March 12, 2018

New York Times Jew-shames Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump

The New York Times took aim at Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump on Saturday in a story citing them as symbols of division within the American Jewish community: “Are Jared and Ivanka Good for the Jews?”

The article, by Amy Chozick and Hannah Seligson, cites liberal critics of the Trump administration within the Jewish community who argue, effectively, that Kushner and Trump ought to be excommunicated for their roles at the White House.

The article also appears to blame the growth of the Lubavitch Chabad movement for the divisions in the Jewish community: “The growth of Chabad correlates with fierce divisions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a small but growing contingent of American Jews who prioritize Israel above any other political or social issue.”

It is not clear why the authors associate Chabad with divisions over Israel, as the movement has been growing rapidly for several decades, long before the advent of J Street and other left-wing Jewish organizations that oppose the Israeli government.

Ironically, the leader of, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, emphasized accepting all Jews, regardless of their political beliefs or their level of religious observance.

The article cites Kushner’s role in U.S. policy toward Israel, including the opening of the U.S. embassy in Israel, something every president since Bill Clinton had promised but failed to deliver — until President Donald Trump.

“That embrace [of Israel] has only exacerbated tensions with secular Jews who overwhelmingly vote Democratic and oppose Mr. Trump,” the authors write, inadvertently revealing the primary source of division in the community.

The article also cites left-wing Jews who allege that the president’s daughter — who converted Orthodox — and her Jewish son-in-law are a mere “fig leaf” for the antisemites who support the administration.

Kevin Bridgford Read More

February 2, 2018

Pollak: Ironically, Jim Acosta’s Victory Counters Media Narrative About Trump

The mainstream media are celebrating Friday’s decision by a federal judge to force the White House to restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s “hard pass.”
Judge Timothy J. Kelly’s decision is being treated as a victory for the free press, and proof that the Trump administration’s decision was wrong and violated Acosta’s constitutional rights. But the decision undermined the picture of the Trump administration the media have sought to portray, in three ways:

1. A Trump appointee ruled against Trump. The media, and their Democratic Party allies, have treated President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees as if they can be expected to be slavishly loyal to the administration. That is why, for example, they focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s views on whether a president can be indicted while in office. The left expects judges to vote their “party,” because that is what left-wing judges do. Kelly, a Trump appointee, did not.

2. Conservatism helped the media. Judge Kelly specifically said: “I must apply precedent as I see it,” even if he did not agree with it. Acosta won — thanks to the conservative judicial philosophy the president has prioritized in his appointees.

3. The president accepted the decision. President Trump accepted the validity of the decision. He also ordered the White House to develop new rules for press behavior, in conformity with the ruling that Acosta’s due process rights had been violated. Compared with Obama, who often tried to ignore court decisions he lost, Trump’s approach was refreshing — and the opposite of the “autocrat” image the media have contrived.

The case has not yet been decided on the merits. Trump could prevail — or Acosta’s suspension could turn out to be a political mistake.

But the system of checks and balances works better than ever — thanks, largely, to Trump.

Kevin Bridgford Read More