It's time for the Democrats and Republicans to come clean. After over a half century of presidential primaries, they should just drop the charade and return to the old smoke-filled rooms. The rooms where the party bosses selected the nominee for the delegates on the convention floor to then give their rubber stamp approval. The people cannot be trusted.
The Democrats do not trust the people. If they did, Hillary would still be leading Bernie, but by the much smaller margin of 596 to 407. But, because the people cannot be trusted, the Democrats came up with the idea of "super delegates." Those delegates are not assigned based on primary victories. No, those delegates are aligned with the party bosses to make sure that the "right" candidate becomes the eventual nominee. Thanks to the super delegates, Clinton leads Sanders 1058 to 431. That's a more comfortable margin, don't you think?
But, let's be honest, the Republicans do not trust the people either. I have previously indicated that Trump was not in my top three choices. Cruz has been my first choice. But Trump has won 10 of the 15 contests to date. So, the elites in the Republican Party have gotten quite nervous. Not only did the party bosses bring out Romney to attack Trump, but - shockingly - Romney made the same false attack on Trump that Harry Reid made on Romney.
Recall that Reid accused Romney of not releasing his tax returns because he (Romney) had not paid any taxes. It was a lie, of course. So what does Romney do? He suggests Trump is hiding some problem with his taxes because Trump has not released his returns yet. One might think that Romney would be sensitive to the false accusations regarding taxes. Apparently not. Apparently a man I had referred to as one of the most decent people to ever run for president, is also not above the same political mudslinging that others are wont to do.
Today, Romney called Trump "a fraud," and "a phony." Romney said Trump was playing the American public for "suckers." And there you have it; the elites view the public as fools and "suckers." What if the public elects a demagogue? Why are so many Republicans saying they would never vote for Trump. If the election is Trump versus Clinton, then these Republicans should openly acknowledge they support Clinton.
Clinton is so much more presidential. Let's see. She lied to the American public and to the families of the murdered Benghazi victims, by saying the attack was due to some movie video, even though the emails released prove Clinton knew immediately it was a terrorist attack. But Obama was up for reelection, and Obama told the people that terrorism had been defeated. So, lie. Just lie. For that matter, Clinton could end up being prosecuted regarding her use of her personal email server to send classified emails. That's presidential.
And Clinton was such a great Secretary of State. Let's see. She had the "reset button" with Russia. That worked out well. Russia took the Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, has helped Iran build their nuclear facilities, and is now selling advanced arms to Iranians - which the Iranians are able to buy with the money Obama gave them. But Obama is so much more Presidential as well. He constantly lies, he has shown no respect for the Constitution nor for our system of checks and balances. Obama caved in to the Russians, he caved in to the Syrians even, and he caved in to the Iranians. Great job!
Getting back to Clinton, what else has she accomplished? She pushed the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya; that worked out well. She supported a Palestinian state when the Arabs of Palestine have never stopped attacking Israel and Jews, and refuse to acknowledge the Jewish state's right to exist. (Yes, I know Trump tracks Hillary on this and other issues.) Then, we have what may be Clinton's best line, when testifying before Congress on Benghazi: "What difference does it make?" Well, given that she and her boss are both pathological liars, and given their failure to protect Americans, probably no difference to them.
So the question is - how far are the party bosses willing to go to stop Trump? Is it because they believe he is unfit for the office? Maybe. But how much of it is because they cannot control him? He is not beholden to the Party because he does not need their money. Recall the pressure the Party put on Trump to give his agreement to support the eventual nominee? Now that it appears that Trump may be that nominee, the Party no longer has any interest in that agreement.
Shame on the Republicans. Shame on the Democrats. Let's just have each state legislature select their own electors who then vote accordingly for a candidate picked by the party bosses. The good old days. What's your preference? The people? Or the bosses?
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court
You have to give him credit. Obama always knows what to say when he wants to sound so reasonable. And, over the last seven years, most people have bought into it. When it comes to the type of judge he wants for the Supreme Court, Obama knew all the right words and phrases.
"I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand." Let's be honest, that sounds very reasonable. Of course, Obama does not mean it, but he knows how to convince people to view him as reasonable. If Obama really wanted judges with no particular ideology, he would not have appointed two leftist judges to the Court already - Kagan and Sotomayor.
The thing about Obama is, if you just listen, he will tell you what he really wants. "Justice is not about abstract legal theory..." "It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom, experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times."
So we see how Obama went from "impartial justice" to the need to see how court decisions "affects the daily reality of people's lives..." What Obama really wants is a goal-oriented court, not a court administering impartial justice. That is why he nominated Kagan and Sotomayor, two Justices who will reliably vote for the "liberal" outcome in court cases. What Obama seeks is an activist Court that will act as a super legislative body.
And look how he went from seeking judges who "respect precedent," to seeking judges who understand the "rapidly changing times." In other words, forget about about precedent; we need a living, breathing Constitution to keep up with the times. As I say, you have to give him credit. Obama knows how to mix his platitudes with his real message.
Meanwhile, we hear that "...the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." Oh no, that was not Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell; nor was it Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Those words were uttered in 1992 by then Senator Joe Biden.
For those of you inclined to think that Obama is being treated unfairly by the Senate Republicans, think again. According to John Lott, Jr., in an article in the 2/23/16 Investor's Business Daily, during Obama's first six years in office, his nominees to the appeals courts got approved 90% of the time. Far higher than Bush's 72% approval rate.
Per Lott, "Bush's nominees to the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit Court faced an average wait of 707 days, Obama's were approved in an average of 324 days." Many cases involving the immense regulatory system that runs much of the country come out of the D.C. court.
Protecting the Constitution, protecting American's First and Second Amendment rights, is of far greater significance than the idea that a sitting President in his final months in office is automatically entitled to consideration of his appointee to the highest Court in the land.
"I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand." Let's be honest, that sounds very reasonable. Of course, Obama does not mean it, but he knows how to convince people to view him as reasonable. If Obama really wanted judges with no particular ideology, he would not have appointed two leftist judges to the Court already - Kagan and Sotomayor.
The thing about Obama is, if you just listen, he will tell you what he really wants. "Justice is not about abstract legal theory..." "It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom, experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times."
So we see how Obama went from "impartial justice" to the need to see how court decisions "affects the daily reality of people's lives..." What Obama really wants is a goal-oriented court, not a court administering impartial justice. That is why he nominated Kagan and Sotomayor, two Justices who will reliably vote for the "liberal" outcome in court cases. What Obama seeks is an activist Court that will act as a super legislative body.
And look how he went from seeking judges who "respect precedent," to seeking judges who understand the "rapidly changing times." In other words, forget about about precedent; we need a living, breathing Constitution to keep up with the times. As I say, you have to give him credit. Obama knows how to mix his platitudes with his real message.
Meanwhile, we hear that "...the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." Oh no, that was not Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell; nor was it Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Those words were uttered in 1992 by then Senator Joe Biden.
For those of you inclined to think that Obama is being treated unfairly by the Senate Republicans, think again. According to John Lott, Jr., in an article in the 2/23/16 Investor's Business Daily, during Obama's first six years in office, his nominees to the appeals courts got approved 90% of the time. Far higher than Bush's 72% approval rate.
Per Lott, "Bush's nominees to the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit Court faced an average wait of 707 days, Obama's were approved in an average of 324 days." Many cases involving the immense regulatory system that runs much of the country come out of the D.C. court.
Protecting the Constitution, protecting American's First and Second Amendment rights, is of far greater significance than the idea that a sitting President in his final months in office is automatically entitled to consideration of his appointee to the highest Court in the land.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
A Single Lifetime Later, Part II
At a recent conference, I was having lunch with 3 other Jews. One, was a conservative male. The 2 females were liberal and leftist. One of the women mentioned that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Of course that is true. Any country, any individual, is subject to legitimate criticism. But that comment missed the point entirely - as most criticism of Israel is, in fact, anti-Semitic. And that anti-Israel criticism has helped bring about anti-Jewish attitudes worldwide. After all, when one country is held to a standard that no other country is held to, and when the people of that country are repeatedly demonized, well, the outcome is rather predictable.
The Dutch have been having a problem with anti-Semitism and Jew hatred in their schools. One teacher was giving a lesson on democratic values. A female student of Moroccan descent said: "If I had a Kalashnikov I'd gun down all the Jews." The teacher, taken aback, tried to get an expression of empathy from this student. So, the teacher asked what a 5 year old living in the Netherlands had to do with Israeli policies. Said the same student: "The Jews should die."
You see, when Israel is demonized, when world leaders including Ban Ki-Moon justify or seek to understand Palestinian violence against Jews, then the lines ultimately get blurred. Israel is Jews, Jews are Israel, Israel is the worst country on earth, Jews therefore are the worst people and should die.
As the demonization of Israel grows, so do the number of anti-Israel NGOs. Here in the US, we have groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Americans Knew, CAIR, and others. At the UK's Oxford University, one member of the Labour Club just resigned in protest. The Club endorsed the "Israel Apartheid Week" on campus, a week that also occurs on many US college campuses. In addition to inviting anti-Semitic speakers to campus during that week, Jewish students are harassed as well.
Some members of the Club not only have expressed their solidarity with Hamas, they have defended Hamas' murdering of Israeli civilians. One student claimed that "most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf." Just imagine college students in the UK and US during WWII announcing their support for Hitler - especially as the bombs were falling on London. One must ask how support for Hamas has reached this point. Hamas, non-democratic, anti-women, anti-gays, where allegations of providing information to Israel can result in immediate execution without a trial - how does an anti-Western group like that garner such support? By convincing the world that Israel and Jews are evil. But why do Westerners buy into such lies?
There are Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament) in Israel. One, Haneen Zoabi, said this: "The occupier (Israel) does not have the right to self-defense." So, according to this Arab member of the Knesset, Israelis only have the right to die. As much of the world has come to believe the same thing, we see how anti-Semitism has reached its highest level since the end of WWII.
At the above mentioned lunch, I replied to the woman who said not all anti-Israel criticism is anti-Semitic. After agreeing, I started to tell her some of the history of the Middle East, as I suspected she had no clue. As I was simply giving dates and what occurred (see Part I), the other woman got a disgusted look on her face and got up and excused herself. I am used to liberals not being able to tolerate hearing facts that are contrary to their world views.
But how sad when my fellow Jews not only have no interest in hearing the truth, but will automatically align with the Palestinians as the underdogs. How sad that they accept without hesitation all the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian propaganda. I would love to ask the woman who walked why she supports a group that is anti-feminist and anti-gay. I suspect I would be told that that's not true, that Hamas and the Palestinians love women and gays. Other Jews post pro-Palestinian articles on their Facebook pages. One such link to an article that was on the Huffington Post was by a Palestinian and was entitled "The US Must Accept that Israeli Leadership Wants Apartheid not Peace."
The title of this article is akin to Jimmy Carter's book, "Israel, Peace not Apartheid." Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of Palestinian terrorism and murder of Israeli civilians. Only a few days ago, an off duty 21 year old Israeli soldier, a husband and father to a baby girl, was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. He was stabbed to death, stabbing being the preferred method of killing in this third intifada. The murderer was 14 years old.
Also recently, after the murder of a 19 year old Israeli border policewoman, the father of the attacker said this: "We received the news with joy, a martyr, our lord chose him from among the people to be a martyr, Allah will pardon him..." Want to know why there is no peace? Because today, as in 1947, as in 1948, as in 1956, as in 1967, as in 1973, as in 2000, as in 2008, the Arabs prefer to kill Jews rather than have their own state. When children are taught to murder, when parents are happy that their children are martyred (killed when attacking Jews) how is peace even conceivable? Peace does not happen when only one side desires it. Maybe somebody can explain that to Fabius, Moon, Kerry and Obama, and the rest of the liberal establishment.
The Dutch have been having a problem with anti-Semitism and Jew hatred in their schools. One teacher was giving a lesson on democratic values. A female student of Moroccan descent said: "If I had a Kalashnikov I'd gun down all the Jews." The teacher, taken aback, tried to get an expression of empathy from this student. So, the teacher asked what a 5 year old living in the Netherlands had to do with Israeli policies. Said the same student: "The Jews should die."
You see, when Israel is demonized, when world leaders including Ban Ki-Moon justify or seek to understand Palestinian violence against Jews, then the lines ultimately get blurred. Israel is Jews, Jews are Israel, Israel is the worst country on earth, Jews therefore are the worst people and should die.
As the demonization of Israel grows, so do the number of anti-Israel NGOs. Here in the US, we have groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Americans Knew, CAIR, and others. At the UK's Oxford University, one member of the Labour Club just resigned in protest. The Club endorsed the "Israel Apartheid Week" on campus, a week that also occurs on many US college campuses. In addition to inviting anti-Semitic speakers to campus during that week, Jewish students are harassed as well.
Some members of the Club not only have expressed their solidarity with Hamas, they have defended Hamas' murdering of Israeli civilians. One student claimed that "most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf." Just imagine college students in the UK and US during WWII announcing their support for Hitler - especially as the bombs were falling on London. One must ask how support for Hamas has reached this point. Hamas, non-democratic, anti-women, anti-gays, where allegations of providing information to Israel can result in immediate execution without a trial - how does an anti-Western group like that garner such support? By convincing the world that Israel and Jews are evil. But why do Westerners buy into such lies?
There are Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament) in Israel. One, Haneen Zoabi, said this: "The occupier (Israel) does not have the right to self-defense." So, according to this Arab member of the Knesset, Israelis only have the right to die. As much of the world has come to believe the same thing, we see how anti-Semitism has reached its highest level since the end of WWII.
At the above mentioned lunch, I replied to the woman who said not all anti-Israel criticism is anti-Semitic. After agreeing, I started to tell her some of the history of the Middle East, as I suspected she had no clue. As I was simply giving dates and what occurred (see Part I), the other woman got a disgusted look on her face and got up and excused herself. I am used to liberals not being able to tolerate hearing facts that are contrary to their world views.
But how sad when my fellow Jews not only have no interest in hearing the truth, but will automatically align with the Palestinians as the underdogs. How sad that they accept without hesitation all the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian propaganda. I would love to ask the woman who walked why she supports a group that is anti-feminist and anti-gay. I suspect I would be told that that's not true, that Hamas and the Palestinians love women and gays. Other Jews post pro-Palestinian articles on their Facebook pages. One such link to an article that was on the Huffington Post was by a Palestinian and was entitled "The US Must Accept that Israeli Leadership Wants Apartheid not Peace."
The title of this article is akin to Jimmy Carter's book, "Israel, Peace not Apartheid." Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of Palestinian terrorism and murder of Israeli civilians. Only a few days ago, an off duty 21 year old Israeli soldier, a husband and father to a baby girl, was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. He was stabbed to death, stabbing being the preferred method of killing in this third intifada. The murderer was 14 years old.
Also recently, after the murder of a 19 year old Israeli border policewoman, the father of the attacker said this: "We received the news with joy, a martyr, our lord chose him from among the people to be a martyr, Allah will pardon him..." Want to know why there is no peace? Because today, as in 1947, as in 1948, as in 1956, as in 1967, as in 1973, as in 2000, as in 2008, the Arabs prefer to kill Jews rather than have their own state. When children are taught to murder, when parents are happy that their children are martyred (killed when attacking Jews) how is peace even conceivable? Peace does not happen when only one side desires it. Maybe somebody can explain that to Fabius, Moon, Kerry and Obama, and the rest of the liberal establishment.
A Single Lifetime Later, Part I
It is just over 70 years since the end of WWII and the Holocaust. A single lifetime. Yet, it appears that worldwide anti-Semitism is at its most virulent level since that time.
According to one study, anti-Semitic violence has seen a 40% increase worldwide in 2014. Danny Danon is Israel's ambassador to the UN. Said Danon: "At the UN, I live with anti-Semitism 24/7." UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently said this: "...Palestinians are losing hope. Young people are especially losing hope. They are angered by the stifling policies of the occupation. They are frustrated by the structures on their daily lives...the dream of a sovereign, contiguous and independent Palestinian state slip away...life has not meaningfully changed (over half a century)." Added Moon, it is "human nature to react to occupation."
Thank you Secretary General Moon for justifying Palestinian violence against Israelis. Of course, we have seen the same false allegations from our Secretary of State as well as the White House. Nothing has meaningfully changed? As pointed out in a prior post, Israel built schools and universities and hospitals in the West Bank areas controlled by Palestinians. The West Bank has seen significant economic growth. It is not a question of young people losing hope; rather, young children even are taught to hate Jews, to want to kill Jews.
But the Arabs are never held to any accountability by the rest of the world. It does not matter that they were killing Jews in the Middle East before there was a modern day Israel. It does not matter that they rejected a state of their own when the UN voted Partition of the British Mandate in 1947. The UN divided the Mandate territory into two states - one Arab and one Jewish. But the Arabs announced before the vote they would never agree to the existence of a Jewish state - even though the only state to ever occupy the same land was the State of Israel 2000 years ago. Various foreign invaders occupied the land up to WWI. With the Allied victory, the UK controlled the land under their mandate, until turning it over to the UN.
Months after the UN voted partition, the State of Israel declared its independence. Why didn't the Arabs of Palestine do the same? The UN gave them land from the Mandate area for their own state. Instead, five Arab countries attacked Israel the very next day, the first of many efforts to wipe Israel off the map. When Bill Clinton invited Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to the White House in 2000, it was with the expectation of having the two sides make a deal. When Barak offered a state to Arafat, on land that the Israelis controlled since 1967 only because of another Arab war trying to wipe Israel off the map and failing again, Arafat's reply was to get up and leave. He went back to the West Bank and started the 2nd intifada - with Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and malls, and even at a Passover Seder.
When Ehud Olmert, under the auspices of George W. Bush, offered a state to Mahmoud Abbas, the reply by Abbas was the same as Arafat's - silence. No acceptance of a Palestinian state. We now have a third intifada going on in Israel. This time, Arabs are killing Jews with knives, cars and guns. Meanwhile, the rest of the world believes all the Palestinian propaganda that Israel will never offer them a state. If you were to offer someone ownership of a home time after time right next door to yours, and each and every time they refuse and instead keep killing members of your household, at what point would you say, "who wants them as a neighbor?"
Now, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, has called for an international conference to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After seven years of trying, Obama has given up. Or has he? I would bet that he is working behind the scenes to push the establishment of a Palestinian state. If these proposed negotiations fail to result in a deal, Fabius said that the French will "live up to our responsibilities and recognize Palestine." So, exactly how does that give the Palestinians any incentive to negotiate if the outcome for them will be the same regardless of what they do? Even as they continue to murder Jews.
In reply to Ban Ki-Moon's ridiculous comments, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this: "The Palestinian terrorists don't want to build a state, they want to destroy a state, and they say that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don't murder for peace and they don't murder for human rights."
According to one study, anti-Semitic violence has seen a 40% increase worldwide in 2014. Danny Danon is Israel's ambassador to the UN. Said Danon: "At the UN, I live with anti-Semitism 24/7." UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently said this: "...Palestinians are losing hope. Young people are especially losing hope. They are angered by the stifling policies of the occupation. They are frustrated by the structures on their daily lives...the dream of a sovereign, contiguous and independent Palestinian state slip away...life has not meaningfully changed (over half a century)." Added Moon, it is "human nature to react to occupation."
Thank you Secretary General Moon for justifying Palestinian violence against Israelis. Of course, we have seen the same false allegations from our Secretary of State as well as the White House. Nothing has meaningfully changed? As pointed out in a prior post, Israel built schools and universities and hospitals in the West Bank areas controlled by Palestinians. The West Bank has seen significant economic growth. It is not a question of young people losing hope; rather, young children even are taught to hate Jews, to want to kill Jews.
But the Arabs are never held to any accountability by the rest of the world. It does not matter that they were killing Jews in the Middle East before there was a modern day Israel. It does not matter that they rejected a state of their own when the UN voted Partition of the British Mandate in 1947. The UN divided the Mandate territory into two states - one Arab and one Jewish. But the Arabs announced before the vote they would never agree to the existence of a Jewish state - even though the only state to ever occupy the same land was the State of Israel 2000 years ago. Various foreign invaders occupied the land up to WWI. With the Allied victory, the UK controlled the land under their mandate, until turning it over to the UN.
Months after the UN voted partition, the State of Israel declared its independence. Why didn't the Arabs of Palestine do the same? The UN gave them land from the Mandate area for their own state. Instead, five Arab countries attacked Israel the very next day, the first of many efforts to wipe Israel off the map. When Bill Clinton invited Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to the White House in 2000, it was with the expectation of having the two sides make a deal. When Barak offered a state to Arafat, on land that the Israelis controlled since 1967 only because of another Arab war trying to wipe Israel off the map and failing again, Arafat's reply was to get up and leave. He went back to the West Bank and started the 2nd intifada - with Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and malls, and even at a Passover Seder.
When Ehud Olmert, under the auspices of George W. Bush, offered a state to Mahmoud Abbas, the reply by Abbas was the same as Arafat's - silence. No acceptance of a Palestinian state. We now have a third intifada going on in Israel. This time, Arabs are killing Jews with knives, cars and guns. Meanwhile, the rest of the world believes all the Palestinian propaganda that Israel will never offer them a state. If you were to offer someone ownership of a home time after time right next door to yours, and each and every time they refuse and instead keep killing members of your household, at what point would you say, "who wants them as a neighbor?"
Now, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, has called for an international conference to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After seven years of trying, Obama has given up. Or has he? I would bet that he is working behind the scenes to push the establishment of a Palestinian state. If these proposed negotiations fail to result in a deal, Fabius said that the French will "live up to our responsibilities and recognize Palestine." So, exactly how does that give the Palestinians any incentive to negotiate if the outcome for them will be the same regardless of what they do? Even as they continue to murder Jews.
In reply to Ban Ki-Moon's ridiculous comments, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this: "The Palestinian terrorists don't want to build a state, they want to destroy a state, and they say that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don't murder for peace and they don't murder for human rights."
Scalia
The passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a sad day for his family and for the country. In a Court that was often divided along ideological lines, with 5-4 decisions, the question is - should Obama be allowed to appoint the replacement for Scalia. There is no doubt that he is permitted to submit his nomination to the Senate for confirmation. The real issue is whether or not the Senate should act, or wait until a new president is sworn into office.
As always, I prefer to dispense with the nonsense first. If the Senate refuses to act it is not a result of racism, not because Obama is black. The Democrats love to play the race card, and frankly, like many Americans, I'm sick of it. The appointment of another liberal justice to the Supreme Court will shift the ideological balance to the left, affecting our rights for possibly a generation or more.
This is also not a question of simply doing what the Constitution says. There is no time limit for the Senate's review of any nominee. And let's be clear - the Democrats will always play hardball when it suits their purposes. It was then Senator Barack Obama who joined in the filibuster of George Bush's nominee Samuel Alito. Here was Senator Obama's take on the process: "There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable..." Obama: "I disagree with this view." Ultimately, Obama voted against Alito, not based on intellectual capability or character, but strictly on ideology.
Now, of course, Obama and the mainstream media say the Senate should do its job and not be obstructionist. Senator Obama did not agree with President Obama. Senator Obama described Alito as not one who would uphold "the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens." Translation: Alito is just too damn conservative. Let's be honest, Obama's concern for "equality and justice" is only from the leftist point of view. His ideas of "equality and justice" would not align with conservative ideas of those principles on any number of issues.
For example, in the cases dealing with the right of Americans to own guns, the four liberal justices voted against that individual right. Never mind that for nearly 240 years Americans have enjoyed that right. A fifth liberal justice would do away with the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. After they do away with the 2nd Amendment, it would be open season on the 1st Amendment. Recall the 5-4 decision in Citizens United, upholding the free speech rights of people to speak out during an election. The Court allowed unlimited expenditures by private citizens and groups for campaign ads, so long as there was no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.
But what did the Obama administration argue to the Court in Citizens United? They argued that even books could be banned as independent expenditures, if the Court were to side with them. And let's not forget that it is Democrats who actually want to Amend the 1st Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. Who thinks tinkering with that Amendment is a good idea?
Chuck Schummer is the likely leader of the Senate Democrats following the next election (and, hopefully, as minority leader). What did the esteemed Senator have to say when it was George Bush doing the nominating of Supreme Court justices? "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito." Schummer made those comments with 18 months left in President Bush's term of office. The Republicans are suggesting holding off for the 11 months left in Obama's term.
What comes to mind is the scene in Casablanca where Louie, the Vichy French police captain is ordered by the Germans to close down Rick's Cafe Americain. Not having a reason, he comes up with "Close the place down, I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling go on." Simultaneously, Louie is handed, and immediately pockets, his gambling winnings given to him by one of Rick's employees. The Democrats are always shocked, shocked when the Republicans employ any of the same tactics that they use.
I am looking for the Republicans to stand strong on this issue. If they cave in and approve an Obama nominee, expect Trump's ratings to go even higher. Trump is not my first, second or even third choice. But Trump gives in to no one; he is perceived as someone who would take the heat and fight back. And that is his appeal.
As always, I prefer to dispense with the nonsense first. If the Senate refuses to act it is not a result of racism, not because Obama is black. The Democrats love to play the race card, and frankly, like many Americans, I'm sick of it. The appointment of another liberal justice to the Supreme Court will shift the ideological balance to the left, affecting our rights for possibly a generation or more.
This is also not a question of simply doing what the Constitution says. There is no time limit for the Senate's review of any nominee. And let's be clear - the Democrats will always play hardball when it suits their purposes. It was then Senator Barack Obama who joined in the filibuster of George Bush's nominee Samuel Alito. Here was Senator Obama's take on the process: "There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable..." Obama: "I disagree with this view." Ultimately, Obama voted against Alito, not based on intellectual capability or character, but strictly on ideology.
Now, of course, Obama and the mainstream media say the Senate should do its job and not be obstructionist. Senator Obama did not agree with President Obama. Senator Obama described Alito as not one who would uphold "the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens." Translation: Alito is just too damn conservative. Let's be honest, Obama's concern for "equality and justice" is only from the leftist point of view. His ideas of "equality and justice" would not align with conservative ideas of those principles on any number of issues.
For example, in the cases dealing with the right of Americans to own guns, the four liberal justices voted against that individual right. Never mind that for nearly 240 years Americans have enjoyed that right. A fifth liberal justice would do away with the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. After they do away with the 2nd Amendment, it would be open season on the 1st Amendment. Recall the 5-4 decision in Citizens United, upholding the free speech rights of people to speak out during an election. The Court allowed unlimited expenditures by private citizens and groups for campaign ads, so long as there was no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.
But what did the Obama administration argue to the Court in Citizens United? They argued that even books could be banned as independent expenditures, if the Court were to side with them. And let's not forget that it is Democrats who actually want to Amend the 1st Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. Who thinks tinkering with that Amendment is a good idea?
Chuck Schummer is the likely leader of the Senate Democrats following the next election (and, hopefully, as minority leader). What did the esteemed Senator have to say when it was George Bush doing the nominating of Supreme Court justices? "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito." Schummer made those comments with 18 months left in President Bush's term of office. The Republicans are suggesting holding off for the 11 months left in Obama's term.
What comes to mind is the scene in Casablanca where Louie, the Vichy French police captain is ordered by the Germans to close down Rick's Cafe Americain. Not having a reason, he comes up with "Close the place down, I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling go on." Simultaneously, Louie is handed, and immediately pockets, his gambling winnings given to him by one of Rick's employees. The Democrats are always shocked, shocked when the Republicans employ any of the same tactics that they use.
I am looking for the Republicans to stand strong on this issue. If they cave in and approve an Obama nominee, expect Trump's ratings to go even higher. Trump is not my first, second or even third choice. But Trump gives in to no one; he is perceived as someone who would take the heat and fight back. And that is his appeal.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
The Insanity Continues
In a school where children are taught the Five Pillars of Islam, and hear negative comments about Christianity, you might reasonably conclude that that school might be located somewhere in the Middle East. You would be wrong. These things occurred at La Plata High School in Maryland. In fact, the students were told to recite the Shahada - "there is no g-d but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger." Apparently, the mere recitation of that verse is considered by Muslims to mean the speaker has converted to Islam. The Thomas More Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of one family. I am sure the school district will defend this "multi-cultural" teaching. But just imagine if they taught that Jesus was the son of G-d and disparaged Islam. (Story from FoxNews.com, 1/29/16.)
Connecticut College is a small liberal arts college in New London. A professor there had the audacity in a Facebook post to compare Hamas to "rabid pit bulls." This resulted in the professor being accused of racism, bigotry and hate speech. Nobody came to this professor's defense. In fact, the university president and some faculty piled on. No defense of "free speech" or "academic freedom." Then, there were the death threats against the professor, who has been on a leave for a year or more. According to an article in the Washington Post, the professor may have been the only Jewish professor at this school of under 2000 students. A Muslim student who formed a "Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)" chapter on the campus was one of the leading complainers about the professor, notwithstanding having taken a class with the professor and being treated fairly. SJB is a rabidly (can I say that) anti-Israel group on a number of college campuses.
At an LGBT conference in Chicago this month, two LGBT activists from Israel were invited to speak. Israel is one of the most accepting countries for gays in the world. However, some LGBT people took offense by the mere presence of Israelis, calling Israel a racist, apartheid state. The demonstration against the Israelis got violent, and they had to be escorted from the conference for their own safety. Just to clarify, these LGBT protesters were demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians. In Israel, it is perfectly safe to be openly gay. Tel Aviv even has gay pride parades. In the Palestinian territories gays can face imprisonment and even death, just for being gay. But to the left-wing protesters, and as stated by one in particular, gay rights in Israel are just a "cover for their increasingly brutal rule over Palestinians, a process known as pinkwashing." That is, of course, nonsense. But let's assume that comment is correct. These people are still protesting on behalf of a people who would kill or imprison them! Another example of Michael Savage's axiom: liberalism is a mental disorder.
It's good to give away "free" stuff using other people's money. Bernie Sanders proposes lots of such "free" giveaways. The problem is, as most adults know, there is no such thing as a free lunch, or anything else. "Free" college tuition for all is one of Sanders' favorite proposals, as is universal Medicare. The Wall Street Journal has estimated that all of this "free" stuff will cost about $18 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Sanders, like Obama, believes in the redistribution of wealth. If the free market is doing that I am all for it; when the government is doing it that is a form of tyranny.
In a recent IBD/TIPP poll from 1/22-1/27/16, 37% of Democrats agreed that the government should redistribute wealth and income. 10% of Republicans agreed, which is sad. 38% of Democrats agreed that the government should take over major industries such as healthcare and energy. 9% of Republicans agreed. I feel like I need to repeat something I have said many times before - the American democratic capitalist system has created more wealth and more freedom for more people than any other in human history. That is just not good enough for the left-wing fanatics, and for many other Americans who have been convinced that there are "free" lunches.
Out of Minnesota comes yet another hard to believe story. Todd Starnes at FoxNews.com reported that the Rogers Area Youth Basketball Association was forced out of the league (Northwest Suburban Basketball League) in which they played. The team is a girls team. They were not kicked out because of misconduct by the coach or players. They were kicked out of the league because the players were too good. Apparently, some other schools did not want to compete against these girls, and threatened to forfeit their games or bolt the league. I want to know what kind of coach would tell their team that the other team is too talented and you guys suck, so let's just forfeit the game. Shame on such a coach. How about encouraging your team to play their best - and the outcome will be what it will be. As one of the girls on the booted team said: "Are we supposed to play worse just to make them happy?"
But that is what politically correct nonsense gets you. There should be no winners and no losers, so nobody feels bad. Everyone is equally talented. Just like every culture and every religion is equal. Obama will not say "radical Islam" because it is insulting to Muslims. How is that again? Law-abiding Muslims should be insulted by the radical terrorists carrying out murderous attacks in the name of their religion, not by the phrase "radical Islam." Obama told us that other religions do the same thing, harkening back to the Crusades to make his point about Christianity. And, now we have Bernie Sanders, who wants to make sure there is no income or wealth inequality, and will redistribute peoples' savings and fortunes to accomplish his goal.
While we're making everything equal, everything the same, I have a few beefs of my own. I would have loved to have had a great singing voice. Alas... I also would have loved to have the physique of my uncle, an all-star high school football player. Instead, I have had physical disabilities since age 15. And I really wanted to win that $1.5 billion power ball lotto. Can Bernie get some of that money and give it to me? Why should there be winning and losing tickets, anyway?
I happened to see Rafael Cruz, Ted's dad, on Hannity the other night. Said Mr. Cruz: "We need to get back to the foundations that have made America great - the biblical and constitutional foundations - hard work, individual responsibility, honesty, integrity, the rule of law, free enterprise and limited government." Nah, too right-wing radical.
Connecticut College is a small liberal arts college in New London. A professor there had the audacity in a Facebook post to compare Hamas to "rabid pit bulls." This resulted in the professor being accused of racism, bigotry and hate speech. Nobody came to this professor's defense. In fact, the university president and some faculty piled on. No defense of "free speech" or "academic freedom." Then, there were the death threats against the professor, who has been on a leave for a year or more. According to an article in the Washington Post, the professor may have been the only Jewish professor at this school of under 2000 students. A Muslim student who formed a "Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)" chapter on the campus was one of the leading complainers about the professor, notwithstanding having taken a class with the professor and being treated fairly. SJB is a rabidly (can I say that) anti-Israel group on a number of college campuses.
At an LGBT conference in Chicago this month, two LGBT activists from Israel were invited to speak. Israel is one of the most accepting countries for gays in the world. However, some LGBT people took offense by the mere presence of Israelis, calling Israel a racist, apartheid state. The demonstration against the Israelis got violent, and they had to be escorted from the conference for their own safety. Just to clarify, these LGBT protesters were demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians. In Israel, it is perfectly safe to be openly gay. Tel Aviv even has gay pride parades. In the Palestinian territories gays can face imprisonment and even death, just for being gay. But to the left-wing protesters, and as stated by one in particular, gay rights in Israel are just a "cover for their increasingly brutal rule over Palestinians, a process known as pinkwashing." That is, of course, nonsense. But let's assume that comment is correct. These people are still protesting on behalf of a people who would kill or imprison them! Another example of Michael Savage's axiom: liberalism is a mental disorder.
It's good to give away "free" stuff using other people's money. Bernie Sanders proposes lots of such "free" giveaways. The problem is, as most adults know, there is no such thing as a free lunch, or anything else. "Free" college tuition for all is one of Sanders' favorite proposals, as is universal Medicare. The Wall Street Journal has estimated that all of this "free" stuff will cost about $18 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Sanders, like Obama, believes in the redistribution of wealth. If the free market is doing that I am all for it; when the government is doing it that is a form of tyranny.
In a recent IBD/TIPP poll from 1/22-1/27/16, 37% of Democrats agreed that the government should redistribute wealth and income. 10% of Republicans agreed, which is sad. 38% of Democrats agreed that the government should take over major industries such as healthcare and energy. 9% of Republicans agreed. I feel like I need to repeat something I have said many times before - the American democratic capitalist system has created more wealth and more freedom for more people than any other in human history. That is just not good enough for the left-wing fanatics, and for many other Americans who have been convinced that there are "free" lunches.
Out of Minnesota comes yet another hard to believe story. Todd Starnes at FoxNews.com reported that the Rogers Area Youth Basketball Association was forced out of the league (Northwest Suburban Basketball League) in which they played. The team is a girls team. They were not kicked out because of misconduct by the coach or players. They were kicked out of the league because the players were too good. Apparently, some other schools did not want to compete against these girls, and threatened to forfeit their games or bolt the league. I want to know what kind of coach would tell their team that the other team is too talented and you guys suck, so let's just forfeit the game. Shame on such a coach. How about encouraging your team to play their best - and the outcome will be what it will be. As one of the girls on the booted team said: "Are we supposed to play worse just to make them happy?"
But that is what politically correct nonsense gets you. There should be no winners and no losers, so nobody feels bad. Everyone is equally talented. Just like every culture and every religion is equal. Obama will not say "radical Islam" because it is insulting to Muslims. How is that again? Law-abiding Muslims should be insulted by the radical terrorists carrying out murderous attacks in the name of their religion, not by the phrase "radical Islam." Obama told us that other religions do the same thing, harkening back to the Crusades to make his point about Christianity. And, now we have Bernie Sanders, who wants to make sure there is no income or wealth inequality, and will redistribute peoples' savings and fortunes to accomplish his goal.
While we're making everything equal, everything the same, I have a few beefs of my own. I would have loved to have had a great singing voice. Alas... I also would have loved to have the physique of my uncle, an all-star high school football player. Instead, I have had physical disabilities since age 15. And I really wanted to win that $1.5 billion power ball lotto. Can Bernie get some of that money and give it to me? Why should there be winning and losing tickets, anyway?
I happened to see Rafael Cruz, Ted's dad, on Hannity the other night. Said Mr. Cruz: "We need to get back to the foundations that have made America great - the biblical and constitutional foundations - hard work, individual responsibility, honesty, integrity, the rule of law, free enterprise and limited government." Nah, too right-wing radical.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
The Lost Instinct to Survive, Part II
President Obama has brought thousands of Muslim refugees to this country. He intends on bringing thousands more. Hillary Clinton says she will bring at least 65,000 more Muslim refugees, and Bernie Sanders wants to bring more than that.
In yet another release of Hillary Clinton's emails there was quite an interesting one from former US Ambassador Thomas Pickering to the then Secretary of State. Pickering suggested using left-wing NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in Israel for the purpose of destabilizing Israel and bringing pressure on the government to establish yet another Muslim state - Palestine. The US has already provided $68,000 to B'Tselem, an NGO whose sole purpose is to document alleged human rights abuses in the West Bank (or, as they say, the "occupied territories").
The Democrats invited two members of CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) to Obama's January 12 State of the Union address. In 2007/08 CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That Foundation was found to be funneling money to Hamas. The founders of the organization were given lengthy prison sentences. The FBI considered CAIR to be a Hamas front. The FBI still refuses contact with CAIR. Hamas runs the Gaza strip in a dictatorial, Islamist fashion. As an aside, the LA Times just editorialized about a reporter there being arrested and beaten for the sin of reporting on actual conditions in Gaza. (January 15, 2016 editorial.)
At his State of the Union address Obama said this: "When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer...It betrays who we are as a country." Clearly, Obama's comments were directed at Trump and those who support him. Trump called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, given what is happening all around the world, and just recently in San Bernardino.
Let's take a look at Obama's assertions. What is the insult to Islam - calling for a moratorium on Islamic immigration? And why doesn't that make us safer. Think of all the terrorist attacks that would not have occurred here. Furthermore, why is he only concerned about mosques being vandalized? Are Muslims singled out more than other religious groups for hate crimes? Far from it. According to FBI statistics, in 2012 Jews were the victims of 62.4% of the religious hate crimes, Muslims were victims 11.6% of the time. In 2013, the number was 60.3% for Jews, and 13.7% for Muslims. In 2014, 56.8% for Jews, 16.1% for Muslims.
And what do the American people think of Trump's proposal? According to a new IBD-TIPP poll, the country is split: 48% favor a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and 48% are opposed. However, a majority, 53% to 43%, favor greater monitoring of mosques for radical activity. That last number even includes 40% of Democrats; with 33% of Democrats supporting the moratorium.
Recently, a Philadelphia police officer was shot while sitting in his patrol car. After being captured, the perpetrator said that he attacked the officer in the name of Islam. He purportedly said that "the police defend laws that are contrary to Islam." Yet, the Democratic Mayor, Jim Kenney, said this: "In no way, shape or form does anybody in this room (apparently at a press conference with the police commissioner and others) believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam" was related to the attempted murder on the officer. When Democratic elected officials so obviously lie (the man admitted he attacked in the name of Islam) is it any wonder why Trump is doing as well as he is.
As to the question raised in the title of this post, let's recap. The Democrats have and will continue to bring in tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants. The Democrats invited members of CAIR to the State of the Union address. The Democrats refuse to acknowledge the threat from radical Islamists, and their ability to radicalize other Muslims. Yet, most of my fellow Jews will vote for Hillary (or Bernie if he wins the nomination). Many non-Jewish fellow Americans will do the same.
It is apparent that left wing ideology prevails over the instinct to survive. Political correctness prevails over the instinct to survive. It is especially frustrating when fellow Jews tell me that they could not possibly vote for Trump or Cruz because...whatever. Large Muslim populations are generally not safe for Jews. Yet, they will vote to increase the risk to themselves and their families. Go figure.
In yet another release of Hillary Clinton's emails there was quite an interesting one from former US Ambassador Thomas Pickering to the then Secretary of State. Pickering suggested using left-wing NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in Israel for the purpose of destabilizing Israel and bringing pressure on the government to establish yet another Muslim state - Palestine. The US has already provided $68,000 to B'Tselem, an NGO whose sole purpose is to document alleged human rights abuses in the West Bank (or, as they say, the "occupied territories").
The Democrats invited two members of CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) to Obama's January 12 State of the Union address. In 2007/08 CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That Foundation was found to be funneling money to Hamas. The founders of the organization were given lengthy prison sentences. The FBI considered CAIR to be a Hamas front. The FBI still refuses contact with CAIR. Hamas runs the Gaza strip in a dictatorial, Islamist fashion. As an aside, the LA Times just editorialized about a reporter there being arrested and beaten for the sin of reporting on actual conditions in Gaza. (January 15, 2016 editorial.)
At his State of the Union address Obama said this: "When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer...It betrays who we are as a country." Clearly, Obama's comments were directed at Trump and those who support him. Trump called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, given what is happening all around the world, and just recently in San Bernardino.
Let's take a look at Obama's assertions. What is the insult to Islam - calling for a moratorium on Islamic immigration? And why doesn't that make us safer. Think of all the terrorist attacks that would not have occurred here. Furthermore, why is he only concerned about mosques being vandalized? Are Muslims singled out more than other religious groups for hate crimes? Far from it. According to FBI statistics, in 2012 Jews were the victims of 62.4% of the religious hate crimes, Muslims were victims 11.6% of the time. In 2013, the number was 60.3% for Jews, and 13.7% for Muslims. In 2014, 56.8% for Jews, 16.1% for Muslims.
And what do the American people think of Trump's proposal? According to a new IBD-TIPP poll, the country is split: 48% favor a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and 48% are opposed. However, a majority, 53% to 43%, favor greater monitoring of mosques for radical activity. That last number even includes 40% of Democrats; with 33% of Democrats supporting the moratorium.
Recently, a Philadelphia police officer was shot while sitting in his patrol car. After being captured, the perpetrator said that he attacked the officer in the name of Islam. He purportedly said that "the police defend laws that are contrary to Islam." Yet, the Democratic Mayor, Jim Kenney, said this: "In no way, shape or form does anybody in this room (apparently at a press conference with the police commissioner and others) believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam" was related to the attempted murder on the officer. When Democratic elected officials so obviously lie (the man admitted he attacked in the name of Islam) is it any wonder why Trump is doing as well as he is.
As to the question raised in the title of this post, let's recap. The Democrats have and will continue to bring in tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants. The Democrats invited members of CAIR to the State of the Union address. The Democrats refuse to acknowledge the threat from radical Islamists, and their ability to radicalize other Muslims. Yet, most of my fellow Jews will vote for Hillary (or Bernie if he wins the nomination). Many non-Jewish fellow Americans will do the same.
It is apparent that left wing ideology prevails over the instinct to survive. Political correctness prevails over the instinct to survive. It is especially frustrating when fellow Jews tell me that they could not possibly vote for Trump or Cruz because...whatever. Large Muslim populations are generally not safe for Jews. Yet, they will vote to increase the risk to themselves and their families. Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)