https://www.realclearmarkets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do Democrats dump on both Christian-Judeo values? (See 1 and 1a below.)
And:
History has done so when will Democrats do the same? (See 1b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peace loving Somali's destroying Minneapolis? Those who are unhappy have Obama and liberal Bleeding Democrats to thank. I keep telling you Sharia Law is coming to America and is around the corner. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Comey attacking Barr because he fears him? Is he attacking Barr because he believes he needs to get out in front and try and lay the foundation for discrediting whatever Barr's various investigations prove? (See 3 below.)
And:
FBI Spying. (See 3a below.)
++++++++++++++++++
An excellent review! Well worth reading if you want intelligent objectivity. (See 4 below.)
And:
If they could and only would. (See 4a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, I am consistently critical of Democrats but I now can thank them for helping me determine my sex. Whenever I see a beautiful women enter a rest room I can follow her and simply become what she is.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Equality Act: A Direct Assault On Jewish Values
Photo Credit: unsplash
House Democrats just passed H.R. 5 – the badly-misnamed “Equality Act” – which elevates both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to protected categories in the federal Civil Rights Act. It’s not expected to pass the Senate this year, but it will inevitably be reintroduced in the next Congress, and LGBT activists will use it to push for policy changes at the state and local level.
The fact that the Equality Act already passed the House should alarm us as it threatens all Americans, particularly observant Jews. Here’s why:
At its root, the bill declares the Torah to be a bigoted document and all those who follow it to be bigots. Why? Because the Torah says men and women are different, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that certain relationships are pure while others are not. Attempting to remain true to these beliefs could be construed as discrimination under the Equality Act.
Should it ever become law, it will impact businesses, non-profits, houses of worship, and individuals. For example, it could put Jewish wedding halls, bands, caterers and photographers out of business if they refuse to cater to two men who wish to “marry.” Even a synagogue that rents out a hall for weddings and other celebrations could be at risk.
Furthermore, businesses seeking individuals of a particular gender would be obligated to hire based upon expressed gender preference, rather than biology. Ultimately, it could become impossible for businesses to cater uniquely to observant men or women.
Liberal sexual orientation and gender identity policies may also be the undoing of many religious charities. The Downtown Hope Center in Anchorage, Alaska was recently sued after it declined to allow a biological male who identified as a woman to stay overnight in its shelter for battered women. That biological women – especially women seeking refuge from abuse – often feel unsafe sleeping near unfamiliar men was of no interest to government investigators.
Meanwhile, faith-based foster care and adoption agencies in several states have been forced to close down because they insist on placing children in homes with both a mother and a father. Under these rules, a Jewish agency could be told that it can no longer insist upon placing Jewish children in traditional Jewish homes. These rules have already exacerbated the national foster care crisis, forcing children to live in group homes instead of with stable families.
There’s more. The Equality Act would require Orthodox doctors and nurses to perform and prescribe “transition-affirming” therapies, even if they deem them to be detrimental to their patients. Hospitals, even those with religious missions, would be forced to provide these procedures, and insurers would be required to pay for them.
And if the medical community is expected to provide hormonal and surgical interventions for adults, it will soon be expected to do the same for children. Activists suggest social transition for children as young as 4, puberty-blocking drugs for children as young as 9, cross-sex hormones for children as young as 14, and surgery a few years later. These drastic therapies come with harmful and potentially fatal side effects: increased risk for cancer, heart disease, liver disease, and, of course, sterility.
The Equality Act could also affect our schools. Judges have ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires schools to implement black history curricula. An activist judge could likewise rule that the Equality Act requires schools receiving any form of government aid to implement LGBT curricula – without parental input or opt-outs.
The Equality Act also hurts women. By granting biological men access to women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and sporting activities, women’s privacy, safety, and equality are all compromised. Observant Jews who keep many forms of public assembly strictly separated by gender will have additional problems.
Finally, the Equality Act directly undermines our Constitutional right to freely practice our religion and, of course, sends the message that a traditional understanding of marriage and gender is “bigoted” – even illegal if acted upon.
The Equality Act is a terrible bill. Adding religious exemptions would not solve the problems inherent in it or neutralize the negative message it sends regarding traditional beliefs.
Although it is unlikely to become law this Congress, the Equality Act is not going away. It’s time for the Jewish community to vocalize its concerns and stand up for true equality – before it’s too late.
1a) Assault on Israel
This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Anti-Semitism, Democrat
Make no mistake: at the California Democratic Party's state convention over the weekend, progressives advocated the destruction of Israel, trying to make the Jewish state's demise a stated principle of the party. The draft resolutions that the progressives proposed for debate are not simply "anti-Israel" or "critical of Israel," as the media has described them, but rather something much more nefarious—and deadlier.
Forces within the progressive, far-left wing of the Democratic Party introduced six resolutions, which, according to the party's Resolutions Committee, are "intended to be general statements of our principles." These measures may not be official policy, but they reflect the party's thinking, ideology, and direction for the future. In other words, the resolutions matter and are telling, especially when the majority of the party's presidential candidates are in attendance, as was the case in San Francisco this past weekend.
Much of the public criticism of the California progressives' assault on Israel focused on one specific draft resolution, which tied the Israeli government to the heinous shooting at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue in October. This measure is absurd and abhorrent—how the hell is the world's only Jewish state, whose fundamental purpose is to protect the Jewish people, indirectly responsible for the attack?—but three of the other resolutions are more troubling. As the Jewish News of Northern California reported, one resolution demanded a Palestinian "right of return," which mandates that the Arabs—and each and every one of their descendants—who fled what is now Israel during the failed Arab war of 1948 to destroy the Jewish state, should be allowed to return to the land. The two other resolutions called for returning the Golan Heights, a strategic region on Israel's northern border, to Syria, which previously controlled it.
Taken together, these resolutions comprise a call to destroy Israel. Indeed, it would be suicidal for Jerusalem either to accept the right of return or to return the Golan to Syria, let alone to adopt both policies simultaneously. As David Horovitz, founding editor of the Times of Israel, explained last year:
Just in case anybody forgot, demanding a "right of return" to Israel for tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants is nothing less than a call for the destruction of Israel by demographic means. No Israeli government could accept this demand, since it would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state. Israel’s position is that Palestinian refugees and their descendants would become citizens of a Palestinian state at the culmination of the peace process, just as Jews who fled or were forced out of Middle Eastern countries by hostile governments became citizens of Israel.
Just in case anybody forgot, demanding a "right of return" to Israel for tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants is nothing less than a call for the destruction of Israel by demographic means. No Israeli government could accept this demand, since it would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state. Israel’s position is that Palestinian refugees and their descendants would become citizens of a Palestinian state at the culmination of the peace process, just as Jews who fled or were forced out of Middle Eastern countries by hostile governments became citizens of Israel.
And, as I explained in March regarding the Golan, since 2011,
Iran deeply entrenched its forces and its proxies in Syria, while Sunni jihadist groups like the Islamic State spread throughout the country. Israel recognized the obvious reality: if Syria regained control of the Golan, the Jewish state's worst enemies would be in prime position to attack. With its strategic line of volcanic hills, the Golan gives Israel an absolutely essential topographical advantage. Moreover, Mount Hermon provides the Israeli military critical intelligence. Ceding the Golan to Syria now would be suicidal, allowing the likes of ISIS and Iran to target tens of thousands of Israelis.
Iran deeply entrenched its forces and its proxies in Syria, while Sunni jihadist groups like the Islamic State spread throughout the country. Israel recognized the obvious reality: if Syria regained control of the Golan, the Jewish state's worst enemies would be in prime position to attack. With its strategic line of volcanic hills, the Golan gives Israel an absolutely essential topographical advantage. Moreover, Mount Hermon provides the Israeli military critical intelligence. Ceding the Golan to Syria now would be suicidal, allowing the likes of ISIS and Iran to target tens of thousands of Israelis.
Not to mention that Syria is ruled by President Bashar al-Assad, who has spent the past eight years slaughtering about 500,000 Syrians while displacing millions more of his own people. Moreover, recall that Israel captured the Golan from Syria in 1967, when Syria was waging a war to destroy the Jewish state. Israel's annexation was, and remains, fundamentally a national imperative of self-defense, not some belligerent, imperial act.
Stating publicly that Israel should both give up the Golan and submit to the right of return is nothing less than demanding that Israel shove a loaded pistol in its mouth and pull the trigger. The progressives who supported these resolutions either knew what they were doing, which is of course deplorable, or they were ignorant, thinkingthey were backing some cause of social justice in support of the Palestinians. But the problem with the latter is that, if the progressive vision for Israel came true and thousands—perhaps millions—of Israelis suffered, no history book would absolve them because of their ignorance. They would be complicit, plain and simple.
The other three resolutions do not have the same violent policy implications, but they are still shameful and revealing. According to the Jewish News of Northern California:
One [resolution] included original language that required the Democratic Party to oppose "all efforts to stigmatize and suppress support for Palestinian human rights by falsely conflating it with anti-Semitism." Another suggested Israel has a legacy of "settler colonialism," while still another would have required elected party officials to include equal-time visits to Palestinian territories whenever visiting Israel, and should contact the state party’s Progressive Caucus or Arab-American Caucus to plan those trips.
One [resolution] included original language that required the Democratic Party to oppose "all efforts to stigmatize and suppress support for Palestinian human rights by falsely conflating it with anti-Semitism." Another suggested Israel has a legacy of "settler colonialism," while still another would have required elected party officials to include equal-time visits to Palestinian territories whenever visiting Israel, and should contact the state party’s Progressive Caucus or Arab-American Caucus to plan those trips.
The first resolution is a further example of progressives couching their hostility toward Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric as legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. Moreover, the measure highlights a common progressive talking point: that pro-Israel voices accuse others of anti-Semitism to protect Israel from criticism, fearing honest, public debate about their views. The second resolution would be laughable if so many people did not buy the lie that Israelis are colonists. Jews lived in Israel 3,000 years ago and have always considered it their homeland, maintaining a presence in and intensely deep ties to the land throughout their 2,000 years of forced exile. And, of course, if the Palestinians had not completely rejected every Israeli or international peace offer ever made, then they would have their own state. The third resolution is just silly. Israel is a vibrant democracy, a great place to visit as a tourist, and an essential strategic partner of the United States. Elected American officials have numerous reasons to visit the Jewish state. They should also visit the Palestinian territories to learn about the situation on the ground, but there are simply fewer reasons to do so. To force elected officials to devote equal time to both areas is just a waste of time, an empty, symbolic gesture to try to show "fairness" when, in reality, it would not make any significant difference.
Fortunately, the progressives failed in their malicious effort. The Resolutions Committee substantially rewrote all six resolutions, softening or deleting the language demonizing Israel, and passed four of them. The original authors withdrew their names and co-sponsors and withdrew two of the resolutions. "I'm pleased that the committee decided to reject those resolutions [as originally written]," said California state Sen. Ben Allen, who chairs the state's Jewish Legislative Caucus. "I thought they were divisive and I'm glad we're now able to move forward."
Andrew Lachman, a member of the Resolutions Committee and president of the Los Angeles-based Democrats for Israel, said the committee was "satisfied" with the outcome. He added that, while the original resolutions "made some valid points," some went "beyond what the Democratic Party stands for."
The anti-Israel—and, as I have previously argued, anti-Semitic—progressive movement may have lost the battle in San Francisco over the weekend, but it is still fighting the war for the heart, soul, and brain of the American political left. And they appear to be winning that war. Progressives who share the sentiments expressed in the original resolutions—such as Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—are clearly the loudest voices on the left, and increasingly the most influential. Just look at how the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are stumbling over each other to get further to the left, hoping to appeal to the party's progressive base.
The more moderate, center-left faction, against whom the progressives are waging ideological warfare, is losing influence. Does anyone seriously think that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) is the leader or voice of the Democratic Party? No, of course not. Such figures may want to impose more pressure on Israel, but they fundamentally recognize the importance of the American-Israeli alliance. The progressives do not; in fact, they see strong support for Israel as one of the great sins of American foreign policy. So, yes, the progressives failed to pass their resolutions, the latest effort to destroy Israel as the Jewish state, but they may not fail in the future, when the center-left establishment is rendered totally impotent. As Mark Mellman, president of the Democratic Majority for Israel, said after the original resolutions were changed: "Sadly, this is not the last time we'll see efforts to demonize and delegitimize Israel."
1b) History condemns the anti-Semitic fables of Rep. Tlaib; will Democrats do the same?
By Frank Miele
Has anyone on the left condemned Rashida Tlaib, the congresswoman from
Michigan, for her repeated anti-Semitism and, in particular, for her
misstatement of the historical record of the Holocaust?
If so, they have done it in muted tones and with an ample serving of
excuses. The absence of real criticism from her Democratic peers suggests
one of two things. Either they are deeply embarrassed by Tlaib's remarks and
wish they would just go away, or they agree with her remarks. As the Jewish
teacher Bob Dylan once said in another context, "There ain't no neutral
ground."
It will be even harder for Democrats to escape responsibility for embracing
Tlaib's extremism now that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written a clear "no
holds barred" analysis&;https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/R
ust-591500> of Tlaib's words in context with the historical record that
belies them.
Boteach begins by providing Tlaib's own words in full, so that no one can
deflect from the horror of what she said as a guest on the Skullduggery
Project podcast by saying the words were taken out of context. "Tlaib was
asked to explain her belief in a one-state solution (spoiler: there's no
Israel). Instead of staying on the subject of contemporary politics, Tlaib
decided to go down memory lane and right into the Holocaust."
Here is the offensive quote:
"Absolutely. Let me tell you - I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we
celebrated - or took a moment I think in our country to remember - the
Holocaust. And there's a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks,
when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact
that it was my ancestors - Palestinians - who lost their land; and some lost
their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity. Their existence in many
ways had been wiped out, and some people's passports - I mean, just all of
it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post the
Holocaust, post the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the
world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that
provided that - right? - in many ways. But they did it in a way that took
their human dignity away - right - and it was forced on them."
If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will. If it
is not Holocaust denial, it is at the very least Holocaust deflection or
Holocaust "denial of responsibility." Boteach pulled no punches in his
response.
TO SAY that "there's a kind of calming feeling" you get when you "think of
the Holocaust" is worse than antisemitic; it's positively sick. Just imagine
if someone had said the same of slavery. The offensiveness of these words
should be clear to anyone, certainly someone who has been accused by Jews of
bigotry. It should be yet more apparent to someone, like Tlaib, who decries
that assessment as wrong.
Generally, I wouldn't have made a fuss over her near miss on saying that
Americans "celebrated" the Holocaust on Yom Hashoah. In light of her other
verbal "slip" - her "calming feelings" on the Holocaust - I'm inclined to
believe that there's meaning in both. Accidental indecency doesn't strike
the same sentence twice.
He then gets into the meat of his argument, which is that on the facts of
history, Tlaib is just dead wrong.
Tlaib claimed that her ancestors provided Jews with a "safe haven" around
the time of the Holocaust. The truth is that both before, during and after
the Holocaust, many Palestinian Arabs worked to make the land of Israel into
a death trap.
Boteach delivers a concise history lesson proving just that point. He then
delivers his conclusion in stunning, brutal honesty:
The Arab massacres of Palestinian Jews; the insurgent opposition to Jewish
immigration; the high-level support for Hitler; and the support for a
genocidal war against the Jews - none of that should give anyone a "calming
feeling," certainly not in the context of the Holocaust. Unless, of course,
one is driven by the same agenda of depriving Jews of peace and safety.
With regard to Tlaib, that seems to be the most likely explanation.
Read the complete article here :https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/R
ust-591500> in the Jerusalem Post.
Frank Miele writes from Kalispell, Montana, at www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com and
is a columnist at Real Clear Politics. To read more of my columns about the
Dishonest Media, the Deep Swamp, the failed presidencies of George W. Bush
and Barack Obama, and Trump's war to restore American greatness, read my
"Why We Needed Trump" trilogy or "The Media Matrix: What If Everything You
Know Is Fake?".
misstatement of the historical record of the Holocaust?
If so, they have done it in muted tones and with an ample serving of
excuses. The absence of real criticism from her Democratic peers suggests
one of two things. Either they are deeply embarrassed by Tlaib's remarks and
wish they would just go away, or they agree with her remarks. As the Jewish
teacher Bob Dylan once said in another context, "There ain't no neutral
ground."
It will be even harder for Democrats to escape responsibility for embracing
Tlaib's extremism now that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written a clear "no
holds barred" analysis&;https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/R
ust-591500> of Tlaib's words in context with the historical record that
belies them.
Boteach begins by providing Tlaib's own words in full, so that no one can
deflect from the horror of what she said as a guest on the Skullduggery
Project podcast by saying the words were taken out of context. "Tlaib was
asked to explain her belief in a one-state solution (spoiler: there's no
Israel). Instead of staying on the subject of contemporary politics, Tlaib
decided to go down memory lane and right into the Holocaust."
Here is the offensive quote:
"Absolutely. Let me tell you - I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we
celebrated - or took a moment I think in our country to remember - the
Holocaust. And there's a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks,
when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact
that it was my ancestors - Palestinians - who lost their land; and some lost
their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity. Their existence in many
ways had been wiped out, and some people's passports - I mean, just all of
it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post the
Holocaust, post the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the
world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that
provided that - right? - in many ways. But they did it in a way that took
their human dignity away - right - and it was forced on them."
If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will. If it
is not Holocaust denial, it is at the very least Holocaust deflection or
Holocaust "denial of responsibility." Boteach pulled no punches in his
response.
TO SAY that "there's a kind of calming feeling" you get when you "think of
the Holocaust" is worse than antisemitic; it's positively sick. Just imagine
if someone had said the same of slavery. The offensiveness of these words
should be clear to anyone, certainly someone who has been accused by Jews of
bigotry. It should be yet more apparent to someone, like Tlaib, who decries
that assessment as wrong.
Generally, I wouldn't have made a fuss over her near miss on saying that
Americans "celebrated" the Holocaust on Yom Hashoah. In light of her other
verbal "slip" - her "calming feelings" on the Holocaust - I'm inclined to
believe that there's meaning in both. Accidental indecency doesn't strike
the same sentence twice.
He then gets into the meat of his argument, which is that on the facts of
history, Tlaib is just dead wrong.
Tlaib claimed that her ancestors provided Jews with a "safe haven" around
the time of the Holocaust. The truth is that both before, during and after
the Holocaust, many Palestinian Arabs worked to make the land of Israel into
a death trap.
Boteach delivers a concise history lesson proving just that point. He then
delivers his conclusion in stunning, brutal honesty:
The Arab massacres of Palestinian Jews; the insurgent opposition to Jewish
immigration; the high-level support for Hitler; and the support for a
genocidal war against the Jews - none of that should give anyone a "calming
feeling," certainly not in the context of the Holocaust. Unless, of course,
one is driven by the same agenda of depriving Jews of peace and safety.
With regard to Tlaib, that seems to be the most likely explanation.
Read the complete article here :https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/R
ust-591500> in the Jerusalem Post.
Frank Miele writes from Kalispell, Montana, at www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com and
is a columnist at Real Clear Politics. To read more of my columns about the
Dishonest Media, the Deep Swamp, the failed presidencies of George W. Bush
and Barack Obama, and Trump's war to restore American greatness, read my
"Why We Needed Trump" trilogy or "The Media Matrix: What If Everything You
Know Is Fake?".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Somalis have Changed Minneapolis
By Sunny Lohman
By Sunny Lohman
Posted By Ruth King
Everyone not lying to themselves predicted when the federal government under Bill Clinton –
aided and abetted by Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities and World Relief Minnesota
— plopped 30,000 Somalis down into the midst of the kind, virtue-signaling, eager-to-help
Midwesterners of Minneapolis (of which I am one) that it would lead to some grave
for our community.
aided and abetted by Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities and World Relief Minnesota
— plopped 30,000 Somalis down into the midst of the kind, virtue-signaling, eager-to-help
Midwesterners of Minneapolis (of which I am one) that it would lead to some grave
for our community.
Now, due to continuing refugee placements as well as chain migration there are an estimated
80,000 Somalis living in the Twin Cities metro area, or more like 79,000 if you subtract those
who’ve left the country to join terrorist organizations like ISIS.
80,000 Somalis living in the Twin Cities metro area, or more like 79,000 if you subtract those
who’ve left the country to join terrorist organizations like ISIS.
Anyhoo, here’s a week Minneapolitans had with their Somali neighbors last month:
On Wednesday, May 15th a couple of University students were attacked on campus at the East
Bank Train station by two Somali thugs. It was an attempted robbery that the guys rebuffed
injuries that required a hospital visit.
Bank Train station by two Somali thugs. It was an attempted robbery that the guys rebuffed
injuries that required a hospital visit.
On Thursday, May 16th two Somalis burned down the pavilion at Lake Calhoun [or Lake Bde
Ska if you’re a virtue signaler) an eating and hanging out meeting place in the heart of the city
enjoyed by generations of Americans around the prettiest city lake you’ve ever seen. This is in
the most expensive neighborhood in Minneapolis.
Ska if you’re a virtue signaler) an eating and hanging out meeting place in the heart of the city
enjoyed by generations of Americans around the prettiest city lake you’ve ever seen. This is in
the most expensive neighborhood in Minneapolis.
Photo credit: August Schwerdfeger (croppped)
KMSP-TV screen grab
On Friday, May 17th a gang of 10-12 Somali youths attacked all the white people at a that
same East Bank Train station with hammers and pipes.Snopes says this is “Mostly False”
because after the attack they fled, and out of the 7 who were eventually apprehended only two
were still in possession of weapons, in this case pipes. So therefore, it never happened.
same East Bank Train station with hammers and pipes.Snopes says this is “Mostly False”
because after the attack they fled, and out of the 7 who were eventually apprehended only two
were still in possession of weapons, in this case pipes. So therefore, it never happened.
And now Tuesday, May 20th a woman walking her dog in a gorgeous, huge, wooded off leash
dog park, complete with sandy beach on the Mississippi River, found spikes just off the path.
Sharp metal objects taped to a wooden spike, presumably designed to hurt dogs running happily
through the underbrush. Now, we don’t know that a Somali did that, it could be some crazed
psycho Swede, but Islam abhors dogs as unclean because the prophet did.
dog park, complete with sandy beach on the Mississippi River, found spikes just off the path.
Sharp metal objects taped to a wooden spike, presumably designed to hurt dogs running happily
through the underbrush. Now, we don’t know that a Somali did that, it could be some crazed
psycho Swede, but Islam abhors dogs as unclean because the prophet did.
Will this cause anything to change in Minnesota? Will the city’s leaders stop wearing the hijab
in solidarity with the worst of Islam, incredibly, after they attack us!? Will Minneapolitans
elect secular, assimilated Somalis rather than proudly Sharia- supporting, anti-Semitic,
enshrouded Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar? (80% of Democrats picked her in the primary.)
I doubt it. They did all that after the following events:
in solidarity with the worst of Islam, incredibly, after they attack us!? Will Minneapolitans
elect secular, assimilated Somalis rather than proudly Sharia- supporting, anti-Semitic,
enshrouded Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar? (80% of Democrats picked her in the primary.)
I doubt it. They did all that after the following events:
· In 2018 it was uncovered that Somalis had perpetrated a massive, community wide scam
against the welfare state of Minnesota, stealing an incredible $100 million from a childcare
handout program by fraud and shipping that money to Somalia to fund God knows what.
(Incidentally, though finally proven in 2018, this was an open secret for years. I knew about
this scam when I left the state in 2014.)
against the welfare state of Minnesota, stealing an incredible $100 million from a childcare
handout program by fraud and shipping that money to Somalia to fund God knows what.
(Incidentally, though finally proven in 2018, this was an open secret for years. I knew about
this scam when I left the state in 2014.)
· Dozens of Somalis, men and women, over the years arrested or tracked as they attempted
to join terrorists overseas including ISIS. The feds are concerned it is still a rich breeding
ground for Islamic supremacy and terrorist organizations.
to join terrorists overseas including ISIS. The feds are concerned it is still a rich breeding
ground for Islamic supremacy and terrorist organizations.
· In 2016 the first Somali police officer murdered a woman in her pajamas who had called
in a disturbance. I guess it’s not safe to call the cops when you see something and say
something. He has been found guilty of that murder.
in a disturbance. I guess it’s not safe to call the cops when you see something and say
something. He has been found guilty of that murder.
· In 2018 a Somali student at St Catherine University attempted to burn down the school
and “hurt people,” saying, ““You guys are lucky that I don’t know how to build a bomb
because I would have done that.”
and “hurt people,” saying, ““You guys are lucky that I don’t know how to build a bomb
because I would have done that.”
· In 2017 a Somali man stabbed a young woman 14 times for no apparent reason — he
didn’t go after her purse — while she was walking home from her job at an Apple Store. He’s
still at large. Curiously no composite sketch was ever released to the media.
didn’t go after her purse — while she was walking home from her job at an Apple Store. He’s
still at large. Curiously no composite sketch was ever released to the media.
· In 2016 during Ramadan a gang of religious robed Somali men terrorized the city’s
affluent Linden Hills community “for three straight days, threatening to rape a woman, beating
one resident’s dog, and shouting “jihad!” as they drove vehicles over residents’ lawns and
pretended to shoot people through their duffel bags. No arrests were made.” (Seriously read
this account. You will find it absolutely horrifying and it’s shocking that no arrests were made
all these people trying to get license plate numbers, all the likely surveillance cameras etc. It
makes one wonder if the city is protecting Somalis from being held accountable to our laws.)
affluent Linden Hills community “for three straight days, threatening to rape a woman, beating
one resident’s dog, and shouting “jihad!” as they drove vehicles over residents’ lawns and
pretended to shoot people through their duffel bags. No arrests were made.” (Seriously read
this account. You will find it absolutely horrifying and it’s shocking that no arrests were made
all these people trying to get license plate numbers, all the likely surveillance cameras etc. It
makes one wonder if the city is protecting Somalis from being held accountable to our laws.)
· In 2012 90% of Somalis worldwide said they think agree with Sharia Law and think it
should be implemented.
should be implemented.
I’m not sure what it would take for Minneapolitans to wake up and stop being so suicidal with
their multiculturalism. Terrorism, arson, violent crime, murder, corruption, fraud, female
oppression is apparently not enough.
their multiculturalism. Terrorism, arson, violent crime, murder, corruption, fraud, female
oppression is apparently not enough.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Nervous Comey Begins ATTACK On
Barr A Conservative Alliance
He’s terrified that Barr will soon have him behind bars…
Fired FBI Director James Comey claims Attorney General William Barr is guilty of
“echoing conspiracy theories” during a recent CBS interview, in what is the longtime law
enforcement officer’s latest attack on the Trump administration.
“echoing conspiracy theories” during a recent CBS interview, in what is the longtime law
enforcement officer’s latest attack on the Trump administration.
"Bill Barr on CBS offers no facts. An AG should not be echoing conspiracy theories. He
should gather facts and show them. That is what Justice is about,” Comey wrote in a
tweet on Saturday afternoon, failing to elaborate on what Barr purportedly amplified that
was conspiratorial.
should gather facts and show them. That is what Justice is about,” Comey wrote in a
tweet on Saturday afternoon, failing to elaborate on what Barr purportedly amplified that
was conspiratorial.
In an interview with CBS This Morning, Barr discussed special counsel Robert Mueller’s
investigation into now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and
Russia. The attorney general disagreed with Mueller’s Wednesday statement, in which
he said he was bound by Justice Department policy not to determine whether President
Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.
investigation into now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and
Russia. The attorney general disagreed with Mueller’s Wednesday statement, in which
he said he was bound by Justice Department policy not to determine whether President
Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice.
Barr told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford:
Further, Barr stated the Justice Department found “many of the instances” that the
special counsel found “would not amount to obstruction” as a matter of law.
special counsel found “would not amount to obstruction” as a matter of law.
“[W]e didn’t agree with… a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the
views of the Department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we
applied what we thought was the right law,” the nation’s chief legal officer explained.
views of the Department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we
applied what we thought was the right law,” the nation’s chief legal officer explained.
“The bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes,” added Barr. “He did
not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and his conclusion was he
wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either.”
not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and his conclusion was he
wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either.”
Of course, this is not the first time Comey has harshly criticized Barr. The fired FBI
director accused him of “sliming his own department” after Barr said that the
government engaged in spying on U.S. citizens.
director accused him of “sliming his own department” after Barr said that the
government engaged in spying on U.S. citizens.
“The AG should stop sliming his own Department,” Comey tweeted on May 19th. “If
there are bad facts, show us, or search for them professionally and then tell us what you
found.”
there are bad facts, show us, or search for them professionally and then tell us what you
found.”
“An AG must act like the leader of the Department of Justice, an organization based on
truth,” he added “Donald Trump has enough spokespeople.”
truth,” he added “Donald Trump has enough spokespeople.”
Earlier this month, Barr tapped John Durham, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to examine
the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential
election. President Trump has long accused Comey and other top FBI officials of abuses
of power during the bureau’s counter counterintelligence operation against his
presidential campaign.
the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential
election. President Trump has long accused Comey and other top FBI officials of abuses
of power during the bureau’s counter counterintelligence operation against his
presidential campaign.
Addresing the media at a White House event, President Trump was asked which officials
he views are guilty of treason and Comey was atop the list.
he views are guilty of treason and Comey was atop the list.
“I think a number of people. They have unsuccessfully tried to take down the wrong
person,” said the president. “If you look at Comey, if you look at McCabe, if you look at
probably people higher than that, if you look at Strzok, if you look at his lover, Lisa Page,
his wonderful lover.”
person,” said the president. “If you look at Comey, if you look at McCabe, if you look at
probably people higher than that, if you look at Strzok, if you look at his lover, Lisa Page,
his wonderful lover.”
Days later, Comey responded to President Trump’s comments, denying in a Washington
Post opinion-editorial titled, No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that —
that FBI ever spied on the Trump campaign, claiming it was merely “good people trying
to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.”
3a) About the FBI’s Spying
What’s the difference between surveillance of Carter Page and Martin Luther King?
Everyone had a good laugh. “Never ever, ever, compare yourself in any way whatsoever to Martin
Luther King,” sneered the Post’s Jonathan Capehart. “Ever.” Certainly Mr. Page would have been
ridiculous if he meant he was of King’s stature. But that wasn't what he had contended. All he
suggested was that he, like King, had been a target of an FBI counterintelligence operation run
amok.
Luther King,” sneered the Post’s Jonathan Capehart. “Ever.” Certainly Mr. Page would have been
ridiculous if he meant he was of King’s stature. But that wasn't what he had contended. All he
suggested was that he, like King, had been a target of an FBI counterintelligence operation run
amok.
Now a new report on the FBI’s surreptitious tapings of King makes it harder to see the difference
between what J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI did with King and what James Comey’s FBI did with Mr.
Page. In an article in Standpoint magazine, David Garrow, author of a Pulitzer-winning
biography of King, reports summaries of the FBI recordings collected on the civil-rights leader.
The article has stoked a furor for some of the unflattering details reported about King, for
example that he “looked on and laughed” while a fellow pastor forcibly raped a female
parishioner.
But while the details of King’s sexual behavior have attracted most of the attention, the parallels
with Mr. Page may be more illuminating. Remember, the FBI sought a warrant on Mr. Page from
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court based on the claim that the former Trump campaign
associate was “an agent of a foreign power,” namely Russia. Yet Mr. Page is one of the few
targets of the investigation to have emerged without ever being charged with anything.
The surveillance of King likewise began as a national-security matter. In a Rose Garden
conversation, President John F. Kennedy told King he needed to cut ties with one of his closest
advisers, Stanley Levison, a former financier for the Communist Party USA. When King refused
to cut Levison loose, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy authorized the FBI to wiretap King.
In his book “A Higher Loyalty,” Mr. Comey writes that the King case illuminates how “a
legitimate counterintelligence mission” could morph into “an unchecked, vicious campaign of
harassment and extralegal attack on the civil rights leader and others.” To “drive the message
home,” Mr. Comey writes that as FBI director he kept on his desk a copy of the October 1963
memo, written by Hoover and signed by RFK, approving the King wiretaps.
“I kept the Hoover memo there not to make a critical statement from Hoover or Kennedy, but to
make a statement about the value of oversight and constraint,” Mr. Comey writes. “I have no
doubt that Hoover and Kennedy thought they were doing the right thing. What they lacked was
meaningful testing of their assumptions. There was nothing to check them.”
Cut to today, when Attorney General William Barr is bringing that “oversight” and “meaningful
testing” to decisions such as the one to listen in on Mr. Page. Far from applauding what he
himself once called for, Mr. Comey now accuses Mr. Barr of “sliming his own department.”
Mr. Comey has also taken issue with Mr. Barr’s use of the word “spying” to describe the FBI’s
behavior. He’s not alone. At the Senate hearing where Mr. Barr first used it, Hawaii Democrat
Brian Schatz asked if he wanted to rephrase because “when the attorney general of the United
States uses the word ‘spying,’ its rather provocative and in my view unnecessarily inflammatory.” Meanwhile, the New York Times accused Mr. Barr of using a “charged word.”
So here’s the question for all those who assert that Mr. Barr was wrong to use the word “spying”:
they use it to describe what the FBI did to Martin Luther King?
We already know the answer to that one. The Washington Post used the word “spying” often to
describe what happened to King—without scare quotes. Ditto for the New York Times and
others. The word was not considered “charged” until April 10, after Mr. Barr used it.
Just one example. Here’s Charles M. Blow’s lead sentence in a 2013 Times column: “The Rev.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ so disturbed the American power structure that
the F.B.I. started spying on him in what The Washington Post called ‘one of its biggest
surveillance operations in history.’ ”
In an interview with CBS on Friday, Mr. Barr sounded almost Comeyish when he spoke of what
might have led FBI leaders astray in their investigation into alleged Trump ties with Russia.
“Sometimes,” he said, “people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher
interest, the better good.”
Sooner or later, Mr. Barr will sort it out. Meanwhile, it may be a good moment for current
director Christopher Wray to install permanently at FBI headquarters a copy of the application
for the FISA warrant on Mr. Page—signed by his predecessor, Mr. Comey. Maybe it will help
“drive home” the need for “oversight and constraint.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
"Why does he hate us?” is the question American foreign-policy types often hear from European
friends and colleagues when the subject of Donald Trump comes up—as it often does. With Mr.
Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Europe this week, it seems an auspicious time to
attempt an answer.
4)
Trump’s Case Against Europe
The president sees Brussels as too weak, too liberal, and anti-American on trade.
"Why does he hate us?” is the question American foreign-policy types often hear from European
friends and colleagues when the subject of Donald Trump comes up—as it often does. With Mr.
Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Europe this week, it seems an auspicious time to
attempt an answer.
The news isn’t all bad. When Mr. Trump and senior administration officials talk about China, they
attack it for abusing the international system in a ruthless quest for global hegemony. Their
reading of Europe is different: that a mix of dysfunctional policies, unrealistic ideas about world
politics, and poor institutional arrangements has locked the Continent on a trajectory of decline.
As Mr. Trump’s team sees it, they aren’t trying to weaken Europe; they are trying to save Europe
from itself.
attack it for abusing the international system in a ruthless quest for global hegemony. Their
reading of Europe is different: that a mix of dysfunctional policies, unrealistic ideas about world
politics, and poor institutional arrangements has locked the Continent on a trajectory of decline.
As Mr. Trump’s team sees it, they aren’t trying to weaken Europe; they are trying to save Europe
from itself.
There are five elements of the Trump critique of the European Union. First, some of the “new
nationalists” believe multinational entities like the EU are much weaker and less effective than the
governments of nation-states—so much so that the development of the EU has weakened the
Western alliance as a whole. In this view, cooperation between nation-states is good and through
countries can achieve things they couldn’t achieve on their own. But trying to overinstitutionalize
that cooperation is a mistake. The resulting bureaucratic structures and Byzantine politics and
decision-making processes paralyze policy, alienate public opinion, and create a whole
significantly less than the sum of its parts.
nationalists” believe multinational entities like the EU are much weaker and less effective than the
governments of nation-states—so much so that the development of the EU has weakened the
Western alliance as a whole. In this view, cooperation between nation-states is good and through
countries can achieve things they couldn’t achieve on their own. But trying to overinstitutionalize
that cooperation is a mistake. The resulting bureaucratic structures and Byzantine politics and
decision-making processes paralyze policy, alienate public opinion, and create a whole
significantly less than the sum of its parts.
A second concern—in the Trump view—is that the European Union is too German. As some on
the president’s team see it, German preferences mean the Continent is too hawkish when it comes
to monetary and fiscal policy, and too dovish when it comes to defense. A fiscal and monetary
straitjacket has cramped Europe’s growth, while the refusal of Germany to live up to its NATO
commitments weakens the alliance as a whole.
the president’s team see it, German preferences mean the Continent is too hawkish when it comes
to monetary and fiscal policy, and too dovish when it comes to defense. A fiscal and monetary
straitjacket has cramped Europe’s growth, while the refusal of Germany to live up to its NATO
commitments weakens the alliance as a whole.
A third concern is that the EU is too liberal—in the American meaning of the term, which is to say
too statist on economics and too progressive on social issues. Besides the common American
conservative view that statist economic policy undermines European dynamism and growth, Mr.
Trump seems to believe European migration policy—especially Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to welcome more than a million mostly Muslim migrants to Germany—is a tragic mistake.
too statist on economics and too progressive on social issues. Besides the common American
conservative view that statist economic policy undermines European dynamism and growth, Mr.
Trump seems to believe European migration policy—especially Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to welcome more than a million mostly Muslim migrants to Germany—is a tragic mistake.
The fourth problem, as the Trumpians see it, is that the EU seeks to export its preferences on
issues like capital punishment, climate policy, global governance, gender relations and so on to
the rest of the world. Jacksonian American populists are deeply suspicious of virtually any form
of global governance. On top of that, many of the causes that most engage the EU—LGBTQ
issues, Palestinian statehood and carbon controls—aren’t exactly Jacksonian America’s cup of
tea.
issues like capital punishment, climate policy, global governance, gender relations and so on to
the rest of the world. Jacksonian American populists are deeply suspicious of virtually any form
of global governance. On top of that, many of the causes that most engage the EU—LGBTQ
issues, Palestinian statehood and carbon controls—aren’t exactly Jacksonian America’s cup of
tea.
Finally, Mr. Trump doesn’t like the EU because on trade issues—the field where the EU operates
most effectively in world politics—he believes it is an instrument intended to limit American
power and reduce American leverage in trade negotiations.
most effectively in world politics—he believes it is an instrument intended to limit American
power and reduce American leverage in trade negotiations.
Is there a path to rapprochement? Trade problems and the question of European contributions to
NATO can likely be resolved with the right compromises. But values questions are more difficult.
To the degree that Jacksonians remain influential in American politics, Europe’s drive to
strengthen global governance and promote a secular and progressive values agenda will meet
resistance in Washington.
NATO can likely be resolved with the right compromises. But values questions are more difficult.
To the degree that Jacksonians remain influential in American politics, Europe’s drive to
strengthen global governance and promote a secular and progressive values agenda will meet
resistance in Washington.
But Jacksonian America isn’t the only or even the most significant obstacle to the EU’s
universalist aspirations. Countries like China, Nigeria, Russia, India, Japan, Turkey and Brazil all
seem less and less interested in European values.
universalist aspirations. Countries like China, Nigeria, Russia, India, Japan, Turkey and Brazil all
seem less and less interested in European values.
Mr. Trump’s outreach to anti-Brussels figures such as Britain’s Nigel Farage and Hungary’s
Viktor Orbán gets a lot of attention, but the real danger is elsewhere. There’s a world leader who
dislikes the EU much more than Mr. Trump does: Vladimir Putin. The nightmare scenario for
Europe isn’t that Mr. Trump meets with Mr. Farage or Marine Le Pen in the White House; it is
that he reaches an arrangement with Mr. Putin over Europe’s head.
Viktor Orbán gets a lot of attention, but the real danger is elsewhere. There’s a world leader who
dislikes the EU much more than Mr. Trump does: Vladimir Putin. The nightmare scenario for
Europe isn’t that Mr. Trump meets with Mr. Farage or Marine Le Pen in the White House; it is
that he reaches an arrangement with Mr. Putin over Europe’s head.
There are a few signs that something like this could be in the works. Mr. Putin recently denied an
Iranian request for S-400 antiaircraft missiles, and Mr. Trump tweeted Tuesday that Russian
advisers have left Venezuela, suggesting Moscow is distancing itself from the disintegrating
Maduro regime. Nervous European diplomats will be looking to see if the U.S. lines on Ukraine
or Russia sanctions soften in response.
Iranian request for S-400 antiaircraft missiles, and Mr. Trump tweeted Tuesday that Russian
advisers have left Venezuela, suggesting Moscow is distancing itself from the disintegrating
Maduro regime. Nervous European diplomats will be looking to see if the U.S. lines on Ukraine
or Russia sanctions soften in response.
For Europe, the best answer to Mr. Trump isn’t to argue with him but to succeed. An economically
dynamic Europe—bearing its share of defense costs and pursuing strategic interests in an
intelligent way—will command respect even if it doesn’t always spark love.
dynamic Europe—bearing its share of defense costs and pursuing strategic interests in an
intelligent way—will command respect even if it doesn’t always spark love.
4a)
Democrats Can’t Wish the
National Debt Away
As they propose to spend tens of trillions more, some economists egg them on with
magical thinking.
By Pierre Yared
Such magical thinking is dangerous. First, it’s doubtful that buyers of U.S. debt would hold on to
it if the market sees it as having no long-run intrinsic value. Holders of U.S. debt aren’t short-run
speculators. They are institutions investing with long time horizons, likeMetLife and the Chinese
government, and their appetite for Treasurys isn’t insatiable. They expect to be paid back, even
far into the future. Rolling over $1 trillion Treasurys indefinitely without compensation isn’t a
good deal.
it if the market sees it as having no long-run intrinsic value. Holders of U.S. debt aren’t short-run
speculators. They are institutions investing with long time horizons, likeMetLife and the Chinese
government, and their appetite for Treasurys isn’t insatiable. They expect to be paid back, even
far into the future. Rolling over $1 trillion Treasurys indefinitely without compensation isn’t a
good deal.
Second, spending programs don’t die of old age: $1 trillion in spending today likely means
trillions more in the future. So if interest rates rise slightly—as the Congressional Budget Office
projects—but remain below the rate of economic growth, servicing the debt can become much
more expensive. Even without new spending programs, the CBO projects that interest expenses
will grow 9.3% annually over the next decade, almost 2.5 times GDP growth. In 2029 the U.S.
will spend 20% more on debt service than defense.
trillions more in the future. So if interest rates rise slightly—as the Congressional Budget Office
projects—but remain below the rate of economic growth, servicing the debt can become much
more expensive. Even without new spending programs, the CBO projects that interest expenses
will grow 9.3% annually over the next decade, almost 2.5 times GDP growth. In 2029 the U.S.
will spend 20% more on debt service than defense.
Third, focusing on the interest rate ignores deeper fiscal problems. Taking promised Social
Security and Medicare obligations into account, the federal government’s level of indebtedness
swells to almost five times the official number. These entitlements today take up 37% of the
budget. They have almost tripled as a share of GDP since 1967, the year after Medicare was
introduced. This has crowded out discretionary spending—including on infrastructure, education
and research and development. Nondefense spending in those areas has declined as a share of
GDP by 35% since that time. The growing debt isn’t an airy-fairy hypothetical. It costs us today.
Security and Medicare obligations into account, the federal government’s level of indebtedness
swells to almost five times the official number. These entitlements today take up 37% of the
budget. They have almost tripled as a share of GDP since 1967, the year after Medicare was
introduced. This has crowded out discretionary spending—including on infrastructure, education
and research and development. Nondefense spending in those areas has declined as a share of
GDP by 35% since that time. The growing debt isn’t an airy-fairy hypothetical. It costs us today.
Americans should be skeptical of easy solutions to the country’s fiscal predicament. The U.S.
debt-to-GDP ratio has been growing for more than 40 years, and it’s approaching levels not seen
since World War II—without any similar excuse. The cause of the long-term trend, which the U.S. shares with almost all other advanced economies, is no mystery. It isn’t lower taxes, since the revenue share of GDP has remained stable over decades. The cause is growing
entitlements.
debt-to-GDP ratio has been growing for more than 40 years, and it’s approaching levels not seen
since World War II—without any similar excuse. The cause of the long-term trend, which the U.S. shares with almost all other advanced economies, is no mystery. It isn’t lower taxes, since the revenue share of GDP has remained stable over decades. The cause is growing
entitlements.
Some Democrats suggest taxing the rich is a solution, but it isn’t so simple. U.S. income taxes are
already high relative to other advanced economies. U.S. total income-tax revenue as a share of
GDP was 29% above the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average in
2016, with almost 40% of the federal portion of these revenues paid by the top 1% of earners.
Other OECD countries can raise more total revenue because they tax everyone’s consumption
more. Sales and value-added taxes are more than 2.5 times U.S. levels as a share of GDP.
already high relative to other advanced economies. U.S. total income-tax revenue as a share of
GDP was 29% above the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average in
2016, with almost 40% of the federal portion of these revenues paid by the top 1% of earners.
Other OECD countries can raise more total revenue because they tax everyone’s consumption
more. Sales and value-added taxes are more than 2.5 times U.S. levels as a share of GDP.
Any solution to growing debt must involve spending reform and perhaps a broadening of the tax
base. This would be in line with the fiscal reforms Sweden pursued in 1998, which put its debt
and pensions on a sustainable path. It would also be consistent with the Simpson-Bowles
Commission proposal in 2010, which made recommendations that Congress and President Obama
largely ignored, including measures to raise revenue and adjust entitlement spending.
base. This would be in line with the fiscal reforms Sweden pursued in 1998, which put its debt
and pensions on a sustainable path. It would also be consistent with the Simpson-Bowles
Commission proposal in 2010, which made recommendations that Congress and President Obama
largely ignored, including measures to raise revenue and adjust entitlement spending.
U.S. Treasurys aren’t a treasure chest to be raided for popularity-enhancing social spending, and
nobody in or seeking political office should treat them that way. Americans can appreciate the
virtues of fiscal responsibility, and it’s time to be honest about the costs of continuing to kick the
down the road. That road is a cul-de-sac.
nobody in or seeking political office should treat them that way. Americans can appreciate the
virtues of fiscal responsibility, and it’s time to be honest about the costs of continuing to kick the
down the road. That road is a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Yared is a professor at Columbia Business School and a director of the Richman Center for
Business, Law, and Public Policy at Columbia University.Attachments area By Pierre Yared.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Business, Law, and Public Policy at Columbia University.Attachments area By Pierre Yared.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment