Palestine overwhelmed by Illegal American Immigrants
By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –
If there were a Palestinian Donald Trump, he’d be fulminating against illegal immigrants swamping the Palestinian West Bank. And he’d be complaining that fully 1 in 6 of these undocumented squatters are Americans .
Since Americans have trouble understanding the basic facts of the situation, it is worthwhile underscoring that the United Nations General Assembly’s partition plan for British Mandate Palestine in 1947 did notinclude Gaza or the West Bank of the Jordan. Those territories were never awarded to Jewish settlers or later Israelis by any legitimate authority (even the UNGC is not an executive body and the Security Council should have signed off to grant real legitimacy in law). Israel militarily conquered Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 and have by now so altered the ways of life, economy and society of these occupied territories that the Occupation is illegal by the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949 (designed to prevent atrocities against occupied populations of the sort the Axis carried out during WW II).
It is strictly illegal for the occupying power to attempt to annex occupied territory or to transfer its citizens into militarily occupied territory. Mussolini’s Italy pulled that stunt with the parts of France he occupied during WW II. When you hear that someone has violated the Geneva Convention, that isn’t just an abstract matter. It means that someone is acting the way the dictators acted during the war, because it is that kind of lawless behavior the conventions were attempting to forestall from happening again.
Israel illegally annexed part of the Palestinian West Bank to its district of Jerusalem and then settled it with Israeli squatters. Am I comparing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Mussolini in Menton, France? If the shoe fits . . .
Outside the territory annexed to Jerusalem, there are at least 350,000 Israeli squatters who have usurped Palestinian land.
This link explains the process of illegal Israeli squatting on and theft of Palestinian land (a process the International Court of Justice ruled is illegal in 2004).
Some 60,000 of the squatters, today’s equivalent of Mussolini’s Black Shirts , are Americans, according to a new study.
Those American politicians like Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump, who make exaggerated and untrue statements against undocumented workers in the United States but who defend illegal Israeli immigration into the West Bank, are supreme hypocrites. The Israeli squatters, moreover, are often hostile and aggressive, excluding Palestinians from the townhouses they construct on stolen property.
O come on, Juan, there could never be a 'Palestinian' Donald Trump. Impossible, a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteThe Donald builds things up, does not blow things up. Jews are welcome in his businesses. A 'Palestinian' Donald Trump would never allow his daughter Ivanka to convert to Judaism.
The Donald creates, hires people, pays taxes, gives generously, all missing in Palestine, and has a sense of humor, something entirely missing in 'Palestine'.
The Donald does not advocate genocide, does not wish to impose Sharia, respects women.......
There could never be a Palestinian Donald Trump.
It's possible there might be a 'Palestinian' Juan Cole, though, you seem to admire these unadmirable people so.......
Love the map...
DeleteCould show Dearborn MI and how the arabs have settled illegally..
Just ask the Native Americans...
Israel is 1/900th of the middle east.
Deletethe arabs occupy 899/900th.
Israel sits on 1/900th.
Of the area that is being highlighted?
it is a tiny portion sliver of a sliver of land.
Judea and Samaria, that's the historic name.. Not the "west bank"
So Jews are creating homes there
Boo hoo...
Cry me a river.
.
DeleteCould show Dearborn MI and how the arabs have settled illegally..
More silliness.
.
Why?
DeleteWhy should arabs have the right to settled native american land?
Are they not occupiers?
go ahead quirk, share your brilliance….
quirk the very argument that you seek to withhold that allows americans to be americans is a standard that all peoples all over the world enjoy…
Deletego ahead.
why do arabs and you have a right to be settling in America? (when you deny the right of Jews to settle in their historic homelands of thousands of years)
.
DeleteOnce again WiO you expose the simplicity of your thought patterns. You ask me these questions but the real question for me is where to start.
1. You've been told this numerous times but it just doesn't seem to sink in. You can't pick and choose when and where history begins to suit your own narrative, or as you do, pick an arbitrary beginning and an arbitrary ending and ignore everything that has gone on in between. History didn't begin when Abram wandered out of Ur and it didn't end when Israel formed a state in the 40's.
2. Israel as a historical Jewish homeland was a narrative created by Zionists. It is often used by others to justify their actions but it means nothing. There are conflicting claims to the land, many more recent, and those also consider Palestine their 'historical homeland'.
3. Why are Arabs in Dearborn? Because at one point they or their forefathers applied for citizenship from the US and were granted it.
4. Ask the native Americans? Why? They no longer have any say in the matter. That was settled long ago.
5. When I deny the Jews the right to settle in their 'historical homeland'? Once again the simplicity of your thinking process betrays you. I don't deny the right of Jews to settle in Israel. Never have. However, I object to the following (though I have little belief that it will change)
-- I object to Zionism. Despite what you say, this is not anti-Semitic. The fact that you insist that is, IMO, proves how close-minded and ignorant you are. I am against Zionism simply because it is by its nature against the Western values I am familiar with. It creates a flawed democracy with some of those flaws similar to other Islamic 'democracies' in the ME which I also object to.
-- I object that Israel is a theocracy. Israel is a bifurcated society divided into Jews and non-Jews with the advantages going to the Jews. The determination on who is a Jew is at this time determined by a Rabbinate dominated by an orthodox philosophy which results in discrimination not only against non-Jews but also against the non-orthodox.
That is my problem with Israel and Zionism. I also have a problem with Bibi and the current government of Israel. And finally I have a problem with you and the flawed 'alternative history' you TRY to present here
.
.
DeleteWRT Bibi and the current government of Israel,
1. I object to his hegemonic objectives in the ME (I can go into more detail if required).
2. I object to his right wing policies in the same way I object to the right wing policies we have been forced to endure since 2000 by our own government.
3. While I admire the fact that he stands up for what he believes are policies that are in the best interest of Israel, I disagree with a lot of those policies or that in the long run they will advance Israel’s interests in the world.
4. I object to his interference in American politics.
5. I object to his cynical view of American politics and how ‘easily we can be moved’ although admittedly he could be correct in that cynicism.
6. I object to his hypocrisy and the lies that he tells.
7. I object to the ingratitude he displays regarding everything the US has done and is doing for Israel.
.
.
DeleteWRT you,
1. I object to the faux history you offer up here on a daily basis. This includes you actual lack of knowledge on simple issues regarding Israel as demonstrated yesterday on the question of who does what in areas A, B, and C under the Oslo Accords.
2. I object to your simplistic reasoning and lack of comprehension of the English language. A good example is your suggestion above that I deny Israel the right to exist. That’s bullshit. Although I do argue that it exists for different reasons than you do.
3. I object to your clear misunderstanding of how the world works, an example being your comments on the UN, the League of Nations, and the ‘right’ or ‘legality’ of Israel’s existence.
For example:
a. The UN did not create Israel. The UNGA ‘proposed’ a two-state solution for the Palestinian Mandate. However, the UNSC never approved that proposal as was required. There is even a question as to whether the UN has the power to ‘create a state’. There is nothing in its charter that would allow it. There is certainly nothing there that would allow taking property from one people and giving it to another.
b. Which brings us to the League. The league did not propose to establish a Jewish ‘state’ in the ME. That suggestion was specifically left out of the Mandate because of the many objections. What they proposed was a Jewish ‘homeland’, an autonomous region within Palestine similar to that which exists with the Kurds in Iraq.
c. In the years prior to the finalization of the Mandate, promises were made to everyone who the 'powers that be' (French, British, Russians, etc.) thought might help their war effort. Those promises equated to nothing after the deal was done and the Mandate signed off. You proved you lack of understanding of this simple fact when you said the original Mandate plan showed Palestine including a large portion of what is now Jordan. No. It didn’t. There was a map drawn by the Zionist that ‘proposed’ that. It never made it into the Mandate. The borders of Transjordan were established legally before the British Mandate for Palestine was signed.
d. When the British Mandate expired, there was no legal basis for Israel to form a state. They did it by force of arms and the eventual recognition of other states of its right to exist. They did the same thing with the balance of Palestine yet refuse to admit it.
.
.
DeleteWRT the West Bank and Gaza, Israel conquered them in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been screwed since 1948. There was no one then or now who gives a shit about the Palestinians. The only interest of the Israelis or the Arabs was the land not the people.
When Jordan captured the West Bank in 1948, they annexed it. They gave all the Palestinians in the WB Jordanian citizenship but the annexation was still illegal under international law.
When Israel captured the WB from Jordan in 1967 rather than formally annex it they started the kabuki of holding the land pending resolution. After 45 years, occupation has become de facto annexation without giving the Palestinians citizenship as the Jordanians did. If Israel's actions are called annexation it is against international law. If after 45 years, you accept the fallacy that it is an occupation then Israeli actions (ie illegal settlements) it is still against international law. But only a fool would think that Israel would ever give the land back.
.
Your free air line ticket to Gaza is still awaiting you Quirk, but you must wear Jewish insignia there and not deny you are Jewish.
DeleteIf you ask me to extend the offer to include the West Bank I might even consider doing so.....
"Peak Oil Theory" takes another heavy hit -
ReplyDeleteAugust 31, 2015
New 'supergiant' natural gas discovery may be the largest ever
By Thomas Lifson
Remember “peak oil”? We were solemnly lectured that the world was running out of hydrocarbon energy sources, so we must immediately lower our standard of living and reduce energy consumption. But as with all Malthusian predictions of shortage, that forecast failed to reckon with human ingenuity and the wonder of the price system stimulating new supply. The sky-is-falling faction turned to equally fallacious predictions of global warming as a means to bludgeon others into reducing their standard of living (while the warriors like Robert Kennedy and President Obama keep their private jets).
Meanwhile, in the real world, energy supplies, in particular clean natural gas, continue to grow. The latest good news comes for a country that could really use some good news. CNN Money (hat tip: Clarice Feldman) reports:
In what could be the largest natural gas discovery in history, Italian energy company Eni says it has unearthed a "supergiant" gas field in the Mediterranean Sea covering about 40 square miles.
The gas field could hold a potential of 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Eni says that's the energy equivalent of about 5.5 billion barrels of oil. The company won't know the field's true size until it begins to develop it.
Found in the deep waters off the northern coast of Egypt, Eni claims the gas field to be the largest ever in the Mediterranean and possibly the world.
After Eni explores and begins to develop the field, the company estimates that it will be able to satisfy Egypt's natural gas demand for "decades."
Good news for Egypt, for world energy supplies, and bad news for Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and (in all honesty) North Dakota and Texas, among many others.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/new_supergiant_natural_gas_discovery_may_be_the_largest_ever.html
With oil prices around $40/barrel, try and wait to fill you car up until after Labor Day. Gas prices should drop a lot then.
American Thinker Blog
ReplyDeleteClinical trials to begin on Israeli technology to freeze lung cancer tumors - 8/31/15 If this innovative therapy proves out I sincerely hope that every BDSer in the world will boycott it. More
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/clinical_trials_to_begin_on_israeli_technology_to_freeze_lung_cancer_tumors.html
This is an uncharitable sentiment expressed by the writer Thomas Lifson.
He should hope instead that such people would embrace the new technology and gives up on the BDS b.s.
Don't count on them doing so, however. More likely they will take advantage of the new technology and continue with the BDS b.s.
DeleteMy mom died of lung cancer. It is not a pleasant way to go, though perhaps not the worst.
I hope it works.
And finally -
ReplyDeleteAugust 31, 2015
Obama panders on Mt. McKinley, disses great Republican president
By Thomas Lifson
President Obama is declaring that Mt. McKinley henceforth shall be named Mt. Denali, after the Athabascan tribal name despite the fact that legislation to do so has failed. The New York Sun editorializes:
…legislation has been before Congress to change the name, but the Congress has decided not to do so. If the Supreme Court has been clear about anything it has been that the failure of Congress to act doesn’t amount to license for the other branches to act. (snip)
[Denali is] the name the state’s senior senator, Lisa Murkowski, sought to attach to the mountain via legislation she earlier this year introduced, to no effect. Legislators from Ohio understood better, and moved to block the measure. William McKinley may never have been to the mountain, but he was an important and assassinated president.
As my colleague Rick Moran points out, the Department of the Interior routinely renames natural points of interest all the time, so legislation may not be necessary. But Obama’s motives are purely political, pandering to leftist sentiment that regards everything pre-European as holy, and everything accomplished by white males as illegitimate.
For those who don’t know, William McKinley was an immensely popular Republican president, as the Sun reminds us:
From his front porch in 1896, he ran one of the most remarkable campaigns in American history, defeating the Democrat, William Jennings Bryan, who ran for the free coinage of silver — a campaign of inflation — by attacking the Jews. It was one of the few anti-Semitic campaigns in American history. McKinley defeated it handily and gained passage in 1900 of the Gold Standard Act, which set the stage for the great boom of the 20th century.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/obama_panders_on_mt_mckinley_disses_great_republican_president.html#ixzz3kOpjuQbm
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
William Jennings Bryon was a horse's arse.
I'm only surprised the Light Worker just didn't go ahead and name it Mt. Obama.
DeleteSince Americans have trouble understanding the basic facts of the situation, it is worthwhile underscoring that the United Nations General Assembly’s partition plan for British Mandate Palestine in 1947 did notinclude Gaza or the West Bank of the Jordan.
ReplyDeleteThe Plan? Was rejected by the arab nations of the day...
They then attacked, repeatedly and lost...
LOL
The plan of 1947?
Well go check out the plan of the League of Nations....
In the end it's bullshit.
the fakisitinas are a lost cause.
They are being shown for the warmongering savages they are...
From Gaza to Syria...
:) Man, I want soooo much for Donald Trump to get the Republican nomination.
ReplyDeletePlease, please, please, Jeebus. Jes one time.
pleeeze :) :) :) :)
after electing that POS Obama, anything is possible
DeleteIsrael needs to lower it's standards of behavior and treat the palestinians like the USA treated the indians.
ReplyDeleteOr like the arabs treated the Jews or the Berbers
:)
One standard for everyone
The Islamic State (ISIS) is at it again.. and now have released their worst video ever.
ReplyDeleteHung by chains and turned upside down, the twisted Islamic killers roasted prisoners over a fire, as if they were chicken at a barbecue.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/islamic-state-isis-takes-4-prisoners-chained-them-upside-down-and-films-this/#ixzz3kPur5q58
The iaslamic slime are a threat to humanity, therefore a threat to the United States.
DeleteWe don't have to be on point, bearing the heaviest burden to kill them but we should be engaged on every front.
ReplyDeleteIowa
Carson, Trump Tie for Top Spot in Iowa: Monmouth University Poll
Aug 31, 2015 8:03 AM PDT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
John Hughes
Ben Carson, Donald Trump at 23% each show “most Iowa Republicans prefer someone without a traditional political pedigree,” according to Monmouth University Poll.
Results mark first time since July 26 that poll in first four nominating states has shown Trump without nominal lead
Carly Fiorina 10%, Ted Cruz 9%, Scott Walker 7%, Jeb Bush 5%
John Kasich, Marco Rubio 4%, Rand Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee,Rick Santorum 2%
NOTE: Aug. 27-30 phone poll of 405 Iowans likely to attend Republican presidential caucuses has error margin of +/-4.9ppts
It’s hard to imagine now, but from Harry Truman until Bill Clinton, California voted for a Democratic president just one time, for John F. Kennedy in 1960. With a few exceptions here and there, California also voted for GOP governors and senators more often than not. Even though the state had a longstanding reputation for social tolerance and cutting-edge cultural change, politically speaking it was a conservative state, as red as Texas is now.
ReplyDeleteThere were obviously many factors that contributed to California’s evolution into the deep-blue state it is today, from demographics to the culture war. But none of those things come close to the damage that then-Governor Pete Wilson did to the longterm interest of the California Republican Party in 1994, when he scapegoated Latino immigrants as the cause of all the state’s woes.
Wilson was running for re-election, and as part of his campaign to distract from the economic failure of his first term and increase turnout among his base, he ran on a platform promising to crack down on undocumented workers, and enthusiastically supported the infamous Prop 187, which set up a statewide system designed to deny any kind of benefits to undocumented workers, including K-12 education and all forms of health care.
(He also supported a constitutional amendment to repeal birthright citizenship, currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.)
Here’s the famous “they keep coming” ad the Wilson campaign ran that year:
Wilson ultimately won the race, and the proposition passed with a 57 percent majority. Nativists everywhere applauded and cheered.
DeleteUnfortunately, they apparently didn’t know how to count. They failed to recognize that Latinos were the fastest growing ethnic minority in the state, and knew very well that all this “concern” about undocumented immigration stemmed from a nativist impulse that had little to do with economics and everything to do with bigotry.
The reaction was swift:
The Rev. Jon Pedigo remembers he was so angry that he instantly started planning a march from his parish in Morgan Hill to St. Joseph’s Cathedral in San Jose.
“I said, ‘I’m going to take that frickin’ cross from the church and I’m gonna walk to the downtown cathedral and demand that something be done,'” said Pedigo, now pastor of East San Jose’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. The next morning he led 250 people on the 21-mile walk.
“We filled the cathedral. We filled the park. It was amazing,” he said. “We said, ‘We will not put up with this, and we want God on our side.'”
I don’t know if God was on their side, but Latinos certainly did not put up with it. The Republicans lost the Hispanic vote in California and have almost zero chance of . . . .
Same Shit, Different Day
DRIP DRIP DRIP
ReplyDeleteThree House Democrats from New York and a House Democrat from Florida who is running for a Senate seat endorsed President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran on Monday, lending fresh momentum to the pact from political quarters that once appeared most leery of it.
In rapid succession, Representatives Nydia M. Velázquez, Gregory W. Meeks and Yvette Clarke of New York backed the deal, as did Representative Patrick Murphy, the Democratic establishment’s choice to compete for the Senate seat being vacated by the Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio. Mr. Murphy’s decision was the most surprising: Democratic leaders supporting the deal had written him off as he battles Representative Alan Grayson, a liberal who is leaning against the accord, for his party’s Senate nomination.
“There is ‘no other available alternative,’ ” Mr. Murphy wrote, quoting Florida’s Democratic senator, Bill Nelson, who also supports the deal. “On balance, I cannot let possibilities a decade or more in the future, however troubling, outweigh the immediate benefits of this agreement.”
Mr. Meeks said that rejecting the deal would leave the United States only with alternatives that “do far less, if anything at all, to change Iranian nuclear and weaponization pursuits.”
The decisions by all four House members speak to the shifting politics of the Iran deal. For Democrats, especially those with potential primary competition, opposing the accord now appears to be a greater political risk than supporting it.
Mr. Meeks, Ms. Velázquez and Ms. Clarke were among the last New York City lawmakers to announce their views on the nuclear deal, which would lift punitive sanctions on Iran in exchange for the country’s dismantling of parts of its nuclear program and its allowing of international inspections of certain facilities.
The New York congressional delegation has been a source of forceful opposition to the pact, including among Democrats. Senator Charles E. Schumer broke with the rest of the party’s Senate leadership to denounce the deal, and was joined by several senior Jewish lawmakers in the House delegation. Of the 16 Democrats in Congress publicly opposed to the deal, 10 are from New York or New Jersey.
ReplyDeleteObama Offended by Attacks on Jews Who Back Iran Deal
WASHINGTON — Aug 31, 2015, 6:58 PM ET
Associated Press
President Barack Obama said people who attack Jews who support the Iran nuclear deal are like African-Americans who differ with him on policy and then conclude he's "not black enough."
Obama, in an interview with the Jewish newspaper The Forward, was asked whether it hurt him personally when people say he's anti-Semitic.
"Oh, of course," Obama said. "And there's not a smidgeon of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times when I've disagreed with a particular Israeli government's position on a particular issue."
The president added, though, that he's "probably more offended when I hear members of my administration who themselves are Jewish being attacked. You saw this historically sometimes in the African-American community, where there's a difference on policy and somebody starts talking about, 'Well, you're not black enough,' or 'You're selling out.' And that, I think, is always a dangerous place to go."
Obama didn't mention any specific critics or targets by name.
Asked to whom the president was referring, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday mentioned former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's charge that the nuclear deal was like "marching the Israelis to the door of the oven," a reference to the Holocaust. Earnest added, "It's certainly not the only example of the kind of political rhetoric that certainly the president and others find objectionable."
Obama's Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, who is Jewish, was heckled this summer at a Jewish-themed conference in New York when he defended the nuclear deal and spoke of the administration's support for Israel.
SAGINAW, MI — A freshman congressman from Midland joined a group of Republican lawmakers in August on a trip to Israel.
ReplyDeleteU.S. Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, said the week-long visit, which stretched from Aug. 8-15, was paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation.
"It was a fascinating trip," Moolenaar said.
The foundation is the charity arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to both Congress and the White House.
"The foundation has done this every year, where they sponsor a trip for the newly-elected members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat," Moolenaar said. “You learn about Israel, but also about that entire region.”
I bet it truly was a fascinating trip.
DeleteI'd love to take such a trip some time.
Meanwhile IAPAC continues its practice of buying off Democratic politicians when ever they can.
Open thread: Who’s up for another 150 Hillary e-mails containing classified information?
ReplyDeleteposted at 8:01 pm on August 31, 2015 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook
The latest batch of e-mails, 7,000 pages in all, is going live on the State Department website at the unusual hour of 9 p.m. ET, which certainly isn’t an attempt to bury this info later in the evening when most Americans aren’t paying attention to breaking news. News junkies like us aren’t most Americans, though, so here’s your thread to chat about the e-mails after they’re released and righty commentators start crowdsourcing them to find the choicest parts.
None of the 150 new e-mails with classified info that were turned over by Hillary were marked classified, State was careful to note this afternoon. Does that matter for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 793? Why, no, but emphasizing that it was a matter of negligence, not willful distribution of classified material, is crucial to Hillary’s political defense. She can tolerate voters thinking she’s incompetent since, as Trump has been helpfully pointing out lately, pretty much everyone in Washington is. Voters thinking she’s corrupt is another matter. Pitted against the right type of Republican, e.g., a fresh-faced guy pitching optimism like Rubio, that might be the difference in a tight election. Expect lots of defensive mumbling that these e-mails were only formally marked classified after the fact from Hillary hacks like Carville and Paul Begala who are inevitably brought on cable news tonight and tomorrow to spin for her. In the meantime, via Joel Gehrke, don’t forget this passage from Reuters last week:
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department’s own “Classified” stamps now identify as so-called ‘foreign government information.’ The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be “presumed” classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
“It’s born classified,” said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO).
Is it “gross negligence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 793 to be transmitting information like that in an insecure manner? Why not?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/31/open-thread-whos-up-for-another-150-hillary-e-mails-containing-classified-information/
Hillary's toast, and we should all raise a toast to that......
Who's up for a Trump vs Sanders match ?
The Makers vs The Takers for the soul of a nation.....
The three Republicans leading in Iowa at this time are all non-politicians.....Trump, Carson and Fioriana
PUNK ASS SO-CALLED “US” SENATOR TOM COTTON CONSPIRING WITH ISRAELI PM NETANYAHU TO THWART US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
ReplyDeleteLITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton says he talked about the Iran nuclear agreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a weeklong trip to Israel.
Cotton's office said the freshman senator from Arkansas met with Netanyahu Monday in Jerusalem. The two talked about the deal, which they both oppose, and its implications for the region.
Cotton has been one of the most outspoken Senate critics of the agreement struck by the U.S., Iran, and five world powers to dismantle most of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief. Congress will vote in September on a resolution to disapprove of the White House-backed nuclear deal.
Netanyahu has also been an outspoken opponent of the deal. Cotton said meeting with him reaffirmed his opposition to the agreement.
.
DeleteAlmost exact same words on my congressman's website. He is a freshman also and was on the same trip. There is no surprise the statements were almost identical. No doubt they were given the wording in their exit package from the trip. Things we can surmise from the trip and what has been written by some congressmen and senators who have participated in the past.
1. Any 'conversation' they had with Bibi was in reality a one-way monologue.
2. Since the trip was sponsored by AIPAC there was no doubt a Power Point presentation (or maybe a video presentation these days) outlining the talking points. Pick up you handouts on the way in and your gift 'commemorating' the trip on the way out.
3. They would meet certain high-level officials all of whom were opposed to the nuclear deal.
4. There would be sightseeing tours during the day to key spots (don't expect to see Gaza, Kiryat Arba, or Dimona) where they will interface with Israelis and chosen Palestinians. There would be dinners and cocktail parties in the evening with the requisite AIPAC minders and selected Israeli officials. No Palestinians allowed.
5. They would likely receive anything else the desire (within reason).
6. Average cost per congressman $18,000 including parting gift. Paid for by AIPAC affiliate AIEF, the American Israel Education Foundation.
Sweet deal. Kind of like an all-inclusive vacation. The only thing bad about it are the annoying daily side trips that take time away from the beach and the Tiki Bar. A necessary evil, kind of like those annoying time share presentations you have to sit through to get your free dinner.
.
Looks like the DEAL will pass, so much for the rational intelligent PUNKS of America.
DeleteBut in a few short years?
You folks will be screwed.
NEW YORK — Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon said he will support the Iran nuclear deal, a pledge that puts President Obama only three votes short of protecting the pact in Congress.
ReplyDeleteMerkley, a Democrat, issued a statement Sunday calling the accord “the best available strategy to block Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
Merkley’s support brings to 31 the number of senators publicly favoring the deal, which would ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on the country’s nuclear program. Barring defections, Obama needs three more votes from 13 Senate Democrats who have yet to declare their position, to sustain a likely veto of legislation aimed at killing the pact.
The Republican-controlled Congress has until Sept. 17 to pass a resolution disapproving the deal, reached in July between six world powers and Iran. Obama has pledged to veto that resolution if it gets to his desk.
While Republicans have been united in opposing the deal, only two Democratic senators — Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat in the chamber, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey — have joined them.
"Punk ass" ??
ReplyDeleteheh
Not bad......
I've tried to point out for a long time what a good site Jihad Watch really is - here is just one small example -
ReplyDeleteJihad Watch
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts
Scholars catch up to Spencer, realize ancient Qur’an challenges Islam’s origins
August 31, 2015 12:54 pm By Robert Spencer 66 Comments
“Fragments of the world’s oldest Koran, found in Birmingham last month, may predate the Prophet Muhammad and could even rewrite the early history of Islam, according to scholars.” That’s the lead paragraph of the story below, which is dated today. The implication is that the text existed before it became part of the Qur’an — which would completely demolish the Islamic claim that the Qur’an was delivered in perfect form through Gabriel from Allah to Muhammad, and wasn’t based on any source texts at all.
On July 22, I wrote this about the same Qur’an manuscript: “So if this is a fragment of the Qur’an as it now stands…and yet it could date from as far back as 568, two years before Muhammad is supposed to have been born, it might not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. It could instead be a portion of some source that later became part of the Qur’an…”
On July 27, I wrote that “this could be a portion of a pre-Islamic source for the Qur’an.”
Glad to see the academics catching up.
birmingham quran
“The ‘Birmingham Koran’ fragment that could shake Islam after carbon-dating suggests it is OLDER than the Prophet Muhammad,” by Jennifer Newton, MailOnline, August 31, 2015 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Fragments of the world’s oldest Koran, found in Birmingham last month, may predate the Prophet Muhammad and could even rewrite the early history of Islam, according to scholars.
The pages, thought to be between 1,448 and 1,371 years old, were discovered bound within the pages of another Koran from the late seventh century at the library of the University of Birmingham.
Written in ink in an early form of Arabic script on parchment made from animal skin, the pages contain parts of the Suras, or chapters, 18 to 20, which may have been written by someone who actually knew the Prophet Muhammad – founder of the Islamic faith.
The pages were carbon-dated by experts at the University of Oxford, a process which showed the Islamic holy book manuscript could be the oldest Koran in the world.
The discovery was said to be particularly significant as in the early years of Islam, the Koran was thought to have been memorised and passed down orally rather written.
But now several historians have said that the parchment might even predate Muhammad.
It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD.
Historian Tom Holland, told the Times: ‘It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged – and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions.’
Keith Small, from the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, added: ‘This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven….
Or alternatively, some other individual or group used texts that were already in existence and shaped them to fit their own political and theological agenda, as I show in Did Muhammad Exist.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/scholars-catch-up-to-spencer-realize-ancient-quran-challenges-islams-origins
I think Robert Spencer is a wonderful guy.
Update on 'apartheid' - in South Africa -
ReplyDeleteEntire young white South African generation has left the country
By Adriana Stuijt Feb 22, 2009 in Politics
The Institute for Race Relations reports that there's hundreds of thousands of young whites missing in South Africa. Newsweek also reports on the mass exodus of white, skilled families
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267776#ixzz3kTcUm9ok
I stick with my prediction - give it a couple more decades and South Africa will closely resemble that wonderful country, Zimbabwe.
I won't be around to witness it, one small reason to look forward to death....
Are you going to die happy, or, finally, just be happy to die ? And make those sick and tired you happy as well ? --
ReplyDeleteMost religious Americans also most likely to die happy
The most religious Americans are the most likely to say they will die happy
Apart from our yearly interactions with the IRS only death is inevitable, but even though all of us are mortal beings our approaches to the end and our understanding of what, if anything, comes after vary dramatically..................
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/08/30/most-religious-most-likely-die-happy/
Here's the worst news I can come up with for Republicans:
ReplyDeleteIn 2004, in a more or less, "medium turnout" election (approx. 40% of American population voted) Bush beat Kerry rather handily.
In 2012, in an election with, again, about 40% of Americans casting a ballot, Obama thumped Romney, decisively.
Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest national poll finds Donald Trump just continuing to grow
ReplyDeletehis lead over the GOP field. He is at 29% to 15% for Ben Carson, 9% for Jeb Bush, 8%
for Carly Fiorina, 7% for Marco Rubio, 6% each for Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and 5%
each for Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker. That group makes a pretty clear top 9.
Rounding out the field are Chris Christie and Rick Santorum at 2%, Jim Gilmore, Rand
Paul, and Rick Perry at 1%, and Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and George Pataki at
less than 1%.
Our new poll finds that Trump is benefiting from a GOP electorate that thinks Barack
Obama is a Muslim and was born in another country, and that immigrant children should
be deported. 66% of Trump's supporters believe that Obama is a Muslim to just 12% that
grant he's a Christian. 61% think Obama was not born in the United States to only 21%
who accept that he was. And 63% want to amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright
citizenship, to only 20% who want to keep things the way they are.
“Donald Trump’s saying things out on the campaign trail that a lot of people think, but
that have generally been seen as not appropriate to talk about in public,” said Dean
Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “So it’s not surprising that people who hold
those kinds of beliefs are gravitating towards him.”
Trump's beliefs represent the consensus among the GOP electorate. 51% overall want to
eliminate birthright citizenship. 54% think President Obama is a Muslim. And only 29%
grant that President Obama was born in the United States. That's less than the 40% who
think Canadian born Ted Cruz was born in the United States.
Trump's supporters aren't alone in those attitudes though. Only among supporters of John
Kasich . . . . . .
PPP Poll
Obama was born to a moslem father, then adopted by a moslem man, sent to an Indonesian school and registered as a moslem.
DeleteNow personally I HOPE today he is some for of Christian. That would officially make him a moslem apostate.
And you KNOW what that means????
LOL
WASHINGTON - Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey will support the international nuclear agreement with Iran, he said Tuesday, becoming the 32d Senate Democrat to announce plans to do so and moving the deal to within two votes of being able to withstand Congressional objections.
ReplyDelete"This agreement will substantially constrain the Iranian nuclear program for its duration, and compared with all realistic alternatives, it is the best option available to us at this time," Casey wrote in a 17-page, more than 8,000 word analysis he shared with The Inquirer. He called it "one of the most difficult decisions of my public career."
In an interview in his Washington office he added, "I believe that this is better for our security and better for Israel's security, without a doubt, short term and long term."
Casey's decision adds to President Obama's momentum in rallying Democratic support.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20150902_Sen__Casey_to_support_Iran_nuclear_deal.html#lFCsPHO5bqYti474.99
He was, formerly, on the "purely undecided" list.
DeleteWASHINGTON -- Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) came out in favor of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, calling his decision a "very hard choice."
DeleteCoons is the 33rd Senate Democrat to come out in favor of the deal, which curbs Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief provided by President Barack Obama.
“I will support this agreement because it puts us on a known path of limiting Iran’s nuclear program for the next 15 years with the full support of the international community," Coons said during a speech at the University of Delaware. "The alternative, to me, is a scenario of uncertainty and isolation."
The Senate is expected to vote on a resolution of disapproval, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could bring up as early as the second week of September when the upper chamber returns from its summer recess.
Coons said he plans to "vote against any measures to disapprove it in Congress."
Coons’ decision, which was first reported in The Washington Post, comes just one hour after fellow Democrat Sen. Bob Casey (Penn.) announced he would back the deal after what he called "six weeks of intensive review."
"This agreement will substantially constrain the Iranian nuclear program for its duration, and compared with all realistic alternatives, it is the best option available to us at this time," Casey said in his 17-page statement, vowing to also vote to sustain a presidential veto.
The controversy surrounding the deal didn't escape Casey, who added that it "was one of the most difficult decisions of my public career."
Huffington Post
The Israeli press is reporting that Iran has made a firmer military alliance with the Russian Federation in Syria, and that Moscow is sending pilots to Damascus to fly missions in that country against Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) and other Muslim extremist groups.
DeleteThe Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has suffered a series of losses, in Idlib, Palmyra and elsewhere, and Russia may be afraid that without a substantial intervention, the regime could fall.
Some Syrian Daesh units and other vigilante extremists have a Chechen presence; Chechnya is a territory of the Russian Federation that launched two major rebellions, in the 1990s and again at the turn of the century, and Chechen extremists remain a top security concern for Moscow. To have nearby Syria (only a 20-hour drive from the Russian border through Georgia and Turkey). Russia does not want an extremist Muslim state so near to it, which will give support to Chechen and other rebels inside the federation.
BBC Monitoring translates from the Hebrew of Alex Fishman’s report in the daily Yediot Aharanot:
“Russian combat pilots will arrive in Syria in the next few days and operate battle helicopters and warplanes of the Russian air force against ISIS targets and the extreme Islamist militias operating to topple Asad’s regime… Indeed, the Russians have no hostile intentions towards Israel or any other sovereign state in the region and their central objective is fighting ISIS and preserving Asad’s regime, but the mere presence of a Russian aerial force in the skies of the region will certainly also influence the considerations in relation to the way Israel airforce is used… Thus an Iranian-Russian coalition is being formed alongside the coalition of the United States and its allies against ISIS. On the way, Iran has become a central axis – in the eyes of the powers – to solving all the ills of the Middle East.” [From commentary by Alex Fishman in centrist, mass circulation Yediot Aharonot]
The Arabic newspaper Elaph expanded on the story and pointed out that there had been earlier reports that Moscow intended to send Mig-28 fighter jets to the al-Assad regime.
The rumors now are that Russia intends to go much further, and has decided to do for Syria what the US did last summer and fall for Iraq. Moscow will, Elaph says, send thousands of military personnel as trainers, along with some pilots, to shore up the al-Assad regime.
The plans are alleged to come out of closer diplomatic and militiary ties between Russia and Iran, and to have been approved by the commander of Iran’s special forces, the Quds Force (Jerusalem Brigade), Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani is alleged to have made a recent visit to Moscow to coordinate the new strategy.
While Israeli sources are worried about the growth of a Russia-Iran alliance in the region, Elaph maintains that the United States is perfectly happy with the Russian plans, which add firepower in the US coalition’s own bombing campaigns (which have included Australia, the UK, Turkey and some Gulf fighter jets). It says the US is already engaged in a similar coordination with Iran against Daesh in Iraq.
I just called his office and thanked him for his courage in doing the right thing. I let them know that there is a loud focused minority that does not represent the vast majority of Pennsylvania citizens that are uninterested in another Middle East war. He is to commended.
DeleteNow to put a stake in the heart of the un-American Aipac.
Just maybe, with this Iran Deal, and Obama's refusal to put any more Combat Troops into Iraq, he might be on the cusp of breaking this unholy War Fever. We can hope. :)
DeletePPP has Hillary Clinton up 55 to 20 over Bernie Sanders, nationally
ReplyDeletePPP
.
ReplyDeleteA win for Fiorina. CNN decided to change the rules on the debate and will take the top 10 candidates in polls starting from early August rather than going all the way back to July. This will likely put Fiorino on the stage. How much difference it will make? We'll see.
.
Come on now, folks, let have at least a little honesty here.
ReplyDeleteWhich two American politicians are truly responsible for the mess in Iraq, Syria, and Libya ?
We all know the answer: Bozo Obama and Hillary.
The Republicans haven't controlled foreign policy of 7 years now....
Besides, they are too busy persecuting and prosecuting their "War on Women" here at home, those domestic terrorists in the Republican Party.
Is there any idiotic leftist meme too lame for a couple of you here ?
No, there is not.
The "deal" will be turned down in the Congress, it will then be veto'd by Obama and sent back to the Congress and those that support the deal are saying they are close to having enough votes to prevent an override.
ReplyDeletethis assume nothing changes....
All that has to happen are the fact about the deal or iranian behavior to get worse and some of those votes might change.
today Iran announced:
Iran Vows to Violate UN Restrictions on Ballistic Missiles
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed that the Islamic Republic would violate outstanding United Nations restrictions governing the country’s ballistic missile program and that the behavior would not violate the recent nuclear accord, according to a translation of the leader’s remarks performed by the CIA’s Open Source Center.
Iran is “not committed to the restrictions on its missile program,” according to a recent comment made by Rouhani, who said a violation of international restrictions would not impact the nuclear accord recently reached with global powers.
“We have formally announced that we are not committed to these provisions [related to missiles] mentioned in [the] U.N. resolution,” Rouhani was quoted as saying in an Aug. 29 Persian language speech broadcast on Iran’s state-controlled television networks.
As Iran continues to hold American hostages, violate UNSC resolutions on other matters, bomb and attack Israel directly or indirectly all of these things collectively or individually might change the course of the votes.
How likely is Iran capable of doing mischief between now and the veto override vote?
I'd say nearly 100%.
Dont count the chickens before they are hatched.
This treaty is not dead yet... Oh yeah, it's not a treaty, another Obama slight of hand trick to get it thru...
Now of course the 2016 elections are at play too...
DeleteHow many democrats are up for reelection?
As Iran looks more and more evil and obama looks more and more lame duck and weak?
anything can happen.
Oh how can Iran cheat?
DeleteIran will never recognize Israel, a top aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated on Sunday. "Iran will not recognize Israel," Ali Akbar Velayati said. "We still emphasize that Israel is a usurper and occupying regime."
Last week, another top Iranian official said Iran's anti-Israel policies remain in place.
"Our positions against the usurper Zionist regime have not changed at all," Hossein Sheikholeslam, an international affairs adviser to the speaker of the Iranian parliament, said. "Israel should be annihilated, and this is our ultimate slogan."
The comments of Velayti and Sheikholeslam came following British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond's recent visit to Tehran, during which Hammond claimed that the current Iranian government, led by President Hassan Rouhani, has displayed a more nuanced approach toward Israel than previous Iranian governments.
Meanwhile, Iran has barred conductor Daniel Barenboim from entering the country because of his Israeli citizenship. Barenboim, the general music director of the Berlin State Opera, had been planning to hold a concert in Tehran.
"We have no problem with the German orchestra coming to Iran, but we are opposed to the person leading that group," an Iranian Culture Ministry spokesperson was quoted by AFP as saying. "He has multiple nationalities, and one of them is Israeli. For security reasons and to prevent issues following the entry of certain people into Iran, we stopped it."
On Saturday, Rouhani said he opposes a vote by the Iranian parliament on the landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers last month, because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers.
Rouhani told a news conference that the deal was a political understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary approval. The deal also says Iran would implement the terms voluntarily, he said.
"If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government," Rouhani said. "It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it. Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?"
Oh how can we have an agreement with Iran that is based on nothing?
The whole thing is a true tragic FARCE, but I blame the Republican leadership a good deal too.
DeleteThey caved on this horseshit about it not being a Treaty.
Of course it is a Treaty.
Every other arms control agreement has been treated as a Treaty.
Only the Senate ought to be voting on this, and they constitutionally would need a 2/3rds majority to pass it.
Our society is really becoming dysfunctional.....
Trump, Carson, Fiorina.......these are the ones that truly command respect.
The Republican Leadership in Congress SUCKS.
They (the Republican Leadership) are better than the Democrats, but they really do SUCK.
There are parts of this Farcical Agreement that are unknown to even the United States.
DeleteThere are protocols between the UN and Iran we are not party to, so I have read.
Is Quirk, for instance, really such a nitwit that he would actually sign a contract the terms of which he does not know ?
By his postings here, it is evident that it is so.
The Great Debate
ReplyDeleteReading Hillary Clinton’s body language when she talks about the email debacle
By Dan Hill
September 1, 2015
Tags: 2016 Democratic presidential nomination | 2016 presidential election | computer server | democratic party | email scandal | Hillary Clinton
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she speaks during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 18, 2015. REUTERS/David Becker
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton faced repeated questions about her use of a private computer server for emails while secretary of state during her recent Las Vegas news conference. Her discomfort with the topic was evident — especially if you compare her facial expressions in Las Vegas to her June 13 campaign launch announcement in New York. You can see the sharp contrast if you watch both events with the sound off, focusing on Clinton’s facial expressions and body language.
Clinton is described, by both supporters and critics, as “brainy,” “tough” both personally and politically. In Las Vegas, however, her expressions were more like a tired boxer’s, slightly off-balance and woozy.
For relatively long stretches, given that she was holding a news conference, Clinton repeatedly closed her eyes. By itself, that facial muscle activity is a sign of sadness. But add to this how often she also raised her eyebrows, in ways not necessarily emphasizing her comments. This was unusual for her. And it usually signifies both sadness and anxiety.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gestures after she delivered her "official launch speech" at a campaign kick off rally in Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York City
Hillary Clinton gestures after her official launch speech at a campaign kick off rally in Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park in New York City, June 13, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Back in New York in June, however, Clinton had been crisp, polished and forceful. Fully two-thirds of her launch announcement news conference involved her either smiling happily or showing resolve – as when she talked about how she would move America forward.
But the Las Vegas version was a startling contrast. There this veteran politician closed her eyes — perhaps signaling she was weary, maybe wanting the email debacle to just go away — roughly nine times more often than she smiled. And her smiles were usually compromised by her simultaneously making an ironic or even sarcastic remark. Normally a confident speaker, the Las Vegas Clinton betrayed an equal number of instances in which her mouth pulled wide in a classic look that can signal fear.
DeleteYes, Clinton’s been known to have a temper. But in Las Vegas any strong signs of anger — when the muscle below the lower lip bulges — were almost matched by the number of times Clinton’s mouth hung open in surprise. She seemed almost stunned at how long media focus has remained on the server issue.
Her hand gestures in the two news events were also remarkably different. During Clinton’s launch announcement, she demonstrated textbook retail politics. She was firm and in control. Reading from prepared remarks, she crisply emphasized parts with in-command finger pointing and miniature hand chops.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she speaks during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada
Hillary Clinton during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 18, 2015. REUTERS/David Becker
The Las Vegas Clinton was, in contrast, awash in loose hand gestures that expanded and contracted, dipping and weaving. She would pull toward her chest when she came back to her theme that she had done nothing wrong.
What to make of it these contrasts between the two news conferences? Even as Clinton in Las Vegas raised her outer eyebrow, which can often indicate fear, she insisted, “I’m very comfortable.” While she said, “I want the American people to see everything,” she closed her eyes. On that impromptu, Nevada give-and-take, we saw a hesitant, less combative Clinton. The old Clinton may well have been, in Obama’s infamous words, “likeable enough.” The new Clinton used a Ronald Reagan line in Las Vegas, “facts are stubborn [things?].”
Whatever she may have wanted to shield from public view by using her own email server, what Clinton’s can’t hide is that she’s now deeply discombobulated.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/31/reading-hillary-clintons-body-language-when-she-talks-about-the-email-debacle/
I think this is wrong. It is not political. It is obvious to me she knows Huma is leaving her, and that she is toast 'romantically', because she is toast politically.
What a crew, the four of them - both Hillary and Huma each have totally dysfunctional marriages - both their hubbies are sexual pervs - yes, we can say that now, thank you Donald Trump - Bill showing his penis to any female that walks alone into his hotel room, and Mr Huma displaying his on Facebook.
But they have each other, Huma and Hillary, their 'closeness' is palpable - and Hillary knows Huma is only into her only for the power she gets out of the relationship, and the power is ebbing, and Hag Hillary is in deep distress.
Where will she turn for 'love' when Huma is gone ?
War is logistics, and Geography,
ReplyDeleteand
The old white farts are dying off, and the millenials are voting Democratic.
There is surely a path for the Republicans, but I'll be damned if I can see it.
Politics is Demography.
War is logistics, and politics is demographics.
Deletewhatever :)
whatever
DeletePresidential politics are somewhat different than state politics.
The Republicans have been wiping ass all over the map in state elections despite 'demographics', but you haven't noticed.
I do think, and surely hope, we see a Republican President this time around, and that they keep control of the Senate.
Kate Steinle's Family to Sue San Francisco, Federal Officials over 'Sanctuary Cities'.......Drudge
ReplyDeleteEXCELLENT !!
I'd truly LOVE to be on the jury.
Hillary ain't gonna be President, and neither is *Jeb !*
ReplyDeleteThis at least keeps the heart beating for one more election cycle.
Poll reveals huge majority support mandatory deporting of illegals - 9/1/15 Is it really shocking that a landslide majority want to see the law followed? More
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/poll_reveals_huge_majority_support_mandatory_deporting_of_illegals.html
And a good solid majority are against the Iran Agreement Farce.
And, as usual, a good solid majority supports Israel, as always....
And, a good solid majority supports....on and on.
I sense the stars beginning to align, at long last.....
.
ReplyDeleteOh how can Iran cheat?
Iran will never recognize Israel, a top aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated on Sunday. "Iran will not recognize Israel," Ali Akbar Velayati said. "We still emphasize that Israel is a usurper and occupying regime."
Last week, another top Iranian official said Iran's anti-Israel policies remain in place.
What's that got to do with Iran cheating? Iran is certainly not the only country that doesn't recognize Israel.
.
Excuse me but haven’t we heard that Israel will never recognize the existence of Palestine and that Palestinians are not a real people?
ReplyDeleteWe have even been treated to a name for them, Fakestinians
Which country , nuclear armed to the teeth, is a proclaimed enemy of Iran?
ReplyDeleteReporters are mostly combing through the just-released Hillary Clinton emails looking for scandal, but the correspondence also reveals how Clinton and the people in her orbit think and talk about important policy issues when they believe no one's listening.
That includes, in this case, two emails from 2010 that offer a fascinating glimpse into how two Clinton-world foreign policy people, Martin Indyk and Sandy Berger (they are also former senior officials in the Bill Clinton administration), thought about Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Neither was in government at the time, but their notes both reached Clinton as she was secretary of state. And it seems at least highly plausible that they would return to senior roles in a future Clinton administration.
The picture these emails paint of Israel and Netanyahu is scathing and bleak: They portray the Israeli leader as bumbling, irrational, intransigent, often acting in bad faith, and as one of the biggest hurdles to Israel-Palestine peace. But their proposed solutions are not for the US to punish or circumvent Netanyahu, but rather to coddle and reward him so as to nudge him toward doing the right thing.
This approach, it seems to me, is either cynical and necessary — Netanyahu holds the keys to Israeli policy, and Israel is by far the dominant actor in the Israel-Palestine conflict, so maybe America’s only choice is to hold its nose and appease him — or it is hopelessly naive, mistaking Netanyahu’s absolute opposition to peace as a mere negotiating position, handing him one concession after another, though he has no intention of reciprocating...
The conclusion you come away with from this section and the email generally is that Indyk believed Netanyahu was the real obstacle to peace and that his opposition was rooted neither in rationality nor even in cynical politics, but in irrational pathologies and personality faults.
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/1/9239943/israel-clinton-emails
In short, Netanyahu is a deranged scumbag.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion on the matter is without substance or merit.
DeleteNetanyahu is the Prime Minister of Jewish State of Israel. You have a deranged Israel bashing, Jew trashing, Zionism hating blog...
Like it or not? He's a leader you are a nothing.
If you want to argue that Netanyahu’s values are the values of Israel, Jews and you, you are welcome to that ground.I’ll stick with my team.
Delete