Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ category

Ann Coulter: Trump’s Problem with Women

May 18, 2016

Ann Coulter: Trump’s Problem with Women, Breitbart, Ann Coulter, May 18, 2016

The New York Times’ front-page article last Saturday on Donald J. Trump’s dealings with women forced me into a weekend of self-examination. As much as I support Trump, this isn’t a cult of personality. He’s not Mao, Kim Jong-un or L. Ron Hubbard. We can like our candidates, but still acknowledge their flaws. No one’s perfect.

I admit there are some things about Trump that give me pause. I’m sure these will come out eventually, so I’m just going to list them.

First — and this is corroborated by five contemporaneous witnesses — in 1978, Trump violently raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel room, then, as he was leaving, looked at her bloody lip and said, “Better put some ice on that” — oh wait, I’m terribly sorry. Did I say Trump? I didn’t mean Trump, I meant Bill Clinton.

Hang on — here we go! Knowing full well about Bill Clinton’s proclivity to sexually assault women, about three weeks after that rape, Trump cornered Broaddrick at a party and said, pointedly, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do.”

No! My mistake! That wasn’t Trump either. That was Hillary Clinton… But this next one I’m sure was Trump.

In the early 1990s, Trump invited a young female staffer to his hotel room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it” — WAIT A SECOND!

I don’t know how this keeps happening. That was Bill Clinton. Please bear with me — it’s late at night and my notes are jumbled.

As CEO of an organization, Trump had a female employee, just months out of her teens, perform oral sex on him while he made business calls. That girl’s name was Monica Lewin– No! Wrong again! That was Bill Clinton, too! Please don’t stop reading. Let me find my Trump notes…

What I meant was that Trump was the one who later smeared that girl as a delusional stalker. She may have volunteered for the sex — at around age 20 — but Monica Lewinsky didn’t volunteer to be slandered! And yet this fiend, this user-of-women, this retrograde misogynist, Donald Trump, deployed his journalist friends, like Sidney Blumenthal, to spread rumors that Monica was a stalker, trying to blackmail the president.

Oh, boy — this is embarrassing. This must seem very sloppy. That wasn’t Trump either; it was Hillary Clinton.

There must be something here that was Trump… Here! I have one.

When an attractive woman desperately in need of a job came to Trump’s office in 1993, instead of helping, he lunged at her, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast and put her hand on his genitals. He later told a mistress that the claim was absurd because the woman, Kathleen Willey, had such small breasts.

Uh-oh — you’re not going to believe this, but — yep, that was Bill Clinton.

This one, I’m sure was Trump. In January 1992, Trump went on 60 Minutes to slime nightclub singer Gennifer Flowers, knowing full well she was telling the truth. He implied she belonged in a loony bin, telling millions of viewers “every time she called, distraught… she said sort of wacky things.”

Dammit! I don’t know how this keeps happening. That wasn’t Trump! That was Hillary, smearing one of her husband’s sexual conquests.

Let’s just go back to the Times‘ story, based on months of investigation and interviews with hundreds of women. I’ll give it to you straight: When Trump was at the New York Military Academy as a teenager, one person who knew him said — and this is corroborated by two other witnesses: “Donald was extremely sensitive to whether or not the women he invited to campus were pretty.”

I almost threw up reading that. I am physically ill.

Cartoons of the Day

May 18, 2016

H/t Townhall

Clinton and money

 

H/t Joopklepzeiker

Terrorists

Hillary Clinton Lying For 13 Minutes Straight 100% EXPOSED (Redsilverj)

May 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton Lying For 13 Minutes Straight 100% EXPOSED (Redsilverj) via YouTube, February 25, 2016

The Progressive Lust for Power

May 18, 2016

The Progressive Lust for Power, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, May 18, 2016

bv

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been talking a lot about “fairness” and “equality” during their primary campaigns. Like most progressives, they pass themselves off as the champions of the ordinary people who are suffering beneath the boot of rapacious capitalists and the plutocratic “one percent.” Give us power, they say, and we will create “social justice” for all the victims of “white privilege” and capitalist greed, not to mention redistributing even more money from the selfish “rich” in order to finance such utopian goals.

Promiscuously displaying their hearts bleeding for the oppressed has long been the progressive camouflage that hides their real motive: the lust for power. Whether they want power to advance their failed ideology (Sanders), or to gratify their ambition for status and wealth (Hillary), in the end it doesn’t matter. History has repeatedly proven that the libido dominandi,the ancient lust for dominating others that lies behind the progressives’ political ambitions, in the end always leads to tyranny and misery.

When progressivism began in the late 19th century, progressives at least were honest about their aim to expand their power over the ignorant, selfish masses. A striking––and prophetic–– example can be found in Woodrow Wilson’s 1890 essay “Leaders of Men.” Wilson rejected the limited executive of the Constitution for a more activist president who has the “insight” to know “the motives which move other men in the mass”:

Besides, it is not a sympathy ­[with people] that serves, but a sympathy whose power is to command, to command by knowing its instrument . . . The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force.There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?

In the progressive view, fellow citizens are an abstract, collective “mass,” “instruments” that must be “moved,” manipulated, and used to reach the ideological goals of the technocratic elite, who knows far better than the people how they should live, what they should believe, and what aims they should strive for. Any resistance must be met by “the application of force.” Wilson means here primarily psychological or social force, but as we have seen after a century of expanding federal power, progressive policies enshrined in federal law are in the end backed by the coercive power of the police to punish non-compliance and enforce compliance.

From this perspective, Barack Obama is not an anomaly or some new political phenomenon birthed in the sixties. He is the predictable result of progressive assumptions over a century old. Thus he shares Wilson’s view of a “leader of men” as someone who knows what’s best for the people, and is willing to use unconstitutional “force” to achieve his aims. Think of the IRS hounding conservative political organizations, or the EPA violating private property rights, or the DOJ usurping the sovereignty of the states, or Obama’s various executive diktats that compromise individual rights, legislated laws, and the power of the states. All of these actions have applied “force” to “move” men in a particular ideological direction.

Also like Wilson, Obama has no “sympathy” with Congress, or the states, or the people who want, for example, the border secured, illegal aliens caught and punished, and felons deported. To progressives, the people holding those beliefs are all just bigots, or backwards, or evil obstructions of “social justice,” and so need to be “commanded” whatever their “interior niceties.” As such, they must be “moved” to accept Obama’s ideological preference: a vague internationalism and cultural relativism that compromise our distinct national character defined by a shared language and culture. If Congress or the states will not comply with Obama’s wishes by passing the laws he wants, then the “line of least resistance” will be Executive Orders, “Dear Colleague” letters, and instructions to federal agencies to “move” people to his point of view whether they like it or not.

Obviously, this philosophy of presidential leadership undermines the Constitution and its limited executive and separation of powers. More importantly, it forgets the primary purpose of the Constitution, which is not to “solve problems” or create utopias. Individuals, families, towns, counties, and states solve problems, not the distant, unaccountable Washington technocrats imposing cookie-cutter regulations and laws on America’s vast variety of needs, beliefs, and interests. Rather, the great goal of the Founding was to protect freedom by limiting the ability of any faction from concentrating power in government and using it to diminish the freedom of others. Such a faction is a tyrant, and as the Declaration of Independence details, it was the serial injustices of George III, whose “direct object [was] the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” that sparked the American Revolution.

More broadly, the progressives’ modus operandi has followed that of tyrants throughout history. The most dangerous enemies of the tyrant are all the associations and communities of people that lie beyond the power of the state, what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons,” and Alexis de Tocqueville recognized as one of the exceptional characteristic of the United States. Families, churches, PTAs, private schools and universities, clubs, think tanks, political parties, sports teams, businesses, charities––any venue in which people voluntarily gather together, interact with one another, and pursue their shared interests and aims, stands as a check on the power of the government. They create a social space in which people exercise their freedom without permission or oversight from government officials, and where their customs, traditions, and habits function as an alternative authority to the power of the state.

We call this civil society, and since ancient Greece, tyrants have known that it is their greatest enemy. Hence totalitarian regimes target these alternative authorities and try to destroy or delegitimize them. Progressives have similarly extended their reach into civil society, replacing private organizations with the bureaus, offices, and agencies of the government. Civil society is minimized, and society more and more comprises the mass of people overseen and regulated by a centralized technocratic power. This suits the tyrant, who knows the masses are easier to control when fragmented into private individual lives, either by violence, as in the past and in parts of the world today, or by redistributing wealth and taking over the management their lives, as our government does.

The latter method, what Tocqueville called “soft despotism,” is now our political reality, as Hillary’s and Bernie’s soothing promises of even more free stuff and more nanny-state tutelage show. More and more of our lives have been colonized by the federal government, which now controls and instructs us on everything from our diets and religious beliefs, to how to raise our children and understand sex identity. And if we disagree, government agencies will enforce their will, backed by the coercive power of the state. As a result, a government designed to check power and defend our freedom has now become one of concentrated power that diminishes our freedom.

If you think I exaggerate, consider what will happen if Hillary ends up nominating two or three Supreme Court justices. She has publicly condemned the Citizens United and Heller decisions, the former of which defended the First Amendment, the latter the Second. A court with a progressive majority could end up reversing these confirmations of our Constitutional rights to exercise free speech and bear arms. We could then end up with hate-speech restrictions like those used in Canada and the E.U. to censor speech offensive to privileged groups, or confiscations of our weapons of the sort Obama has openly suggested.

If that should happen, we will have come closer to the point of no return, and reap the consequences Tocqueville warned about:

It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

Op-Ed: Trump versus the Muslim mayor of London

May 13, 2016

Op-Ed: Trump versus the Muslim mayor of London,  Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, May 13, 2016

First the good news about Sadiq Khan. In his first act as London’s newly elected Muslim mayor he attended a Holocaust memorial service.

Terrific.

Next we hear that he plans a trip to Israel. This is still good. But after that, and even before that, the news is not so good.

He says that if Trump is elected he won’t come to the United States. (Ain’t that a shame.)

Then he says that if Muslims will be prevented, or limited, from entering the United States there will be consequences. Expect Islamic violence.

If other words, we’re asking for it if we don’t elect someone entirely favorable to the Muslim world. This, of course, excludes Trump and favors Hillary.

But this…

We get Muslim violence regardless who is president, don’t we? We got 9/11 while George W. Bush was in office. Trump was nowhere in sight.

We got Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and other acts of Muslim violence while Obama was in office and no one’s been more favorable to the Muslim cause than Obama – except maybe LBJ. Back in 1965, LBJ signed into law the (Hart-Celler) Immigration and Naturalization Act that opened America’s doors wide open for Muslims.

Trump was nowhere to be seen when a Muslim Palestinian Arab, Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert Kennedy in 1968.

LBJ was president and we already know that LBJ’s heart was in the right place for Islam.

So why Trump, when it’s Mayor Khan who should be in the hot seat. The day after he was declared the winner, buses in London were driving along with signs declaring “Glory to Allah” and we imagine that Hamas were handing out candy in Gaza and likewise the PA in Ramallah.

Where – Trump might ask Mayor Khan – yes where is the Jewish mayor of Islamabad?

Or where is the Christian mayor anywhere in Pakistan, Mayor Khan’s ancestral home?

Let me answer – that’ll be the day.

So while the West celebrates itself for being so elaborately diverse, don’t even dream about diversity anywhere along the world’s 57 Islamic states.

Don’t plan on “Glory to Tolerance” buses running through the Maelbeek neighborhood of Brussels.

Only Western Democracies, like Britain, like the United States, like Israel, are expected to extend hospitality and equality – and we do.

In Israel, the Muslim population numbers more than one and a half million and these Palestinian Arab citizens enjoy full and equal rights.

The number for London alone is about 600,000 – “Glory to Allah.” Except that here’s another question from Trump to Khan.

What about the rape epidemic that’s been sweeping parts of London throughout the years?

Khan needs to answer for his Pakistani countrymen who are alleged to be the dominant assailants against thousands of British women and girls.

No wonder, then, that Trump keeps calling for a pause on migrating Syrian refugees.

Altogether, Trump says, we need to think twice about a Muslim influx. He’s appointing Mayor Rudy Giuliani to study the situation.

Mayor Khan may turn out to be an okay guy.

But he’s no Mayor Rudy, who can still smell the burning flesh from what they came and did to us on 9/11.

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome

May 12, 2016

Trump Derangement Syndrome, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, May 12, 2016

bs (1)

I don’t think I speak for myself alone when I confess utter bewilderment at the number of conservatives – among whom I count long-term friends – who seem to have lost their marbles when assessing the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, to take one example that can stand for many, is an astute analyst – in my view one of the best political commentators writing today. Yet he is the author of this opening paragraph in Monday’s paper, which leaves me scratching my head, and embarrassed for my friend: “The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan.”[1]

I can’t think of anything that is right about these sentences. The president’s first business is the nation’s security. Did Reagan really repair the damage that Carter did? It is true that he pulled the nation back from Carter’s policies of appeasing our enemies and disarming our military. But he failed to retrieve Carter’s greatest foreign policy disaster. It was Carter who brought down America’s ally, the Shah of Iran, and brought the Ayatollah Khomeini back from exile, thereby transforming Iran into the first jihadist state, and America’s deadliest enemy. Neither Ronald Reagan nor both George Bushes could undo that.

Could a Republican Congress – assuming that there would be a Republican Congress if Trump lost – hold a Democratic president like Hillary Clinton “in check”? How did that work out during the destructive reign of Barack Obama? With Republican majorities in the House and Senate Obama had no real problem in becoming the first American president to build his legacy around a policy that can fairly be described as treasonous – providing a path to nuclear power and ballistic missile capability to an Iranian regime that is our nation’s mortal enemy, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and is ruled by religious fanatics who have made no secret of their determination to destroy us.

Bret Stephens and an all-too-prominent cohort of inside-the-beltway conservatives want to turn the presidency over to Hillary Clinton “to save conservatism.” What can this mean? Have they forgotten who Hillary Clinton is? As Secretary of State she was the foreign policy captain in an administration that abandoned Iraq, thereby betraying every American and Iraqi who gave his or her life to keep that benighted country out of the hands of the terrorists and Iran (not that any Republican had the temerity to say so). ISIS is as much her godchild as Barack Obama’s. In creating the vacuum that ISIS filled Hillary was only carrying on the Democratic foreign policy tradition that Jimmy Carter inaugurated of sacrificing America’s security to pie-eyed internationalist delusions. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the overthrow of an American ally in Egypt and its replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of al-Qaeda and ISIS. She colluded in the overthrow of an American ally in Libya – a country posing no threat to the United States – thereby turning it into a base for ISIS and al-Qaeda. It was Hillary who was behind the gunrunning scheme to al-Qaeda rebels in Syria that led to the Benghazi disaster. She denied Ambassador Stephens – her American pawn in Benghazi – the security he requested in order to cover Obama’s retreat in the war on terror (it was election time), and then lied about his murder and that of three American heroes to the American people, to the mothers and fathers of the dead heroes, and to the world at large. According to the official version she approved insulting the prophet Mohammed was the problem not the terrorist onslaught that she and Obama had helped to unleash. Now we have learned that she willfully violated America’s Espionage Act, resulting in tens of thousands of her emails, classified and unclassified falling into the hands of the Russians and other adversary powers, and leading to how many future American casualties we can only guess.

This is the president that Bret Stephens and Bill Kristol and George Will think would be better for conservative values and conservative concerns than Donald Trump, a man who has raised an admirable family (a character-reflecting feat his detractors always overlook) and whose patriotism in the course of a long public life has never been in question. Nonetheless, it is Hillary Clinton – this serial liar, this traducer of the nation’s trust, this corrupt taker of $600,000 speaking fees and multi-million dollar gifts from foreign governments while acting as Secretary of State –this wretched individual who in their eyes is “survivable” should she become president.

And what isn’t survivable? “What isn’t survivable is … a serial fabulist, an incorrigible self-mythologizer, a brash vulgarian, and, when it comes to his tax returns, a determined obfuscator.” I blush for my friend making these charges, first because they are sins common to most politicians (with admittedly less flair than Donald Trump) and second because of the reason he gives for why they should matter: “Endorsing Mr. Trump means permanently laying to rest any claim conservatives might ever again make on the character issue.”

The character issue! Oh yes, that vital conservative weapon. And how did the use of it actually work out when it was put before the entire nation? Approaching the end of Clinton’s second term, Republicans made a political season out of his bad character and actually managed to impeach him for abusing women and lying to a grand jury. But when it was over, there wasn’t a pundit or pollster around who didn’t think that Bill Clinton would have an odds on chance of being elected to a third term in 2000 if the 22nd Amendment had allowed him to run.

This is not serious stuff, yet it is being peddled by first-rate conservative intellects and the fate of our nation may yet hang on it. The greatest obstacle to a Republican victory in November is the fratricidal war now being waged by the “Never Trump” crowd against the only person who might prevent the disaster awaiting us if the party of Obama and Kerry and Hillary and Sharpton prevails in November.

Their Trump hysteria notwithstanding, I still have the highest regard for the intellects of Bret Stephens and George Will and their comrades-in-arms. But I am hoping against hope that they come to their senses before it is too late.

Notes:

Off Topic | If elected, Hillary plans to install ‘climate situation room’ in the White House

May 10, 2016

If elected, Hillary plans to install ‘climate situation room’ in the White House, Watts Up With That,  , May 10, 2016

From the “pandering to your base” department and Climate Nexus:

Clinton’s Climate and Energy Plans: Hillary Clinton plans to focus on smaller legislative actions and use executive action on climate and energy issues if elected, her campaign chairman John Podesta said at a conference. Clinton also intends to install a Roosevelt Map Room-inspired situation room just for climate change. Analysis of her climate strategy reveals that Clinton intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 30 percent below 2005 level by 2025 and support fossil fuel workers through the clean energy transition. She ultimately would lay the groundwork for achieving 80 percent cuts below 2005 by 2050, strengthening President Obama’s current climate pledges.


Right, I can just see all those real-time monitors on the wall now. Here’s what it will be like the first day of operation:

hillary-climate-room

Hillary: “I don’t get it, nothing seems to be changing on any of these screens!”

Technician: “Um, madam president, climate change doesn’t happen instantly.”

Hillary: “What are you talking about!? Al Gore and Bill McKibben both told me that that can see it happening right NOW!”

Technician: “Er, madam president, the standard baseline for measuring climate is 30 years. Changes don’t happen instantly. Weather changes on the short term, not climate.”

Hillary: ” Don’t give me that crap! The best scientific minds, Mike Mann and James Hansen, and Al Gore all told me I could see it happening! My friend, Senator Debbie Stabenow, says she can feel it when she’s flying! Your systems just aren’t working!”

Technician: “Madam president, as you ordered, we have all the climate change metrics on display, GISS, HadCRUT, BEST, NOAA, NSIDC, we have all the IPCC models on display, including RCP 8.5, plus Al Gore’s TRIANA satellite, looking straight at Earth and giving a live feed.These all monitor the climate of Earth.”

Hillary: “Well if your fancy named systems are so good, why can’t I see the climate changing NOW!? Gore told me I could watch it happening from space! All this money, and for what? I can’t see anything happening!”

Technician: “Madam president, as I tried to explain earlier, climate change is slow, on periods of 30 years, and….”

Hillary: “DON’T YOU LECTURE ME ABOUT WHAT I ALREADY KNOW!!!! Al Gore says I will be able to see it! Bill McKibben says I will be able to see it. Even that little weasel Joe Romm says I’ll be able to see it! Do you think you are smarter than these people!?”

Technician: [long pause] “um, …”

Hillary: “I’ve watched real time feeds all over the planet! I’ve watched people being taken out in hellholes you can’t even imagine! And you can’t do this simple thing?”

Technician: [longer pause] “well, as I …”

Hillary: “NEVER MIND! [dials cell phone] Podesta? I need my own server again! These idiots setup all these screens to show climate change and nothing is happening! What!? No I don’t care about timelines! Make it happen!!!!”

Hillary: [mumbles to herself] “I’m surrounded by idiots…”

Op-Ed: Trump’s “peace through strength” for USA also applies to Israel

May 8, 2016

Op-Ed: Trump’s “peace through strength” for USA also applies to Israel, Israel National News, Ted Belman, May 8, 2016

(A problem with “make them an offer they will refuse” is that they may accept it, make more demands and then renege on the original deal. History suggests that such an outcome is more likely than not. Israel would then be more endangered than if the offer had not been made. As the author suggests, Israel is not likely to survive a “two state solution” and peace through strength is the only viable solution.– DM)

The next American president may decide to dictate a solution, pressure Israel as the only party that can be pressured, and an Israeli response that is responsive and defensive could lose the day.

A recent article titled Time for an Israeli strategy for the next American administration, galvanized me to write a response. I did not agree with the strategy set out and normally would not have made mention of the article except that it was written by Eric Mandel.

Not only is he the director of MEPIN™ which is read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, members of the Knesset, and journalists, he is also the Northeast Co-Chair of StandWithUs, an international organization dedicated to educating the public about Israel, while fighting the BDS movement. His views and policy prescriptions should not be ignored.

He argues that “Israel must begin to think differently, actively show that it is trying to be the partner for peace, and demonstrate that it will manage the situation instead just playing defense.” I believe that Israel is just doing that. Netanyahu always says that he is ready for negotiations without pre-conditions and Naftali Bennett is pushing for an improvement to the economic conditions for both Arab Israelis and Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Mandel thinks they aren’t doing enough.

He fears that pressure will build on Israel to make moves toward peace. He argues that Israel should take the initiative for peace rather than to be resistant to it.

Better judgment is needed going forward, and the excuse that Bibi must manage his fragile 61-seat coalition by placating the hard right doesn’t cut it anymore. Israel, for the foreseeable future, needs America diplomatic and security support.

The next American president may decide to dictate a solution, pressure Israel as the only party that can be pressured, and an Israeli response that is responsive and defensive could lose the day.

He is too much of a defeatist for me. He obviously believes in the two-state solution, no matter what the arguments against it, are.

ut to be fair to him, he has a clear-eyed view of what Israel is up against.

If the next president is a Democrat, you will hear growing calls for a balanced “even-handed” approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The Bernie Sanders Democrats are on the ascendancy, and will be casting a large shadow on the party for the next generation.

In today’s progressive parlance, even-handed does not necessarily mean support for two states for two peoples.

Rather, it means to many of the “Palestinian Lives Matter” Democrats, two Palestinian states – one in what now comprises Israel within the 1949 armistice line, and one in the West Bank and Gaza. Too many well-meaning people have been hijacked by the BDS movement, being misled into believing that if Israel just left the West Bank, peace would break out. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

He recommends that Israel, “Take to the offensive, put some plans down on the table as soon as there is a new administration, work with them, and then actively manage the situation and expectations.” One can’t argue with this except that he suggests the wrong plans to be put forward.

Some ideas: Announce a readiness for an Israeli settlement freeze beyond the land swap areas (6%) in exchange for Palestinian, Arab League, UN recognition of a Jewish State as envisioned by UNGA Resolution 181, the end of the (Arab) right of return, and acceptance of a totally demilitarized Judea and Samaria. Offer conditional recognition of a Palestinian state for a signed end of conflict agreement.

Consider convening an Israeli summit of the nation’s security and military leaders, past and present, to discuss the maximum land offer to the Palestinians that won’t endanger Israeli security interests. Put Bogie Ya’alon in charge, as he is one of the very few members of the government respected by much of the opposition. Other than the Jordan River Valley and the settlement blocs, there is much to discuss that would not endanger Israel.

There is nothing new in suggesting that we offer a settlement freeze outside the settlement blocs. My opposition to doing so is that even if the quid quo pro is that the world accepts our building in the blocs, we would end up holding the rest of the land on trust for the Palestinians should they ever decide to take it. But in exchange for this offer, he wants recognition as a Jewish state by Palestinians, Arab League and the UN. He also wants them to recognize that the area will be demilitarized and that there will be no refugee return to Israel. He knows that these demands won’t be accepted but thinks there is value in making the offer.

I disagree. Time, and again, Israel makes offers subject to caveats, only to find out that the world accepts the offerings and ignores the caveats. For example, Netanyahu, under great pressure, offered a two states for two peoples, solution providing the Palestinian state be demilitarized and Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. Not only did Obama minimize the demilitarization to a few years only but he ignored R 242 and called for a solution based on ’67 lines. The upcoming French resolution will offer even less to Israel.

Far better to work to convince the next US administration, especially one led by Trump, to abandon the Two State Solution (TSS) for something more workable and equitable (in Israel’s eyes) and which will bring us closer to peace. Trump is now embracing Reagan’s policy of peace through strength. Time to apply the same policy to the Israel/Arab conflict and support and strengthen Israel to achieve peace.

As for the basket case of Hamas’ Gaza, offer a seaport in exchange for demilitarization with acceptance of all previous agreements. It won’t happen, but it may smooth the way for the Turkish-Israeli rapprochement that both nations need and want.

Nothing new here. Israel would gladly lift the blockade, not just allow a sea port, in exchange for these things. Turkey is demanding a seaport without these things. Israel should not capitulate to Turkey without them.

He is realistic enough to say:

These conciliatory steps are all conditional; nothing will be given up if the Palestinians remain intransigent or if Israeli security is seen to be compromised.

The Palestinian Authority in all likelihood would not accept any of this, but that is not the point. The goal is to change the dynamic going forward, putting Israel on the diplomatic offensive to blunt the pro-BDS movement, and create a situation for an improved relationship with the American people, who do not understand why Israel is building in communities in the West Bank. America should simultaneously pressure the Gulf Cooperation Council to move towards a more public relationship with Israel, as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco now have.

The diplomatic offensive he calls for, is basically to convince the world that we are ready to capitulate. The American people don’t need convincing of the rightness of our cause and conduct.. 70% of them support Israel, many of whom want Israel to retain Judea and Samaria.

Better still, we should mount a diplomatic offensive to convince the world that the TSS is not a prescription for peace, that Israel has the only right to Judea and Samaria, that the Arabs and the BDS movement they finance, want the destruction of Israel not the creation of a Palestinian state and for a lasting peace Israel must remain in control of J&S forever.

He wants to convince America that Israel is making “painful compromises for a lasting peace”. The problem is that the more painful the compromises, the less lasting the peace.

The Real Flag Issue

May 6, 2016

The Real Flag Issue, Front Page MagazineLloyd Billingsley, May 6, 2016

Mex flag

Last year, South Carolina’s Republican Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill to remove the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the state capitol in Columbia. The June 17 massacre of nine African Americans in a Charleston church launched efforts to take down the banner, which evoked racism, segregation and the 1861-1864 war between the states. Last July, when South Carolina lowered the Confederate banner for the last time, the crowd responded with chants of “USA! USA!” During the 2016 presidential campaign, a different flag issue is coming to the fore.

Violent anti-Trump protesters have been waving the flag of Mexico. The Mexican flag was on display in southern California last week, where one protest featured a child holding a sign reading “Make America Mexico Again.” Such fervor prompted a column from Marcos Breton of the Sacramento Bee. He argues that, aside from one public ceremony in Sacramento,  “the Mexican flag has no place in American politics, and it’s disturbing to see it popping up with increasing regularity.” This is hardly a new development.

When Californians vote on issues such as English as the state’s official language (Proposition 63, 1986); benefits for undocumented immigrants (Proposition 187, 1994); racial preferences in college admissions (Proposition 209, 1996) and bilingual education (Proposition 227, 1998) Mexican flags suddenly appeared by the thousands. This reflects the tenaciously held belief that California somehow remains part of Mexico, and that Mexicans are only coming to what amounts to their own country. They are therefore entitled to education, medical care, drivers’ licenses, welfare, and in-state college tuition. Politicians give tacit assent to this package.

Vice President Joe Biden explains that illegal immigrants are “already Americans.” In her recent book Hard Choices, Democratic presidential frontrunner and former First Lady Hillary Clinton helpfully explains, “after all, much of the southwestern part of the United States was part of Mexico.” So little wonder that Mexicans stream across the border, with additional encouragement from “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco. There Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi welcomed even violent felons such as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national and five-time deportee accused of gunning down Kathryn Steinle. In similar style, in 2014 two Sacramento County police officers fell victim to Mexican national and repeat deportee Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamontes, who said in court, “I killed them cops.”

Instead of restricting sanctuary cities, California politicians are more concerned with driving old Dixie down. A bill by Orinda Democrat Steve Glazer removes the names of Confederates such as Robert E. Lee from schools, public buildings and such. If politicians are in the mood for purges, they can find more fertile ground in Spanish colonialism.

Spanish colonialism was built on the enslavement of the native peoples they conquered. Under the encomienda system, native peoples were part of the land grants the conquistadores gave to Spanish settlers. The native peoples were required to work for the encomenderos, who considered them property. The white Spanish imperialists were also unabashed racists who exploited slaves from western Africa for mining and agriculture.

California’s chain of religious missions is the direct legacy of Spanish colonialism, as are city names such as San Diego, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara and many others. By the standards of the historical purge crew, these are due for some fundamental change. Los Angeles could become Mickey Mouse City and San Diego the Navy Base City. San Francisco could opt for “The City,” as residents call it now, or “Sanctuary City.” In all this fervor, the politically correct have lost sight of some historical realities.

The Confederate States of America lost the war of 1861-1865 to the United States of America, so it seems entirely fitting to take down the Confederate battle flag.  On the other hand, 168 years ago, a full 15 years before the Civil War, when the Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, and Prussia were major players, the United States of America fought a war with Mexico. Whatever the causes of that 1846-1848 conflict, the USA won and Mexico lost. Mexico duly signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Mexican flag no longer flew over California and much of the southwestern United States. The rest should be history, but it isn’t.

“Donald Trump isn’t running for president of Mexico,” cautions Marcos Breton, but that’s how a violent faction of the Left sees it. The Mexican flag is their battle flag, and we will be seeing it more and more as November approaches.

Meanwhile, nobody is waving Prussian flags and yelling for “Prussian Power.” Nobody is posing children with banners reading “Make Italy the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies Again.”  But the Left wants America to be Mexico Again.

Indiana Trump

May 6, 2016

Indiana Trump, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, May 6, 2016

Trump at Israel HayomRepublican presidential candidate Donald Trump | Photo credit: AP

“I was born for the storm, and a calm doesn’t suit me.” These words were uttered by Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, but could easily have come out of the mouth of presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Indiana set the tone this week: The state, which is better versed in motor races than presidential races, demonstrated that Trump is the man Republican voters want. The Indiana primaries also showed that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is in real trouble, even if — as expected — she is nominated by her party.

In the Midwestern state’s primaries, it turned out that American citizens are not necessarily dreaming of seeing Clinton in the Oval Office. She is not whetting the Democrats’ electoral appetite, as the unexpected success of Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) in Indiana and 18 other states proves.