Trump derangement syndrome is real, and it's real sad. Trump reminds me of a liberal republican and the democrats as the end of ailing aristocrats. Did You Know? The two Twentieth Century landmark civil rights laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were supported by a greater proportion of Republican Congresspersons and Senators than Democratic ones. Did You Know? George Romney, the popular and successful liberal Republican Governor of Michigan and a leading Republican Presidential candidate in 1968 (and also the father of the recent Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney), was one of America’s foremost advocates for the Federal Government playing a leading role in transforming America’s impoverished inner cities? He pushed for the creation of low-cost housing throughout metropolitan Detroit (including its suburbs), both as Michigan’s Governor and later as President Richard Nixon’s Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He stated, “some already are saying the answer [to inner city riots] is brute force such as would be used on mad dogs…Force alone will not eliminate riots. We must eliminate the problems from which they stem.” Did You Know? Nelson Rockefeller, the four-term Republican Governor of New York whose name came to be identified with the liberal and moderate Republicans who were a predominant force in American politics from the 1940’s through the 1970’s (so-called “Rockefeller Republicans”), was castigated by right-wing white racists ”as a dangerous Northern agitator bankrolling Dr. [Martin Luther] King and other troublemakers.” “After hundreds of Birmingham [Alabama] youngsters, responding to King’s appeal, were jailed for taking part in the so-called Children’s March on May 2, [1963], King’s lawyer Clarence Jones was summoned to the vault of the Chase Manhattan Bank. There he was handed a briefcase full of Rockefeller cash. Officially described as a loan, the money helped pay bail costs for the movement’s youngest foot soldiers. On his return to Birmingham, Jones found in his mail an unsigned receipt, informing him that his ‘loan’ had been fully repaid.” * * * If you are in your Forties or younger, you are unlikely to know how diverse the politics of the Republican Party were when your parents and grandparents were young. In fact, you may be flabbergasted by how many prominent liberal Republicans there were and for what they stood. While the Party always included conservatives (like most Republican politicians today), conservatives did not dominate the Party, let alone control it. Today’s Republican Party is an aberration (or at most a cyclical trend). It is the thesis of this website that the rebirth of liberal Republicanism is where Americans are most likely to find the middle political ground that could end the dysfunction that today paralyzes much of our public discourse and our government. Most people know the Republican Party was founded in opposition to slavery and that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. (In fact, the Republican Party was long known as “the Party of Lincoln.”) Many people also know that Teddy Roosevelt, the early Twentieth Century progressive President who took on powerful business interests and led the enactment of much of the first major social welfare legislation in America, was a Republican. But most people do not know that until recently liberal and moderate Republicans had an even greater voice in the Party than conservatives, or that these Republicans aligned with like-minded Democrats on an issue-by-issue basis to enact major civil rights laws, major infrastructure legislation and laws and policies that underpinned America’s foreign policy in defense of democracy and liberty around the world. (Conservative Republicans used to be predominantly isolationists. In fact, America’s support of the Allies in World War II, up until Pearl Harbor, would not have been possible without the efforts of liberal and moderate Republicans who worked with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to defeat the efforts of isolationist Republican and Democratic Congressmen.) The Republican Party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party. It also originated and developed as the party advocating liberal capitalism as the best means to achieve broad economic prosperity (by advocating for national infrastructure development and against the abuses of great wealth, including business trusts and monopolies); the party advocating for ethics and competency in government (rather than the vote-buying, job patronage and electoral horse-trading which were all characteristic of Democratic machine politics of the time); and the party most associated with a preference for individual initiative, decentralized government and fiscal conservatism. While today the Democratic Party is consistently the more “liberal” political party, this was not the case for most of American history. When Republicans today accuse Republicans they regard as too liberal of being RINO’s (“Republicans in Name Only”), they ignore history. It is important for the American people, especially young people whose involvement in politics will increasingly determine America’s future, not to cede control of the Republican Party, which represents half of our established political infrastructure, to its conservative members. This is especially important since for some of these passionate conservatives (as is the case for some of the most passionate liberal Democrats), “consensus” is a dirty word. The term “Liberal Republican” has often been used to describe both progressives and moderates. Like most political factions, it’s been a big tent, including people who espouse divergent views on many issues, as well as politicians who have drifted into the space with experience and changing political times. (Interestingly, this also is true of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan started his political career as a Democrat and as the head of a labor union, the Screen Actor’s Guild.)
-
-
-
-
AntisemitismCanada In 2026, Tulsa And Panama Are Courting Canadian Jews As Antisemitism Redefines The Cost Of Staying As antisemitism reaches unprecedented levels across Canada, Jewish families and professionals are quietly reassessing their futures, and some are being actively courted elsewhere. Ron East By: Ron East December 31, 2025 SHARE A growing number of Canadian Jews are exploring relocation options A growing number of Canadian Jews are exploring relocation options as antisemitism intensifies and confidence in public protection erodes. (Image: Illustration.) TORONTO — For generations, Canada sold itself as a country where Jews could thrive without constantly looking over their shoulders. That assumption no longer holds for a growing number of Canadian Jews, particularly in the aftermath of October 7 and the months that followed. What has changed is not only the number of antisemitic incidents. It is the atmosphere. Public hostility has been normalized. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centres operate under permanent security protocols. Anti-Jewish intimidation is increasingly framed as political expression. Enforcement is inconsistent. Accountability is rare. When Jewish life requires constant risk assessment, mobility stops being a luxury. It becomes a rational act of self-preservation. That reality helps explain why, in 2026, two very different destinations, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Panama, are appearing with growing frequency in serious conversations among Canadian Jews who have the means and flexibility to move. This is not a panic migration. It is a strategic recalculation. Canada’s new warning lights Jewish Canadians represent a small fraction of the population, yet account for a vastly disproportionate share of reported hate crimes. This is not a perception problem. It is a documented pattern. More troubling than the statistics themselves is the message many Jews hear in response: concern, sympathy, and context, but little deterrence. Protests that spill into harassment are tolerated. Jewish institutions are targeted repeatedly. Antisemitism disguised as antizionism is parsed endlessly rather than confronted directly. The result is a slow erosion of confidence in the state’s willingness or ability to enforce equal protection. When a community moves from assuming it belongs to hoping nothing happens today, the social contract has already been fractured. It is within this context that Tulsa and Panama are not merely attracting attention but actively courting. Lech Le’Tulsa and intentional Jewish welcome Tulsa is not presenting itself as a refuge city. It is presenting itself as a place that wants Jewish life to grow. In 2026, that effort has taken concrete form through Lech Le’Tulsa, a Jewish-focused relocation initiative designed to attract Jewish families, professionals, and entrepreneurs to the Tulsa area. The program combines relocation assistance with intentional community building and access to Jewish infrastructure. The name is deliberate. Lech Lecha, the biblical call to go forth and build a future, is not branding by accident. It speaks directly to a Jewish historical instinct that understands movement not as retreat, but as agency. Lech Le’Tulsa offers what many Canadian Jews increasingly feel is missing at home: A clear signal that Jewish presence is welcomed, not merely accommodated Immediate access to synagogues, schools, and Jewish communal life A civic environment where Jewish identity is not treated as a liability The financial incentives matter, but the social architecture matters more. Tulsa is offering a landing ramp. It is saying, we are prepared for you to arrive. That clarity stands in stark contrast to the ambiguity Canadian Jews experience when their safety concerns are acknowledged but endlessly deferred. Panama and the appeal of optionality Panama represents a different but equally rational response to insecurity. For Canadian Jews with international mobility, Panama offers residency pathways tied to investment, business activity, or long-term economic contribution. It also offers something increasingly valuable: optionality. Panama has an established Jewish community, a comparatively lower cost of living, and an immigration framework that openly courts skilled and capital-carrying residents. For some, it is a permanent relocation. For others, it is a second base, a contingency plan, or a future passport pathway. What matters is not the destination itself, but the logic behind the choice. When Jews seek second options, they are not rejecting diaspora life. They are applying historical lessons. Jewish continuity has always depended on redundancy, resilience, and the ability to move before crisis becomes catastrophe. The Zionist lens Canadians prefer to ignore Zionism does not deny the legitimacy of diaspora life. It insists that Jews must never be dependent on the goodwill of others for safety or equality. That lesson was written in blood long before the modern State of Israel existed. Israel institutionalized it at a national level. Individual Jews apply it on a personal level. When Canadian Jews explore Tulsa or Panama, they are not abandoning Canada in anger. They are responding rationally to warning signs. They are building leverage. They are ensuring their children have options. This is what Zionist consciousness looks like outside Israel. It is quiet, pragmatic, and unsentimental. An indictment Canada should take seriously Tulsa and Panama are not superior societies. They are intentional ones. Tulsa is saying, we want contributors, and we are prepared to integrate them. Panama is saying, we want residents and investment, and we have clear legal pathways. Canada, too often, is saying something else entirely: we are sorry you feel unsafe, but the politics are complicated. A serious country does not treat antisemitism as a public relations challenge. It treats it as a threat to civic order. That requires enforcement, deterrence, and moral clarity, including the willingness to name antisemitism even when it hides behind fashionable political language. Until that happens, Canada should not be surprised when Jews quietly explore exit ramps. The bottom line In 2026, the fact that Tulsa and Panama can plausibly court Canadian Jews is not an oddity. It is a warning. When antisemitism reaches levels that fundamentally alter how Jews calculate their futures, movement becomes strategy. History teaches Jews to act before apologies arrive too late. Canada still has time to reverse this trajectory. But time matters. And Jews, having learned this lesson repeatedly, are no longer inclined to wait.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment