Here We Go Again...And Again And Again

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.  Every conservative knows this.  Liberals either refuse to acknowledge it, or simply do not care.  However, the reality is that we have two systems of justice in this country.  One for Republicans and one for Democrats.  Let's take a look.

In Fulton County, Georgia, we just had the Judge's decision about the District Attorney, Fani Willis.  "...The Court finds that the record made at the evidentiary hearing established that the District Attorney's prosecution (of Trump, et.al.) is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety."  "...an odor of mendacity remains."  To borrow a phrase, "I'm shocked, shocked, that there's lying going on!"

The Judge says that there are "reasonable questions about whether the DA and her hand-selected SADA testified truthfully about the timing of their relationship (which) is further underpinning the finding of an appearance of impropriety."  Now, one might think that DA Willis and SADA Nathan Wade would be ordered off the case, based on those findings.  One would be wrong.  The DA was given the option of recusing herself and her office, or simply firing Wade.  How nice.

But what about the fact that DA Willis made on-the-record comments to authors who were writing about the special grand jury's investigation - during the pendency of the case.  That was excused also.  How about the speech to a local church on January 14, 2024, when she claimed "they" (an obvious reference to the defense attorneys on the case) were playing the race card.  Yes, the Judge said such comments were "legally improper."  Apparently, however, nothing was going to get Ms. Willis ordered off the case.  And, if you were thinking that such bias might get the case dismissed entirely...seriously?

What about the case against Joe Biden that was investigated by Special Counsel Robert Hur, concerning Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents.  At the time Biden mishandled those documents he was a Senator and a Vice President.  Therefore, he did not even have the argument that as President he had every right to take those documents.  Did Hur say Biden was guilty?  He said that Biden "willfully" retained classified documents in violation of the law.  

Then we got the excuse on behalf of Biden.  A jury would apparently find it difficult to convict, because Biden was a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," with "diminished faculties in advancing age."  I have never seen Biden as "well-meaning."  But here's a question - was he an "elderly man with a poor memory" when he took the documents as a senator or when he took them as VP.?  Just roll the tapes of him speaking back then for a jury.  (Although, I suppose one could argue that Biden has always had diminished faculties.)

We all recall what then FBI Director James Comey said about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents and information.  Comey told us that of the 30,000 emails turned over to the FBI, 110 contained classified information, including Top Secret information.  Recall also that Clinton used a personal email server kept in the basement of her home.  The emails were not even as secure as if she had used gmail.  Comey described Clinton as being "extremely careless" in the "handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."  

Comey:  "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."  Yes, one would expect that our adversaries have listening and retrieving capabilities that are similar to our NSA.  But, of course, after declaring potential violations of the law, Comey excused it all with "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."  Why not?  Presumably because she is a Democrat.  And an insider.

Now we have a report by Forbes magazine that, according to the Director of National Archives, Information Security Oversight, boxes of classified information in unclassified containers have been found in every administration from the Reagan administration to the present.  Yet, only one high ranking official gets prosecuted for the mishandling of classified information and documents.  Donald Trump.  A Republican.  And an outsider.  I'm waiting for a single liberal I know to express outrage at the two standards of justice.  I'm just not holding my breath for it.

  

The Antisemitic Jew Haters Win Again, and D.E.I. Mandates at the Universities

What can you say about UC Berkeley?  As with many of these elite, and not so elite, colleges and universities, antisemites appear to get their way.  So, should we even be surprised that, in late February,  a pro-Hamas mob of about 200 students was able to prevent a speech that was to be given by Israeli lawyer and military member Ran Bar-Yoshafat at the UC Berkeley campus?  These "protesters" (I'm being polite as I do not curse in the blog) were heard shouting "intifada" and "free Palestine."  One Jewish student said a protester got in his face and yelled "Jew Jew Jew," before spitting on him. 

"Bears for Palestine" is a UC Berkeley group, Bears being the mascot of the school.  Here is what they thought of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7:  "Israel, as a settler colonial state, renders Palestinian existence inherently an act of resistance.  We invariably reject Israel's framing as a 'victim.'"  This statement was issued on October 7 following the attack.  The Bears for Palestine believe in a return to a "unified Palestine," where likely no Israel exists.  

As to Ran Bar-Yoshafat being shut down before he was able to utter a single word, the Bears for Palestine asserted that he "has committed crimes against humanity, is a genocide denier, and we will not allow this event to go on."  Wow!  The mob declared that the event would not go on, and lo and behold the event did not go on.  In fact, the speaker and the Jewish students present had to be led out of the auditorium for their own safety.  Wait...what?  Jewish students are no longer safe on an American college campus?  Exactly!

While the Berkeley chancellor condemned the mob for violating school rules, and while she said she wanted to keep the students safe and allow the speech to proceed, "it was not possible to do both given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence."  That is acknowledging more than just a "heckler's veto."  That is acknowledging the inability of the school to protect Jewish students while engaging in school activities.  

I like to ask questions.  Here's one.  Why wasn't there enough security?  Here are more.  Anticipating the likelihood of the protests, what arrangements were made to allow access to the auditorium through a single door that could be guarded?  Do we know who any of these protesters are?  Will they be expelled from school given that their actions went against the stated purpose of higher education - a free and open discussion and debate.  

Not coincidentally, the New York Times had an Op-Ed in their 3/8/24 print edition with this title:  "Civil Discourse on Campus Is Put to the Test."  The author, Pamela Paul, says the conference was sponsored by the Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education.  The issue was "restoring inclusive civil discourse on campus," asking "in today's heated political environment is that even possible?"  

One of the topics for discussion:  "diversity hiring statements," by which they mean "the requirement all job applicants demonstrate their commitment to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion goals."  There it is.  This is Stanford after all, just across the Bay from Berkeley.  I understand that students may need to discuss this on their college applications.  Nice to know that the professoriate must address this nonsense.  

At least one attendee at this conference saw through it:  "What they want are non-straights, non-whites and non-men.  But they don't say it that way.  There's a lack of forthrightness..."  Interestingly, in 2018 Berkeley "considered candidates' D.E.I. statements first, before looking at the rest of their applications.  Anyone whose D.E.I. statement didn't pass the first round was eliminated from the next pool."  

Berkeley received some criticism apparently, for not even considering someone's credentials.  You know - their merits.  But one attendee defended Berkeley, saying "...I would say that D.E.I. statements are credentials."  And he said this:  "This was just another and no less valid approach to narrowing the pool."  That is a perfect example of how even highly educated people can be completely asinine.  

A belief in, and actions taken toward promoting, D.E.I. now constitute valid qualifications for a job as a professor, equal to actual merit?  I would bet that the proponent of that idea does not even realize that he is promoting a political litmus test for the hiring of professors.  Maybe they'll ask this question of possible hires:  "if you are Jewish, please affirm your commitment to a Palestinian state and further affirm that you are not a Zionist."  There's a political litmus test that no doubt many in our universities would deem to be appropriate.  

The Non-Stop, and Unprecedented, Attacks On Donald Trump (The Ballot Case and the Presidential Immunity Case)

This time, the Democrats failed.  But not for lack of trying.  The Colorado Supreme Court had voted 4 to 3 to keep former President Trump off their ballot.  In separate actions, the Maine Secretary State declared Trump ineligible for their ballot, and a Chicago judge ruled that Trump should be kept off the Illinois ballot.  All these judges and the Maine official are Democrats.  Nearly 20 states in total were considering such action.  

Democrats, who love to say how they are the defenders of democracy, never hesitate to undermine our democratic system.  They have done so countless times.  They refused to accept that Trump won in 2016.  It was not just the loser, Hillary Clinton, who declared Trump to be an "illegitimate" President, but other Democrats and various Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) commentators as well.  Then, the Dems came up with an unsupported Russian collusion hoax, in an effort to remove a duly elected president from office.  How was that not an "insurrection?"  

They then came up with the prime time January 6 Committee, whose members were appointed entirely by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.  She refused to allow two members of the House chosen by then minority leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on that committee.  That was unprecedented.  Prior to that, Pelosi ordered a second Trump impeachment proceeding without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first; hearings where actual evidence is presented.  And prior to that, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did away with the filibuster rule as applied to all federal judges other than the Supreme Court.  Unprecedented actions...by Democrats.    

Today's Democrats have no greater respect for our institutions than they say Trump has.  But back to the case.  The 14th Amendment, in Section 3, prevents certain individuals from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.  Trump appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and won, Trump v. Anderson.  Trump won in a 9 to 0 per curiam (unsigned) opinion of SCOTUS.  The alternative, said the Court, would result in a "chaotic patchwork at odds with our Nation's federalism principle."  That should have been obvious to everyone.

The Court:  "Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings," such as the burden of proof required.  Indeed.  The election of the president is a nationwide election.  It is not something that a single state should be able to alter.  The Court did not decide whether the President is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3, as the word "president" is conspicuously absent.  Nor did the Court decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection.  The Colorado Court did find in the affirmative on those issues.  

The US Supreme Court found that the Colorado decision would "sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole."  This especially applies to the Presidency, because that office "represent(s) all the voters in the Nation."  States are permitted to disqualify candidates for state offices under Section 3, said the Court, but not disqualify for federal offices.  But the majority went one step further in their decision, holding that Congress alone had the power to enforce a Section 3 disqualification for federal offices - as opposed to, say, the federal courts.  Four of the Justices disagreed with that determination.

As a result, the D-MSMC attempted to spin the decision as a 5 to 4 vote, blaming it all on the conservative appointees.  But that is not the truth, as all 9 Justices, including the liberal ones, agreed that individual states could not keep Trump, or any presidential (or other federal office) candidate, off the ballot.  The D-MSMC was all in by claiming that the wording of Section is clear and unambiguous.  No person shall hold office after engaging in insurrection .  So clear, right?   

Such as the First Amendment is so clear:  "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech."  No law.  Except...in interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court has declared various types of speech not protected by the First Amendment.  Defamatory speech (libel and slander), obscenity, child pornography, speech intended to cause imminent harm...all are not protected speech.  Not to mention the often used "time, place and manner" restrictions that used to be put on speech (although apparently not so much anymore).  So, for these leftwing commentators to say that the language of Section 3 is clear, and therefore that ends the discussion, is, shall we say, rather simplistic.       

The presidential immunity case is currently pending at the Supreme Court.  Do I believe that the prosecution being brought by Special Counsel Jack is politically motivated?  Absolutely.  After all, Trump announced his third try at the Presidency on November 15, 2022, and Merrick Garland appointed Smith on November 18, 2022.   

In terms of immunity from civil liability, the Supreme Court has held that a president has absolute immunity for conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.  (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 1982)  Under no circumstances would I imagine that the Court would grant absolute immunity from criminal liability.  The most extreme example would be that of a president charged with the crime of committing murder.  But maybe not.  Imagine this scenario.  A president orders a drone strike to take out a known terrorist.  But the drone also kills innocent civilians.  Do we allow any leftwing, antiwar prosecutor to file murder charges against that president?  Maybe not such a simple issue.     

Where should a line be drawn?  Will it hinge on whether a president can make the case that his actions were part of his official duties?  But does that raise other issues?  After all, the District Court of Appeals said "it would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity."  If that is the basis for a SCOTUS decision (unlikely in my opinion) then Biden is in trouble.  

He has bragged about his continuing student loan forgiveness, even after the Supreme Court said he had no such power.  Worse, he has failed - intentionally - to take care that the immigration laws of the United States be faithfully executed.  He has opened our borders, contrary to the laws passed by Congress, in a manner that is unprecedented.  Well over 7 million people have entered the country illegally since Biden took office.  It is a veritable invasion of our country without a single shot being fired.  This surrender of our nation's sovereignty can only be seen as an intentional act by the President.  It will have more far-reaching, and far longer, consequences, than the events of January 6.  Why shouldn't Biden be both impeached and prosecuted for that extreme dereliction of his duties, especially if you believe that the first duty of a president is to protect the American people.        

Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part II

So just how important is Dearborn?  How important is Michigan?  Michigan is a swing state.  So it's very important, as it can play a role in determining who gets elected president in November.  President Biden has been supportive of Israel with supplying necessary armaments.  However, the people in Michigan, Arabs, are threatening to withhold their votes from Biden if he doesn't change course on his support for Israel.

Therefore, Biden sent top advisers to Michigan to meet with the Arab community.  Here is the first paragraph of an article in the 2/13/24 Ventura County Star, about the Biden advisers going to Michigan:  "Senior advisers to President Joe Biden admitted 'mistakes' and apologized privately to Arab Americans in Michigan for the way the administration has handled the war in Gaza and for how it has spoken publicly about Palestinians during the deadly conflict with Israel."  

Apologized?  For supporting our main ally in the Middle East?  For supporting one of our main allies in the world?  For having to fight a terrorist organization that has publicly announced their desire to kill all the Jews?  What the hell is there to apologize for?  Oh, that's right.  Michigan is a swing state.  Michigan also has, by far, a larger Arab population than any other state, with over 211,000 Arabs.  So, rather than tell the truth, rather than say that Hamas needs to be eradicated, let's pander to the large Arab population.  

Here's what Dearborn Mayor Hammoud had to say, after accusing Israel of genocide:  "We remained uncompromising in our values and our demands for a permanent ceasefire, ending unrestricted military support to the State of Israel, and expediting humanitarian aid and funding to UNRWA."  I do not know what, if anything, Hammoud had to say about the hostages or Hamas.  Funding to UNRWA?  It's already been reported that some UNRWA workers participated in the October 7 atrocities.  

But the entire organization is no good, supporting Hamas in every way.  UNRWA provides textbooks to children in Gaza which show the entire area to be "Palestine."  There is no Israel.  They actually encourage children to be martyrs.  That is why President Trump cut funding to UNRWA.  Biden, of course, restored the funding, undoing all of Trump's good policies.  Only recently, after October 7, and after it was discovered that some UNRWA employees participated in the attack, did Biden cut funding.  Before that, Biden had provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the terrorist supporting UNRWA. 

A permanent ceasefire?  That would allow Hamas to remain in power.  Did Mayor Hammoud express any concern over the fact that Hamas leaders have vowed to repeat the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again?  Hamas must not be allowed to remain in power.  Israel knows that.  The people in southern Israel who suffered the terrible atrocities understand now that the people -Arabs- they were nice to, were friendly with, are the same people who murdered their families and friends.  

Recently, President Biden met with Jordanian King Abdullah II at the White House.  An article in the 2/13/24 Los Angeles Times, quotes the King as saying "We need a lasting ceasefire now...This war must end."  And, the King said this:  "separation of the West Bank and Gaza cannot be accepted."  The only way for that to happen is that Israel gets separated into two parts.  I guess that is acceptable.  And a ceasefire now means that Hamas gets to stay in power.  Definitely unacceptable.  

And who gives a damn what the King thinks?  Jordan had total control of the area known as the West Bank, from 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967.  During those two decades, did Jordan create a separate Palestinian state?  No, they did not.  After the war, when Israel gained control of the West Bank and the Sinai, did Jordan even care about getting the West Bank back, the way Egypt wanted the Sinai back?  No, they did not.  So why does Jordan even get to have any say?   

Meanwhile, JNS (Jewish News Syndicate) reported on 2/15/24, that "The Biden administration is preparing to make a major push for Palestinian statehood if a Gaza ceasefire agreement being negotiated in Cairo this week takes effect."  How coincidental.  Just when Israel is preparing an assault on Rafah, usually referred to as the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza.  If the story about the push for a Palestinian state is true, it shows once again the weakness of the Biden administration in dealing with our enemies through appeasement, rather than with a demonstration of strength.  

Imagine giving recognition of a Palestinian state so soon after the October 7 atrocities, with Hamas still in power.  Pressure from Arab countries.  Pressure from Arabs in America.  This is when I miss President Trump.      

Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan, Part I

The Wall Street Journal, in the 2/3-2/4/24 weekend edition, printed an Op-Ed by Steven Stalinsky, the Executive Director of MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute).  MEMRI has a good track record of accurately reporting news out of the Arab/Muslim press - not just the comments made for Western publications.  The Op-Ed, "Welcome to Dearborn, America's Jihad Capital," got a lot of pushback from the Arab-Muslim community in Dearborn and Michigan, and from Democrats.  

Here are a few highlights from the article.  "Almost immediately after October 7, and long before Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza, people were celebrating the horrific events of that day in pro-Hamas rallies and marches throughout Dearborn."

Here's more:  "...thousands march in support of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.  Protesters, many with kaffiyehs covering their faces, shout 'intifada, intifada' (and) 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' and 'America is a terrorist state.'  Local imams give fiery antisemitic sermons."

And Stalinsky quotes someone he describes as "the most influential English-speaking jihadi sheikh," as having posted on Twitter after the atrocities of October 7:  "The hearts haven't been overjoyed like this in so long."  

Is our government aware of the radical, terrorist supporting nature of Dearborn?  Stalinsky:  "A 2001 Michigan State Police assessment submitted to the Justice Department after 9/11 called Dearborn 'a major financial support center' and a 'recruiting area and potential support base' for international terror groups, including possible sleeper cells." 

Stalinsky, along with Yigal Carmon, the two co-founders of MEMRI, were interviewed by the WSJ, and that interview was published in the 1/13-1/14/24 weekend edition.  Stalinsky said:  "There is an element of trying to intimidate the Jewish community, going to kosher restaurants, community centers, Hanukkah celebrations, harassing Jewish students."

And this very important point was made (in case anyone hasn't noticed it from even a cursory watching or reading of the news:  "Efforts to disrupt Thanksgiving and Christmas celebrations, and to block roads, bridges and tunnels, also suggest a new willingness to push around the American majority."

The Mayor of Dearborn, Abdullah Hammoud, called the Op-Ed "inflammatory," and asserted that it "led to an alarming increase in bigoted and Islamophobic rhetoric online targeting the city."  CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) called the article "inflammatory anti-Muslim commentary."  Which is ironic, given that MEMRI caught Nihad Awad, CAIR's Executive Director, celebrating the October 7 attack by Hamas as an act of "self-defense," and Gazan liberation.  

In a front page article of the 2/15/24 New York Times, Salma Hamamy is described a s "one of the most prominent faces of the pro-Palestinian movement on campus" at the University of Michigan.  She leads anti-Israel rallies with chants such as this:  "One, two, three, four, open up the prison doors!  Five, six, seven, eight, Israel is a terrorist state."  

After all the underground tunnels and other infrastructure built by Hamas, it is just extraordinary that anyone can claim that Gaza is an open-air prison controlled by Israel.  Hundreds of miles of tunnels built with sophisticated material certainly suggests that Israel has little or no control over what gets into Gaza.  Also ironic is the fact that the murder of men, women and children, and the rape and mutilation of women's bodies, is apparently not considered "terrorism" by Ms. Hamamy.  

The Democratic Majority whip in the Michigan State Senate, said this of the Op-Ed:  "Michigan is a diverse, beautiful place where hate, bigotry, racism and demonization have no place."  To which I would add - unless it's directed at Jews.  

The Feds vs. Texas

If you don't watch Fox News, you may not have noticed the thousands of people illegally entering the country daily through our southern border.  Fox has been showing it ever since Biden took office, and reversed Trump's border protection policies with one Executive Order after the next.  With so many coming through into Texas, the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, decided the rest of the country should share in the misery; and he started having busloads of illegal immigrants sent up north, to sanctuary cities.  Eventually, when the Democratic mayors of these cities started complaining about the problem, the Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex ((D-MSMC) had to report on it also.     

Then, Governor Abbott took things a step further.  He decided that if the Biden Administration would not enforce existing immigration law, and stop what amounts to an invasion of our country, that he would try to do so.  The Governor said he had a duty and responsibility to protect the people of Texas.  Therefore, he ordered that razor wire fencing be put up along a section of the Rio Grande River.  It was an attempt to stop the overwhelming flood of people entering the country, and the state, illegally.  But President Biden would have none of it.

Reasonable people might ask why the President has encouraged millions of people to enter the country illegally.  After all, he did not have to undo all of President Trump's border protection policies immediately upon assuming office.  Reasonable might ask why much of the Democrat Party has been going along with this open border policy.  Clearly, Biden does not care about the sovereignty of the United States.  Clearly, Biden does not care about protecting the American people - neither in terms of their personal safety nor their economic well-being, given the added tax burden placed on the public by so many people's social needs.

So why does Biden want to undo/remake America?  The only thing that I can think of is that he and the Democrats expect all these people here will vote, and they will vote for Democrats.  Because Democrats are buying their votes with numerous handouts.  In California, people here illegally essentially have the same rights as legal residents.  They can get a driver's license, food stamps, Medi-Cal (known as Medicaid in other states), emergency shelter and transitional housing, and even get a job (although the employer may get in trouble).  

Back to the border dispute between Biden and Texas.  Biden sued Texas.  The 5th Circuit said the border patrol did not have the right to take down the razor wire put up by Texas, intended to block people from entering the country, and Texas, illegally.  But, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed.  The five Justices voting in favor of Biden and the federal government included the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.  Voting with them was Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.  Opposed were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.  

At the trial level, the District Court Judge, after looking at all the photos of so many entering illegally, questioned why the border patrol needed to cut the razor wire fencing put up by Texas.  Although siding with the federal government, the judge opined that cutting the fencing appeared to be "for no apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance further inland."

I do not pretend to be an expert in immigration law.  Article 1, Section 8 does give Congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  The main law on the topic seems to be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, although that law has been amended various times.  (I certainly welcome comments by any immigration law experts.)  

Article 2, Section 3 says that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  There is now widespread agreement that Biden is not doing that with regards to the immigration laws.  And Article 4, Section 4 has this interesting provision:  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."  I think we can reasonably call the illegal entry by 7 to 10 million people an "invasion."  And Biden clearly has no interest in protecting the states from that invasion.  

Article 1, Section 10 has this provision:  "No state shall, without the consent of Congress...engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."  Following Governor Abbott's decision to continue protecting the Texas border, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, had an Op-Ed in the 1/30/24 Los Angeles Times, with this title:  "Texas' frightening lawless defiance of a Supreme Court order."  Yes, the US Constitution says the US Constitution and federal law are supreme over state law.  

But Governor Abbott claims there is an invasion of his state.  The pictures from the border do not lie.  Then Chemerinsky misses the mark, by citing cases that are not apropos.  Yes, President Eisenhower had to send in federal troops to assure the protection of black students in Little Rock, Arkansas.  But there, you had a state governor acting in violation of federal law.  Governor Abbott is trying to enforce federal law, by not allowing people to enter the country wherever and whenever they wish to do so.    Perhaps that is why the Republican Governors Association, as well as former President Trump, all support Governor Abbott.  

I find it interesting that the Democrats had no problem with ignoring federal laws when they set up sanctuary cities and states.  Or when they said they need not comply with requests to hold criminal illegal immigrants until they they could be picked up by ICE in order to be deported.  I've said it a number of times before - if the federal government won't enforce the law, then no one should be surprised if others choose to do so.  I, for one, stand with the Governor who cares about US sovereignty, and who cares about protecting the people of his state.  I do not stand with a lawless president.        

Stop Already With Talk Of The Two-State Solution! Stop It!

It's hard to take.  Especially from my fellow Jews.  This talk of the need for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Why, after the atrocities committed against Israel on October 7, is this topic of conversation?  Why now?  The only topics for conversation at this point in time should focus on the three requirements for peace laid out by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  1.  The complete defeat and elimination of Hamas.  2.  Thereafter, a demilitarized Gaza, with Israel maintaining complete security control.  3.  A deradicalization of all of Palestinian society - in Gaza and in the West Bank.   

Recently, it was discovered that 12 employees of UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) participated in the October 7 massacre of Israelis.  That should come as a surprise to absolutely no one who has been paying attention.  UNRWA runs the schools in Gaza.  Their textbooks show all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be "Palestine."  Israel does not exist.  They teach schoolkids that it is good to be a martyr, and that Jews are bad.  To this terrorist supporting organization, that teaches death over life, the Biden Administration gave $340 million in 2022.  Trump had cut the funding to UNRWA because of their support for terrorism.  But, as with many successful Trump policies, Biden reversed it.

Why does UNRWA even exist?  As Bret Stephens said in his 1/31/24 Op-Ed in the New York Times:  "No other group except for Palestinians gets its own permanent agency."  He points out that the surrounding Arab countries did not want them.  Stephens:  "...the postwar era produced millions of refugees:  Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Palestinians and Jews, including some 800,000 Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries that had been their homes for centuries.  Nearly all found new lives in new countries - except for Palestinians."   

Stephens:  The Palestinians "have been kept as perpetual refugees  as a means of both delegitimizing Israel and preserving the irredentist fantasy that someday their descendants will exercise what they believe is their "right of return," effectively through the elimination of the Jewish state."  But, again, Donald Trump knew better.  He understood that Arab countries could be made to see the futility of the idea of eliminating Israel.  He understood that he could get Arab countries to see the benefits in normalizing relations with Israel - an advanced, high-tech modern society.  Hence, the successful Abraham Accords.  

But what are the Democrats doing?  49 US Senators (48 Democrats and "Independent" Bernie Sanders) announced they will present an Amendment to the pending national security legislation, stating that it is US policy to support a two-state solution.  Two Democrats refused to sign on - Joe Manchin and John Fetterman.  Good for them.  Sad to say that all nine Jewish Senators signed on, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff.  I mention Ossoff because back in 2021, during another war between the Palestinians and Israel, Ossoff led 25 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents in issuing a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire.  How did that work out, Senator Ossoff?  Peace break out?  

Over at the State Department, we learn that Antony Blinken instructed his diplomats to "conduct a review and present policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state."  (As reported in the Free Beacon and reposted by ZOA.)  Here is what Reuters reported Matthew Miller, State Department spokesman, saying:  "We are actively pursuing the establishment as an independent Palestinian state, with real security guarantees for Israel, because we do believe that is the best way way to bring about lasting peace and security for Israel, the Palestinians and for the region." 

Security guarantees for Israel?  Would that be like The Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon?  Just look at the tremendous success they have had in preventing the massive build-up of approximately 100,000 to 150,000 missiles controlled by Hezbollah, all aimed at Israel.  Good job!  No, only Israel must be responsible for the safety and security of Israel.  

I am reminded of how Obama sold out Israel at the UN in December, 2016, his last full month in office.  Obama instructed his UN Ambassador to not veto a Security Council resolution that essentially said all the land beyond the Green Line (the so-called 1967 borders) belonged to the Palestinians.  That, of course, included the Holy City of Old Jerusalem, where the holiest sites in Judaism can be found.  But the UN and Obama decided that the Arabs owned those sites.  That resolution passed the Security Council by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining.  I said at the time that such a resolution would only be likely to bring about more war.  Indeed.  (See the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") 

Biden, as always, is on top of things.  He has sanctioned 4 Israelis, so-called "settlers" in the West Bank, for allegedly attacking Palestinians.  The sanctions prevent them from getting US visas, and from accessing the US banking system.  It is basically a meaningless gesture, other than to show his left-wing and Arab-Muslim base how fair he is.  But Biden is virtually always wrong on foreign policy.  He lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing the Ayatollahs to make billions on the sale of oil, and be able to support Hamas and the Houthis as a result.  Biden also took the Houthis off the US terrorist list, after Trump had put them on the list.  Now he put the Houthis back on the terrorist list.  Good job, Joe. 

So, I ask everyone...especially my Jewish friends and readers...please stop talking about a two-state solution.  Talk about the 3 prerequisites for true peace as outlined by Netanyahu.