The State Of Our Country

There was an interesting poll taken by the Wall Street Journal - NORC (out of the University of the Chicago) from March 1 through March 13, 2023.  The poll sample consisted of 1019 people and has a margin of error of +/- 4.1%.  62% of the respondents were employed, with 38% not employed.  That is a fairly typical employment rate.  

The survey asked for the respondents' political outlook.  10% said they were "very liberal," with 13% "somewhat liberal."  12% were "very conservative," with 16% "somewhat conservative."  47% described themselves as "moderate."

In a survey of values, the respondents were asked what was "very important," "somewhat important," "not that important," or "not important at all."  In that order, with regards to "hard work," the numbers were 67%, 26%, 3% and 3%.  Not too bad at all.

With regards to "marriage," the numbers were 43%, 27%, 18% and 10%.  A little disappointing.  "Patriotism" came in at 38%, 35%, 16% and 11%.  Very disappointing.  This sense of patriotism is no longer instilled in our public schools.  Instead, students today are taught about the evils of America - slavery, white supremacy, racism, sexism, gender bias, etc.  Without a love of country, it is no surprise that the U.S. Army was 25% off of its target for recruiting in the last fiscal year.  Who will fight America's wars?  If there are an insufficient number of volunteers, will the country will be forced to return to conscription?  

More importantly, how does a country survive if the population no longer believes in the basic goodness of the country?  And, in an indication of the direction American values are headed, a 1998 New York Post poll found that 70% said that patriotism was "very important."  Currently, only 23% of Americans under 30 said that patriotism is "very important," compared to 59% of seniors over 65. 

As for religion, the numbers are as follows:  39%, 20%, 21% and 19%.  Also disappointing.  And the NY Post poll in 1998 found 62% saying that religion was "very important."  In terms of attendance at religious services, 32% said never, 19% one time a year, 9% about twice a year, 8% several times a year, 3% about once a month, 5% 2-3 times a month, 5% nearly every week, 13% every week, and 6% several times a week.  Only 31% of young Americans said that religion was "very important," compared to 55% of seniors.    

Insofar as having children is concerned, only 30% said it was "very important," then 36%, 18% and 15%.  This is also disappointing.  Children are our future.  But many young people believe having children causes an extra burden on the environment.  By age, only 23% of young Americans said having children was "very important," compared to an also disappointing 32% of seniors.

Not surprisingly, Republicans supported traditional American values more than Democrats.  59% of Republicans said that patriotism was "very important," compared to only 23% of Democrats.  For religion, the percentages were Republican 53% and Democrats 27%.  And for having children, it was 38% for Republicans and 26% for Democrats.  

These declining numbers in traditional American values should come as a surprise to no one.  Not when "leftist" values have increasingly replaced "liberal" values in American society.   

The Subtle Indoctrination Techniques Used By The Mainstream Media

(Note.  Over the years, I have written quite a few posts about media bias.  Many focused on the New York Times.  I have suggested to some on the left that they can pick out any day's edition of the New York Times, and I will show them the bias.  This post focuses on a single front page story, continued for a full half page on page 17, of the April 21, 2023 New York Times.  The article is titled "Moves by Israel Open a Divide With U.S. Jews."  And yes, I acknowledge that conservative media also has a bias.  However, my friends on the left often are unable to detect the subtle bias of the mainstream media.) 

On page one we learn of the new "far-right" government in Israel.  Yes, there are a couple ministers who might be described as far-right.  But Benjamin Netanyahu is not, and he is the Prime Minister.  Besides, a  descriptive term such as "conservative" government, is not sufficiently disparaging.  Nor, apparently, is even "right-wing" government.  And make no mistake, the idea is to disparage the Netanyahu government.  We are also told of this government's "efforts to undermine Israel's independent judiciary."  This is a gross exaggeration at best.  (See the March 30, 2023 post regarding "Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform, Part II," for a fair discussion of the proposals.)

On page 17 we get many quotes from prominent American Jews and American Rabbis.  These people are Democrats and left-wing.  They start with Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass):  "On this issue there is unanimity."  No, there is not.  "There are extreme concerns about the direction that Israel is headed, toward illiberal democracy."  The current government was democratically elected.  The conservative parties won.  The left in Israel can no more tolerate that than the left in the US was able to tolerate the victory of Donald Trump.  

After saying P.M. Netanyahu previously courted support from Republicans and evangelicals, they malign our former president with this: "President Donald J. Trump, in turn, did virtually whatever Mr. Netanyahu wanted."  What President Trump did was show his support for Israel by moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem, and by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and by refusing to fund the Palestinian Authority until they stopped killing Jews.  But the leftists at the New York Times opposed those measures.  They opposed U.S. support for our greatest ally in the Middle East, and one of our greatest allies in the world.  The Times prefers the anti-Israel stances taken by Presidents Obama and Biden.    

The Times:  "For American liberals, the Netanyahu government's push to overhaul the judiciary came on top of the marginalization of liberal parties in Israel, despair in Gaza and the absence of progress toward Palestinian autonomy and equal rights."  The marginalization of liberal parties?  Does the Times no longer believe in democracy?  The liberal parties lost in the last election.  Despair in Gaza?  Did the Times forget that Gaza is run by Hamas, which has been designated a terrorist organization?  Did the Times forget that Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist?  The absence of progress toward the Palestinians?  Did the Times forget all the times that the Palestinians have been offered a state of their own, only to refuse as long as Israel still exists, with the Palestinians choosing war instead?

I give the Times credit for providing a quote from Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, the strongest pro-Israel organization in the U.S.  Although the quote comes near the very end of the article.  The Times asserts that Mr. Klein said that "American Jews of all stripes see its high court as the last lever of liberal power," although that sentence is not put in quotes by the Times.  Here is what they quote Klein as saying:  "That is the main motivator" of American Jewish criticism.  "They're losing their power to control policy."  Exactly.

One of the biggest objections to the judicial reforms is that politicians - not sitting justices and bureaucrats - would be able to select High Court justices.  The conservative parties won the last election in Israel, and if the reforms pass, those conservative politicians would be able to select High Court justices.  How is that any different from all the objections we heard about President Trump being able to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court?  Not only did the left viciously attack Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court, a number of Democrats decided the selection process needed to be changed, or there needed to be term limits for the justices, or the Court needed to be expanded under Biden so that more left-wing justices could be nominated.   

Is there bias throughout the media?  Yes.  But the more subtle bias tends to be employed by the left-wing/mainstream media. 

  

What Happens When The Power of the State Enforces Left-Wing Ideology

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our country.  The only question is whether it is too late to reverse course.  I recently heard a very disturbing story from another attorney.  He reported that another attorney he knows was investigated by the State Bar of California. This attorney's offense?  Apparently she posted on social media last year about a proposed abortion bill, saying that Democrats are pushing a bill that would allow abortion up to the due date.  I did a little research and looked at California's Proposition 1 and a proposed US House bill.  

Both measures allowed abortions up to the date of fetal viability.  But both measures also allowed abortion up to the due date in order to protect the health and life of the mother.  (I am not arguing the merits of these measures.  I have extensively discussed abortion in earlier posts.)  Here was an attorney making a point.  Technically, these measures do allow abortions up to the due date, at least under certain circumstances.  

Here are my questions.  Who reported this attorney to the State Bar, and why?  Was it a left-wing troll who supports abortion on demand?  Here is another question?  Why would the State Bar even investigate such a complaint?  Are there no longer any First Amendment protections?  Is there no right to express opinions that are contrary to the prevailing left-wing ideology?  I was told that this matter was dismissed by the State Bar, but without prejudice, and with a warning to the "offender" not to post videos.  Why not?  Why would this attorney lose her First Amendment rights?

In my March 5, 2023 post ("I'm Back After a Two Month Hiatus"), in the fifth paragraph, I discuss the State Bar pursuing charges against attorney John Eastman for advice he gave to Donald Trump in connection with the 2020 election.  I called it a "dangerous incursion by the Bar into politics."  And, I said "...it would appear to be the Left targeting yet another conservative."   

In a story out of Missouri that I read on Fox, it was reported that two teachers sued their school districts regarding mandatory diversity training.  Apparently, the "training" pushed the idea that America is systemically racist.  And, if you believe America is "color blind," that is a white supremacist idea.  The teachers were not seeking a monetary judgment; rather, they sought a ruling on the constitutionality of them having to agree with the "training."

The teachers lost.  Fox reported that the Obama appointed judge awarded the district $313,000 in attorney's fees.  Here are my questions.  How, on a teacher's salary, would these teachers be expected to be able to pay those fees?  Doesn't such an award act to deter others from seeking legal redress when left-wing ideology is being pushed on them?  And, isn't true diversity in an educational setting a diversity of ideas?    

It was not that long ago that I wrote about the letter sent by the left-wing National School Boards Association to the Biden Administration, complaining about parents showing up at local school board meetings.  These parents were complaining about some of the garbage being taught to their children.  But, in a nod to this left-wing organization, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Director of the US Attorneys, and to the assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department.  The memo alleged that there was a "disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff..."  (See the 10/17/21 post "The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part I (Biden Goes After Parents), for a further discussion of this issue.)

Here are my questions.  Was this such a national problem that the Attorney General needed to engage the full weight of the federal government to investigate protesting parents at local school board meetings?  Were the local authorities unable to deal with any unruly parents?  Again, what kind of chilling effect did this have on the willingness of parents to speak up for their children, and for the values they want instilled in them?  Was this just another example of state action on behalf of a left-wing organization?  

AG Garland:  "Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values."  That might be more believable coming from Garland if he pursued charges against Senator Schumer for threatening Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  It might be more believable if he put an end to the illegal protesting by pro-abortion protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices.  But, then again, those protesters and Schumer are people on the Left.  What would be the result if they were conservatives?

I understand that earlier administrations improperly used the FBI.  But we are seeing a trend now.  When Obama was in office, the IRS was caught investigating conservative 501(c)(3) organizations and conservative individuals.  Let's not forget Obama's targeting of reporters as well.  This is the issue:  as the Left has increasingly taken over elected offices and government agencies, are they using their powers in a blatantly political way, on behalf of left-wing causes?  Is the government and its various agencies at all levels now targeting you if you are a conservative?  Will my blog be targeted next?  

   

The Unprecedented Indictment of a Former President (A Few Comments By Others), Part II

The indictment of "former president Donald Trump is a sad day for the country, with political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive."  (WSJ 3/31/23 editorial)  As I said in Part I, none of that is a concern for Democrats.

The New York Times has a habit of letting Op-Ed writers speak for their editorial board.  Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen, wrote an Op-Ed in the 4/5/23 edition of the paper.  After laying out why they believe the case against Trump is "strong," they ended with this:  "...one thing is clear:  Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution.  He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him."  Any other New Yorker?  What other New Yorker is a former president of the United States?  I think they call that "ignoring the elephant in the room."

"The largest criminal investigation in history isn't to find those responsible for 100,000 deaths a year from fentanyl but to track down every single person who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, regardless of whether they committed any violence.  The message:  if you are on the political side of those in power, you get released; if you are a dissident you get prosecuted."  (Op-Ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein in the 4/6/23 WSJ)  Let me clear.  I never did anything but condemn the events of January 6.  But the dual system of justice in our country is something that greatly bothers me. 

In the 4/5/23 Los Angeles Times, an Op-Ed by LZ Granderson said this:  "The allegation is that Trump and his company falsely reported the hush money as a payment for legal services, rather than as reimbursement to the lawyer who paid Daniels.  Specificially, 11 counts are related to invoices from the lawyer, 11 related to checks from Trump and 12 related to ledger entries."  So much to say about this.  Trump paid that money as part of a civil settlement.  In no way was it a campaign expenditure.  Even it is considered to be such, he should merely be fined, as was Hillary Clinton for her misreporting.  (See Part I)

Additionally, 34 counts?  Really?  I have always found this type of overreach by the government to be heavy handed.  All these counts basically arise out of a single act.  But we know why they overcharge.  The idea is to be able to threaten the defendant with a million years in prison.  Slight exaggeration, Trump would "only" face 136 years in prison if convicted on all counts.  Even an innocent defendant can be frightened into taking a plea for a shorter sentence.   

Here are a couple of excerpts from letters to the editor, in the 4/3/23 WSJ.  "If Mr. Trump broke laws - no matter how petty - he must be subject to prosecution and public recriminations for doing so."  Maybe we can also get Trump for jaywalking.  I wonder how many excuses the writer made for the Clintons and the Bidens.  Here's another:  "Maybe prosecute the people who avoid paying taxes or those who ripped off their fellow Americans with fraudulent Covid claims.  Or, here's a novel idea, do something about illegal immigration and school violence.  Indicting Mr. Trump is the least of this country's problems and smacks of "gotcha" politics."  But what fun is prosecuting real criminals when they can go after Trump, a man they hate more than they do Putin, Xi and the Ayatollah combined.

The editorial in the 4/5/23 WSJ ended with this (as will I):  "The question that keeps smacking us upside the head is whether this case would have been brought against any defendant not named Donald Trump.  It's hard to avoid answering no."  That pretty much says it all.  Anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous at best.     

 

The Unprecedented Indictment of a Former President (A Few Comments By Me), Part I

I'll start with this.  President Trump has been hounded from the day he announced his candidacy for president.  No other president has been treated the way he has.  Remember the idea of a "honeymoon" for a president's first 100 days in office?  Take a look at the March 12, 2017 post ("The Deposing of an American President"), and you will see the various ways the Democrats were suggesting to remove Trump from office, including violent actions and military involvement.  This was less than two months into the Trump presidency.  

When those ideas (as set forth in that post) never came to fruition, the Dems came up with the Russian collusion hoax, the first BS impeachment, the second BS impeachment, the raid on Mar-a-Lago, and now the indictment.  I have zero doubt that the Democrats coordinated all these attacks on Trump.  

The fact that this is an unprecedented indictment of a former president is of no concern for the Democrats.  The Democrats do not care about precedent.  They do no care if their actions are good for the country.  The Democrats act by one "rule" only - the ends justify the means.  Recall when then Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said on the Senate floor when Mitt Romney was running for president, that he knew Romney did not pay taxes.  It was a complete lie, of course.  When asked years later if he wanted to apologize to Romney, because it was shown that Romney did pay taxes, Reid replied to this effect:  "he didn't win, did he?"  That was all that mattered.  Helping to defeat Romney and reelect Obama.  The truth be damned, because the ends justify the means for Democrats. 

Democrats never have a problem with taking unprecedented actions.  Obama criticized Supreme Court Justices who attended his State of the Union address, because he disagreed with their decision in the Citizens United case.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if they dared to rule on the Dobbs abortion case contrary to the way Schumer wanted.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi also did not care about precedent when she denied the minority party the right to select members of their choice to be on the January 6 committee.  Speaker Pelosi did not care about precedent when she rushed the second impeachment vote against Trump without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first.  Actual evidentiary hearings where the accused gets to present evidence in their defense.  So many unprecedented actions by the "ends justify the means" Democrats.

There is no doubt that we have two separate systems of justice in this country.  Can anyone seriously doubt that?  What happened to Hillary Clinton with regards to her misreporting the money she spent on "research" for the phony Steele dossier, which was used to target Trump for 2 1/2 years?  The Federal Election Commission fined her and the DNC $113,000.  Was she prosecuted by anyone?  Of course not.  Was her home raided?  Of course not.  Why isn't Bragg prosecuting her for her falsifying records, just like he is doing to Trump?  Was she prosecuted for having a private and unsecured email server in her home while she was Secretary of State, with (I imagine) a Top Secret security clearance?  Of course not.  Was she prosecuted over her destruction of possible evidence by destroying various electronic devices and deleting 33,000 emails?  Of course not.  Was the Clinton Foundation prosecuted for possible influence peddling when many donations were made while Hillary was Secretary of State - including from foreign powers?  Of course not.

How about Hunter Biden getting that cushy, high paying job at Burisma, for which he had zero experience?  His only "experience" was that his father was Vice President of the United States at the time.  Influence peddling?  Now, Hunter is a world class and world famous artist, with his paintings going for $500,000.  Who knew?  My guess...it is a money laundering scheme to buy influence with the president...from unknown buyers.  Funny how Hunter will not reveal the names of the buyers.  And, let's not forget Hunter's trip to China with his father, then the Vice President.  As I've said before, was it take your forty something year old to work day?  The laptop?  What about it?  Still awaiting a prosecution of Hunter and "the big guy." 

When Trump, and those at his rallies, would yell "lock her up" with regards to Clinton, I was greatly opposed.  I said what a bad idea it is to have our country start locking up political opponents...even though I believed Clinton was guilty of numerous crimes.  She was running for president against Trump, and Trump had no business saying "lock her up."  Now, we have a Democrat District Attorney indicting the leading Republican candidate for president against the sitting president of this DA's party.  Additionally, DA Bragg wants the trial to begin next January, just before the start of primary season.  An unprecedented indictment against your opposing party's possible candidate for president.  I am more than a little dismayed and disappointed by all those who favor this indictment and do not see the obvious political nature of it.  

I have now changed my position on indicting political opponents.  I want to see the Clintons indicted now.  I want to see the Bidens indicted now.  James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, says he has been contacted by two District Attorneys (one in Tennessee and one in Kentucky) who want information to assist them in the prosecution of Biden.  If Comer and the Republicans do not do so, then shame on them.  The result will be more Trump family members being indicted and more people affiliated with President Trump being indicted.  The Republicans need to make it clear that they will not sit idly by while the Democrats seek to destroy the Republican Party.

A final thought.  Biden ran as the great unifier.  Once in office, he has been anything but a unifier, with his nonstop attacks on Republicans and MAGA Republicans (who number in the tens of millions).  So we know that Biden is a liar.  However, he can redeem himself by pardoning Trump.  He would not only put an end to this divisive indictment, but he would show the American people that he believes they should be the ones who determine the next president.  He would demonstrate his belief in democracy, something he always claims to champion.

Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel? Part II

Here are some highlights of the proposed changes.  1.  Appointment of justices.  Currently, there is a selection committee made up of 9 people.  Three are High Court justices, two are members of the bar, two are Knesset members and two are ministers.  For lower court judges, only a majority vote is required.  For High Court justices, an affirmative vote of 7 of the 9 is required.  Given that the High Court justices tend to be left wing, they alone can prevent a conservative government from being able to get their choices appointed to the High Court.

The proposed change is for a committee of 11 members, consisting of the Minister of Justice, 2 other ministers appointed by the government in power, the chair of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, the chair of the Knesset State Control Committee, the chair of the Knesset Committee, the President of the Supreme Court, 2 other judges from the High Court and 2 public representatives chosen by the Minister of Justice, with at least one being an attorney.  

Seven votes would be needed to select a justice to the High Court.  With the government being able to select 8 of the committee members, the 3 left wing justices would not be able to block a conservative government from appointing conservative judges to the High Court.  And therein lies the rub.  The overwhelming majority of those protesting are no doubt leftists.  They are disturbed that elected officials (members of the Knesset) will be able to appoint justices.  That is supposed to be the end of democracy in Israel.  If they're interested, elected officials in the US are the ones who appoint and approve federal judges, including for the Supreme Court.  And the Left here acted as if it was the end of democracy when the Republican Trump was able to nominate 3 justices to SCOTUS.  That is why they came up with all kinds of allegations against the Trump nominees.  

2.  Judicial Review.  Ever since the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established for itself the right of judicial review - the right to declare statutes and administrative actions to be unconstitutional.  The Constitution did not expressly afford that right to the Supreme Court.  There was a similar case in Israel giving their High Court the same right of judicial review.  The current proposal would not allow the High Court to declare any of Israel's Basic Laws to be invalid.  

That makes sense to me.  It would be as if the Supreme Court here could declare a constitutional provision to be invalid.  However, the proposed change does go one step further.  If the Knesset passes a law that might be contrary to a Basic Law, it would require a full quorum of the High Court (not just a panel) to consider the validity of such a statute.  And it could only be declared invalid with a vote of 80% of the court.  I can see why people might object to that provision.

3.The end of the "unreasonableness" standard.  The High Court justices have taken it upon themselves to declare certain government actions to be "unreasonable" and therefore invalid.  They can do that if they believe the government has failed to consider fundamental values and human rights.  That is far too broad a standard.  It essentially allows the High Court to weigh the wisdom of government actions.  The people elect members of the Knesset, and those elected officials decide what is good for the country.  Absent a clear violation of the Basic Laws, the courts should not be making those decisions.  (Yes, there are exceptions in the US, especially where certain government actions do not meet the "strict scrutiny" standard as applied to discrimination.  However, the "unreasonableness" standard is simply too broad.)

4.  The override provision.  Arguably, this is the most controversial of all the proposals.  Just as SCOTUS interprets our Constitution, the High Court in Israel interprets their Basic Laws.  The proposed change would allow the Knesset to reject the court's interpretation, and also to allow the Knesset to overturn a High Court decision declaring a law invalid.  The procedure is somewhat complicated.  In certain instances, the Knesset may override the court decision by a majority vote (61 members).  In other instances an override could only occur if 2 Knessets agree on the override.  

In other words, just as we are now in the 118th Congress, which is for two years, there would have to be an intervening election, with a new Knesset, also agreeing on the override.  

(Most of the information above from an analysis on Wikipedia.)

Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel? Part I

Some of you may have been following the street protests in Israel over the Netanyahu government's proposed reforms to their judicial system.  People have been out in the streets in the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands.  Before doing my research on this issue, I admittedly had a viewpoint.  First, the Israeli High Court has a reputation for being one of the most leftwing in the Western world.  Second, who is doing the objecting?  It is overwhelmingly the Left - in Israel, in the Biden Administration and in other Western countries, our mainstream media and Leftwing Jewish organizations in the USA.  Why?  Because the conservatives are in control of the government.  Sound familiar? 

Third, as I have said before, the Left is the same everywhere.  They use the same language.  When Donald Trump was able to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court, the Left went crazy.  Because of the "threat to democracy," the system needed to be changed according to many on the Left.  Term limits for the justices.  Increasing the size of the Court so that Biden could appoint a sufficient number of new justices to restore control of the Court to the Left.  The Left believes they should have the sole right to control the Courts.   

Some background.  Israel does not have a formal written constitution.  It has a series of "Basic Laws" that form the equivalent of their constitution.  These laws cover everything from the organization and powers of the government, to individual human rights.  

There are Basic Laws describing the function of the Knesset, Israel's parliament; as well as describing the role of the president.  (In the US, the president is both the head of the executive branch and the head of state.  In Israel, the prime minister is the head of the government and the president is the head of state.)  

The Basic Laws give the government the power to print currency, make payments and establish a comptroller.  The Israeli Defense Forces are deemed to be the sole legitimate military force for the country, and is under civilian control.  (Without getting into the details, during the British control of Mandatory Palestine, there were various Jewish militia groups fighting to protect the Jewish people of Palestine.  During the war for independence, P.M. Ben Gurion ordered an attack against a ship controlled by the Irgun, one of those militia groups.  Therefore, designating the IDF as the sole legitimate military force was of some significance.) 

The Basic Laws also declared Jerusalem to be the capital city of Israel, and gave all religions rights.  The Basic Laws also affirmed everyone's right to pursue the occupation of their choice.  Certain human rights were also enunciated, including the rights to travel, to speech, and to be free from unlawful searches.  

The judiciary was also established, including procedures for appointing judges.  

The most controversial Basic Law was a relatively recent one from 2018.  Of course, the protests came from the Left and their allies in the Western world.  This Basic Law declared Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people.  (People who protested were apparently not offended by the 56 Muslim countries, at least 26 of which have Islam as their official religion.)  This 2018 Basic Law made Hebrew the official language of Israel.  However, Arabic has a special status, and is on all currency along with Hebrew.  (Who believes a future Palestinian state would put Hebrew on their currency?)  Finally, this Basic Law established the official national holidays and national symbols.