Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Meet Olivia Frances. Shame On You. Will Pragmatic and Common Sense Begin To Dictate Policy? Reverse Discrimination Wearing Thin!

Meet Olivia Frances Darvick!
Interesting: Notice what happens after 1970.http://metrocosm.com/us-immigration-history-map.html
What a sweet and self effacing man but why not ride in on a horse bare chested?  https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=47XFdzI3rvk
I post a lot of articles. Some good, some not.  Every once in a while I post something that needs to be emphasized because it is so insightful.

Yesterday, I posted a very long presentation by Newt as follows:  "Editor's note: The following column is adapted from a speech delivered by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the National Defense University on December 14, 2016."

When I lived in Atlanta, I loved being a member of "The Friends of Newt" because to be around him was exciting, was challenging. As with everyone, we are generally or own worst enemies and Newt has proven that to be the case.  However, if you can get past what he has done to harm himself and others you get the essence of the man.

I truly find Ole Bill a rogue but I have never said he was not a great politician.  He is Newt's equivalence in the field of touching people and being politically savvy.  His wife is an idiot but not Ole Bill. He is a political genius.  In a sense he "blew it!"

Read what I posted that Newt wrote. Trump is going to take us on a roller coaster because he is an activist, full of energy and more importantly he is so different. Anti-Trumpers are too busy being turned off by his difference.  But being different does not make him stupid. It simply means he is different and, if we are to judge him correctly, we need to look at him as  being different.

Liberals are too hung up looking at Trump with old biased eyes and are ticked that he whipped their ass.  They are missing something big but that's their problem.

I urge you re-read Newt's address and if you have not shame on you.

Also, when Edgar Hoover headed the FBI, he was the most powerful man in D.C. because of what he knew, the dossiers his department gathered on everyone in government that could be used as a sword to hang over those heads he chose to threaten and they knew it.

The CIA also has those within the department who are seemingly not above threatening president elect Trump and thus we have reports Putin and Russia are prepared to release information, unconfirmed, undocumented, about him.

Disinformation by CIA spooks is one of their most potent weapons and those in Russia are no different.

I do not put revelations that are false and damaging beyond certain politically motivated members of the intelligence community. Just because you are a CIA member etc. does not automatically mean you are always 'kosher.'

It"s about time. The Arabists in our State Department are dumb enough to continue to pursue policies that have proven to be unworkable at best and even intellectually fraudulent, at worse.  Hopefully the pragmatists Trump has nominated will bring a fresh look at the many problems we face and will devise practical solutions which will be better than the worn and tired actions we continue to pursue and most to our own detriment and those, we profess, we care about.(See 1,and 1a and 1b below.)

Today we heard from Sen. Booker who offered a hatchet  job on Sen. Sessions.  It is my understanding that Booker is being groomed to replace Obama one day as our second black American who could become president.

Sessions was also defended by several black associates who knew/know him intimately. I do not know Sen. Sessions, but I believe his candidacy provides the opportunity for members of The Black Coalition and Rep. John Lewis the chance to keep alive their reason for existence.  Yes, there is prejudice in this nation and probably always will be but picking on Sessions is akin to smearing crap on a decent man who simply happens to be from Alabama and whose views differ on some matters with black citizens who use fighting for civil rights as a way of perpetuating their cause.  In essence I see their tactics, in this case, as reverse discrimination and wearing thin.

Sessions has been Borked and once again the stench of tagging a person who hold sdifferent views is a racist is  also wearing thin.
Reid and Soros' have engaged in changes and efforts that have boomeranged.  (See 2 and 2a below.)

I talked to a homeless man yesterday and asked him how he ended up this way. 
He said, "Up until last week, I still had it all. I had plenty to eat, my clothes were washed and pressed, 
I had a roof over my head, I had TV and Internet, and I went to the gym, the pool, and the library.  It was a great life.
I was working on my MBA on-line. I had no bills and no debt. I even had full medical coverage." 
I felt sorry for him, so I asked, "What happened? Drugs? Alcohol? Divorce?" 
"Oh no, nothing like that," he said. "No, no.... I was paroled."

-  Life is just the blink of an eye  -
1)Glick: Netanyahu, Congress, AIPAC and the PLO

The whitewashing of the PLO must end.

It is not in the least surprising that the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority did not condemn the terrorist attack on Sunday. It is not surprising because the PLO-controlled PA encouraged the attack.

Among other things, Muhammad Abu Shtayyeh, who serves as a close adviser to PLO chief and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas called for an intensification of terrorist attacks against Israelis. Shtayyeh said that now is the time to “bolster the popular resistance” against Israel.

As Abu Toameh noted, “‘Popular resistance’ is code for throwing stones and petrol bombs and carrying out stabbing and car-ramming attacks against Israelis.”

Sunday’s terrorist murderer probably was inspired by Islamic State, and its adherents’ recent truck ramming murder sprees in Nice and Berlin, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

But Sunday’s 28-year-old cold blooded killer hailed from Jerusalem, not Nice.

His brain was washed since he was five years old by the PLO-controlled PA’s steady cycle of jihadist incitement.

From the time he was in preschool, the killer was indoctrinated to aspire to commit the mass murder of Jews he carried out on Sunday.

For 23 years, Israel and the US have empowered the PLO.

During this period, the terrorist group never took any concrete steps to promote peace. At no point in the past generation has a PLO leader ever told the Palestinians or supporters abroad that the time has come to bury the hatchet and accept Israel.

Instead, for 23 years, the PLO has openly supported Israel’s annihilation. Often that support has been stated in code words like “popular resistance” which everyone understands means murder.

To make it easy for Americans and Israelis to continue funding, arming, training and of course, recognizing the PLO as a “moderate” organization despite its continued sponsorship of terrorism, PLO members are always happy to talk about a “two-state solution” with Westerners that wish to be lied to.

But they do not hesitate to threaten anyone who rejects their lies about Jews and Israel. For instance, Abbas reacted to US President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to abide by the US law requiring the State Department to move the US embassy to Jerusalem by threatening him.

Trump’s plan will have “serious implications” for the US, Abbas told a group of visiting Israeli leftists.

PLO Executive Committee chairman Saeb Erekat said that if Trump moves the US embassy to Israel’s capital, the PLO will lobby Arab states to expel the US ambassadors from their capitals.

Jebl Mukaber, the Jerusalem neighborhood where Sunday’s terrorist lived, used to be just an Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem. It wasn’t particularly friendly.

But it also wasn’t particularly hostile.

But then for about five minutes in 1993, the PLO pretended it wasn’t a terrorist group. To the delight of the US, Israel responded by giving it operational bases in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The PLO then went about indoctrinating residents of the areas under its control as well as throughout Israel that they must reject all forms of coexistence with Israel and work toward its destruction.

These acts of war on the ground have always been complemented by PLO efforts to destroy Israel in the court of world opinion through its unrelenting and ever escalating worldwide political war against the Jewish state.

In keeping with this state of affairs, following 2334’s passage, at the same time its members called for intensifying terrorist attacks against Israel, the PLO Executive Committee decided to escalate its international economic boycott campaign against Israel and ratchet up its campaign to convince the International Criminal Court to convict Israelis of imaginary war crimes.

Like Sunday’s terrorist attack in Jerusalem, it ought to go without saying that these actions are all acts of war against Israel.

The reason it is necessary to state what ought to be the self-evident fact that the PLO is a terrorist organization engaged in a total war against Israel and the Jewish People is because the people that are supposed to act on this reality insist on denying it. The Netanyahu government, the US Congress and US Jewish organizations led by AIPAC still refuse admit the truth about the PLO and draw the necessary conclusions.

Those necessary conclusions are similarly self-evident.

Israel and the US should cut all ties to the PLO.

The PLO should be re-designated as the terrorist group it never stopped being and treated accordingly.

Last week, the US House of Representatives passed non-binding Resolution 11, which condemned resolution 2334. Resolution 11 was shepherded through the House by AIPAC, with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s support.

The House resolution, which is set to be followed by a nearly identical Senate resolution in the coming days, is based on the proposition that 2334 is bad not because, as the Simon Wiesenthal Center rightly said, it was the worst antisemitic act of 2016. Rather, the congressional resolution rejects 2334 because it harms the chance of Israel and the PLO reaching a negotiated peace that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Resolution 11 is marginally helpful because it rejects economic and political warfare against Israel. But substantively, in regard to the PLO and its legitimacy, the greatest difference between Resolution 11 and 2334 is that while 2334 embraces the PLO’s anti-Jewish rejection of all Jewish ties to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Resolution 11 recognizes Israel’s right to the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter.

Beyond Jerusalem’s Old City, Congress’s resolution accepts the pro-PLO position that it is a good idea to work toward the forcible expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria to make room for a Jew-free Palestinian state led by PLO terrorists.

To credit its position, the House resolution states that 2334’s refusal to distinguish between Jerusalem’s Old City and Judea and Samaria means it equates “these sites with outposts in the West Bank that the Israeli government has deemed illegal.”

The problem with this wording is that it ignores the fact that the Knesset is about to pass a law that would effectively cancel that delineation. Similarly, it ignores that the delineation of Israeli communities built since 2000 in Judea and Samaria as illegal was done by a radical Justice Ministry attorney who now heads the post-Zionist New Israel Fund.

In other words, Congress’s resolution reflects the view of the far-left fringes of the Israeli political spectrum.

Supported by Netanyahu, AIPAC shepherded this resolution through the House, despite harsh opposition from the House Freedom Caucus whose members wish to end US support for the PLO and for a PLO state.

Although AIPAC condemned the Obama administration’s refusal to veto 2334, it continues to fervently support the PLO and Palestinian statehood. Indeed, just days after 2334 passed, AIPAC officials and missions were meeting with Erekat and other PLO operatives in Ramallah, as if there is anything pro-Israel about meeting with people who just got the Security Council to resolve that Israel is a criminal state.

AIPAC’s continued support for the PLO no doubt stems in part from its desire to keep the Democratic Party inside the pro-Israel tent. Unfortunately, that ship seems to have sailed.

Nearly 40% of House Democrats including minority leader Nancy Pelosi and assistant leader Jim Clyburn voted against the PLO state supporting resolution.

Rep. Keith Ellison, who is the front-runner to be elected Democratic National Committee chairman later this month, also voted no. Two thirds of the 95 Democrats supported by J Street opposed the resolution.

Most of the Democrats that supported Resolution 11 may well have supported it even if it had left out the goal of giving the PLO a state. It cannot be credibly argued that Reps. Elliot Engel and Steny Hoyer would have opposed Resolution 11 if it had simply stated that 2334 was antisemitic.

Certainly it is hard to argue they would have opposed it if the vote was delayed until January 21. Indeed, it is hard to understand why it was necessary to pass the resolution while President Barack Obama – who partnered with the PLO to pass 2334 – is still in office.

Resolution 2334’s passage must be viewed as an inflection point. It is no longer possible to credibly argue that the PLO is remotely interested in peace with Israel. Sunday’s murderous terrorist attack Jerusalem was further testament of this truth.

The time has come for Israelis and Israel’s supporters in the US to demand that our leaders – from Prime Minister Netanyahu to AIPAC to members of Congress – finally recognize and act of this truth. The whitewashing of the PLO must end.

The two-state solution, a perverse euphemism for carving an Islamic terror state out of the land of Israel and the living flesh of her people, is in trouble. The solution, which has solved nothing except the shortage of graves in Israel and Muslim terrorists in the Middle East, is the object of grave concern by the professionally concerned from Foggy Bottom to Fifth Avenue.
Obama set up his betrayal of Israel at the UN to “save” the two-state solution from Trump. The media warns that David Friedman, Trump’s pick for ambassador, is so pro-Israel that he’ll kill the “solution.”

But you can’t kill something that was never alive.
The two-state solution is a zombie. It can’t be dead because it never lived. It was a rotting shambling corpse of a diplomatic process. If you stood downwind of the proceedings, it looked alive.
Up close there was only blood and death.
Like the Holy Roman Empire, the two-state solution didn’t solve anything and it wasn’t in the business of creating two states. Not unless you count a Hamas state in Gaza and a Fatah state in the West Bank.
What problem was the two-state solution solving?

It wasn’t the problem of terrorism. Turning over land, weapons and power to a bunch of terrorists made for more terrorism. It’s no coincidence that Islamic terrorism worldwide shot up around the same time.


How to Prevent Israel From Being Fed to the Wolves at the Upcoming Paris Conference, Just Before Trump Takes Office

avatar by Anne Bayefsky

On January 15, with only five days left after 2,917 days in office, President Barack Obama is planning once again to feed Israel to the international wolves. The move is intended to tie the hands of President Donald Trump and is a direct repudiation of the will of the American electorate, who rejected Obama’s calamitous foreign policy and a repeat performance by his secretary of state.
On Sunday, France is scheduled to hold an international conference to unleash an international mob on Israel. The meeting is taking place with Obama’s direct connivance. Seventy-states have been lined up to impose their preferences on the Middle East’s only democracy. Israelis are still dying in Israeli streets after 70 years of unending Arab terror – and the folks sitting in Paris munching on croissants know best how to protect Israeli national security.

The bare-faced power-grab by France and its Arab allies – with the blessing of President Obama – raises unavoidable questions: Who will attend? If they attend, how senior a representative will be sent by the main players on the Security Council: the US, Russia and the United Kingdom? Will attendees sign on to an outcome document imperiling Israel that is already circulating? Will the Middle East Quartet – composed of the US, the EU, Russia and the UN – approve of the outcome document? Will a UN Security Council subsequently approve of the outcome document before January 20?

The French meeting follows on President Obama’s helping to ram through a UN Security Council resolution on December 23, 2016 that was clearly intended to unleash a legal and economic pogrom against the Jewish state. It didn’t take long for Palestinian terrorists to get the message: Sidelining a negotiated solution between the parties by strong-arming an Israeli villain at the UN was a green light for the enforcers in Gaza City and Ramallah.

President Obama’s collusion on Round Two jettisons decades of bipartisan policy prioritizing a negotiated path to Arab-Israeli peace, and flies in the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition in Congress reconfirmed by the House just last week. Since the point of this flurry of international activity by UN-firsters is to scuttle and deny President Trump’s foreign policy remit, would-be participants in the French mugging of the Jewish state need to know – now – what they should expect five days later, on Inauguration Day.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has already made calls to the incoming team and expects to be high up on the list of early visitors welcomed to the White House in the spring. EU countries will similarly come asking for help easing post-Brexit fallout, tackling refugee problems and buttressing security needs. The Middle East Quartet is desperate to continue its role supervising the Arab-Israeli conflict and to avoid a return to sole American custody. The UN is an economic ward of the United States – to the tune of upwards of 10 billion a year – currently parked in the middle of a place many diplomats prefer to home.

So here are some suggestions that may be communicated to those interested in a productive relationship with the man in office five days later and his colleagues now in charge of the purse strings on Capitol Hill – if the French refuse at their peril to postpone it altogether:
  • Contract the diplomatic flu and don’t attend the French ambush; that goes for the new UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
  • Send a low-level bureaucrat to take notes, leaving Secretary Kerry (who is expected to attend) to schmooze about tolerance with the human rights enthusiasts in the Arab League.
  • Refuse to agree on an outcome document, despite Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas sitting on the sidelines threatening more terror unless…
  • Prevent any move by the Quartet to agree to an outcome document.
  • Refuse any effort to move an outcome document to the UN and have it adopted by the Security Council in any shape or form – a resolution, a presidential statement or a press statement.

As for the UN, there is only one subject that UN-firsters understand and it isn’t a Congressional memo begging the institution to treat Israel better the next time. A promise to insist on an immediate halt of the transfer of funds to the UN, pending a thorough accounting of expenditures and a strategic review of the US-UN relationship, would be a good start.

The rogue in the White House is poised to derail any prospect of Arab-Israeli peace in the foreseeable future, further endangering Israel’s security and the country’s ability to safeguard Jewish identity. If his co-conspirators believe it will be cost-free, expect the onslaught to proceed as planned.

FLASHBACK: Liberals Loved Nuking the Senate Filibuster in 2013

BY: David Rutz

In November 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) helped lead a major rule change in the chamber called the “nuclear option” that liberals cheered at the time but are ruing three years later.
Now, President-elect Donald Trump, with a Republican Senate, can have his appointments confirmed with a simple majority because of that rule change. Democrats have vowed to stall action on Trump’s Cabinet nominations, but they don’t have the votes to stop their confirmations.

The nuclear option measure, which all Republicans opposed in 2013, effectively left the then-minority Republicans powerless to stop President Obama’s executive and judicial nominees, changing the threshold from the former filibuster-proof 60 votes to a simple majority of 51.

While Supreme Court picks and legislation still required 60 votes to be filibuster-proof, judgeships and Cabinet appointments could from then on be approved with just 51 votes.

Reid at the time declared the move necessary due to the Senate being “broken” from GOP intransigence, and media allies did not hesitate to agree.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said Obama and the Democrats “have gone to war with their enemies, finally.” Fellow host Steve Kornacki said “this was a move Democrats had to make,” saying Republicans put them in that position by blocking so many of Obama’s appointments.

“All this really does is say that the president that we elected to actually run the government gets to run the government,” liberal CNN commentator Hillary Rosen said.

Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart cited Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) as “Exhibit A” of why Reid and the Democrats “did what they had to do.”

“Even the reaction to this announcement seems to be one more piece of evidence that this Republican Party is not interested in doing the business of the country,” future Hillary Clinton spokeswoman Karen Finney said on her short-lived MSNBC show, “Disrupt with Karen Finney.”

Liberal political comedians reliably chimed in to boost the Democrats’ move.
“So deciding to allow majority rules to incrementally increase governmental efficiency in presidential appointments is so unthinkably extreme, it’s the nuclear option?” “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart teased.
“Now majority rules, you know, almost like a democracy?” HBO host Bill Maher said to cheers.

Multiple columnists cited the Senate being paralyzed from doing the people’s business as reason to praise using the nuclear option. The filibuster was called “obsolete” and “racist,” the latter charge coming from none other than MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry.

That was 2013, however, one year after the last successful election Democrats had. A little less than a year later, Republicans recaptured the Senate in a wave election. In 2016, they recaptured the White House in the form of Donald Trump.

The 2013 change leaves a mess for Reid’s successor as minority leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who was part of the Senate leadership at the time. Three Democrats voted against the nuclear option, but Schumer was not one of them.

“I argued against it at the time. I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60, because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship,” Schumer told CNN last week. “I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet, but it’s what we have to live with now.”

Having not seen a President Trump with a Republican Congress at his disposal coming, the words of Democratic strategist Maria Cardona on a CNN panel back in 2013 loom large: “There’s no question we could come one day to regret this.”

2a) George Soros’ Lobbying Efforts Have Quietly Skyrocketed in Recent Years

Billionaire has spent $35 million lobbying Congress since 2013

Liberal billionaire George Soros has quietly poured tens of millions more than usual into lobbying Congress in recent years, disclosure forms show.

Soros’ lobbying efforts have jumped more than four-fold since 2013 compared to the previous 10 years combined.

The Open Society Policy Center, a 501(c)4 nonprofit that is separate from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, is a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on advocacy efforts.

Between 2002 and 2012, the policy center reported spending $19,120,000 on lobbying for legislation and policy efforts with a number of government agencies and Congress.

The group averaged $1,912,000 on lobbying per year during this time period.

However, the group increased its lobbying expenditures from $3.4 million in 2012 to $11 million in 2013. The bulk of this lobbying increase was said to be due to the group’s push for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The policy center increased lobbying funds yet again the next year, spending $12.4 million. The policy center spent $8.2 million on lobbying in 2015 and the comparatively low sum of $3.7 million in 2016—an amount still higher than any year between 2002-12.

From 2013 to 2016, the group spent a total of $35 million on lobbying activities, averaging $8.8 million per year. This constituted an increase of nearly $6.9 million per year from the yearly average between 2002-12.
“OSPC engages on a range of issues in Congress, which have been fairly consistent over time,” a spokesman for the policy center told the Washington Free Beacon in an email statement. “The level of spending on those issues tends to rise and fall depending on their state of play in Congress.”

“During the period you ask about, Congress debated legislation on immigration reform, criminal justice reform, disability rights, and several national security and human rights issues, so there was more activity on our part,” they continued. “Overall, the number of OSPC staff in Washington and our level of activity on most issues in the past five years has been stable.”

Disclosure forms filed with the House of Representatives and Senate show that the group also hired outside lobbying firms to help their efforts, including Orion Strategies, the Mitchell Firm, and Glover Park Group, all D.C.-based lobbying groups.

Last year, the group had three lobbyists working on three foreign relations issues.

The lobbyists worked on five different bills in front of Congress including the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations Act of 2017, the Department of State Operations Authorization and Embassy Security Act of 2016, and the Department of State Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017.

From 2013 to 2015, the group lobbied the White House, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, and the Departments of Commerce and Defense.

The Open Society Policy Center, which receives funds from Soros’ Open Society Institute and Alliance for Open Society International Inc., gives generous grants every year to liberal advocacy groups.

According to the policy center’s Form 990s from 2013 and 2014, the most recently available tax documents, it received $26,000,000 in contributions during the two-year span.

The group invests in projects that push for comprehensive immigration reform and battle “the criminalization or people of color, police brutality, and mass incarceration.” It also backs ventures to build progressive media outlets.

The policy center disbursed millions to groups such as the Advocacy Fund, an organization that helps to navigate “lobbying, political and funding rules to win campaigns for social change.”

Hacked documents released last year from the Open Society Institute show that Soros lobbied the Obama administration to accept over 100,000 refugees per year.

Soros also tried to influence a Supreme Court ruling on illegal immigration, according to a February 2016 memo.
The Hungarian-born billionaire wrote to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011 asking for intervention into Albania’s political unrest.

No comments: