Let's be honest. California Governor Gavin Newsom never really cared much about the law. After all, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, he ordered the city to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, even though state law at the time declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. Newsom's disregard for the law ended when the state Supreme Court put an end to it. Therefore, I suppose we should not be surprised at Newsom's attempted end run around the US Constitution. Newsom signed into law a bill that prevented any presidential candidate from getting on the ballot in California's primary election (now in March, 2020) unless the candidate disclosed the last five years of their tax returns by November 26, 2019. Obviously, the super-majority Democrat legislature and Democrat Newsom were targeting President Trump, who has not released his tax returns.
The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.
Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.
It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.
California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."
Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.
Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."
After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Trump and Netanyahu and Omar and Tlaib
It did not begin with Trump's Tweet: "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." It began earlier this month when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accompanied 40 other Democratic members of Congress to Israel. These Congress members were able to meet with Netanyahu, opposition leader Benny Gantz, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. That trip was sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is an affiliate of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), a pro-Israel lobbying group. As AIPAC seeks bipartisan support in Congress for Israel, and as they believe in a two-state solution, there was neither a desire nor attempt to prevent the Congress members from meeting with Palestinians. Nevertheless, left-wing groups pressured these Democrats not to go.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Notably absent from that trip were Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Rather, they planned their own trip to "Palestine." Not surprisingly, Israel was not on their itinerary. Their trip was sponsored by Miftah, a Palestinian NGO that not only supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel, but has also praised Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers that blow up innocent Jews. The two had not planned to meet with any Israeli leaders, not even Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Omar disputes that, although their itinerary does not show any such meetings.
We know that Rashid, a Palestinian-American, does not believe that Israel has a right to exist, and certainly not as a Jewish state. She has frequently stated her desire to see a one-state solution, and in various ways has made it clear that the one state would be Palestine. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Tlaib was given an opportunity to recognize Israel's right to exist. Tapper: "Do you think the Jewish people have the right to a state in the area where Israel exists now?" Tlaib: "Look, I truly believe the State of Israel exists, correct..." What? It is easy to say she believes Israel exists as it does exist. She did not acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. She continued: "...but understand, does it (Israel) exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people." Hence, her belief in a one-state solution called Palestine.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, said the two extremist members of Congress would be allowed to go on their trip "out of respect for the US Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America." In 2017, Israel enacted a law that allows the government to deny entry to those who wish to harm the country, such as through boycotts. But no doubt that Trump's Tweet put Israeli PM Netanyahu in the awkward position of being in the middle of Trump and two members of the "Squad."
After Tlaib complained that this trip might be her last chance to see her 90 year-old grandmother, and after Tlaib agreed not to pursue BDS attacks on Israel while there, Israel relented. But shortly thereafter Tlaib decided against the trip, complaining of the "oppressive" conditions set out by Israel, and because it would "break my grandmother's heart." If I were a betting man, I would bet on Tlaib having been pressured by the Palestinians to not agree to Israel's terms. Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri, then said this: "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother." Which brings to mind a saying often attributed to Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister from March, 1969 to June, 1974. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Nothing much has changed in that regard since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and even earlier.
There are at least two issues here. One, was it proper for the President of the United States to suggest to a foreign country that two duly elected members of Congress not be allowed entry? It always helps to imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that these two Congress members were anti-Semitic white nationalists who claimed Israel controlled the world. Or, what if the two Congress members were Jewish extremists who argued for the extermination of the Arabs. Sooner or later, you will find a scenario where an increasing number of people agree that the President was right to call for a ban on such people - members of Congress or not - visiting Israel.
Of course, the second issue is whether or not Israel should have caved (likely they did) to the President's Tweet. Certainly, Israel is not the first country to bar an elected official from entering. Just one example: Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders was barred from entering the UK. Wilders has been outspoken in his concern over the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. But the British Home Office labeled Wilders an "undesirable person," adding "the Government opposes extremism in all its forms." Just one example of a democratic country denying entry to an elected official they deemed to be an extremist. Are Rashid and Omar extremists? No doubt. But Israel had to anticipate the significant blow back that they are now getting from the Democrats in Congress. All appropriation measures originate in the House. Israel is a recipient of US foreign aid. It is also true that Israel is a great ally to the US - technologically, in terms of providing intelligence on the Middle East and in other ways.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has condemned Israel for their decision. I could make the argument either way, but my preference was that Israel allow the visit. Now, these two Israel-haters are likely to get increasing support within their party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)