“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
May 16, 2016ReplyDelete
The FBI may be looking at a violation of the Constitution in their Hillary investigation
By Richard Henry Lee
Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution forbids office holders from accepting anything of value from a foreign state, yet husband Bill Clinton collected $1 million from the Abu Dhabi government while Hillary was secretary of state.
Bill Clinton spoke at the Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (AGEDI) on December 13, 2011 and received a speaking fee of $500,000. The AGEDI is a program funded by the Abu Dhabi government, so the source of the funds was the government itself. Although the fee was paid to Bill, Hillary equally benefited from the payment. In effect, she accepted money from a foreign state.
A year later, Bill spoke to the World Travel and Tourism Council in Abu Dhabi (also funded by the Abu Dhabi government) for another fee of $500,000, for a total of $1 million.
The U.S. Constitution provides in Section 9 as follows:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The Congress has provided that gifts to the president from foreign governments, for example, are transferred to the United States government. The Congress has never provided for office holders to accept personal gifts. Yet somehow, the Department of State allowed Bill to collect large speaking fees when Hillary was also a benefactor.
Bill and Hillary both studied law at Yale University and they presumably took a course on constitutional law. Also, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Yet Bill was allowed to brazenly accept large speaking fees from a foreign government where Hillary also stood to benefit.
It is possible that the FBI is investigating this angle, since Michael Mukasey, former U.S. judge and attorney general, stated on Fox News Channel's Sunday Morning Futures on May 15, 2016 that there was a violation of the Constitution when Bill took money from Nigeria. Mukasey apparently had his facts wrong, since it was a newspaper owner who paid for Bill's Nigeria speech, and it was the government of Abu Dhabi who gave Bill money. Even though he got his country wrong, Mukasey may have contacts in the FBI or Justice Department who revealed to him that the investigators are looking at a possible constitution violation.
Both Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer and the Wall Street Journal have reported that Abu Dhabi benefited from actions by Hillary’s State Department during the time of the payments.
Meanwhile, Hillary's rocky campaign for the Democratic nomination continues while we wait for word on any criminal charges.
What really fries my ass is the annexation of Gaza by Israel and it's occupation by the IDF.ReplyDelete
More Jews were forced out of their properties, 850,000 from land they had lived for 1800 year longer than the arab conquers...ReplyDelete
If the arabs had not ethnically cleansed the Jews from their homes, stole their businesses and pushed them into the nascent Jewish state? thing could have been different..
Thanks to the arabs?
Israel is strong.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY ISRAEL 68 YEARS STRONG...ReplyDelete
The arabs of area could have had their own state but they choose war...ReplyDelete
They were offered statehood numerous times?
They are their own worse enemy.
Today, 20% of Israel is arab. they are equal citizens. In fact there are more arabs INSIDE Israel today than existed from the river to sea in 1948.ReplyDelete
In the rest of the arab controlled lands of the middle east almost every single Jew has been removed. 899/900th of the middle east are Jew free...
1/900 of the land is the Jewish state. 20% arab citizens. More arabs there than the original area..
899/900th of the land? Jew free...
Palestinians, if you choose to call them that, have had every opportunity for make their own state..
No one stopped them from 1948 - 1967 except themselves.
I agree, and you've said it all better than I could.Delete
The NYT hit piece on The Donald and women has just been blown to smithereens by the lead witness who has been telling Fox News she was quoted out of context, the quotes were twisted and distorted, and The Donald treated her just fine, she likes the man, and is going to vote for him !
Video: ‘They spun it.’ Woman featured in Times hit piece says Trump ‘was a gentleman’Delete
posted at 10:01 am on May 16, 2016 by Larry O'Connor
A woman featured in the New York Times expose on Donald Trump’s past experiences with women says the “Old Gray Lady” is full of bunk.
Appearing on Fox News Monday morning, former model Rowanne Brewer Lane spoke out against the Times article that the media set their news cycles on all weekend long.
Brewer Lane went on to say she “did not have a negative experience” with the presumptive GOP nominee. “He was a gentleman,” she said.
Who is Ben Rhodes ?ReplyDelete
"Ben Rhodes is 'the bravest person I've ever met in Washington"Delete
- NY Times Author
Paul Krugman: It Takes a PolicyReplyDelete
This is far more important than tax cuts for the rich:
It Takes a Policy, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: U.S. politicians love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy. ... Judged by what we actually do..., America is unique among advanced countries in its utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens.
For example, almost all advanced countries provide paid leave from work for new parents. We don’t. Our public expenditure on child care and early education, as a share of income, is near the bottom in international rankings...
But can our neglect of children be ended?
In January, both Democratic candidates declared their support for a program that would provide 12 weeks of paid leave to care for newborns and other family members. And last week, while the news media was focused on Donald Trump’s imaginary friend, I mean imaginary spokesman, Hillary Clinton announced an ambitious plan to improve both the affordability and quality of U.S. child care.
This was an important announcement .. that could well be the centerpiece of a Clinton administration.
O.K., we don’t have all the details yet, but the outline seems pretty clear. On the affordability front, Mrs. Clinton would use subsidies and tax credits to limit family spending on child care — which can be more than a third of income — to a maximum of 10 percent.
Meanwhile, there would be aid to states and communities that raise child-care workers’ pay, and a variety of other measures... All of this would still leave America less generous than many other countries, but it would be a big step toward international norms
Is this doable? Yes. Is it desirable? Very much so. ... Our threadbare system of public support for child care and early education costs 0.4 percent of the G.D.P.; France’s famously generous system costs 1.2 percent of the G.D.P. So we could move a long way up the scale with a fairly modest investment.
And it would indeed be an investment...
So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?
The state of child care in America is cruel and shameful — and even more shameful because we could make things much better without radical change or huge spending. And one candidate has a reasonable, feasible plan to do something about this shame, while the other couldn’t care less.
Perpetrator As Victim: No End To A Self-Inflicted "Tragedy"ReplyDelete
What "Nakba" commemorations really disclose.
May 16, 2016
Yesterday, May 15, Palestinians and their supporters, as they have done increasingly over recent years, marked the nakba (Arabic for ‘catastrophe’) –– the day 68 years ago that Israel came into existence upon the expiry of British rule under a League of Nations mandate.
That juxtaposition of Israel and nakba isn’t accidental. We’re meant to understand that Israel’s creation caused the displacement of hundreds of thousand of Palestinian Arabs.
But the truth is different. A British document from the scene in early 1948, declassified in 2013, tells the story: “the Arabs have suffered ... overwhelming defeats ... Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands.”
In other words, Jew and Arabs, including irregular foreign militias from neighboring states, were already at war and Arabs were fleeing even before Israel came into sovereign existence on May 15, 1948.
Neighboring Arab armies and internal Palestinian militias responded to Israel’s declaration of independence with full-scale hostilities. In fact, the headline for the New York Times’ famous report on that day includes the words, ‘Tel Aviv Is Bombed, Egypt Orders Invasion.’ And, indeed, the head of Israel’s provisional government, David Ben Gurion, delivered his first radio address to the nation from an air-raid shelter.
Israel successfully resisted invasion and dismemberment –– the universally affirmed objective of the Arab belligerents –– and Palestinians came off worst of all from the whole venture. At war’s end, over 600,000 Palestinians were living as refugees under neighboring Arab regimes.
As Saudi columnist Abdulateef Al-Mulhim observed on previous anniversary, “It was a defeat but the Arabs chose to call it a catastrophe.” In fact, the Syrian, Qustantin Zuraiq, in his 1948 pamphlet, Ma’an al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Catastrophe), was first used the term nakba in this context, and the catastrophe of his description was not an Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but their flight in anticipation of an Arab invasion and destruction of Israel.
Accordingly, the term nakba, as used today, smacks of falsehood, inasmuch as it implies a tragedy inflicted by Israel. The "tragedy," of course, was self-inflicted.
As Israel’s UN ambassador Abba Eban was to put it some years later, “Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged.”Delete
However, the Palestinians do not mourn today the ill-conceived choice of going to war to abort Israel. They mourn only that they failed.
This is contrary to historical experience of disastrous defeat. The Germans today mourn their losses in World War Two –– but not by lauding their invasion of Poland and justifying their attempt to subjugate Europe. They do not glorify Nazi aggression.
The Japanese today mourn their losses in World War Two –– but not by lauding their assault on Pearl Harbor and their attempt to subjugate south-east Asia. They do not glorify Japanese imperialism.
Nakba commemoration is therefore instructive in a way few realize.
It informs us that Palestinians have not admitted or assimilated the fact –– as Germans and Japanese have done in varying degrees –– that they became victims as a direct result of their efforts to be perpetrators.
It also informs us that Palestinians would still like to succeed today at what they miserably failed to achieve then.
And it informs us that they take no responsibility for their own predicament, which is uniquely maintained to this day at their own insistence.
If readers doubt my word, consider the following vignette: in January 2001, John Manley, then-Foreign Minister in Jean Chretien’s Canadian Government, offered to welcome Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Canada. The Palestinian response? Mr. Manley was burned in effigy by Palestinian rioters in Nablus and Palestinian legislator Hussam Khader declared, “If Canada is serious about resettlement, you could expect military attacks in Ottawa or Montreal.”
Why this astounding response by a Palestinian official to an offer of refugee relief?
Because establishing a Palestinian state and resettling the refugees and their descendants inside it or abroad would remove any internationally-accepted ground for conflict. That’s why helping to solve the Palestinian refugee problem is regarded as a hostile act –– by Palestinians.
Nakba commemorations disclose that the conflict is about Israel’s existence –– not about territory, borders, holy places, refugees or any other bill of particulars.
When Palestinians accept that Israel is here to stay, the possibility of the conflict’s end will come into view. In the meantime, responsible governments can repudiate nakba commemorations –– rather than treat them as benign expressions of national loss or grief –– as a small but important step towards bringing that day closer.
The real tragedy was that the world allowed the Zionists to ignore UN Resolution 181
Who is Charles Ortel ?ReplyDelete
He's the guy showing you that The Clinton Foundation is a huge criminal enterprise -
Did you expect anything less ?Delete
If Abu Dhabi sprinkled all that emolument on Bill and Hill, why don't they look 20 years younger?ReplyDelete
BILL KRISTOL: REPUBLICAN SPOILER, RENEGADE JEWReplyDelete
A reckless plan to derail the election.
In 1948 the single largest land mass of "palestinians" was Jordan.ReplyDelete
“The area of the Mandate was originally 118,000 square kilometers (about 45,000 square miles). In 1921, Britain took the 91,000 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River, and created Trans-Jordan (later the Arab country of Jordan) as a new Arab protectorate. Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river, even though that land was over three-fourths of the original Mandate.”
I remember Rufus used to BRAG about how Iran never has sent it's troops abroad in a hundred years...ReplyDelete
Well of course that boast has bitten the dust bin of reality...
The battle on May 6 in the village of Khan Touman, located southwest of Aleppo near Route 5, the main highway leading to Damascus, will go down in the annals of the Syrian war as the biggest defeat suffered by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hizballah, as well as the battle that changed the face of the war.
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that an Iranian force consisting of IRGC troops and Hizballah was ambushed by fighters from the Jaysh al Fath organization, part of the Nusra Front.
Until this battle took place, Iranian and Hizballah commanders in Syria did not know that the rebels had received a shipment of MILAN antitank missiles provided by Turkey and funded by Saudi Arabia.
The encounter with the advanced weapon system brought the IRGC and Hizballah to rout.
The Iranians admitted that 17 of their fighters fell in the battle, including 13 from the IRGC’s “Karbala” Division that is usually based in Iran, and 22 were wounded. Among the dead were two Iranian brigadier generals. At least ten IRGC troops were taken prisoner by the rebels. Five or seven Iranian troops were executed immediately, and an unknown number were taken from the area to an undisclosed location.
Hizballah claimed that none of its troops were killed or taken prisoner. However, that statement was actually an attempt to hide that at least 15 of its fighters were killed. According to intelligence sources that monitored the battle, Hizballah’s death toll was even higher.
The defeat was a major shock to the Iranian and Hizballah hierarchies In Tehran and Beirut, and officials vowed that revenge would be coming soon.
The immediate result of the shock was the appointment of Gen. Mohsen Rezaei, commander of the IRGC 26 years ago in the 1980s, who retired years ago and was a candidate in several presidential elections.
The good news? Hezbollah and Iran are getting their butts HANDED to them.
Die baby Die....
Quirk, please ignore since it's a JEWISH/Israeli source that spoon feeds me...ReplyDelete
The massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in the early years of the 20th century was “unequivocally genocide,” the head of the Anti-Defamation League said.
His added that his organization will support US recognition of the Armenian Genocide, a move the civil rights group resisted for many years.
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt on Friday staked out the ADL’s strongest position on the subject in his blog post for Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, ahead of the organization’s national convention that began Sunday in Washington, D.C. Greenblatt tied the events to the Holocaust.
“Let me be crystal clear: …What happened in the Ottoman Empire to the Armenians beginning in 1915 was genocide,” he wrote.
“We believe that remembering and educating people about any genocide – Armenian, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda and others is a necessary tool to prevent future tragedies,” he also wrote.
Let's be clear...ReplyDelete
In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled from their homes as to not be lorded over by Jews...
And all they got was a lousy T-shirt...
Marx wasn't a German. It was his co-ethnics that tried to spread his beliefs around the world, and it was those co-ethnics that Hitler evicted from his country. Some of those evicted came to the US to spread that disease. Considering the damage that this Frankfurt school did to our nation, is it any wonder Hitler wanted them out? The only reason so many had to die was because Western nations stuck their nose in. If we had let Hitler clean out central Europe and be a bulwark against the USSR, many problems would have been avoided.
No More Bull
you have no problem with ethnic cleansing ?
spreading antii semitism is NOT an acceptable notion.
begone SOB racist!
So you believe in multiculturalism? If yes, you are deluded. If no, what do you think is the only solution to a nation of mixed cultures?
Also, the nazis didn't try to kill the jews, they tried to deport them, with the help of various zionist organizations. Then the war started and the blockade stopped them from doing so. The concentration camps were no different than our own camps for detaining the Japanese, except that towards the end of the war Europe was short on food and we bombed the railways which stopped food shipments to the camps.
Well "quest" is retarded....Delete
"Quest" has got a real problem, 'tis true.Delete
Let's be clear...ReplyDelete
in 1948 the hitler supporting arabs were a defeated people, being on the losing side of history.....
60,000,000 lay dead....
And the arab world was in no mood to allow a Jewish state to happen, they declared war and lost again...
Maybe the arabs should not have supported hitler?
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (arafat's egyptian's uncle) of course a big hitler fan wanted to murder every jew in the land...
Sadat of Egypt? Another nazi....
I read somewhere but can't find it now that The Clinton Foundation, supposedly a 'charity', got out about 10% of its funding to actual charitable works, the rest being a massive slush fund to enrich the Clintons.ReplyDelete
This sounds about right.
Actual charities like Lutheran World Relief and Catholic Charities get out about 95% of their funding to actual good works.
They compete each year to see which can be most efficient.
All three Clintons, Bill, Hill and Chelsea, should be in prison.