doesn't really work.
The United States is a nation whose existence is rooted in universal values. Like most other nations on the planet, Israel is an expression of particularism. Its priority is to reconstitute and defend Jewish sovereignty in the ancient homeland of the Jews, and not to be the last and best hope of all mankind.
Both are nations of immigrants and their descendants; however, Israel's immigration policies are very different from those of the United States. The tension between America's universalism and Israel's particularism has made many liberal Jews uncomfortable supporting an avowedly Jewish state. But whereas Israel wants Jewish immigrants to preserve a state that was created to defend Jews in a world where anti-Semitism runs rampant, America has traditionally welcomed people from all over the world.
Even if Carlson's analogy doesn't work, that doesn't mean that it's racist for Americans to want to control their borders the way any other nation, including Israel, does as a matter of course. Carlson pointed out that he's not calling for excluding any specific race or group from the United States. To oppose illegal immigration is not the same thing as opposing legal immigration. He is just advocating, as are many Americans, for the defense of U.S. sovereignty.
What is needed is an honest debate about immigration and open borders, not hyperbolic talk of replacement or white supremacy. Yet by engaging in naked partisanship disguised as advocacy against racism and anti-Semitism, the ADL has forfeited its right to be taken seriously on either subject. Where once it helped lift the national conversation about fractious issues to a higher plane, now Greenblatt is fueling greater polarization that actually makes Carlson's case about cancel culture.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.