Max continues to laugh. Was he watching BETO?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Watch a gutsy member of Congress take on America's sharpest sharpie - Al Sharpton: "Rep. Matt Gaetz takes on Al Sharpton in committee meeting
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The simplest but maybe not the smartest or efficacious resolution of the Israeli election is for Gantz to join Bibi and form a joint government. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chick-fil-A and freedom. (Se 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Zito. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What should America do were it called upon to defend an ally that is almost as despicable as the enemy that attacked them? https://www.nationalreview.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Noonan explains the radical's de-legitimizing "Kavanaugh Syndrome." (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Who can (and will) break Israel’s political stalemate?
Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be pushing all the buttons necessary to pressure Benny Gantz into joining his government; their two parties alone would form a majority of 64 seats.
Will Benjamin Netanyahu or Benny Gantz be able to form a government, or will Israel have to go to the polls for a third election in the course of a year? That’s the question being asked throughout Israel in the wake of Tuesday’s election results, which again ended in a dead heat.
There are 55 mandates supporting Netanyahu for prime minister, 57 against Netanyahu for prime minister, with 44 supporting Gantz for sure. It remains unclear if the Joint Arab List, which doesn’t want to see Netanyahu in the top job once again, will support Gantz for prime minister or not. The 57-55 represents a stalemate. But eight more Knesset seats belong to Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party, so in theory, he can crown the next prime minister.
Lieberman, it seems, holds the key to breaking this stalemate. But he has said that he will only support a candidate who will commit to forming a government of Likud, Blue and White, and his Yisrael Beiteinu. Blue and White has refused to sit in a government led by Likud leader Netanyahu, so they’re not gaining Lieberman’s support. Likud is insisting that the ultra-Orthodox parties be part of their coalition, so they’re not gaining Lieberman’s support.
Thus, the stalemate and talk of a third election.
But former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon, who used to be a member of Yisrael Beiteinu, told JNS that “Lieberman is a chameleon and changes his colors whenever it suits him best. The possibility of him reinventing himself yet again is always a possibility.” In Ayalon’s opinion, if given the right opportunity based on the unsettled political landscape, Lieberman could easily change his mind and join with Netanyahu or Gantz to pave the way for a government majority.
Netanyahu is not waiting around for the man to change his mind. He publicly called Gantz to meet with him to discuss partnering together in a national unity government. Just their two parties alone would form a majority of 64 seats. Then they can call other parties to come and strengthen the coalition on the terms that the two largest parties determine, instead of smaller parties serving as kingmakers and having their demands met.
After meeting with the party leaders from his right-wing/religious bloc that equals 55 seats and securing their support for him, Netanyahu turned to Gantz made his a public call for unity. “I suggest we meet as soon as possible, without preconditions.”
He continued, asking Gantz “to work together to establish a broad unity government representing all who believe in a Jewish, democratic Israel.” Netanyahu went even further than that at a Sept. 19 memorial service for former Israeli President Shimon Peres, which was also attended by Gantz, talking about the national unity government formed by Yitzchak Shamir and Peres, saying that “Shimon sided with the need to unite the people.”
Gantz was quick to reply that he and his party are open to a unity government, but only if the leader of Likud is someone other than Netanyahu. Blue and White refuses to sit with Netanyahu, given the fact that Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has recommended that the prime minister be indicted on several counts of corruption charges. Former Likud Defense Minister and current Blue and White Knesset member Moshe Ya’alon told JNS, “I am calling on my friends in the Likud and in the religious parties to tell Netanyahu, ‘Enough. You are causing us damage.” His aim is to replace him as the head of Likud. That, Ya’alon explained, would pave the way for a national unity government.
Netanyahu seems to be pushing all the buttons necessary to pressure Gantz into joining his government. One obstacle in welcoming Gantz into the 55-seat bloc, which he already established, was the fact that the ultra-Orthodox parties had said that they would never sit in a government with Knesset member Yair Lapid, who is No. 2 on the Blue and White list. The ultra-Orthodox feel that Lapid caused terrible damage to their institutions and way of life when he was finance minister from 2013-15, including preventing them from joining the coalition. However, one of these religious parties, Shas, has now announced that they forgive Lapid and are willing to have him join a Netanyahu-led government; the second religious party involved, United Torah Judaism, is strongly considering doing the same.
If Netanyahu is not successful in bringing Blue and White to help him form a coalition, then another option would be convincing the Labor Party with its six mandates to enter into his coalition. Some suggest that despite Labor leader Amir Peretz promising not to join a Netanyahu-led government (he even shaved his famous mustache so that people can read his lips when he says this promise), he might be enticed by the prospect of a ministry position, such as finance, health and welfare—any of which fits his socially minded platform.
Former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Labor Party secretary Chilik Bar told JNS that “there is zero chance that the Labor Party led by Amir Peretz will join with Netanyahu to establish a government because of our pre-election promise that we wouldn’t do so, and because of Netanyahu’s corruption scandals, and the massive ideological gap between us and him.”
Ayalon is convinced that Israel won’t go to a third election. He told JNS that “someone will cave and join with Netanyahu’s government—either Lieberman, Gantz or Labor.”
The thing certain right now is that Israelis now face weeks of rumors and posturing before anything of significance changes to create a breakthrough from the current stalemate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Freedom on trial, not just Chick-fil-A
Far-left faculty members at Kansas University appear to be the latest Lefties triggered by a chicken sandwich with a side of waffle fries
Bob Kellogg, Billy Davis
Far-left faculty members at Kansas University appear to be the latest Lefties triggered by a chicken sandwich with a side of waffle fries.
Chick-fil-A was operating from a basement on the Jayhawk campus but was relocated to the popular and prominent Memorial Union, which apparently angered the Sexuality & Gender Diversity Faculty and Staff Council at KU.
According to Fox News, the faculty group fired off a two-page letter to university leaders accusing them of caring more about “money and corporate sponsorship” than the “physical, emotional, and mental well being of marginalized and LGBTQ people.”
Kansas University, located in Lawrence, has a student population of approximately 28,700 and approximately 2,600 faculty and staff. It’s unclear from the article how many faculty members belong to the Sexuality and Gender Diversity group.
Chick-fil-A, recently voted the most popular U.S. restaurant, has been the target of left-wing boycotts, protests, and angry op-eds since the company’s CEO told the Baptist Press in 2012 that he supported biblical marriage.
Drawing from the life of its churchgoing founder, S. Truett Cathy, Chick-fil-A is famously a faith-based corporation that closes up on Sundays, and its charity arm donates to Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes,
Autumn Leva of Family Policy Alliance points out the angry reaction by the KU faculty members is not an isolated incident of hatred directed at Chick-fil-A.
“We see this sort of thing playing out in nearly every state across the country,” she tells OneNewsNow, “and it really reveals more of a deeper problem, I think.”
The bigger issue, she says, is over freedom: the right to publicly state our own beliefs and values without being punished for them.
“And I think, at the end of the day,” she adds, “nearly every American would agree that we should all be free to do that.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Hometown'
By Salena Zito
OAKDALE, Pennsylvania- Some towns die hard. This one nearly did.
The Aetna Chemical Co. plant exploded 101 years ago, leveling most of the town, killing nearly 200 people, maiming hundreds more. Some body parts landed nearly a mile away.
The horrifying news ran across the front page of every newspaper in the country with reports of carnage and photos of a demolished landscape in which buildings and trees were leveled.
That’s the most notable thing to ever happen in Oakdale, which since its inception has been fondly called “America’s Hometown.” Way back when, it was a quaint agriculture community, the farmers of which were skeptical when the powerful Pennsylvania Railroad’s main line to St. Louis and Chicago cut through their pastures in the years before the Civil War.
Thus Oakdale became part of the connection of the east to the Midwest, which is why Aetna located its plant there. The railroad is also why Kinsey Electric located there 15 years after the blast. But after the railroad left in the late '70s, bringing with it the commerce, connection, shoppers, and laborers, America’s hometown again faced an uncertain future.
Some ruins of the Aetna plant are still visible if you work your way through the weeds. The old Kinsey Electric warehouse stands on the same road, and that building somehow cast a spell on a local woman named Whitney Jurgovan
Click here for the full story.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Why They’ll Never Stop Targeting Kavanaugh
The continuing assault reflects both a fixation and an effort to deprive the court of its legitimacy.
Because progressives have to prove they were right to advance the sexual-assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford. They lost that battle; Justice Kavanaugh sits on the court. They won’t stop the assault until they can prove they were right to launch it.
Because people become fixated on their targets. Because #MeToo continues as a potent cultural force. Because as the court assumes an ever more powerful role in American life, confirmation hearings and their aftermath will become more brutal and never-ending.
Because the authority and legitimacy of future rulings that are not pleasing to progressives (most prominently, perhaps, on Roe v. Wade) can be undermined through footnotes that say “the 5-4 decision was joined by a justice credibly accused of sexual assault.”
Because the steady drum of allegations diminishes not only Justice Kavanaugh’s stature but that of the court itself, which will be helpful when Democrats attempt to pack it.
Because the crazier parts of the progressive left increasingly see politics as public theater, with heroes and villains, cheers and hisses from the audience, and costumes, such as outfits from “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Because modern politics is, for the lonely and strange on all sides, entertainment and diversion. And one’s people must be entertained.
Because many progressives believe deep in their hearts that conservative men are both sexually obsessed and repressed, that conservatism is a way of looking at the world in which women are lesser, mere prey. They think this is behind everything, including conservative reservations about or opposition to abortion. In this view, conservative jurists who say things like “60% of my clerks were women” and “I coach the girls’ soccer and debate teams” are engaged in an elaborate cover. They hate the modern world. Behind closed doors they’re always swinging caveman’s clubs.
Because where there’s smoke there must be fire. There was Ms. Ford, then the Yale rumors. There’s no way there isn’t something to it.
So it will never end.
For Democrats, it is not “good politics,” and most of them know it. What was done to Justice Kavanaugh had a positive impact on 2018 Senate outcomes—for Republicans. There was a backlash. Women worried their sons and husbands would be targeted in a prosecutorial atmosphere that had abandoned due process.
People are complicated. Jill Abramson, who covered the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, told a story years later. Anita Hill had just testified. During a break, Ms. Abramson went for lunch in the Supreme Court cafeteria. As she stood waiting to pay for her food she chatted with another reporter about how Ms. Hill’s testimony had been lethal for Judge Thomas. The cashier, a middle-aged black woman, overheard, gave Ms. Abramson a baleful look, and said: “They’ll do anything to bring down a black man.” It was clear she supported him. In Ms. Abramson’s view it was an early sign of broader public opinion.
In an excerpt from a new book by two of its reporters, the New York Times this week famously reported another allegation of sexual misconduct by an undergraduate Mr. Kavanaugh. The Times later corrected its story to note the purported victim refused to be interviewed for the book and friends say she has no memory of such an incident. Democratic presidential contenders had already called for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Soon they changed the subject. But they’ll return to it.
What is kind of horrifying is the extent to which all this stems from the charges brought last year by Ms. Ford. Mr. Kavanaugh, she said, had drunkenly attempted to force himself on her at a high-school party.
I watched her testimony, as I’ve written before, with a bias. In my experience women in such matters are telling the truth. I assumed her charges would be substantiated.
And yet they were not, not at all, not even after a year. Not a single witness emerged to corroborate her account. The woman Ms. Ford described as a close, lifelong friend who could back up her account said she remembered no such party or gathering and had in fact never met Brett Kavanaugh. Now she admits she does not herself believe Ms. Ford’s story.
Throughout the drama those who believed Judge Kavanaugh’s denials operated at a disadvantage: Any criticism of Ms. Ford would be treated as a smear, so there was almost none.
I’m reminded of this by the riveting book “Justice On Trial,” by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino. Most such investigations are written by liberal journalists for a liberal audience; Ms. Hemingway and Ms. Severino are conservatives who went forward with journalistic seriousness and paid attention to information others might ignore. They suggest “where there’s smoke there’s fire” can’t be applied to the Kavanaugh case because from the moment he was nominated to the court he was targeted by pyromaniacs.
A leftist feminist group linked him to allegations of sexual harassment against another judge, for whom he’d clerked a quarter-century before. An activist group accused him of supporting the “problematic trope that the Constitution should be ‘colorblind.’ ” Another group said his judicial philosophy amounted to supporting the “white supremacist patriarchy.”
This was par for the course for a Republican nominee, but soon after Ms. Ford’s charges came the New Yorker story in which a Yale classmate of Judge Kavanaugh said that during her freshman year he exposed himself at a drunken dorm party and caused her to touch his genitals. But the story didn’t hold—the reporters were unable to find a witness to corroborate it, the accuser had “significant gaps” in her memories, and it took six days of “carefully assessing her memories” and consulting with an attorney provided by Democrats, to name Judge Kavanaugh.
The since-disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti then brought forward a woman who claimed she was gang raped at a high-school party by Mr. Kavanaugh and his friends, as were other young women. Her story fell apart too.
Then a charge came in through Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. A constituent had called his office to say a man believed to be Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a woman on a boat in Newport, R.I., in 1985. Now there was a fourth accuser! Eventually the Judiciary Committee tracked down the constituent, an anti-Trump activist who’d called for a military coup. He later recanted his accusations on Twitter and apologized.
A letter to Sen. Kamala Harris’s office claimed Judge Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a woman while driving home from a party. The accuser was a political activist who later admitted her charge was “just a ploy” made because she was angry. Asked if she’d ever met Judge Kavanaugh she said, “Oh Lord, no.”
In both cases the accusers seemed shocked you couldn’t just . . . lie.
“Normally the burden of proof is on the accuser,” write Ms. Hemingway and Ms. Severino, “but the media were not even paying lip service to that principle.”
They weren’t.
The charges will probably never stop, but at this point many of us, having seen what Justice Kavanaugh was put through because of ideology and politics, will never find them believable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment