Skip to main content

Is Schumer Making Common Cause With Iranian Terrorists, Will Blumenthal?


As New York Senator Chuck Schumer goes, so goes… Blumenthal?

Mr. Schumer’s forceful decision not to approve the Iran/Putin/Obama deal has been called a “break in the dike.” Democrats in the recent past have tended to march in lockstep with President Barack Obama. Mr. Schumer is a threatening crack in Democratic foreign policy obduracy. It is just through such cracks in the political asphalt, said Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that lonely flowers bloom.
Though he has expressed misgivings, Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, has decided to support the deal; his doubts may be a sign of moral and foreign policy sanity. Then again, perhaps Mr. Murphy’s reservations – he’s not quite sure the Iranians with whom Mr. Obama has made common cause are honorable – represent little more than a rhetorical fig leaf, an exit plan should Iranian leaders prove by deeds that their words --  Death to America! – are more reliable than instantaneously revised deals with “the Great Satan.” In Islam, it is considered a manly virtue to lie persuasively to great and lesser Satans, and the Iranians have shown themselves to be almost saintly in this regard. The consequences that flow from such deals do not appear for some time, and modern politicians are used to acting in the moment without fear of consequences, however predictable.  

Mr. Blumenthal has been brooding over the question: to deal, or not to deal? Former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman use to be called, somewhat disdainfully, “the Hamlet of the Senate,” because he was known for having chewed over issues of moment too often and too long. Mr. Blumenthal is a worthy competitor in this regard. Hamlet, it will be recalled, dithered over the existential question “to be, or not to be?” Some would insist that the leaders of Israel are entertaining exactly the same dreadful question. Jewish and Catholics politicians are prone to dither over the cognate question: to be, or not to be Jewish or Catholic? For reasons not fully examined, Protestants don’t have this problem and, of course, the Islamic faithful know exactly who they are.

Mr. Schumer’s decision, the break in the dike, occurred pretty much at the same time Mr. Obama, a non-repentant perpetual campaigner, announced that Republicans who were offering some resistance to the president’s deal with the ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei were, in fact, making “common cause” with unnamed Iranian “hardliners.” All the Iranians are hardliners, and none are so unyielding as those who made deals with American Presidents and feckless Secretaries of State. It was as if British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, having returned from Germany following his tete a tete with Adolf Hitler and waving his “deal” under the noses of his political opponents, were to label as “hardline”  Nazis everyone In Britain whose views of Hitler were more firmly grounded in objective reality than his own.

Mr. Schumer’s lucid objections to the Khamenei-Obama pact cannot fit on a bumper sticker nor should they be comfortably dismissed by proponents of the deal as Jewish propaganda written by The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful American pro-Israeli lobbying group. Connecticut born New York Times editorial writer Carol Giacomo supposes that Mr. Schumer is cribbing from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican opponents who believe Mr. Obama put in the poke he bought the very pig he is now fitfully trying to sell to politically nervous Democrats.

Mr. Schumer isn’t buying it.

Mr. Blumenthal likely is not buying it either, though party loyalty, the equivalent of politeness in a non-savage society, has caused him to bite his tongue; that and the dread suspicion that any support of Israel, however necessary, might paint him into the most uncomfortable corner for a political Jew or Catholic – that of a supporter of Israel or Papist Rome. John Kennedy solved this problem by sloughing off his Catholicism.

When Hillarie Belloc, a fierce orthodox Catholic, was running for a seat in Parliament, he was accosted by a woman on the campaign trail who called him a Papist, at which he reached into his pocket, fetched his rosary beads, shook them above his head and said, “Madam, do you see these beads? I pray on them every night before I go to bed and every morning when I wake up.  And if that offends you madam, I pray God He spare me the IGNOMINY of representing you in Parliament.”

The retort was a bit edgy, but it pointed to a man with a spine. Sooner or later, Mr. Blumenthal, the Hamlet of the Senate, may find his.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...