In light of the darkness offered by both Zachary Ottenstein and Robert A. Grauman in their recent letters to the editor (“No Choice But to Speak Out” September 19, 2024 and “Dangerous Rhetoric” October 10, 2024), please permit this reader to offer her response.
First, a note to my fellow Jewish Link readers: My reply assumes you are as tired as I am of being force-fed vitriol toward presidential candidates from writers acting as operatives from a candidate’s political campaign, when they are not. In fact, both of these writers have chosen the path of resistance toward a candidate (which is their right), yet their reasons ring hollow. Their preference for Kamala Harris is as clear as day, as is their distaste for her opponent, Donald Trump. However, because both writers wanted their opinions out in The Link’s public square, they owe it to the readership to compare and contrast what makes her their preferred candidate regarding what the candidates will bring to the table as Americans for Americans, and what they will bring to the table to support Jews and Israel.
Both letters attempt to sway readers, while omitting pertinent information as an educational tool. Those with a discerning eye will wonder why Harris’ tenure as California’s Attorney General was not in the mix. I’m sure there must be at least one reader interested to learn that at such time in Harris’ career, having taken the oath for that esteemed position where ethics is as fundamental as you can get, she ignored such, despite the travesty of justice where an underling working in the capacity of a county prosecutor made his decision to change a defendant’s transcript. What did the court say about such deviancy on the part of the officer of the court and his boss the AG? “Both the prosecutor and the AG committed outrageous government misconduct.” Folks, an oath is an oath, and if one cannot uphold the sanctity of swearing an oath as a state’s top legal officer on behalf of the populace of that state, surely there remains the question of her integrity or lack of here as it relates to the possibility of her taking the presidential oath of office to swear she will unite a nation and uphold American values. In the instant case, her values have come up empty.
Also left out of both letters was former President Trump having enacted his Executive Order as ancillary to the Title of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The order concerns denying federal funds to any American university or college that excuses harassment of students of the Jewish faith. Why would both letter writers opt out of including this important detail from their correspondence? Don’t they have a semblance of respect for a commander in chief who believed the time was overdue to create an executive order of this magnitude, when the stirrings of antisemitism on our nation’s college campuses hadn’t yet reached the out of control levels they have today? Wasn’t creating a safe space for Jewish students via executive order from the boss of the Oval Office worthy of acknowledgement?
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the report from The U.S. House Oversight Committee, called “The Bidens’ Influence Peddling Timeline,” which refers to monies received by Joe Biden and his family when he was Obama’s vice president. The amount of high finance in the throes of low places i.e. foreign influence is astounding, sad but true.
Is it too much to expect letter writers to refrain from bearing the simplicity of She’s The One/He’s Far From It? That’s a gift that shouldn’t be re-gifted.
