I'm sick of the left-wing intolerance, outright bullying and hypocrisy. I implore my conservative friends and readers to stand up to the left's harassment at every opportunity. And I would hope that those on the other side of the political fence will also speak out against the bullying and harassment.
A dear friend recently took down her Facebook page. She explained: "I'm just sick to death of bleeding heart liberals pointing accusatory fingers in my direction. I've kept my mouth shut for eight long, miserable years and the second I express an opinion, I'm excoriated. I'm just so tired of it. What with Trump being inaugurated this coming week, the abuse is about to get much worse."
At least 28 Democratic members of the House say they will not attend the Trump inauguration. A presidential inauguration is a demonstration of this country's peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. The entire world watches. But, the Democrats are fond of boycotts. After all, 58 Democrats refused to attend Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress in early 2015, when he explained his opposition to the Iranian nuke deal.
Democratic Representative John Lewis is referred to as a "civil rights icon." That makes it all the more disappointing that he said "I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president." He explained that Russian involvement helped elect Trump and destroy Hillary. Of course, whatever Russian involvement there may have been (which should be investigated) does not mean that is why Trump won. And wasn't Lewis, along with many other Democrats, outraged that some attacked Obama's legitimacy, based on where he might have have been born?
California Congresswoman Barbara Lee explained why she would not attend: "I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance." Wait a second. In 2009, weren't the Democrats whining about Republicans allegedly saying they wanted Obama to fail, when they really wanted Obama not to be successful in passing his left-wing agenda? Sounds like Lee is saying she wants Trump to fail. When Republicans did it, many said it was because they were racist. Anybody accusing Lee of being racist? No, because conservatives understand policy differences do not equate to racism.
Singer Jennifer Holliday had to withdraw from participating in the Trump inauguration. According to The Blaze, Holliday explained: "It brought a lot of threats from people already saying I'll never work again. If that's what America has come to, where we all hate and bully people, there's no more freedom of speech." Holliday then apologized to her LGBT supporters for her "lapse of judgment." If I had the opportunity, I would explain to Ms. Holliday that today's leftists do not even recognize that they are no different than Joseph McCarthy. Assuming they know what McCarthyism was, they would still condemn it, yet miss the irony of engaging in the same tactics themselves.
The Daily Mail reported that opera singer Andrea Bocelli also withdrew from participating in the inauguration. His reason? He received death threats. Threats, intimidation, bullying - none of it will stop unless people on that side of the fence strongly speak out against it.
CIA Director John Brennan felt a need to publicly warn Trump about easing sanctions on Russia. "I think he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road." Apparently, Brennan must have felt that Obama had a much better understanding of Russia. Like when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him (Putin) to give me space...This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)."
It turned out that Putin was the one with more flexibility. Sensing Obama's weakness, Putin and Russia took over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and helped Bashar Assad slaughter tens of thousands in Syria. Of course, the prior President, Bush, did not exactly have a good grip on Putin's nature either. Bush: "I looked the man in the eye...I found him very straight-forward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Lastly, FBI Director James Comey is going to be investigated by the Justice Department's Inspector General. The investigation will look into Comey's handling of the Clinton email scandal. The left not only wants a "fall guy" to explain why Hillary lost. They also want another reason to question Trump's legitimacy as President. The Russians got Trump elected. Comey got Trump elected. The deplorables got Trump elected. Here's the truth: Obama got Trump elected; in the same way that Bush got Obama elected.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Monday, January 9, 2017
Politics, Hollywood Style
It was a hardly a surprise that some of the Hollywood crowd could not resist taking a few digs at President-Elect Donald Trump at last night's Golden Globes Awards. After all, they have just been beside themselves over Hillary's loss to Trump. The main attack came from Meryl Streep, but Viola Davis had a few choice words as well. As Trump does have a knack for leaving himself open to criticism, let's see if any of these critiques are legitimate.
Viola Davis: "There is no way that we can have anyone in office that is not an extension of our own belief system, so then what does that say about us?" How incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. As soon as Obama first said he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country, I knew that he was not an "extension" of my belief system. Either Ms. Davis thinks most people believe exactly as she does (maybe) or she believes people with contrary views are simply not worthy of holding office (probable).
The Golden Globes are sponsored by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Said Meryl Streep: "You and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American Society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press." Let's break it down. First, I disagree with the entire premise. I believe that Republicans are actually more vilified. (See the 7/29/16 post discussing the personal attacks on this writer.) On a regular basis I see verbal assaults on Republicans and conservatives in TV shows and movies. Almost daily, I can see the written assaults on Republicans and conservatives in the mainstream media.
Additionally, it is not all foreigners who are vilified. It is terrorists who come here with the intent to kill Americans who are vilified. And people who come here illegally are not vilified just because people on the right believe that immigrants should come here legally. As for the press and Hollywood, if they want more respect from the public, then stop insulting half the country and start reporting the news fairly. See above paragraph.
Streep: "We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call him (she refused to say Trump's name, childish) on the carpet for every outrage. That's why our Founders enshrined the press and its freedoms in the Constitution." She goes on to ask those present to support "the Committee to Protect Journalists, because we're gonna need them going forward, and they'll need us to safeguard the truth." To borrow a phrase from SNL's "The Church Lady": "Now isn't that special." Exactly when did the press hold Obama to account during the last eight years? Where were all the articles about the "Imperial Presidency," when Obama said he would act if Congress did not - as if he had the power of a dictator. Obama said he had a pen and a phone; he did not seem to care much for the Constitution.
Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama improperly and inaccurately attacked conservative media (Fox News and conservative talk radio). Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama and Holder went after Fox News reporter James Rosen, and his family! So, this Committee to Protect Journalists, along with Hollywood, is going to "safeguard the truth?" What truth would that be? The same "truth" we regularly hear from the left wing's media/Hollywood propaganda machine? (This blog has regularly written about media bias.)
Streep was most distraught about Trump's alleged mocking of a reporter's disability. Trump denies it. Listening to Larry Elder on talk radio today, he said that the jerky movements Trump made have been made by Trump both before and after the run-in with the reporter. Apparently, Trump has a tendency to make those jerky movements when he is mocking someone whom he believes is not giving a straight answer. Mocking someone's disability, if true, is highly inappropriate. Mocking someone for evasiveness is another matter. And clearly, neither a presidential candidate nor a president-elect (especially a president-elect) should engage in mockery.
Trump, being Trump, was not able to control himself; he simply could not refrain from replying to Streep - when restraint was called for. Trump then proceeded to Tweet that Streep was "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood." Except, she's not. She is widely considered to be the premier actress of her generation. Trump Tweeted that he was attacked by someone who "doesn't know me." Well, he better get used to it, as thousands of reporters and others in Hollywood (who will also not know him) will continue to attack him during the next four years. It comes with the territory, and he would be wise to follow the example of George W. Bush in that regard.
Viola Davis: "There is no way that we can have anyone in office that is not an extension of our own belief system, so then what does that say about us?" How incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. As soon as Obama first said he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to our country, I knew that he was not an "extension" of my belief system. Either Ms. Davis thinks most people believe exactly as she does (maybe) or she believes people with contrary views are simply not worthy of holding office (probable).
The Golden Globes are sponsored by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Said Meryl Streep: "You and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American Society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press." Let's break it down. First, I disagree with the entire premise. I believe that Republicans are actually more vilified. (See the 7/29/16 post discussing the personal attacks on this writer.) On a regular basis I see verbal assaults on Republicans and conservatives in TV shows and movies. Almost daily, I can see the written assaults on Republicans and conservatives in the mainstream media.
Additionally, it is not all foreigners who are vilified. It is terrorists who come here with the intent to kill Americans who are vilified. And people who come here illegally are not vilified just because people on the right believe that immigrants should come here legally. As for the press and Hollywood, if they want more respect from the public, then stop insulting half the country and start reporting the news fairly. See above paragraph.
Streep: "We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call him (she refused to say Trump's name, childish) on the carpet for every outrage. That's why our Founders enshrined the press and its freedoms in the Constitution." She goes on to ask those present to support "the Committee to Protect Journalists, because we're gonna need them going forward, and they'll need us to safeguard the truth." To borrow a phrase from SNL's "The Church Lady": "Now isn't that special." Exactly when did the press hold Obama to account during the last eight years? Where were all the articles about the "Imperial Presidency," when Obama said he would act if Congress did not - as if he had the power of a dictator. Obama said he had a pen and a phone; he did not seem to care much for the Constitution.
Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama improperly and inaccurately attacked conservative media (Fox News and conservative talk radio). Where was Ms. Streep and the rest of Hollywood when Obama and Holder went after Fox News reporter James Rosen, and his family! So, this Committee to Protect Journalists, along with Hollywood, is going to "safeguard the truth?" What truth would that be? The same "truth" we regularly hear from the left wing's media/Hollywood propaganda machine? (This blog has regularly written about media bias.)
Streep was most distraught about Trump's alleged mocking of a reporter's disability. Trump denies it. Listening to Larry Elder on talk radio today, he said that the jerky movements Trump made have been made by Trump both before and after the run-in with the reporter. Apparently, Trump has a tendency to make those jerky movements when he is mocking someone whom he believes is not giving a straight answer. Mocking someone's disability, if true, is highly inappropriate. Mocking someone for evasiveness is another matter. And clearly, neither a presidential candidate nor a president-elect (especially a president-elect) should engage in mockery.
Trump, being Trump, was not able to control himself; he simply could not refrain from replying to Streep - when restraint was called for. Trump then proceeded to Tweet that Streep was "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood." Except, she's not. She is widely considered to be the premier actress of her generation. Trump Tweeted that he was attacked by someone who "doesn't know me." Well, he better get used to it, as thousands of reporters and others in Hollywood (who will also not know him) will continue to attack him during the next four years. It comes with the territory, and he would be wise to follow the example of George W. Bush in that regard.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
What Ifs?
Three days ago the United States House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution declaring their support for the State of Israel. The resolution followed the Obama Administration's refusal to veto the anti-Israel resolution that was passed by the United Nations Security Council in December.
The House resolution declared that: "...the United States Government should oppose and veto future United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel; and the House of Representatives opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that (A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel, and (B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties."
The resolution passed 342 to 80. All but 4 Republicans voted for, and one said he voted against because it was not strong enough against the UN. 109 Democrats voted for the resolution, but 76 voted against. Among those opposing the resolution was House Minority Leader, and former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. So, WHAT IF the Democrats won back the House? Pelosi would then be Speaker again, and would never have allowed such a pro-Israel measure come to the floor of the House for a vote. After all, following Kerry's speech attempting to justify Obama's sellout of Israel, Pelosi said Kerry's speech was "a reaffirmation of America's commitment to a secure, Jewish and democratic Israel, and a state for the Palestinians."
Guess who else voted against the House resolution? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - the two Muslim members of Congress. Ellison is in the running to become head of the Democratic National Committee. In fact, most news reports say that Ellison is the front-runner for getting the job. WHAT IF this far left, anti-Israel Congressman becomes head of the DNC? Imagine the type of candidates he will support for Congress with the vast sums of money that would be at his disposal.
Trump has been saying that his Administration will move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. WHAT IF he does? What if after all these years the embassy is finally moved to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem, where it belongs? Israel's neighbor, Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, says that moving the embassy would be a "red line" and would "inflame the Arab streets." (As reported in the 1/6/17 Times of Israel.) Secretary of State John Kerry said the move would cause "an explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region." (From the same article.)
The first question I have about the possible move of the embassy is this: if the embassy is moved to "Western" Jerusalem, where the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) sits, why should that bother anyone? I thought that the Arab Palestinians were only claiming "East" Jerusalem. So why would there be a problem? Or maybe, as this blog has noted many times, the Palestinians and other Arabs are revealing to those who will see and hear what they really want - all of Jerusalem and all of Israel. The second question I have about this is: when does the Western world stop appeasing terrorists and start making demands of Arab leaders. When do we demand that Arab countries start speaking the truth to their people, instead of constantly teaching hatred of Jews and Israel? When do we start telling Arab leaders that if the "street" reacts it's their problem, because for decades they have refused to tell their people to accept Israel as the Jewish state.
The two-state solution that continues to be pushed by many is supposed to bring an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The border between the two states is supposed to be the 1967 borders, which, again, is nothing other than the 1949 armistice lines. Those lines simply reflected the territory held by each side when the fighting stopped after Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949. When that war ended, Israel occupied more land than had been given to them in 1947 by the original UN partition of the British Mandate area.
So, let me ask. WHAT IF the anti-Israel Europeans and Obama and Kerry and Pelosi got their way? Imagine that we now have two states, on the basis of the 1967 borders, because the world says Israel must return all the land won in the 1967 war? Who thinks that the establishment of a Palestinian state will end the conflict? Who still believes in the tooth fairy? Here is what I think will happen. After getting their state, the Palestinians will next make the argument that inasmuch as Israel had to give up land they won in war in 1967, then logically Israel should have to give up the land they won in their war of independence in 1948 and 1949, land that Israel "occupied" beyond the original UN partition lines.
Those of you who still believe in the tooth fairy would probably tell me that such a further reduction in Israel's size would never be demanded of it by the rest of the world. Really? The December UN resolution already declared the holiest sites in Israel, in so-called East Jerusalem, to be Palestinian territory. In the middle of last year UNESCO passed a resolution denying Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 3000 years of Jewish history - gone! Just like that. So, go ahead, say nothing bad would happen if Israel just gave up the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). I think my fellow Jews in America have perhaps had it too good here for too long, resulting in a certain complacency that causes them to think nothing bad can happen to the Jews or to Israel. Nothing bad - except for all of history.
The House resolution declared that: "...the United States Government should oppose and veto future United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel; and the House of Representatives opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that (A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel, and (B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties."
The resolution passed 342 to 80. All but 4 Republicans voted for, and one said he voted against because it was not strong enough against the UN. 109 Democrats voted for the resolution, but 76 voted against. Among those opposing the resolution was House Minority Leader, and former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. So, WHAT IF the Democrats won back the House? Pelosi would then be Speaker again, and would never have allowed such a pro-Israel measure come to the floor of the House for a vote. After all, following Kerry's speech attempting to justify Obama's sellout of Israel, Pelosi said Kerry's speech was "a reaffirmation of America's commitment to a secure, Jewish and democratic Israel, and a state for the Palestinians."
Guess who else voted against the House resolution? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson - the two Muslim members of Congress. Ellison is in the running to become head of the Democratic National Committee. In fact, most news reports say that Ellison is the front-runner for getting the job. WHAT IF this far left, anti-Israel Congressman becomes head of the DNC? Imagine the type of candidates he will support for Congress with the vast sums of money that would be at his disposal.
Trump has been saying that his Administration will move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. WHAT IF he does? What if after all these years the embassy is finally moved to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem, where it belongs? Israel's neighbor, Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, says that moving the embassy would be a "red line" and would "inflame the Arab streets." (As reported in the 1/6/17 Times of Israel.) Secretary of State John Kerry said the move would cause "an explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region." (From the same article.)
The first question I have about the possible move of the embassy is this: if the embassy is moved to "Western" Jerusalem, where the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) sits, why should that bother anyone? I thought that the Arab Palestinians were only claiming "East" Jerusalem. So why would there be a problem? Or maybe, as this blog has noted many times, the Palestinians and other Arabs are revealing to those who will see and hear what they really want - all of Jerusalem and all of Israel. The second question I have about this is: when does the Western world stop appeasing terrorists and start making demands of Arab leaders. When do we demand that Arab countries start speaking the truth to their people, instead of constantly teaching hatred of Jews and Israel? When do we start telling Arab leaders that if the "street" reacts it's their problem, because for decades they have refused to tell their people to accept Israel as the Jewish state.
The two-state solution that continues to be pushed by many is supposed to bring an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The border between the two states is supposed to be the 1967 borders, which, again, is nothing other than the 1949 armistice lines. Those lines simply reflected the territory held by each side when the fighting stopped after Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949. When that war ended, Israel occupied more land than had been given to them in 1947 by the original UN partition of the British Mandate area.
So, let me ask. WHAT IF the anti-Israel Europeans and Obama and Kerry and Pelosi got their way? Imagine that we now have two states, on the basis of the 1967 borders, because the world says Israel must return all the land won in the 1967 war? Who thinks that the establishment of a Palestinian state will end the conflict? Who still believes in the tooth fairy? Here is what I think will happen. After getting their state, the Palestinians will next make the argument that inasmuch as Israel had to give up land they won in war in 1967, then logically Israel should have to give up the land they won in their war of independence in 1948 and 1949, land that Israel "occupied" beyond the original UN partition lines.
Those of you who still believe in the tooth fairy would probably tell me that such a further reduction in Israel's size would never be demanded of it by the rest of the world. Really? The December UN resolution already declared the holiest sites in Israel, in so-called East Jerusalem, to be Palestinian territory. In the middle of last year UNESCO passed a resolution denying Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 3000 years of Jewish history - gone! Just like that. So, go ahead, say nothing bad would happen if Israel just gave up the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). I think my fellow Jews in America have perhaps had it too good here for too long, resulting in a certain complacency that causes them to think nothing bad can happen to the Jews or to Israel. Nothing bad - except for all of history.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Kerry Tries to Justify the Unjustifiable
On Wednesday, I sat through the entire 70 minute speech by John Kerry regarding the UN resolution against Israel. Much of it was spent explaining how good Obama has been to Israel - providing aid, vetoing previous resolutions and so on. It was all done in an effort to justify the USA's abstention on a measure giving a state to the Palestinians, and taking away the holiest sites in Judaism from the Jews. Afterwards, I likened the speech to a man explaining to the police how he really loved his girlfriend and regularly showered her with gifts and flowers - right up to the day he stabbed her in the back and killed her. In any event, here are some of the highlights (lowlights, actually) of Kerry's speech.
"President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop." Countless times? Doesn't that tell you that the Palestinians are not listening? Doesn't it also tell you that their true interest is in killing Jews? THEY"RE NOT LISTENING you dumb ... (I will not do it. I have never cursed in the blog and as angry as I am I will not start now.)
"Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue." Wow! That was a big whopper of a lie. It was US policy that Jerusalem was one of those "final status" issues to be resolved by negotiations between the parties. Here is what the resolution said: Israel must "cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem..." Given that the resolution declares East Jerusalem to be "Palestinian territory," I would like Secretary Kerry to explain how that is "nothing new" in terms of policy.
"The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward." That is hardly a denial of some type of US involvement. New Zealand was one of the countries that put it forward. What was Kerry doing in New Zealand in November? Some other big issues between the US and New Zealand? Kerry met with the leading PA negotiator beforehand. Why? Does anyone really think that the Security Council would have bothered with this just before Christmas unless they knew that the USA would not use its veto power, thus allowing the measure to pass.
"The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israeli law. Does anyone here really believe that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?" Excuse me! Is Kerry saying that Jews would be treated badly under Palestinian law and therefore would not want to stay? Is Kerry defending the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future Palestinian state? As usual, nothing is to be expected from the Palestinians. Certainly not allowing freedom of religion to all people within their future state. Here is what I think - Kerry and Obama know that they are helping to create a non-democratic, terrorist state on Israel's border, and they simply do not care.
Kerry also said that absent a two state solution Israel will be unable to remain both Jewish and democratic. So, his big concern is that Israel remain democratic, after already suggesting that he knows a future Palestinian state will not be democratic (see above paragraph). Obama was not very "democratic" when he placed the Iranian nuke deal before the UNSC instead of the US Senate. Obama was not very "democratic" when the majority of people opposed the ACA, but he signed it into law anyway. Is it "democratic" for Obama to issue one executive order after the next, while saying that "if Congress won't act, I will." Who makes the laws in this country?
Kerry ended his speech by laying out six principles for further discussion. Here is one of the six: "Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of two states for two peoples - one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens." So, explain again, if the Jews get "full equal rights" why he believes they would not be able to stay in their homes on the Palestinian side of the border? The answer, again, is he knows full well that Jews would NEVER be given full equal rights.
Kerry said that the US would not give official recognition to a Palestinian state, or impose any outcome through a UN resolution. Well, the last resolution definitely does impose a solution. Furthermore, on what basis should we take Kerry at his word? He speaks for Obama, and Obama has habitually lied on any number of issues, including foreign affairs. Like when he lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack that killed our Ambassador and other Americans. Like when he lied about the Iran nuke deal and when negotiations started. Like when he lied about his "red line" for Syria.
We will certainly know soon enough if Obama has more in store for Israel. France is hosting an international conference on January 15, 2017, regarding the Middle East. I am sure that it is strictly coincidental that this conference will take place while Obama is still President, allowing four more days of his Presidency for another UN resolution. Sure, I believe it's coincidental.
"President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop." Countless times? Doesn't that tell you that the Palestinians are not listening? Doesn't it also tell you that their true interest is in killing Jews? THEY"RE NOT LISTENING you dumb ... (I will not do it. I have never cursed in the blog and as angry as I am I will not start now.)
"Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue." Wow! That was a big whopper of a lie. It was US policy that Jerusalem was one of those "final status" issues to be resolved by negotiations between the parties. Here is what the resolution said: Israel must "cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem..." Given that the resolution declares East Jerusalem to be "Palestinian territory," I would like Secretary Kerry to explain how that is "nothing new" in terms of policy.
"The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward." That is hardly a denial of some type of US involvement. New Zealand was one of the countries that put it forward. What was Kerry doing in New Zealand in November? Some other big issues between the US and New Zealand? Kerry met with the leading PA negotiator beforehand. Why? Does anyone really think that the Security Council would have bothered with this just before Christmas unless they knew that the USA would not use its veto power, thus allowing the measure to pass.
"The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israeli law. Does anyone here really believe that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?" Excuse me! Is Kerry saying that Jews would be treated badly under Palestinian law and therefore would not want to stay? Is Kerry defending the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future Palestinian state? As usual, nothing is to be expected from the Palestinians. Certainly not allowing freedom of religion to all people within their future state. Here is what I think - Kerry and Obama know that they are helping to create a non-democratic, terrorist state on Israel's border, and they simply do not care.
Kerry also said that absent a two state solution Israel will be unable to remain both Jewish and democratic. So, his big concern is that Israel remain democratic, after already suggesting that he knows a future Palestinian state will not be democratic (see above paragraph). Obama was not very "democratic" when he placed the Iranian nuke deal before the UNSC instead of the US Senate. Obama was not very "democratic" when the majority of people opposed the ACA, but he signed it into law anyway. Is it "democratic" for Obama to issue one executive order after the next, while saying that "if Congress won't act, I will." Who makes the laws in this country?
Kerry ended his speech by laying out six principles for further discussion. Here is one of the six: "Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of two states for two peoples - one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens." So, explain again, if the Jews get "full equal rights" why he believes they would not be able to stay in their homes on the Palestinian side of the border? The answer, again, is he knows full well that Jews would NEVER be given full equal rights.
Kerry said that the US would not give official recognition to a Palestinian state, or impose any outcome through a UN resolution. Well, the last resolution definitely does impose a solution. Furthermore, on what basis should we take Kerry at his word? He speaks for Obama, and Obama has habitually lied on any number of issues, including foreign affairs. Like when he lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack that killed our Ambassador and other Americans. Like when he lied about the Iran nuke deal and when negotiations started. Like when he lied about his "red line" for Syria.
We will certainly know soon enough if Obama has more in store for Israel. France is hosting an international conference on January 15, 2017, regarding the Middle East. I am sure that it is strictly coincidental that this conference will take place while Obama is still President, allowing four more days of his Presidency for another UN resolution. Sure, I believe it's coincidental.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Some Comments By US Leaders and Others on the UN Resolution
The resolution that passed the UN Security Council yesterday was originally going to be put up for a vote the day before. Egypt, which had put the resolution up for a vote, withdrew the measure before any vote could be taken. It was said that Israel pressured Egypt to withdraw the resolution. More likely, however, Egypt acted based on a telephone call between Egyptian President al-Sisi and US President-Elect Donald Trump. Al-Sisi has not been on good terms with Obama, because, as head of the military he overthrew the elected government of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group supported by Obama. Presumably, al-Sisi wanted a better relationship with Trump. Trump had Tweeted that the proposed resolution should be vetoed.
Unfortunately, the next day - yesterday - Senegal and New Zealand returned the measure to the Council for a vote. Voting for the measure were the UK, France, Russia, China, New Zealand, Senegal, Venezuela, Malaysia, Uruguay, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Spain and the Ukraine. The US, which had the power to veto the measure, abstained. Following the vote, Trump Tweeted: "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th."
Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, called approval of the resolution "absolutely shameful." Added Ryan: "Today's vote is a blow to peace that sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel." Ryan: "Our united Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel."
Ironically, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, in a speech justifying the US abstention, said this: "For the simple truth is that for as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations." As Israel was admitted to the UN in 1949, this means that the UN has shown their anti-Semitic bias long before Israel controlled the West Bank beginning in 1967. Power went on to note that in September, 2016 alone the UN General Assembly passed 18 anti-Israel measures. In 2016 the UN Human Rights Council passed 12 anti-Israel measures - "more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran and South Sudan put together," per Powers. But neither Obama nor Kerry nor Power apparently saw the irony in the US then supporting yet another anti-Semitic anti-Israel measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall 'occupied territory.'"
Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said it best (as he usually does): "This was a stab in the back against the Israelis. It was entirely predictable. I would say this, for people in the pro-Israel community in the United States who defended Obama's Middle East policy over these last eight years - you should have seen this coming...this is what you get for supporting Barack Obama." I take no joy in the fact that, along with some conservative friends, I did see this coming. What prevented so many in the Jewish community from seeing?
So, now the question is - what should the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress do after January 20th? First, I want to say that, notwithstanding any misgivings I may have had about Trump (even though I voted for him) I thank G-d that he won. I do not believe Hillary would have done anything to try to counter the effects of the UN resolution, and likely would have vetoed bills trying to reverse the damage done to Israel. I also thank G-d that the Republicans control Congress and that Paul Ryan is the Speaker.
Here is my wish list. I would like to see the US withhold all further funding from the UN until such time as the Security Council votes to overturn this measure. I would like to see the US immediately cease any and all funding to the Palestinian Authority. And I would like to see President Trump declare to the world that the United States has no intention of complying with this measure. Lastly, I would hope that President Trump declares to the world that any military attack on any land controlled by Israel will be considered an attack on the United States. Israelis have never requested that, confident in their abilities to defend themselves. But such a statement of solidarity with Israel from the world's superpower would do much to deter those who might seek to ignite yet another Middle Eastern war in yet another effort to wipe Israel off the map. And it would make it very clear that there is only way towards peace.
Unfortunately, the next day - yesterday - Senegal and New Zealand returned the measure to the Council for a vote. Voting for the measure were the UK, France, Russia, China, New Zealand, Senegal, Venezuela, Malaysia, Uruguay, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Spain and the Ukraine. The US, which had the power to veto the measure, abstained. Following the vote, Trump Tweeted: "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th."
Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, called approval of the resolution "absolutely shameful." Added Ryan: "Today's vote is a blow to peace that sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel." Ryan: "Our united Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel."
Ironically, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, in a speech justifying the US abstention, said this: "For the simple truth is that for as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations." As Israel was admitted to the UN in 1949, this means that the UN has shown their anti-Semitic bias long before Israel controlled the West Bank beginning in 1967. Power went on to note that in September, 2016 alone the UN General Assembly passed 18 anti-Israel measures. In 2016 the UN Human Rights Council passed 12 anti-Israel measures - "more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran and South Sudan put together," per Powers. But neither Obama nor Kerry nor Power apparently saw the irony in the US then supporting yet another anti-Semitic anti-Israel measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall 'occupied territory.'"
Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said it best (as he usually does): "This was a stab in the back against the Israelis. It was entirely predictable. I would say this, for people in the pro-Israel community in the United States who defended Obama's Middle East policy over these last eight years - you should have seen this coming...this is what you get for supporting Barack Obama." I take no joy in the fact that, along with some conservative friends, I did see this coming. What prevented so many in the Jewish community from seeing?
So, now the question is - what should the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress do after January 20th? First, I want to say that, notwithstanding any misgivings I may have had about Trump (even though I voted for him) I thank G-d that he won. I do not believe Hillary would have done anything to try to counter the effects of the UN resolution, and likely would have vetoed bills trying to reverse the damage done to Israel. I also thank G-d that the Republicans control Congress and that Paul Ryan is the Speaker.
Here is my wish list. I would like to see the US withhold all further funding from the UN until such time as the Security Council votes to overturn this measure. I would like to see the US immediately cease any and all funding to the Palestinian Authority. And I would like to see President Trump declare to the world that the United States has no intention of complying with this measure. Lastly, I would hope that President Trump declares to the world that any military attack on any land controlled by Israel will be considered an attack on the United States. Israelis have never requested that, confident in their abilities to defend themselves. But such a statement of solidarity with Israel from the world's superpower would do much to deter those who might seek to ignite yet another Middle Eastern war in yet another effort to wipe Israel off the map. And it would make it very clear that there is only way towards peace.
The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations
On December 23, 2016, Obama exacted his pound of flesh from Israel. Our closest ally in the Middle East, one of our closest allies in the world, and the only democracy in the Middle East - Israel - was unanimously condemned by the UN Security Council, in a resolution that the Truth-Uncensored has feared for months, if not years. In a 14-0 vote, with the United States abstaining, the Security Council essentially laid out the parameters of a Palestinian state, with the US giving up on longstanding policy that any resolution must be negotiated between the two sides. As this blog anticipated, Obama waited until after the US election to betray Israel.
In pertinent part, the resolution said the UN "reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity, and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."
And the UN "reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard, underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines including with regards to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."
Finally, the UN "calls upon all states, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."
For all intents and purposes, this UN resolution establishes a Palestinian state on the pre-war 1967 borders - the 1967 war being yet another war in which Israel had to defend itself against the surrounding Arab countries. As a reminder, Israel won that war, capturing the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Israel has since returned the Sinai to Egypt, and withdrawn from Gaza. The pre-war 1967 boundaries are simply the armistice lines existing at the end of Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949, against the surrounding Arab countries. There is nothing special about the so-called 1967 lines.
Having declared the boundaries of a Palestinian state, which includes "East Jerusalem," who actually thinks the Palestinians now have any reason to sit and negotiate with the Israelis? Before the 1967 war, Jordan controlled the West Bank, including the area referred to as "East Jerusalem." There never was a Palestinian state that existed on that land, or any land. The Holy Old City is in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall (the Kotel) of the Second Temple is in East Jerusalem - and has now been declared by the UN to be Palestinian territory. When the Arabs under Jordan controlled the Old City, not only were Jews denied access to the Western Wall, the Arabs destroyed Jewish holy sites in the West Bank.
The UN resolution says the boundary lines may be changed only by "negotiations" between the parties. Does any sane person believe that the Palestinians will be willing to negotiate away control of the Old City, where the Al-Aksa Mosque sits? Does any sane person believe that Israel will ever, short of defeat in war, give up their control of the Kotel and the Old City? Obama abstained from a resolution that not only increases the chances for war, but takes away from the Jews the holiest sites in Judaism. There is no explanation for that other than the age-old one of anti-Semitism. It mattered not to the UN or Obama that under Israeli control all religions have had access to their holy sites in the Old City.
But the UN was not done yet. With the last paragraph quoted above, the UN has now put itself fully behind the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement. Yes, the resolution claims to distinguish between the State of Israel inside the 1967 boundaries and the land controlled by Israel outside of those boundaries. But who really thinks most countries and NGOs are actually going to make that distinction? Besides. a boycott of Israeli products made in the West Bank hurts not only Israel, but the Palestinians who work for Israeli companies there as well.
At this point, the Palestinians have no reason to negotiate anything. The outline of their state has been declared. As Israel is said to have no legal right to the West Bank, they have no land to exchange for peace. The Palestinians have no reason to stop their 68 year old war against Israel, and certainly have no reason to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. It is only a matter of time until the Palestinians lay out their "legal" claims to all of Israel. Thank you so much, Obama, for your hateful attitude towards the one Jewish state in the world.
In pertinent part, the resolution said the UN "reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity, and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."
And the UN "reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard, underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines including with regards to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."
Finally, the UN "calls upon all states, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."
For all intents and purposes, this UN resolution establishes a Palestinian state on the pre-war 1967 borders - the 1967 war being yet another war in which Israel had to defend itself against the surrounding Arab countries. As a reminder, Israel won that war, capturing the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Israel has since returned the Sinai to Egypt, and withdrawn from Gaza. The pre-war 1967 boundaries are simply the armistice lines existing at the end of Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949, against the surrounding Arab countries. There is nothing special about the so-called 1967 lines.
Having declared the boundaries of a Palestinian state, which includes "East Jerusalem," who actually thinks the Palestinians now have any reason to sit and negotiate with the Israelis? Before the 1967 war, Jordan controlled the West Bank, including the area referred to as "East Jerusalem." There never was a Palestinian state that existed on that land, or any land. The Holy Old City is in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall (the Kotel) of the Second Temple is in East Jerusalem - and has now been declared by the UN to be Palestinian territory. When the Arabs under Jordan controlled the Old City, not only were Jews denied access to the Western Wall, the Arabs destroyed Jewish holy sites in the West Bank.
The UN resolution says the boundary lines may be changed only by "negotiations" between the parties. Does any sane person believe that the Palestinians will be willing to negotiate away control of the Old City, where the Al-Aksa Mosque sits? Does any sane person believe that Israel will ever, short of defeat in war, give up their control of the Kotel and the Old City? Obama abstained from a resolution that not only increases the chances for war, but takes away from the Jews the holiest sites in Judaism. There is no explanation for that other than the age-old one of anti-Semitism. It mattered not to the UN or Obama that under Israeli control all religions have had access to their holy sites in the Old City.
But the UN was not done yet. With the last paragraph quoted above, the UN has now put itself fully behind the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement. Yes, the resolution claims to distinguish between the State of Israel inside the 1967 boundaries and the land controlled by Israel outside of those boundaries. But who really thinks most countries and NGOs are actually going to make that distinction? Besides. a boycott of Israeli products made in the West Bank hurts not only Israel, but the Palestinians who work for Israeli companies there as well.
At this point, the Palestinians have no reason to negotiate anything. The outline of their state has been declared. As Israel is said to have no legal right to the West Bank, they have no land to exchange for peace. The Palestinians have no reason to stop their 68 year old war against Israel, and certainly have no reason to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. It is only a matter of time until the Palestinians lay out their "legal" claims to all of Israel. Thank you so much, Obama, for your hateful attitude towards the one Jewish state in the world.
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Year End Reflections, Part II
Soon to be former First Lady Michelle Obama recently said this: "We are feeling what not having hope feels like." The left just can not believe that Trump won the election. In fact, right up to the last minute they have been trying to persuade/pressure the Republican members of the Electoral College to break their commitments to Trump and vote for anyone else. They will not succeed. As for the First Lady, I imagine that most of her life - other than the eight years her husband was President - has been and will continue to be a huge disappointment. After all, this was her sentiment back in 2008: "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
Soon to be former Secretary-General of the United Nations recently made this stunning, albeit hardly surprising, factual admission: "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel." In reply, Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said: "The Secretary-General admitted the clear truth, the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel has broken records over the past decades...During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel while (passing) only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd."
The Trump website has this: "The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I'm president." Trump has nominated attorney and longtime adviser David Friedman to be the US ambassador to Israel. Friedman: "We trust Israel...We think it is doing an excellent job of balancing its respect for human rights and its security needs in a very difficult neighborhood. Israel is a partner with the US in the global war against terrorism."
Friedman has also said what has always been obvious to this writer: "It is inconceivable there would be mass evacuations (of the over 300,000 Jews from the West Bank) on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement...It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be Judenrein (free of Jews) any more than it makes sense for Israel to be Arabrein (free of Arabs). It's not fair." Under Obama and Kerry we have yet to hear any objections to Abbas' repeated assertions that no Jew may live in a new Palestinian state.
Following Clinton's loss of the electoral vote, but large popular vote victory, many on the left now want to eliminate the electoral college. In an Op-Ed in the 12/15/16 New York Times, Columbia Law School professor David Pozen referred to the electoral college as being "fundamentally undemocratic." I wonder if the professor believes that the US Senate is also "fundamentally undemocratic." After all, a state with under one million people gets the same number of senators as the State of California, which is nearing 40 million people. How is that fair? Would the professor argue for the abolition of the Senate? Would the professor push for a unicameral federal legislative body, based on proportionate representation for each state, as the House is currently constituted? Or, is the Senate yet another one of those checks and balances put into the Constitution by our Founders? The Senate tends to lend some stability to government, whereas the House - with members up for election every two years - is more likely to reflect popular sentiment of the time.
As noted by George Will in his 12/18/16 column in the Ventura County Star, Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote. While he did get more votes than George H. W. Bush, that was the year Ross Perot ran and got a whopping 19,743,821 votes. Together, Bush and Perot had over 56% of the votes. A large majority of the people clearly did not want Clinton to be president. But Clinton won easily with 370 electoral votes to 168 for Bush. Perot was unable to get any electoral votes.
Will explained the genius of our Founders: "So the Electoral College shapes the character of majorities by helping to generate those that are neither geographically nor ideologically narrow, and that depict, more than the popular vote does, national decisiveness." But the left wants to perpetuate both geographic (Northeast and West Coast) majorities and ideological (left-wing) majorities. The left wants to abolish the Electoral College on the assumption that their side can generate enough votes in the Northeast and West Coast - two liberal voting blocs - to maintain permanent control of the presidency.
I would love to have seen a poll asking how many on the left would have agreed that Obama should have cancelled the election if it was known to a near certainty that Trump was going to win. With all of the pressure that has been placed on the electors, I suspect that such a poll number would not be that small.
Soon to be former Secretary-General of the United Nations recently made this stunning, albeit hardly surprising, factual admission: "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel." In reply, Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said: "The Secretary-General admitted the clear truth, the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel has broken records over the past decades...During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel while (passing) only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd."
The Trump website has this: "The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I'm president." Trump has nominated attorney and longtime adviser David Friedman to be the US ambassador to Israel. Friedman: "We trust Israel...We think it is doing an excellent job of balancing its respect for human rights and its security needs in a very difficult neighborhood. Israel is a partner with the US in the global war against terrorism."
Friedman has also said what has always been obvious to this writer: "It is inconceivable there would be mass evacuations (of the over 300,000 Jews from the West Bank) on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement...It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to be Judenrein (free of Jews) any more than it makes sense for Israel to be Arabrein (free of Arabs). It's not fair." Under Obama and Kerry we have yet to hear any objections to Abbas' repeated assertions that no Jew may live in a new Palestinian state.
Following Clinton's loss of the electoral vote, but large popular vote victory, many on the left now want to eliminate the electoral college. In an Op-Ed in the 12/15/16 New York Times, Columbia Law School professor David Pozen referred to the electoral college as being "fundamentally undemocratic." I wonder if the professor believes that the US Senate is also "fundamentally undemocratic." After all, a state with under one million people gets the same number of senators as the State of California, which is nearing 40 million people. How is that fair? Would the professor argue for the abolition of the Senate? Would the professor push for a unicameral federal legislative body, based on proportionate representation for each state, as the House is currently constituted? Or, is the Senate yet another one of those checks and balances put into the Constitution by our Founders? The Senate tends to lend some stability to government, whereas the House - with members up for election every two years - is more likely to reflect popular sentiment of the time.
As noted by George Will in his 12/18/16 column in the Ventura County Star, Bill Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote. While he did get more votes than George H. W. Bush, that was the year Ross Perot ran and got a whopping 19,743,821 votes. Together, Bush and Perot had over 56% of the votes. A large majority of the people clearly did not want Clinton to be president. But Clinton won easily with 370 electoral votes to 168 for Bush. Perot was unable to get any electoral votes.
Will explained the genius of our Founders: "So the Electoral College shapes the character of majorities by helping to generate those that are neither geographically nor ideologically narrow, and that depict, more than the popular vote does, national decisiveness." But the left wants to perpetuate both geographic (Northeast and West Coast) majorities and ideological (left-wing) majorities. The left wants to abolish the Electoral College on the assumption that their side can generate enough votes in the Northeast and West Coast - two liberal voting blocs - to maintain permanent control of the presidency.
I would love to have seen a poll asking how many on the left would have agreed that Obama should have cancelled the election if it was known to a near certainty that Trump was going to win. With all of the pressure that has been placed on the electors, I suspect that such a poll number would not be that small.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)