Archive for July 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

GOP platform gets Trump-ified

July 13, 2016

GOP platform gets Trump-ified, The Hill, Jonathan Easley, July 13, 2016

CLEVELAND — Donald Trump is putting his stamp on the official policy platform of the Republican Party.

Now, the party has fully embraced one of Trump’s most controversial proposals, explicitly calling for a wall that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”

**********************

Republican Platform Committee members on Tuesday voted to include language calling for the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

And in a nod their presumptive presidential nominee’s support for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, they also endorsed language that would impose “special scrutiny” of foreign nationals seeking to enter the U.S. from “regions associated with Islamic terrorism.”

Both provisions are departures from the GOP platform of 2012, when Republicans nominated Mitt Romney for president.

That party platform then called for completing “double-layered fencing” on the border, which was ordered by Congress in 2006 but never completed. It was silent on any special scrutiny of Muslims or other people from countries associated with Islamic extremism.

The language on a border wall is a significant shift away from the “autopsy” report written by the Republican National Committee after Romney’s defeat. That report emphasized the need for the party to appeal to Hispanic voters to win back the White House.

Platform Committee members described the endorsement of Trump’s immigration proposals as evidence the party is fully embracing him on the issues that have energized his supporters and infuriated his critics.

“Back on June 16 of 2015, Donald Trump proposed this, and it resonated with the people of America,” said Stephen Stepanek, a committee member and delegate from New Hampshire who endorsed Trump last month.

“So not only is the Platform Committee recognizing the position Donald Trump has held throughout the primary process, it has been endorsed by the American people, who have overwhelmingly supported his positions and overwhelmingly made him the presumptive nominee.”

Trump and his supporters have largely kept a low profile as the committee crafts the policy platform, which delegates will consider at the Republican National Convention next week.

But they have made their marks on issues like immigration and trade that have been the cornerstones of Trump’s campaign.

The only mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the international trade deal crafted by the Obama administration that Trump vehemently opposes — was stricken from an early draft of the platform.

The language on the border wall passed unanimously through a subcommittee and did not attract any opposition or amendments at the full committee hearing.

It passed easily on Tuesday without any additional debate.

The only change to the immigration plank came when Trump supporter Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of State who helped write part of Trump’s immigration plan, interjected to ensure the platform would refer to “illegal aliens” rather than “illegal immigrants.”

Getting the wall built into the platform is a big win for the Trump campaign as it seeks normalize the proposals that some party leaders have been loath to embrace.

“The Romney campaign was very heavy handed about influencing the platform,” said Oregon delegate Russ Walker, who was on the Platform Committee in 2012 and this year.

“It’s far less that way this time from the Trump campaign. What’s happened is the current Platform Committee is in sync with Trump and using language in the platform to say the things they’ve wanted to say for some time.”

Trump’s promise to build a wall to keep people from illegally crossing into the U.S. has been one of the primary drivers of his insurgent campaign and a flashpoint for controversy.

And the committee has reworded its policy document to match the presumptive nominee’s campaign promises.

The 2012 platform said the double-layer fencing “must finally be built.”

The working draft of this year’s platform called for “construction of a physical barrier,” but Trump supporters saw that language as being open to weaker interpretations.

Now, the party has fully embraced one of Trump’s most controversial proposals, explicitly calling for a wall that must cover “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”

Kelly Armstrong, a Platform Committee member and delegate from North Dakota, told The Hill, “I support the presumptive nominee, and so putting language in there to support his proposals is a good idea.”

“At the end of the day, a strong immigration policy is something Republicans will support, and we’ll support our nominee’s positions on that.”

But some Republican critics of the plan say it’s impossible to build a border wall on the rough terrain along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) told The Hill in an interview on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that adopting the wall into the party’s platform doesn’t make it any more likely to happen.

“It doesn’t really matter,” Simpson said. “You still have to appropriate money for it. Mexico’s not going to pay for it. There are places where a wall is appropriate, but you’re not going to build a wall down the whole 2,300 miles on the border.”

The platform does not address Trump’s promise that Mexico will pay for the wall.

And some Republicans have warned that the proposal will further turn away Hispanic voters.

Following the 2012 elections, the Republican National Committee issued an assessment meant to keep Republicans from losing the White House race again.

The RNC report warned that minorities “wrongly think Republicans do not like them or want them in the country.”

Now some fear Trump’s vow to build the wall, as well as his saying that most Mexican immigrants bring crime over the border, has reversed any progress the party has made.

“I’ve found you can’t look at the Hispanic voters monolithically — there are plenty of folks who came here legally who respect that process and do not appreciate people who ignore that process,” said Giovanni Cicione, a Rhode Island delegate on the Platform Committee. “That being said, those same people probably have relatives here illegally, so it becomes a difficult question.”

But most Republicans on the Platform Committee dismissed those worries.

“I’m not concerned about that,” said Darcie Johnston, a Platform Committee member from Vermont. “That’s more of a press narrative.”

For the most part, delegates on the panel viewed their votes as a reflection of proposals that have widespread support among grassroots conservatives.

They say they believe that bringing the platform in line with Trump on immigration will unite the party and capitalize on enthusiasm from the base.

“By the time we leave the Platform Committee meeting and by the time Republican delegates leave Cleveland, we’ll go home united and ready to support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton,” said Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, a delegate on the committee.

“You’re going to see a very united Republican Party,” she continued. “So many [delegates] have already come around. … A number of individuals are no longer talking about how they wish their candidate had won. They’re talking about what can we do to help Donald Trump.”

Categories: Donald Trump, Homeland Security, Islamic immigration, Mexico wall, Republican Party platform, U.S. borders
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama’s Obscene Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre

July 13, 2016

Obama’s Obscene Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 13, 2016

Obama obscene

Not only had Obama’s actions led to the murder of police officers, but he was determined to whitewash their deaths and exploit them as weapons in his war against the police.

****************************8

In Dallas, Obama mentioned the name of dead sex offender Alton Sterling more times than those of the murdered police officers whom he was pretending to memorialize. After quickly dispensing with the formalities of eulogizing the slain officers, Obama demanded that “even those who dislike the phrase ‘black lives matter’” should “be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family”.

Alton Sterling was a convicted sex offender, burglar and violent criminal who was shot while reaching for a gun. His family may mourn him, just as every criminal’s family mourns their own, but it was obscene to class him together with five police officers who were murdered by a violent racist while doing their duty.

It is even more obscene when Obama’s favorite sex offender displaces the murdered police officers.

And yet that was Obama’s theme in Dallas. Murdered police officers were contrasted with dead criminals. The proper thing for Americans to do, as Obama told us, was to mourn both officers and criminals, to respect the sacrifices of the police and the anti-police accusations of #BlackLivesMatter.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn the murdered police officers, but to defend the ideology that took their lives. And this is what he has done from the very beginning.

Before the shootings, Obama expressed his “condolences for the families of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile” and insisted that the criminal justice system was racist. His statements and speeches after the shootings echoed the same talking points and spin complete with the claims that accusing the police of racism is “not to be against law enforcement”.

“When people say ‘Black Lives Matter,’ that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter”, he famously said.

That’s true. Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean that blue lives don’t matter. It means that blue lives are evil. As Ta-Nehisi Coates, an author on Obama’s reading list, wrote of the dead police officers who gave their lives on September 11, “They were not human to me.” That’s the kindest thing that the black nationalists whose cause Obama has championed have said of the police.

In a more recent article titled, “The Near Certainty of Anti-Police Violence”, the MacArthur Genius Grant recipient and son of a Black Panther suggests that black resentment of police makes their murder predictable.

“Sanctimonious cries of nonviolence will not help,” Coates writes. “The extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Walter Scotts and Freddie Grays is the extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Micah Xavier Johnsons.”

It’s the core black nationalist message made more palatable for liberal audiences. Underneath the word games, the attempt to treat the ideological justifications for the mass murder of police as inevitable, is the same message delivered by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, the #BlackLivesMatter supporter who assassinated two NYPD officers, who had posted, “They take 1 of ours…Let’s take 2 of theirs”.

Obama’s message was even more polished than Coates, but not really so very different. Coates had polished up the radical black nationalist message for liberal audiences. Obama’s speechwriters shaped his for a national audience. But underneath the religiosity and praise of the police was sheer contempt.

In one of the nastily cynical moments, Obama claimed that “to honor these five outstanding officers who we lost” we would have to act on “uncomfortable” truths such as his claim that the police are racist. “Insisting we do better to root out racial bias is not an attack on cops, but an effort to live up to our highest ideals,” he spun.

While the media applauded his “healing”, Obama was just recycling his speeches from before the Dallas shooting. The talking points had not changed. They had only been moved around a little to exploit the police officers murdered by a #BlackLivesMatter supporter in order to promote #BlackLivesMatter.

Indeed this had always been Obama’s first and foremost priority.

After the shooting, his initial response was to emphasize that the anti-police protests were “peaceful”. At Dallas, in his praise of the police officers, he insisted on inserting that same description of a “peaceful” protest “in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota”. The choice of words, ‘killing’ rather than ‘death’, is significant.

The “shootings in Minnesota and Baton Rouge” were equated with the murders of police officers in Dallas in a breathtaking bit of moral equivalence. Americans were encouraged to grieve for sex offender Alton Sterling and the murdered police officers at the same time. And, just in case there was any ambiguity about which side he was on, Obama warned that “we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.”

It was a defense of #BlackLivesMatter at a memorial for their victims.

Obama’s spin was that he was calling for unity when in reality he was pushing the divisive agenda of the hate group whose rhetoric helped lead to the killings. He was not a healer, but an arsonist.

There was nothing unifying about his exploitation of a memorial service to push anti-cop messages or to call for gun control. Neither message is in any way, shape or form unifying. They are as divisive as can be.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn, to heal or to unify. His sole purpose was to protect his #BlackLivesMatter hate group from the consequences of its rhetoric. Americans were fed lies about peaceful protests featuring armed members of hate groups who had called for the murder of police.

#BlackLivesMatter draws its inspiration from a cop-killer. It has deliberately targeted white people in much the same fashion that Micah X. Johnson did. The only real difference between Johnson and the black nationalist hate groups frantically trying to distance themselves from him in much the same way that mosques do from the latest Islamic terrorist is that he followed through on a lot of their rhetoric.

Johnson was not trying to get a job writing Black Panther comics or making YouTube videos. He actually did the sort of thing that #BlackLivesMatter role models like Assata Shakur did. He killed police officers.

For Obama, Dallas was a bump in the black nationalist road. It was, like every Islamic terrorist attack, an unfortunate incident from which we shouldn’t draw any conclusions, except perhaps that guns are bad. The goal is to redirect our attention to the next set of #BlackLivesMatter protests or the next celebrity tweeting about gun control and how mean those men with guns who aren’t on their payroll are.

He did not come to Dallas to praise the dead, but to enlist them in the service of his anti-police agenda.

Not only had Obama’s actions led to the murder of police officers, but he was determined to whitewash their deaths and exploit them as weapons in his war against the police.

Categories: Black Lives Matter, Dallas killing of police, Obama and Black Lives Matter, Obama and crime, Obama and police, Obama and racism, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR Met With Congress 325 Times in 2016

July 13, 2016

CAIR Met With Congress 325 Times in 2016, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, July 13, 2016

Cair-Nihad-Awad-Ibrahim-Hooper-HP_31 (1)CAIR founder and executive director Nihad Awad (right) with Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director and spokesperson.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group identified by the Justice Department as a Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated as terrorists by the United Arab Emirates, boasts of having 325 meetings with members of Congress or their staff over the last year.

The group says it also enjoyed $3 million worth free advertising through media appearances this year alone, resulting in 50 million views of its work.

A 2007 court filing by federal prosecutors notes how two of CAIR’s founders were wiretapped at a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993, where they participated in a robust discussion of how to use deception to influence American public opinion in a direction favorable to the Islamist cause. It states:

“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

CAIR’s fundraising video boasts that there were 14,000 mentions of CAIR on radio or television this year alone, and that it has a database of 1.6 million media contacts to use. The organization said it has 65 trained spokespeople, 29 offices and 35 full-time lawyers.

The White House’s director of community partnerships said in 2012 that there had been “hundreds” of meetings between U.S. government agencies and CAIR. However, CAIR was curiously left out of President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit in 2015, even though other Islamists were invited.

After participants were made known, CAIR attacked President Obama’s event as Islamophobic.

CAIR’s power can give the impression that it is the leader of the Muslim-American community, but it is, in reality, the manifestation of a well-funded and well-organized Brotherhood network that has been building up its presence in the U.S. since the 1960s. CAIR was born out of this network in 1994 and has prospered with plentiful foreign financing.

A 2011 Gallup poll found that CAIR is most popular Muslim-American organization but only about 12% of Muslim-Americans say CAIR is the organization that most represents them, despite its strong name recognition, media presence and infrastructure.

CAIR’s boasts are a reminder of its power to intimidate, pressure and influence. However, since close to 90 percent of the Muslim-American community says CAIR does not represent them, there is a leadership gap that can be filled by a non-Islamist Muslim group whose values and record more closely reflect those of the Muslim-American community.

Muslims who are against Islamism have a steep hill to climb in competing with CAIR and its allies, but we must remember that they have low name identification and are attacked and excluded by their Islamist competitors who have had much more time and resources to develop.

If CAIR can accomplish all this, then imagine what a genuinely moderate organization could accomplish with time and resources.

Categories: CAIR, Government, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Breach of JCPOA to Trigger Iran’s Immediate Response: President

July 13, 2016

Breach of JCPOA to Trigger Iran’s Immediate Response: President, Tasnim News Agency, July 13, 2016

Rouhanh on breach

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reaffirmed Tehran’s commitment to a nuclear deal with six countries, but warned that in case of the other side’s breach of the agreement, Iran will move to regain its previous nuclear achievements immediately.

“Should the (Group) 5+1 want to avoid honoring commitments one day, we will be fully ready, and our nuclear capabilities are in such conditions that we will be able to reach our favorable point in a short period of time,” President Rouhani said at a cabinet session on Wednesday.

The president insisted that the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is good for all countries and serves international peace and security, warning that violation of the accord would be to the detriment of all parties and the first side to breach it will be a loser in the international arena.

Back in June, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei also underlined Iran’s commitment to the nuclear deal with the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany), but made it clear that any violation of the deal by the US will trigger Tehran’s harsher response.

Imam Khamenei emphasized that Iran will never be the first side to violate the nuclear deal, but at the same time noted, “If the threats of tearing off the JCPOA made by the US presidential nominees are carried out, the Islamic Republic will set the JCPAO ablaze.”

Categories: Iran scam, Khamenei, Rouhani
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Never Once Met With His Defense Intelligence Chief

July 13, 2016

Obama Never Once Met With His Defense Intelligence Chief, Daily Caller, Richard Pollock, July 12, 2016

Unlike Obama, Trump has not only met with Flynn but has also spent hours listening to Flynn’s views.

Flynn described Trump as “very refreshing.” The presidential candidate “really thought deeply about the issues of America and its relationships around the world. And also about America,” he said.

************************

President Barack Obama twice appointed former Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn to key national security jobs in his administration, including as deputy director of national intelligence and later as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, yet he never once met with Flynn face to face.

The general, who spent 33 years in the intelligence field, told The Daily Caller News Foundation he was never called in for a face-to-face meeting with Obama to offer his assessment of ISIS as it rampaged through the Middle East, or during the political  meltdown of Libya and Egypt, or on Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb, or of the “Russian reset” that ended in shambles.

In four years, Flynn was never invited to brief the president on any kind of intelligence issue. Ever.

“Here is the crux of my relationship with Obama,” Flynn told TheDCNF in a wide ranging interview Tuesday. “Here I am, running one of the largest intelligence agencies in the world. He appoints me twice — one as the assistant director of national intelligence and one as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I’m also his senior intelligence officer. And I had almost five years in combat.”

He paused, then said, “I never met with him once.”

“He’s a kind of a funny guy when it comes to relationships,” Flynn told TheDCNF. “He’s very aloof and very distant. I wasn’t on his screen at all. I wasn’t on his radar which is really sad. It’s amazing.”

Now in a turn of tables, Flynn is advising presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and is widely reported as being on the short list to run as Trump’s vice president.

Unlike Obama, Trump has not only met with Flynn but has also spent hours listening to Flynn’s views.

Flynn’s characteristic answers are candid and direct. On the possible choice as Trump’s vice presidential running mate: “This is an honor to be considered at this level and this mix of talent. The fact that my name is being bantered around in the small group of people for this very distinguished office is something I would give serious consideration to.”

He added that “I have said I want to continue to serve this country in any capacity.”

Like Trump, Flynn is an unconventional figure who abhors political correctness.

He has just published his first book after he was unceremoniously fired by Obama in 2014 for delivering a pessimistic assessment of ISIS before Congress. The presentation went directly against the president’s prediction that ISIS was irrelevant — a “JV team.”

Flynn could have written the typical Washington “Tell All” insider’s book about the Obama administration. Instead, he teamed up with Iran and Middle East expert Michael Ledeen in writing a serious book about the threat of Islamic terrorism titled, “The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.”

Flynn says he is impressed with Trump. “I have met him. We sat down and talked in his offices in New York. The first time was quite a while ago. I’ve been in touch with him and his inner circle since last September,” he told TheDCNF.

“He is very, very serious about the future of this county. He is a great listener. I felt we had a great discussion about the world.”

At the first meeting, “he sort of threw out a couple of questions to me, which I felt were very telling of his insight and his knowledge.”

Then, Flynn said the two of them “walked around the world for about an hour and a half, sort of discussing back and forth.”

Flynn described Trump as “very refreshing.” The presidential candidate “really thought deeply about the issues of America and its relationships around the world. And also about America,” he said.

“My impression — and I have been around many good leaders in my career — and I found him to be a very strong, dynamic leader. And I think that’s why he is so attractive to so many people in this country right now.”

“Trump has a bigger, longer-term vision for this country than just sitting as a President for four years. He really does. And that’s what I was impressed by,” Flynn told TheDCNF.

Flynn is less charitable toward former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of his colleagues in the Obama administration.

“She is somebody that you get the impression that she’s got some other hidden agenda,” he said. “I always felt where there were interactions, there is some other hidden agenda there that doesn’t necessarily have the best interest of the country. Something else is going on.”

He pointed to Clinton’s “Russian reset” as one of her biggest failures. The reset was an initiative from Clinton in an effort to restore positive relations with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

“The Russian reset was a complete failure. That was her sort of baby. She lacked the understanding of how Russia deals on the global stage and how Russia deals with people, personalities and also on nation-on nation, and the way they see us,” Flynn said.

“She went into it with a level of arrogance and a lack of understanding.”

Unlike some skeptics in Washington, though, Flynn thought at the time that a Russian “reset” could work. “That Russian reset actually could have turned into something that resulted in some sort of mutual respect. But in fact under her leadership, it completely collapsed.”

He also is blunt about corruption and the Clinton Foundation: “The public corruption between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department may never be discovered. Or it may be discovered well past the election. But it’s a very real issue.”

Flynn challenged the foundation’s acceptance of $100 million in contributions from Persian Gulf Sheiks.

“The fact she takes one dollar from Saudi Arabia as any kind of a donation is a disgrace,” Flynn said. “Any of these countries destroys women’s rights. And then she stands there and claims that she’s for women.”

Hillary Clinton “should give back every red penny that she gets from those guys,” Flynn said. “Then she can talk about women’s rights.”

 

Categories: Donald Trump, Intelligence, Islamic terrorism, Michael T. Flynn, Obama and intelligence, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Illinois Seeks Nation’s First Muslim Advisory Council

July 13, 2016

Illinois Seeks Nation’s First Muslim Advisory Council, Truth Revolt, Trey Sanchez, July 12, 2016

Illinois

Legislation currently pending in the state of Illinois would authorize a special Muslim-only advisory council if signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

It would be a permanent 21-member council made up of volunteer members appointed by the governor and House and Senate members to advise the governor and the General Assembly on issues that would impact Muslim-Americans and immigrants. Meetings would be held monthly with two public hearings each year. Members would serve two-year terms and are required to have expertise in business, law, or health care.

The timing of this legislation is a bit curious, as Bruce Cornibe notes at Counter Jihad:

At the end of an especially bloody month of Ramadan, which included the worst terror attack in America since 9/11, some politicians and lawmakers feel the solution is to give Muslim community more of a voice in government.

Not to mention the mixing of religion with official state business.

“This special status for a religious group is surprising in a country that bars an official state religion,” Cornibe states. “Why wouldn’t Illinois require a Christian council? Or how about a Jewish council?”

Cornibe notes that Muslims aren’t the biggest victims of discrimination, and in fact, FBI records show that nearly 60% of crimes against Jews are motivated by anti-Semitism. But that matters little to those screaming “Islamophobia.”

And it’s no surprise to know that those Muslim activists and organizations, like CAIR, who are supporting the bill have known associations with terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Just as CAIR and other Brotherhood-linked activist groups weaken the functioning of our government, so too would the Muslim-American Advisory Council in Illinois,” Cornibe writes. “There are no councils to represent the interests of other faiths in Illinois, and the likely leaders of this council are from the same band urging the Federal government towards censorship of criticism.”

Categories: CAIR, Christians, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Jews
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Trump Wants Justice Ginsburg to Resign for Attacking Him

July 13, 2016

By: JNi.Media Published: July 13th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Trump Wants Justice Ginsburg to Resign for Attacking Him

Ginsburg v Trump

“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Republican presumptive nominee Donald Times told the NY Times following a Monday interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in which she confessed, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. . . . For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Ginsburg cited something her late husband used to say on such occasions, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

“I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court,” Trump told the Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

Trump then tweeted early Wednesday morning: “Justice Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!”

But Ginsburg, 83, did not seem to shy away from a good bar brawl when she said about Trump on Monday, speaking to CNN “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

Which could also be said about a Supreme Court Justice shooting her mouth off in the middle of a heated political campaign.

The Justice’s unusual outbursts have not been accepted with approval by the legal community. New York University law professor Stephen Gillers wrote a Times op-ed titled It’s Clearly Not Right for Justices to Say Which Candidate They Support: “Apart from judicial ethics, the structure of the U.S. Constitution makes the judiciary the nonpolitical branch of government. The executive and legislature are the political branches. Members of Congress and presidents have constituents and seek votes. Federal judges do not.”

“Why do we keep judges out of politics? To protect the rule of law,” Gillers continued. “We want the public to view judicial rulings solely as the product of law and legal reasoning, uninfluenced by political considerations. Acceptance of court rulings is undermined if the public believes that judicial decisions are politically motivated. It’s not that judges don’t disagree among themselves. But disagreements must be over legal principles, not a ruling’s effect on a political candidate or party.”

Stetson University law professor Louis Virelli said that “public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration.”

“I don’t necessarily think she would be required to do that,” Virelli wrote, “and I certainly don’t believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Republican draft platform calls for undivided Jerusalem

July 13, 2016

Republican draft platform calls for undivided Jerusalem

Source: Republican draft platform calls for undivided Jerusalem – Behind The News

The Republican Party is in the process of changing its platform on Israel to include language that is more in favor of Israel, Israeli media reported Monday.

In advance of the party’s nominating convention, the GOP platform committee held its first meeting Monday in Cleveland, where it discussed reinstating a reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided” capital and removing a reference to “Palestine.”

This new draft marks a significant change from the platform from four years ago, which did not include the word “undivided” in reference to Jerusalem, but did include mention of “Palestine.”

The 2012 platform read, “We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security.”

On Monday, CNN reported, the subcommittee reviewing the platform specifically rejected language affirming the party’s commitment to what is known as the two-state solution.

The draft platform could change several times before the start of the Republican National Convention on July 18.

The amendments to the platform are in line with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Last month a senior official in the Trump campaign said that if elected president, Trump would back Israel annexing portions of Judea and Samaria.

In an interview with Israeli daily Haaretz, Trump’s co-adviser on Israeli affairs, David Friedman, addressed issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the presumptive republican nominee would handle them if elected in November.

“I think there are parts of the West Bank that will stay part of Israel in any peace deal. I am sure he [Trump] wouldn’t have any problem with that at all,” he said.

“Regarding the entire West Bank I think that’s a legal issue. I don’t think he will have a problem with that but he would expect Israel to continue seeking peace. He has no doubt that Israel wants peace,” Friedman continued.

Asked if Trump would support annexing parts of Judea and Samaria, Friedman said that “I would expect that he would. I haven’t had this discussion with him but I expect he would.”

Regarding the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Friedman said that Trump recognizes Israel has a “commitment to its citizens in Judea and Samaria” and says that there is no reason not to continue building.

Achieving peace does not need to focus on land, Friedman said

“There are always creative ways to allow people to live in peace. It is not always about the land. We don’t accept the idea it is only about land. Nobody really knows how many Palestinians actually live there.”

An independent Palestinian state, said Friedman, will not happen without Israel’s consent.

“This is an issue that Israel has to deal with on its own because it will have to deal with the consequences,” Friedman said.

“The Israelis have to make the decision on whether or not to give up land to create a Palestinian state. If the Israelis don’t want to do it, so he doesn’t think they should do it. It is their choice. … He [Trump] does not think it is an American imperative for it to be an independent Palestinian state,” he continued.

Trump’s viewpoint is that Israel shouldn’t have “to wait for another generation for the Palestinians to hold more realistic expectations and show less hostile motivation,” Friedman explained. “Trump’s position is that we have to deal with reality and not hopes and wishes.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama Isn’t a “Consoler”, He’s an Arsonist

July 12, 2016

Obama Isn’t a “Consoler”, He’s an Arsonist, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 12, 2016

Dallas guy

The media is pushing two wildly dishonest narratives

1. That Micah X was unrepresentative of a movement which routinely celebrates cop killers.

2. That Obama doubling down on the anti-police narrative by backing BLM is “consoling”.

The most insane headline describes him as a “consoler-in-chief”. The nation does not need consoling. It needs to prevent massacres like Dallas from happening again. And the way to do that is to end the support that racist black hate groups like Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panther Party, along with their anti-police narratives, have received from the highest levels of government.

And yes that means Obama.

Obama isn’t a consoler, he’s an arsonist. After the Dallas attack, he continued to defend anti-police incitement while trying to push gun control. That’s not consolation. It’s whitewashing your own crime.

Categories: Black Lives Matter, Dallas killing of police, Media, Obama and Black Lives Matter, Obama and racism
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama to BLM Supporters: Cool it For Now

July 12, 2016

Obama to BLM Supporters: Cool it For Now, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 12, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Obama plans to nationalize State and local police forces to make them focus on fighting white “racism” in much the same way that his “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) farce focuses on attacking “Islamophobia” rather than Islamist terrorism. Under Obama’s plan, black violence and its causes will be ignored if possible; if they can’t be ignored, they will continue to be minimized.

As I suggested in The Contempt Obama and Clinton Have For America,

In response to public concerns about potential Islamist terror attacks, Obama turned the nation’s “war on terror” into a “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) farce, the focus of which has been largely on promoting the agenda of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organizations. To that end, the Department of Homeland Security has stricken the study of Islam from its teaching materials and banned the use of words such a  “jihad” from the lexicon of Federal law enforcement officials. Its primary focus has been on combating “Islamophobia,” rather than on preventing Islamic terror attacks.

As I also noted in the same article, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is closely allied with Black Lives Matter and other racist Black groups.

It seems quite likely that CAIR, et al, are assisting Obama in structuring His program to federalize State and local law enforcements to make it focus on white “racism,” while continuing to encourage or at least to ignore black racism and violence.

As reported by Breitbart today,

President Barack Obama is warning his angry supporters that more violence and “rhetoric” by the Black Lives Matter movement could derail his campaign to federalize state and local police forces. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

For the moment, Obama and his deputies are simply pretending that the Dallas attack had nothing to do the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the killer’s decision to explain his anti-cop, anti-white motives to Dallas police. “The shooter is not reflective of the large movement to bring about change that was out in Dallas to peacefully demonstrate,” Jeh Johnson, Obama’s loyal head of the Department of Homeland Security, told a CBS interviewer on Sunday. [Emphasis added.]

But the growing wave of attacks on cops has put Obama on the political defense, and his supporters may spin further out of control to create more riots or attack that would delegitimize his campaign to federalize state and local police forces — and also damage Hillary Clinton’s election chances. [Emphasis added.]

Although Obama condemned violence against law enforcement personnel, he said this as well:

The flip side of that … [I] would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustration that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests and these complaints as political correctness, or as politics or attacks on police.  There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters. [Emphasis added.]

Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled Have we reached a point of no return? published today by National Review, traces Obama’s promotion of and reliance on racial disharmony to suit His political ambitions.

“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact with police). [Emphasis added.]

Yep.

When the full video of Obama’s Dallas address is available at YouTube, I’ll update this post. In the meantime, here’s a summary from The Washington Times.

President Obama defended the Black Lives Matter movement Tuesday at a memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers, saying bigotry remains in police departments across the U.S.

While paying tribute to the fallen officers for sacrificing their lives to protect others from a sniper, Mr. Obama also called on law-enforcement agencies to root out bigotry.

“We have all seen this bigotry in our lives at some point,” Mr. Obama told an audience of several hundred at a concert hall in Dallas.

“None of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.”

Here’s the only video I have found thus far; it focuses on gun control.

UPDATE: Here’s a video of Obama’s full remarks:

What do you think?

Categories: Black Lives Matter, CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Dallas killing of police, Department of Homeland Security, Federalization of state and local police, Gun control, Human rights, Obama and Black Lives Matter, Obama and racism, Racism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »