Dear Editor:
Again, Jason Stark has misread my letter.
He dismissed my factual statements about Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 election and the way he acted during the transition. This is not a matter on which we simply “disagree.”
I referred to President Biden as being decent only in that he facilitated the transition between presidents and attended President Trump’s inauguration: acts that any outgoing president who respects the office would do. Mr. Stark is confusing acting in reasonable and professional manner with differing political opinions on various issues. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Trump’s action during the transition was indeed shameful and disgraceful, acting in a way no other president would dare to.
My politics are not in alignment with those of Biden; I did not vote for him or for Harris. However, I can differentiate between concluding a presidency with integrity and honor and acting like a spoiled, entitled child.
Sincerely,
Arlene Ross
Dear Editor:
So, Moshe Hill spent years arguing that President Trump is legitimately tough on Russia, in contrast to the weakness of former President Biden. He did this even as Biden spearheaded a defense of Ukraine in the face of increasing opposition from Trump’s Republican MAGA faction. He even laughably suggested after the November election that Putin might hurry to capture more territory before the inauguration to avoid having to do it while facing big bad Trump. But we’ve seen what has happened under Trump. He appointed a director of national intelligence who is bizarrely pro-Russia, has taken turns with his defense secretary in conceding bargaining chips to Russia, and has repeated basically every Russian talking point in the book. And, of course, we saw how he acted in the Oval Office with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
So, did Mr. Hill admit that he might have been even a little wrong? You know someone who thinks that January 6 was no big deal wasn’t going to go that route. So, what does he do? He now tries to argue that a war that has been a disaster for Russia on a human, military, and economic level has somehow worked out better for Putin than the supposedly tough years he faced under Trump, when Trump made inroads in fulfilling Putin’s dream of weakening NATO. And he gets to work trying to convince his readers that Trump is not picking sides but is simply trying to bring about peace.
Is this an argument worthy of serious analysis? I might be receptive to someone saying that while what Putin has done is morally indefensible, certain realities must be faced in order to stop the bloodshed. But instead, Mr. Hill lectures us about how it is too simplistic to cast Putin as a villain, as that is a partisan view similar to the opposing side, which seeks to blame NATO and the Americans for the war. (Note that the latter side is exactly what Trump consistently argues. Does Mr. Hill realize that he is accusing him of partisan pro-Russia behavior?) Apparently, anyone who comes down squarely on the side of the country that was invaded just doesn’t understand the “complexity” of the situation.
But still, let’s take this argument at face value and see if it holds up. If all Trump wants to do is achieve peace, why was he trying to shake down Zelenskyy for Ukraine’s mineral rights, without offering security guarantees? Why does he keep on lying about how much aid the US has given them? And shouldn’t a priority be to convince Ukraine that Russia would honor any peace agreement? But Zelenskyy bringing up how many times Putin has violated cease-fires is what seemed to set off Vice President Vance and Trump in their meeting.
Then there is Mr. Hill’s contention that Trump’s forgiving posture towards Putin is just his realization as a businessman that Putin needs to be “flattered” to be drawn into a deal. I think he’s confusing Putin with Trump, who clearly delights in being flattered, especially by the despotic strongmen he so admires. Putin the stone-cold killer is way too calculating to be so easily manipulated. If a deal would be in Putin’s best interest, would he really let it be derailed by even a little criticism by Trump? It’s telling that what Mr. Hill calls Trump’s “unpolished and brash” rhetoric only goes in one direction. And it’s hard to look at Trump getting worked up and going on an unhinged rant about how much he’s been through with Putin in fighting false allegations (Hunter Biden’s bathroom?) and think it was really a genius negotiating tactic. All the reports and statements out of Russia highlight how delighted they are by recent events, and I don’t think it is because they feel flattered.
And should Ukraine take solace in the argument that Trump is simply acting like a deal-making businessman? His go-to move when in a jam was to file bankruptcy and leave others holding the bag. He’s sold out our Kurdish allies to Turkey. And last time he tried to end a war, he froze out the Afghani government to negotiate with the Taliban, which resulted in a one-sided deal. There’s one thing that’s certain: If things go sideways in Ukraine, Trump’s supporters will contort themselves to blame anyone but their Dear Leader.
Regards,
Yaakov Ribner
Respect
Dear Editor:
R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Obviously, President Zelenskyy (odd spelling, isn’t it?) is not a big Aretha Franklin fan. What’s with his sartorial choices? Is he showing lack of respect for President Trump and the Oval Office? Why didn’t the President lash out at Elon Musk when he wore some outfit that could best be worn in a bowling alley? Unfortunately, the Ukrainian president doesn’t read the QJL because he would have learned a lesson or two in proper attire from my article about ties. I know if I were he (grammatically correct as always) and asking for $3 billion, I’d go to the New Jersey suit lady or the guy from Suits (by the way, Suits L.A. is terrible) and fork out several hundred dollars for a blue suit, white shirt and red tie.
The Ukrainian president has obviously not read Megillas Esther lately. Even though she didn’t want to be Achashveirosh’s (also weird spelling) queen, she got dressed up to be presented to him. She didn’t go to the royal throne wearing jeans and a T-shirt. If you’re going to ask a favor from a powerful, even heinous individual, you have to show him some respect. The girls who were presented to Achashveirosh went through 12 months of beauty treatments! Even I would have stopped looking like Cruella de Ville (referencing a white streak in my hair) and looking more like Meghan Markle or is it Sussex? Indeed, even at the end of the Megillah, it says that Mordechai is dressed in “blue and white royal clothes with a big royal crown and robes of fine linen and of purple wool. “So, if you want money from the Oval Office, dress the part! All this talk about clothes is making me want to run out to TJ Maxx and shop for new outfits.
Deborah Horowitz
Biden’s Indecency
Dear Editor:
This letter is in response to Jason Stark’s response to Arlene Ross. Mr. Stark did a deep dive into why Joe Biden does not have a shred of decency, pointing out all the terrible things Biden did that hurt and killed many people during his presidency.
One need not look so deep into Biden’s record to reveal what a narcissistic, indecent person he really is. When Joe Biden decided to run for President in 2018, his family life was in disarray. His two surviving children were both in the throes of drug addiction. Yet, instead of helping them, he decided to run for President of the United States...as a family man.
Politicians generally aren’t known for their fidelity to family, but Biden’s egotistical actions were a new low even by DC standards.
Jonathan Goldgrab
Is Mainstream Media Now A Liability For Dems?
Dear Editor:
The mainstream media has been operating as the public relations arm of the Democratic Party for decades. The reliably positive press coverage they received provided them with a massive advantage over their Republican counterparts. But could we be witnessing a seismic shift with the media now becoming a liability for Democrats?
Imagine, for instance, the media coverage of the Presidential address to Congress last week if the President was a Democrat. Imagine if after the Democratic President had introduced a 13-year-old boy who outlived his cancer diagnosis by a decade and awarded him with a Secret Service badge, that Republican members of Congress refused to applaud. Imagine if, after the Democratic President announced to the mother of a 13-year-old girl who was raped, tortured, murdered and tossed off a bridge by an illegal immigrant that he renamed a wildlife refuge after her daughter, that Republicans sat stoically, refusing to acknowledge the moment? Imagine if, after the Democratic President announced that he had procured the release of an American political prisoner in Russia after three and a half years, that Republicans refused to clap or even acknowledge the moment or what it meant to the former prisoner’s 95-year-old mother?
One can just imagine the headlines roaring through the mainstream media excoriating Republicans for their inhumane non-reactions to stories that should tear at virtually anyone’s emotional heartstrings? Okay, let’s stop imagining now.
All of these scenarios actually occurred last week, only in reverse, with a Republican President and Democratic members of Congress. What was the media’s reaction to this? While there was a little pushback, it was mostly muted, with mainstream media giving Democrats a pass on their inhumanity. The reason for the pass is that members of the so called “resistance,” including the media, must stick together against the predations of the illegitimate, bigoted, fascist, Russian stooge, aka Orange Hitler, who now occupies the White House.
The problem with this approach is that it creates an echo chamber, insulating Democrats from the real world and how most Americans actually think. This is why Democrats are flailing now. They are on the wrong side of 80/20 issues such as deporting criminal aliens and allowing males into female sports but are so wrapped up in their DC/Mainstream media bubble they don’t realize it.
Donald Trump has some pretty good political instincts, but his smartest move was to occupy the sanity lane after the Democrats ceded it years ago.
Jason Stark
Whose Law Is It Anyway?
Dear Editor:
I was on a Zoom shiur where someone asked: “Who cares about turning lights on or off? Teach us about how to treat our fellow man.” But what is the law based on? Napoleonic France? Hamas in Gaza?
As Rabbi Eli Mansour (not his shiur) said: Look at Emily Post’s book, Etiquette, written over 100 years ago; it’s antiquated. Yet, the Torah is constant. We have adhered to it for over 2,000 years. It is central to everything we do; it’s in our souls. All this is guided by Hashem. How we treat our friend comes from the same laws on igniting fire on Shabbos. Hashem is willing to lower “His” honor for a sick person (for example). But if we don’t honor the Shabbos and keep it holy, we are denying G-d’s presence in our everyday lives.
How will you treat your friend if you deny the rulebook? So, treat your fellow man, person, or being (pick your word of the day) right. But know that what guides our relationships is our continuous relationship with Hashem. And that’s what Adar is about: We are b’simchah knowing we are close to Him. Don’t practice by rote.
Throughout the year, we can obtain two rewards for each good deed we do: the reward of the mitzvah itself and the joy we attach to it. In the merit of fulfilling Hashem’s Divine will, we should rejoice with the coming of Mashiach very soon.
Chaim Yehuda Meyer
