Sort of Firm Talk, Timid Action

Two letter writers in Sunday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal responded concretely to the WSJ‘s editorial of the prior Tuesday.

I can’t agree with you that President Biden offered the “right words” when he said, “‘Never again,’ simply translated for me, means never forget” (“How Not to Remember the Holocaust,” Review & Outlook, May 8). While historical memory is important, it is the easy part of “never again.”
The hard part, for President Biden at least, is understanding that “never again” means that Israel and the Jewish people will never again tolerate—and should never have to tolerate—threats to their existence such as the “ring of fire” ignited against Israel by Iran and its proxies.
With his watered-down and tortured definition, Mr. Biden betrays the clear meaning of “never again.” With his denial of critical military support, he betrays Israel and the Jewish people in their hour of need.
Ben Orlanski
Beverly Hills, Calif.

And

Your editorial reminds me of an experience I had roughly 20 years ago at a meeting of the members of the European Union in Berlin. I was a representative of Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America. The meeting was to establish antisemitism as an evil condemned by the EU members. At the meeting, each country recounted its efforts to establish Holocaust memorials.
When they were finished, Elie Wiesel, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, asked, “That’s what you are doing for dead Jews. What are you doing for Jews living in your country?” Stunned silence followed.
Karen Venezky
Chicago

What they said. And it particularly applies to Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s current betrayal of Israel.

A Legislative Proposal

Congresswoman and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, WA) and Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr (D, NJ) described a bill they’re proposing that would purport to reform Internet controls and Big Tech’s control over those controls.

Our measure…would require Big Tech and others to work with Congress over 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Our bill gives Big Tech a choice: work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely.

18 months is far too long, with far too much time and opportunity for Big Tech to weasel-word saccharine pseudo-reform.

Better would be to give them 6 months, with a hard deadline written into this legislation: satisfactory reform of 230, or 230 is rescinded. A Critical Item that must be included in this proposed legislation is a concrete, publicly measurable definition of “satisfactory reform.”

Another, Highly Useful Item, that could be beneficially included in the bill’s Purpose paragraph, would be a clear and blunt statement that the bill is intended to supplement parental responsibility for their children’s time and activity on the Internet; it does not replace that responsibility.

Tawdry

The campaign to reelect Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has a Mothers’ Day message:

Happy Mother’s Day. At the Biden campaign, we are asking Americans to do the moms in their lives a favor. Stop Trump.

And

The stakes of this election are high for all Americans, but especially moms across our country who will suffer under a second Trump term.

And irony of ironies,

On Mother’s Day, a reminder: Donald Trump stands only for himself and not mothers across America and their families.

Because Mothers’ Day isn’t about celebrating America’s mothers. It’s about what’s good for a particular son of a mother.

To Hell with Bipartisanship

Arizona Progressive-Democrat Senator Mark Kelly has made Party’s disdain for us average Americans clear (as if it isn’t already, for some time). He said in an NBC News interview,

that he favors overriding the Senate filibuster to pass national abortion protections.

And

two years ago he [Kelly] argued for passing progressive “voting rights legislation” with 51 votes.

This position jammed my irony meter needle hard against the stop. Progressive voting rights are “rights” of non-citizens to vote in our elections. It’s hard to get more undemocratic than that. Indeed, that’s tautologically completely un-American.

Of course, Party won’t stop there. They’ll always have a Very Good Reason® for carving out Just One More® exception to the filibuster rule.

Just shut up and do things our way. That’s not just Kelly’s purpose—it’s the Progressive-Democratic Party that’s pushing to eliminate the Senate’s filibuster. Outliers like Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema will soon be gone.

The WSJ thinks the Senate filibuster is on the ballot this fall. The news outlet is correct, but only in a limited way. The filibuster matter has put our free-market economy on the ballot, along with the concept of limited government with limited regulation of our lives.

Our two-party system of governance is on the ballot.

Deadlines

Columbia’s management team gave terrorist supporters a deadline to clear their campus “encampment,” and when the campers ignored the deadline, managers issued them a new deadline. When the terrorist supporters seized and occupied a school building, managers gave them a deadline by which to clear out. And then another.

Terrorist supporters seized a Rhode Island School of Design building, and that school’s managers have issued a deadline. As seems typical of school management teams, the design school’s administrators have yet to announce consequences for demonstrators if they do not comply with the 8 am deadline.

And at MIT:

Anti-Israel agitators at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology took back their campus encampment after it was initially cleared by police.

Protesters at MIT were given a Monday afternoon deadline to voluntarily leave or face suspension. Many cleared out of the area, according to the school spokesperson. Dozens of protesters remained at the encampment through the night.
No arrests had been made as of Monday night, according to the MIT spokesperson.

This sort of thing is all too common, and it’s not unique to today’s school disruptions. As far back as Vietnam War college and university protests, disrupters would occupy school buildings, and school managers would issue deadlines to clear out after deadlines to clear out.

In all those cases, it became necessary, ultimately, for campus and local police, augmented in some cases by State police, to go in and forcibly root out the occupiers.

Enough. It’s time—long past time—for school managers to learn what should by now be the obvious lesson. Deadlines are useless except to the occupiers; all the deadlines do is demonstrate the timidity of school managers.

The correct answer to all of these test questions is to send the campus and local police right in immediately after the campers have encamped and the occupiers have occupied, and root them out. And apply suitable corrective action: expelling the students participating, firing professors (tenured or not) participating, and charging those who’ve committed crimes—vandalism, for instance, is rampant among occupiers—with the relevant charges, and then taking them to trial—no settlements, no plea bargains.