Just received an OK from Don Kole, to come tour his " Savannah African Art Museum," on Friday, March 1, at 1PM. If you are able to come please e mail me . I hope you will join us. thanks, Me
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An op ed about how Democrats are flirting with a possible hornet's nest:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/
And:
My friend Avi sent me the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Finally:
Hypocrite Democrats are in a furor over Trump declaring a national emergency and using a law Democrats passed when they controlled Congress. Every president since that legislation was passed has invoked same at varying times and some in significant numbers.
That Trump is doing so for the first time is not out of the comparative ordinary and certainly we have a drug emergency due to border penetration and we certainly have police and other legal citizens being killed and/or injured by renegade illegals who penetrate our border.
Perhaps Democrats are waiting for something "uge" before they find a national emergency that suits their taste. (See A below.)
My friend Avi sent me the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Finally:
Hypocrite Democrats are in a furor over Trump declaring a national emergency and using a law Democrats passed when they controlled Congress. Every president since that legislation was passed has invoked same at varying times and some in significant numbers.
That Trump is doing so for the first time is not out of the comparative ordinary and certainly we have a drug emergency due to border penetration and we certainly have police and other legal citizens being killed and/or injured by renegade illegals who penetrate our border.
Perhaps Democrats are waiting for something "uge" before they find a national emergency that suits their taste. (See A below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Victor Davis Hanson on Biden. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did the anti-Semitic Democrat Rep. marry her brother to avoid immigration laws? (See 2 below.)
Meanwhile, another terrorist organization hops aboard her anti-Semitic train. (See 2a below.)
Meanwhile, another terrorist organization hops aboard her anti-Semitic train. (See 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has the mass media ignored the rut Democrats have placed themselves in and continue to focus on Republicans for pouncing? You decide. (See 3 below.)
Democrats have walked away from their support for Israel. Recent polls show Republicans support our relationship with Israel by 79% and Democrats 27%. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The upcoming Israeli election written by my friend. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Green desire somewhat impacted by volcanic activity. Maybe Ocasio can tell us what to do. She is so gifted in everything else.(See 6 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Several liberal friends and fellow memo readers are very upset we have crossed the 22 trillion deficit line now that Trump is president. They also believe we should pass a limited term amendment.
I too am dispirited by the continuing deficits. I also asked them were they equally upset when Obama doubled the deficit and in 8 years his equaled the combined deficits of all his predecessors? No response as yet.
Yes, i am not happy the 'spending whores," from both aisles, continue to create massive deficits but believe an amendment calling for a balanced budget, with certain out clauses, would be preferable. Why? Because when these "whores" cannot spend your money they will tire of being in Congress and will resign more frequently. In fact, some may not even want to be in Congress.
Another law could be passed, not in amendment format, stipulating during any period the government incurs a deficit all monies paid to Congresspersons, including that allocated for running their various offices and staffing , would be returned to the Treasury. The legislation could be called the MM (my money)law because it would be focused on OPM spending.
I am enough of a realist to know nothing will be done about deficit spending until a crisis occurs and then the hand wringing, finger pointing and show boating will begin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Green desire somewhat impacted by volcanic activity. Maybe Ocasio can tell us what to do. She is so gifted in everything else.(See 6 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Several liberal friends and fellow memo readers are very upset we have crossed the 22 trillion deficit line now that Trump is president. They also believe we should pass a limited term amendment.
I too am dispirited by the continuing deficits. I also asked them were they equally upset when Obama doubled the deficit and in 8 years his equaled the combined deficits of all his predecessors? No response as yet.
Yes, i am not happy the 'spending whores," from both aisles, continue to create massive deficits but believe an amendment calling for a balanced budget, with certain out clauses, would be preferable. Why? Because when these "whores" cannot spend your money they will tire of being in Congress and will resign more frequently. In fact, some may not even want to be in Congress.
Another law could be passed, not in amendment format, stipulating during any period the government incurs a deficit all monies paid to Congresspersons, including that allocated for running their various offices and staffing , would be returned to the Treasury. The legislation could be called the MM (my money)law because it would be focused on OPM spending.
I am enough of a realist to know nothing will be done about deficit spending until a crisis occurs and then the hand wringing, finger pointing and show boating will begin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A) Trump's wall would be the 32nd active national emergency
If President Donald Trump moves to invoke a national emergency at the US border to bypass Congress and obtain funding to build his long-promised border wall, a battle in the courts over the questionable legality of spending those dollars would be virtually guaranteed.
The federal government is now nearly three full weeks into a partial shutdown over funding for the President's wall along the border with Mexico. The White House and Democrats in Congress are locked at an impasse: Trump is demanding nearly $6 billion, while House Democrats have vowed not to give him one dollar.
A) Trump's wall would be the 32nd active national emergency
If President Donald Trump moves to invoke a national emergency at the US border to bypass Congress and obtain funding to build his long-promised border wall, a battle in the courts over the questionable legality of spending those dollars would be virtually guaranteed.
But the United States is no stranger to national emergencies.
In fact, the US has been in a perpetual state of declared national emergency for four decades, and the country is currently under 31 concurrent states of emergency about a spectrum of international issues around the globe, according to a CNN review of documents from the Congressional Research Service and the Federal Register.
The federal government is now nearly three full weeks into a partial shutdown over funding for the President's wall along the border with Mexico. The White House and Democrats in Congress are locked at an impasse: Trump is demanding nearly $6 billion, while House Democrats have vowed not to give him one dollar.
"I have the absolute right to declare a national emergency. I haven't done it yet. I may do it. If this doesn't work out, probably I will do it. I would almost say definitely," Trump told reporters on Thursday morning, essentially vowing to bypass Congress if he can't make a deal. "We have plenty of funds if there's a national emergency."
The National Emergencies Act of 1974 empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis. Congress can undo a state of emergency declaration, but it would likely require a veto-proof majority, which is unlikely to come from the Republican-controlled Senate.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" on Sunday that Trump doesn't have the authority to declare an emergency. "If Harry Truman couldn't nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this President doesn't have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion-dollar wall on the border. So, that's a nonstarter."
But acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney defended the possibility: "I'm actually heavily involved with it and have been working with all of the Cabinet secretaries to try and find money that we can legally use to defend the southern border," he said on the same program. "Presidents have authority to defend the nation."
The White House counsel's office had begun laying the groundwork for a legal defense of the move on Thursday, according to officials familiar with the matter.
Not all national emergency declarations are so controversial. Trump has already issued three national emergency declarations during his tenure, most prominently a national emergency meant to punish foreign actors who interfere in American elections, though the move garnered bipartisan criticism for not going far enough. He's also invoked emergency powers to slap sanctions on human rights abusers around the globe and on members of the Nicaraguan government amid corruption and violent protests there.
Here's a full list of the 31 active national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, dating back to the Carter administration:
1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 23, 1995)
4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 15, 1995)
5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)
6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1, 1996)
7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 3, 1997)
8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 26, 2001)
9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001)
11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 16, 2006)
16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 27, 2006)
17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 1, 2007)
18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 23, 2015)
29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 27, 2018)
This story has been updated.
CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Mythologies of 'Joe Being Joe' Biden
By Victor Davis Hanson
Some polls put 76-year-old Joe Biden as the Democratic front-runner for the 2020 presidential election. There is certainly some logic to that reckoning.
Biden has far more experience than any of his likely party rivals — 36 years in the Senate, eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president and two past presidential runs.
He may be the only Democratic candidate who could likely win back some of the “deplorables,” “irredeemables” and “clingers” of the critical Midwestern swing states.
But all of that said, the folksy Biden is hardly the sober and judicious alternative to a supposedly reckless Donald Trump.
In many ways, Biden has been far wilder in his speech and decorum — despite nearly a half-century in politics.
Could a Biden campaign withstand #MeToo-era scrutiny? Biden was widely criticized for his handling of Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas during Thomas’ Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991. In 2015, New York Magazine ran a photo essay showing nine instances when Biden, in creepy fashion, leaned in closely and whispered in women’s ears, with several of those women appearing visibly uncomfortable with such interaction.
Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that grilled Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in such a crude fashion as to turn the failed nominee’s name into a verb. “Borked” is now synonymous with the sort of character assassination that Biden led. His later aimless and incoherent questioning of Thomas during his confirmation hearing managed to enrage both critics and supporters.
Biden was accused of — and confessed to — plagiarism in law school, and he withdrew from the presidential primaries in 1987 after being caught plagiarizing British Labor Party labor Neil Kinnock in campaign speeches (while also inserting fabrications about his family’s background).
On the 2008 campaign trail, Biden committed so many verbal gaffes that President Obama reportedly lamented in frustration, “How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?”
More recently, Biden — who has called for more civility in public discourse — has boasted that he would like to take Trump (whom he referenced as “the fattest, ugliest SOB in the room.”) behind the proverbial high school gym “and beat the hell out of him.”
Sometimes Biden reveals abject ignorance, even as he tries to sermonize on American history. During the 2008 financial crisis, Biden urged then-President George W. Bush to address the nation in the supposed fashion of President Franklin Roosevelt: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.” Biden was apparently unaware that Herbert Hoover was president during the 1929 stock market crash, that FDR did not take office until 1933, and that televisions weren’t commercially available until the late 1930s.
But Biden has two far greater problems with the modern progressive movement. His past record has often been centrist. As a result, he recently has been apologizing to left-wing Democrats for prior politically incorrect votes, such as authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting a punitive 1994 crime bill that he helped write.
Even more problematic, Biden has a long history of racial missteps. In an age where there is no statute of limitations on, or forgiveness for, prior stupidity, and every careless remark is regarded as a window into a dark soul, Biden will have a lot of explaining to do to the identity-politics guardians of the Democratic Party if indeed he runs for president.
It recently came to light that in 1975, Biden followed the lead of Sen. Robert Byrd and spoke against federally mandated busing to integrate public schools. He offered the weird rationale that segregation was good for “black pride.”
“There are those of we social planners who think somehow that if we just subrogate man’s individual characteristics and traits by making sure that a presently heterogeneous society becomes a totally homogeneous society that somehow we’re going to solve our social ills,” Biden said at the time. “And quite to the contrary.”
In 2007, Biden said of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Did the condescending Biden not realize that for decades before the advent of Obama, brilliant black politicians such as Sen. Edward Brooke and Rep. Barbara Jordan were popular “mainstream” political figures?
No one knew what to make of Biden’s 2006 comment that, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
In 2012, Biden used a stereotyped accent to warn a largely African-American audience that Republicans would “put y'all back in chains” — as if Republican candidate Mitt Romney were a racist and blacks could be forced back into slavery.
Biden’s gaffes are often brushed off as examples of “Joe being Joe,” but Biden has long displayed the sort of sloppy, gross and politically incorrect behavior that progressives routinely and ironically attribute to the current president.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Did Ilhan Omar Commit Immigration Fraud by Marrying her Brother?
A media frenzy has surrounded Freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) recently due to her anti-Semitic comments made via Twitter.
As a result of the public attention placed on Rep. Omar, information has come out alleging Omar married her brotherto commit immigration fraud. Reputable news sources including One America News, PJ Media, the National Review, and even respected think-tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies have called attention to these disturbing allegations.
2a) Al Shabaab Jumps on the Anti-Israel, Anti-Trump Bandwagon
The Somalian terrorist organization al Shabaab recently explained that its attack at the DusitD2 hotel in Kenya on Jan. 15 was retaliation for U.S. policy in Israel. The group's statement claimed, "The Mujahideen carried out this operation ... [as] a response to the witless remarks of U.S. President Donald Trump and his declaration of Al Quds [the Arabic name for Jerusalem] as the capital of Israel."
2a) Al Shabaab Jumps on the Anti-Israel, Anti-Trump Bandwagon
The Somalian terrorist organization al Shabaab recently explained that its attack at the DusitD2 hotel in Kenya on Jan. 15 was retaliation for U.S. policy in Israel. The group's statement claimed, "The Mujahideen carried out this operation ... [as] a response to the witless remarks of U.S. President Donald Trump and his declaration of Al Quds [the Arabic name for Jerusalem] as the capital of Israel."
Don't believe it. Al Shabaab has been killing civilians since its inception. To believe that any of its attacks are carried out "in response to" or "in retaliation for" specific events or policies is to misunderstand the nature of jihad warfare.
Inside Somalia, which, according to the State Department, is a "terrorist safe haven," al Shabaab targets government officials, the Somali National Army (SNA), forces with the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) — in short, everyone who tries to stop al Shabaab from taking over the country.
Outside of Somalia, it often chooses targets in Kenya, whose porous border with Somalia puts al Shabaab in close proximity to a Westernized, comparatively prosperous society in which Muslims and non-Muslims coexist. Islamic supremacists cannot tolerate such coexistence.
The DusitD2 attack followed a pattern: a small group of fighters ambushing civilians at a busy location. The attacks begin with AK-47s and grenades and often end with suicide bombs.
Al Shabaab often chooses "soft targets." In its attack at the Westgate Mall in Kenya in 2013, jihadis asked shoppers to prove they were Muslims by reciting verses from the Koran, sparing those who could and executing those who could not. In 2015, another soft target in Kenya was chosen when Garissa College was attacked. There, too, Muslim students were spared and Christians were killed in what al Shabaab called an "operation against the infidels."
The reason for these attacks is no mystery. They are part of a cohesive, understandable ideology that has nothing to do with where the U.S. Embassy in Israel is located or with Donald Trump.
Don't take my word for it. Al Qaeda and ISIS have been very clear. Osama bin Laden's October 2002 letter to the American people ("Why We Are Fighting You") pledges enduring enmity as long as the United States remains "a nation who, rather than ruling through the sharia of Allah, chooses to invent your own laws as you will and desire."
Bin Laden's thinking illustrates the doctrine of loyalty and enmity, which decrees that one belongs either to Dar al Islam (house of Islam) or Dar al Harb (house of war). No middle ground exists between co-religionist and eternal enemy. No amount of grievance-placating will change that.
More recently, ISIS provided a similar explanation in the 15th issue of its online magazine Dabiq, where an article titled "Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You" confirms there is no tit-for-tat logic behind jihadi violence.
The article begins by noting that shortly after Omar Mateen killed 49 people in 2016 and wounded 53 at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., many politicians denounced the attack as "a hate crime, an act of terrorism and an act of senseless violence." To this, the author responds: "A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites. ... An act of terrorism? Yes. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence?" No, he explains, such acts "make complete sense." In an apparent Shakespearean allusion, he claims: "There is a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness and brutality."
The honesty is bold: "The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah [a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you."
It continues, "We fight you not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter." This is not the kind of ideology that can be placated, because no compromise position is acceptable.
Jihad groups may make claims about the reasons for their attacks, but without one excuse another would be found.
So why did al Shabaab blame Trump? And why the sudden anti-Israel rhetoric? Perhaps someone in the group studying American politics has decided that an anti-Trump stance might garner sympathy or increase media coverage, widening the audience of its "propaganda by deed." Or maybe it was just a ploy to gain allies and donations from Arab nations. Whatever the reason, the DusitD2 attack would have occurred no matter where the U.S. Embassy in Israel is located.
A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum where he is a Ginsburg-Ingerman fellow.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
The Republican Pouncing Problem
By Ben Shapiro
In the past few weeks, prominent Democrats have endorsed infanticide; admitted to dressing in blackface; called for an end to fossil fuels, airplanes and farting cows; and trafficked in open anti-Semitism. None of this is a serious problem for many in the media. For members of the media, the real story is that Republicans keep pouncing.
Two weeks ago, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam stated in an interview that he favors legislation that would allow a woman to abort a baby at the point of dilation and then added that in certain cases in which a baby would be born alive, the baby would be kept "comfortable" while parents and doctors decide what to do with it. This seems rather radical. Here was The Washington Post's take, as said in a headline: "Republicans seize on liberal positions to paint Democrats as radical." The positions, you see, are ackshually mainstream. It's just that Republicans seized on them and painted them as radical.
Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., released a Green New Deal backgrounder and FAQ on her website — and her staff sent the six-page document to a variety of media outlets. The document happens to be fully insane. It calls for America to be carbon emissions-free within 10 years without use of nuclear power. It suggests that every building in the country be either replaced or retrofitted. It calls for universal health care, free college education, replacement of airplanes with high-speed trains, replacement of "every combustion-engine vehicle," government-provided jobs, abolition of "farting cows" and, best of all, total "economic security" for anyone "unwilling to work." The proposal is so farcical that even Democrats ran from it screaming. AOC took it down from her website and then deployed campaign aides to state that the document was "accidentally" released as an "early draft." Unsurprisingly, no revised draft has been posted.
Here is The New York Times' headline: "Ocasio-Cortez Team Flubs a Green New Deal Summary, and Republicans Pounce."
This week, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., engaged in open anti-Semitism, suggesting that American support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins" and then doubling down on that comment by blaming the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for America's pro-Zionist attitude. This follows years of overtly anti-Semitic content from Omar, as well as from Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who suggested back in January that Americans who like Israel suffer from dual loyalty and "forgot which country they represent."
Politico tweeted: "The Republican Party has a new trio of Democratic villains: Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."
Now, pouncing is never a story. Ever. It is a simple fact of politics that when people screw up, their political opponents react with alacrity. Highlighting that response rather than the underlying screw-up is the equivalent of a headline that reads "Sun Rises in Morning." Yet that's what the media do ... whenever Democrats screw up. Republican gaffes are a story in and of themselves. Democratic gaffes aren't a story; Republican nastiness is.
All of which demonstrates that a huge swath of the media is inseparable from the Democratic Party. If your first response to Democratic nut-jobbery is to get defensive about Republican blow back, you're no longer a journalist. You're merely a hack. You are, as President Trump would put it, "fake news" — an activist masquerading as a journalist.
I suppose this means I'm pouncing on the media, though.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
'NO' MEANS 'YES': Ilhan Omar Gets Nasty With Former Reagan Official
By Ryan Saavedra
Anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) exploded at former Reagan administration official Elliott Abrams during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday as she called him by the wrong name and refused to accept one of his answers.
"Abrams testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the U.S. response to the crisis in Venezuela, which has collapsed under far-left policies that have decimated its economy and caused hyperinflation, starvation and medical shortages," The Washington Free Beacon reported. "The Trump administration is supporting Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido and said authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro must step down and leave the country."
"Mr. Adams, in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-contra affair for which you were later pardoned by President George HW Bush," Omar said. "I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful."
"If I can respond to that," Abrams responded.
"Ah, em, it wasn't a question," Omar fired back.
Abrams again tried to respond and Omar rudely cut him off.
"That was not that was not a question," Omar yelled. "That was, I, I reserve the right to my time."
"It is not right that members of the committee can attack a witness who is not permitted to reply," Abrams said.
"That was not a question, thank you for your participation," Omar arrogantly said.
Omar later asked Abrams if a foreign massacre was a "fabulous achievement" and refused to accept his answer.
"Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?" Omar asked.
"That is a ridiculous question," Abrams responded.
"Yes or no?" Omar yelled.
Omar, who has been so controversy-laden that President Donald Trump called on her to resign on Tuesday, was again widely condemned for her behavior during the hearing.
"In recent days, the world has witnessed the support the U.S. has offered the Venezuelan people with the ultimate goal of restoring democracy in their country," RNC director and spokesperson of Hispanic Media, Yali Nunez, said. "For Rep. Ilhan Omar to attack the character of U.S Special Envoy to Venezuela, Mr. Elliott Abrams, a public servant and patriot is just simply un-American. In less than a week, she has managed to offend both the Jewish and Hispanic communities in the U.S."
"This woman is an embarrassment to Africa and Islam," Africa and Middle East public policy and security expert Mr. Aye Dee tweeted. "It is a pity that the people of MN elected such a person to Congress..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) For whom should you vote?
By Isi Leibler
Most of Israel’s previous elections have presented voters with meaningful choices, many with long-term implications on the security of the nation. The most extreme example was the dispute over the Oslo Accords, which fiercely divided the nation. To ratify the agreements, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had to bribe three opposition MKs to join him. One of them, Gonen Segev, was convicted in the early 2000s of forgery, fraud, and drug smuggling, and in 2019 was convicted in a plea bargain of espionage on behalf of Iran.
Had Rabin failed to bribe these opposition members, we would have been spared the disastrous outcome of the deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization and many Israeli lives would not have been lost.
That is a stark contrast to the current situation. What are the contentious issues of today that confront the nation? Aside from personalities, this is an election where, in the absence of ideological divisions, the present government and the centrist opposition are conveying basically the same message.
The reality is that if a new government were to replace the current Likud-led coalition, aside from speeches heralding nonexistent changes, the current security and foreign policies would remain in place.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s successor would seek to maintain the warm personal and diplomatic links with the Trump administration and would work to retain the critical, delicate balance with Russia and strengthen burgeoning relations with India, China, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Likewise, the covert relations now emerging from the closet with the Arab states would continue to be pursued.
There would be a few cordial words exchanged with the Europeans. But as long as the EU – especially the Western Europeans – continue sponsoring organizations whose principal objective is to demonize and ostracize Israel and supporting slanderous anti-Israel resolutions on the international level, the tension would continue unabated.
The policy toward the Palestinians would also remain unchanged. The consensus of most of the Jewish population is to separate from the Palestinians, reject further territorial concessions until we have a peace partner and avoid undermining our security by creating a new terrorist state. Any government would also keep confronting Iran if it continued creating bases in the region from which to attack us. And, like now, there would be minimal new settlement activity outside the existing settlement blocs.
In terms of defense, any government would invest in strengthening the IDF.
What, then, are these elections about? Nothing beyond personalities. In this context, the spotlight is on Netanyahu. Even his greatest adversary would concede that over the past two years he has succeeded way beyond expectations both in terms of diplomacy and defense. Despite continuous diversions to face endless corruption charges, his performance on the international level can only be described as exceptionally successful.
Yet there is pressure for him to stand down for several reasons:
- He is expected to be indicted on corruption charges but has made it clear that until found guilty he will not resign. Many of his followers have become so inured to the persistent daily media defamation concerning him and his wife’s alleged corrupt practices and hedonism that they no longer take the issue seriously.
- Despite his gifted tongue and impressive talents, he has failed to groom a successor and derides potential leaders. It has been said that anyone of talent in Likud is likened to a moth attracted and consumed by the flame.
- He has undermined the importance of cabinet responsibility by personally holding onto an unprecedented number of ministerial positions rather than fill them with appointees.
- He has already served four terms as prime minister, and many say it is time for him to be replaced, especially in view of the probable indictment which would further divert him from concentrating on the challenges facing the country.
He faces a new political challenge in Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, the soft-spoken former military chief of staff, who has created the new Israel Resilience Party. He was initially accused by Likud spokesmen of being left-wing but he has made great efforts to distance himself from the Left.
He has partnered with Moshe Ya’alon’s Telem party, another new addition, also headed by a former chief of staff (and former defense minister) whom nobody could accuse of being a leftist.
In his opening campaign speech, Gantz undertook to bolster all existing settlement blocs and pledged that Jerusalem would remain Israel’s undivided capital and that Israel’s eastern security border would remain the Jordan Valley. He declined Tzipi Livni’s offer to join him but did not rule out the possibility of serving in a government headed by Netanyahu.
This is not the approach of a leftist. Current polls indicate that he could obtain up to 24 seats, a substantial vote. Together with Yesh Atid – with Yair Lapid reluctantly swallowing his pride and relinquishing his dream of becoming prime minister – the combined parties represent a formidable threat to Likud which is anticipated to get about 30 seats.
Under these circumstances, Netanyahu would be obliged to overcome his personal antipathy for Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked and join forces with their new party, the New Right.
Many share the hope that the smaller parties will disappear and four main blocs would emerge – the center-Right headed by Netanyahu, the centrist bloc led Gantz, the haredim and the Arab bloc.
The Left has become marginal and even the Labor party, the dominant force in Zionism from the 1930s to 1977, may be eliminated.
If events move in this direction, the forthcoming election would be reduced to a personality conflict between Netanyahu and Gantz. In a one-on-one contest, Netanyahu would surely win because even many who detest him would feel apprehensive about empowering an unproven leader in these trying times, especially in light of Netanyahu’s impressive track record.
But Netanyahu cannot take the future for granted. The primaries elected the best team Likud has had for a long time. Despite desperate efforts, Netanyahu’s bête noire, Gideon Sa’ar, whom he considers a threat to his leadership, finished fourth in the primaries.
Netanyahu is aware that, in addition to handling the indictments facing him and satisfying his own party members, he would also be obliged to juggle and provide concessions to Bennett and the haredim who would vigorously extort their demands. In order to occupy the balance of power, he might even be obliged to satisfy additional small parties on the Right that pass the electoral threshold.
In a sense, we should all be appreciative that this election has come down to a battle for personalities because, in stark contrast to the struggle over the Oslo Accords, on the crucial issues there is a broad consensus – with the exception of the fringe far Left, the New Right and the Israeli Arabs.
The New Right seeks to annex all the territories, but the vast majority of Israelis would vigorously oppose an action that forced us to incorporate another 2 million Arab citizens and ultimately transform Israel from a Jewish state into a binational state at best.
We should also be relieved that, despite the daily upheavals, we cannot compare our current status as a nation to that of the Americans or Europeans. Indeed, despite our noisy debates, we Jews share a greater consensus as a people than most other nations who are bitterly divided.
It is therefore impossible to predict the outcome. Does it really matter for whom you vote? Not in terms of policies. But I believe most Israelis share the hope that, whatever government is formed, we elect a seasoned leader to represent us. Who, of the potential incumbents, could fill Netanyahu’s shoes and have a relationship with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and other world leaders? As of this moment, most of us recognize that, like him or despise him, no one comes close to Netanyahu.
The dream of many Israelis is for a government to be formed by the Likud together with Israel Resilience and Yesh Atid. The haredim and the New Right will be given the option to join but denied the ability to extort. Such an outcome is highly improbable but would certainly satisfy the majority and represent the best interests of Israel.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6)Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born February 12 1946
|
(age71)
|
Residence
| |
Nationality
|
Australian
|
Fields
| |
Institutions
| |
Notable awards
|
Eureka Prize(1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003),Clarke Medal(2004)
|
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for overone year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming'anymore, but just 'Climate Change'- you know why?
It’s because the planet hasCOOLED by 0.7 degreesin the past century and these global warming bullshit artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment