Hillary says the Alt-Right hates the Jews.....The View from the Jerusalem Post.

The Twilight of American Jewry
By Caroline B. Glick Jerusalem Post September 15, 2016

This week marked the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. Most of us didn't realize it at the time, but those attacks also marked the beginning of the end of the golden age of American Jewry – on both sides of the ideological divide.

Most American Jews make their home on the political Left, and together with black Americans they comprise the most loyal Democratic voting bloc. American Jews have clung to the Democratic Party despite the fact that over the past decade and a half, their position in the party has become increasingly precarious.

After the September 11 attacks, the American anti-war movement rose as a force in the party. The movement was quick to conflate its anti-Americanism with hostility for Israel. Jewish anti-war activists were forced to choose between Zionism and pacifism.

And the situation has only grown worse over time.

Jonah Goldberg on Trump

"[O]n Twitter the other day... Donald Trump tweeted: “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!”

I was mildly surprised by the number of people who thought Trump’s tweet was clever. But I was truly stunned by the number of idiots who thought he wasn’t calling Megyn Kelly a bimbo. His whole shtick is that he’s a warrior against political correctness. He wasn’t invoking political correctness as a legitimate thing, he was sarcastically hiding behind it. People not enthralled with Trump recognize this as smarmy cowardice.

Indeed, they would see it plainly if I were to tweet, “I’m not going to call Donald Trump an adulterous cad. That would be politically incorrect. So I’ll just say he’s a moral lightweight!”

The difference of course is that there’s no evidence that Kelly is a bimbo. There’s ample evidence that Trump cheated on his wife and slept with many married women. What’s the evidence? His own, boastful (!) testimony for starters.

My favorite part is that Trump’s “bimbo” tweet came immediately after one in which he condemned Fox’s response to his debate boycott as a “disgrace.” He added, “Who would ever say something so nasty and dumb?”

The almost Caligulan narcissism on display here is now familiar to everyone. The truly creepy part is how many conservatives overlook it or celebrate it. The slightest insult to the Donald arouses outrage and dismay from his digital court sycophants, but when he behaves like a boorish and childish lout, all praise and honor is due!

...And as someone who sincerely believes William F. Buckley was the most well-mannered man I’ve ever met, I’d hate to see conservatives defenestrate good manners in their indulgence of populist hysteria."

http://link.nationalreview.com/view/547f9de03b35d0210c8bb89f3kr10.3i52/dae763d4

Just wondering...

Why is Jonah Fricking Goldberg appearing on the All Star Panel that runs at the end of Special Report with Bret Baier? I cannot tell; will polemics be our salvation or our doom?

"Costas on the Word Warpath"

"Think for a moment about the term ‘Redskins,’” NBC Sports commentator Bob Costas exhorted viewers in his tirade at halftime of Sunday’s Cowboys-Redskins game. “Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed [at] African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way,* ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.”

“It is an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent,” Costas continued.

This is ludicrous. I say this not as someone who has particular love for the Redskins or their name. I say this as a lover of words.

... He [Costas] — and the editors of Slate — are simply deciding to be offended about something they don’t need to be. According to various accounts, “redskin” actually has quite innocuous origins. It was probably adopted from Native Americans themselves. And though it obviously took on nastier connotations over time and in some contexts, it strains credulity to believe that the team name was intentionally pejorative or that the fans or the ownership see it that way today.

Words become offensive when we choose to be offended by them. When should we be offended? That’s a tough question. “The answer, of course, lies in the context,” the late Hugh Rawson wrote in his lovely lexicon, Wicked Words. “The meanings of words change according to who says them, to whom, and in what circumstances.” Rawson chronicled many words that were uncontroversial in Chaucer and Shakespeare but are considered repellent today.

Ultimately, of course, this isn’t a fight about words but about cultural politics and the imperative to scrub society of all offensive language (or, often, merely language that offends liberals). That fight will never end, and not just because some people always need to be offended by something. It will never end because words themselves will never cooperate.

Jonah Goldberg National Review On Line , *Althouse link.

Commenter AllenS emails an "UPDATE":
"Because the American Indian Council has requested that the NFL disassociate itself from Indian Names, the Washington Redskins have announced that they will change their name to the Washington Foreskins, in honor of all the dickheads in Washington DC, effective immediately."