Echoing CFIF, today's Wall Street Journal board editorial applauds Federal Communications Commission…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Applauds FCC Chairman Pai, Commissioner Carr in Support of T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

Echoing CFIF, today's Wall Street Journal board editorial applauds Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai's and Commissioner Brendan Carr's expressions of support for the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger:

By joining forces, T-Mobile and Sprint will be better positioned to compete against wireless leaders Verizon and AT&T in the 5G era.   Sprint is sitting on loads of mid-band spectrum that boosts wireless speeds while T-Mobile boasts ample low-band spectrum that provides coverage.  The combination is likely to provide a faster, denser network."

As they rightly conclude, "government penalties pale next to the powerful market incentives that already exist for Sprint and T-Mobile to rapidly build out their networks lest they lose market share to Verizon, AT&T, cable…[more]

May 21, 2019 • 11:36 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
The Democrats' Anti-Semitism Problem Isn't Going Away Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, February 15 2019
The problem is that 'anti-Zionism' — the predominant justification for violence, murder and hatred against Jews in Europe and the Middle East — is a growing position on the American left.

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar  someone who had previously argued that Jews hypnotized the world regarding their "evil" deeds  recently claimed that Americans only support Israel because of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's "Benjamins"  and then retweeted a person pointing out that she might as well call all Jews "hook-nosed."

Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who put Omar on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, offered a condemnation of Omar's comments, many progressives jumped immediately to her defense. Some of them implored Omar to stop deploying these ugly "tropes" because they undermine what is a completely reasonable position toward the Jewish state. (Omar has since apologized, promising to avoid using insulting stereotypes when peddling her anti-Semitism.)

The problem is that "anti-Zionism"  the predominant justification for violence, murder and hatred against Jews in Europe and the Middle East  is a growing position on the American left. Though Omar embraces the worst caricatures of this ideology, it's her core contention regarding the Jewish state  not her clumsy "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-style insults, which are just a manifestation of her underlying position  that is most consequential.

One of the dishonest arguments regarding Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who we recently found out wrote a piece for a publication of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, is that they are merely being "critical of Israel." Yet no serious person has ever made the claim that being critical of Israel's policies is anti-Semitic. Israel has had both left-wing and right-wing governments over the years. And like governments in any liberal democracy, they can be corrupt, misguided or incompetent. Millions of Israelis are critical of their own nation's policies every year without any fear of repercussions. Israel isn't Iran or Turkey, countries that most of Israel's critics never disparage.

But the best way to gauge whether people are merely being critical of Israel's policies or they are being critical of the existence of the Jewish state is to use Natan Sharansky's "3D" test: 1) Do they engage in "delegitimization" of the nation's existence as does every supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement? 2) Do they engage in "demonization" of the country as do people who claim that Israelis hypnotize the world for evil and that they go around murdering children for kicks? 3) Do they engage in "double standards"  for example, having an obsession with Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee while ignoring illiberalism found throughout the Islamic world and ignoring such things as Muslim concentration camps in China?

The second myth pushed by Omar's defenders is that Israel dictates American foreign policy with its shekels. The first part of this argument is absurd when one considers that over the past few years, the American government passed the Iranian nuclear deal  which Israel saw as an existential threat  and the American president has embraced the idea of withdrawing troops from Syria. Most of the time, the United States sides with Israel because most of the time Israel's ideals comport with our own.

Then, of course, there's a significant difference between contending that you disagree with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's positions and contending that AIPAC bribes Americans with lots of Benjamins. For starters, it's a lie, because AIPAC doesn't give any money to politicians. And as Emily Zanotti and others have pointed out, AIPAC, with all its supernatural ability to hypnotize lawmakers, spends about $3.5 million on lobbying for Israeli policies in a good year. "It barely even cracks the top 50, is dwarfed by the beer wholesalers," Zanotti writes. "In contrast, Planned Parenthood's PAC spent $20M in 2016."

Although it might be tough for progressives to understand, many Americans still prefer Israel over Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization and Iran for reasons other than money  e.g., a shared understanding of liberalism, theological reasons, historical ties, political realities and practical geopolitical reasons. I do concede that contemporary progressives may not embrace these values anymore. For many decades, however, polls showed widespread support for Israel. AIPAC's success is predicated on that support.

Some of Omar's defenders also engaged in a little whataboutism by pointing out that Republicans have had their own anti-Semitic problems. I'm sure they have. But I hate to break the news to people: Being critical of billionaire activist George Soros, who happens to be Jewish but holds positions on Israel that are generally in line with Omar's, is not automatically anti-Semitic  no more than attacking Sheldon Adelson is necessarily anti-Semitic. Omar's Jewish stereotypes were aimed at all defenders of Israel.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls react to Omar's comments. Their positions have increasing currency in the activist wing of their party. On this issue, there is a big rift opening between young and old. That does not bode well for the establishment or Jews.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun." 
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Americans are asked to observe a National Moment of Remembrance at 3 p.m. annually on which one of the following days?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Among the most important roles of the federal courts is to serve as a check and balance on the excesses of other branches of government, including the legislature. The courts should look beneath the claimed justifications for investigations of individuals and decide whether these justifications represent the real reasons behind the issuance of subpoenas and other exercises of congressional power.…[more]
 
 
—Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus
— Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus
 
Liberty Poll   

Is President Trump right or wrong to curtail negotiations on infrastructure planning until Congress stops its myriad investigations of the president?