Tired of Feeling Like an Idiot re: Israeli “Settlements”? Here’s Your Fix.

I’m 51 years old. I’ve had a reasonably good education. I’m no genius, but I’m smarter than the average bear.

And I will freely admit I haven’t had a firm grasp on the fuss about Israel and her borders. Like many, I have had a vague understanding of it, mostly boiling down to “They’re surrounded by people who want to kill them. They’re the only western democracy in a sea of anti-western sh*tholes. I’m with them.”

Here’s your fix. It’s part of a larger article editorial at NRO I heartily recommend, Obama’s Shameful Parting Shot at Israel, but here’s your pull quote:

In short, the lines informally agreed upon when Israel became a country were never made formal and they’ve been fighting about it ever since. What’s not said here is what I heard Charles Krauthammer say on Fox last night. It really captures the insidious evil of what Obama just engineered at the United Nations Security Council on Friday, December 23rd:

To give you an idea of how appalling this resolution is, it declares that any Jew who lives in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, the Jewish quarter, inhabited for 1,000 years, is illegal, breaking international law, essentially an outlaw, can be hauled into the international criminal court and international courts in Europe, which is one of the consequences. The Jewish quarter has been populated by Jews for 1,000 years. In the war of Independence in 1948, the Arabs invaded Israel to wipe it out. They did not succeed, but the Arab Legion succeeded in conquering the Jewish quarter. They expelled all the Jews. They destroyed all the synagogues and all the homes. For 19 years, no Jew could go there. The Israelis got it back in the Six-Day War. Now it’s declared that this is not Jewish territory. Remember, it’s called “the Jewish quarter,” but it belongs to other people. And any Jew who lives there is an outlaw. That’s exactly what we supported. The resolution is explicit in saying settlements in the occupied territories and in east Jerusalem.

It’s worth reading the entire text of Krauthammer’s Take: Abstention on Anti-Israel Vote a Disgrace: ‘U.S. Joined the Jackals at the U.N.’  here.

There. Now if you encounter someone over the holidays who says, “Isn’t that awful what Obama did at the U.N. the other day?” you’ll be able to do something other than, “Oh! I see your drink needs refilling. Can I get you another?”

⇒ Exit Question: If Obama were a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, what would he have done differently?

I’ve long said if he isn’t technically Muslim (I actually believe Obama’s only true God is himself) he’s at least functionally Muslim. Let’s remember: he was raised until 10 in Indonesia, where he attended a Muslim school – those are critically formative years.  Then from 10 to 18 was mentored by the (literal!) card-carrying Communist Frank Marshall Davis at the behest of his white grandfather in Hawaii, who felt he needed a black male “role model.” This guy didn’t live in the lower-48 until he went to college at 18, having spent half his life in Muslim Indonesia and the other half in a state-still-with-that-new-car-smell tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific. He did not marinade in mom, the flag, and apple pie. White picket fences and 4th of July parades did not become “normal” for him until he was 18. Think about it…

Bottom Up, Truth Out.

email-button

Obama’s first term White House environmental czar, self-described Marxist Van Jones, brought “bottom up” power to post-2009’s popular political lexicon. Basically it means change comes from the bottom, from the masses, forcing the top to their will. There’s a lot of truth to that, 2012-04-04-cnn-startingpoint-vanjones2God knows, but educated ears hear “violent mob” when Van says it, because that is what he means. The underlying principle is sound, however, even if the form it takes in the hands of a Marxist is less than righteous: true power lies with the people, and the people, over the objections of their leaders, can wield it to effect true change.

Well, the people with badges have had enough. By all accounts, the field agents of the FBI are ready to revolt, thus FBI Director Comey’s letter to congress on Friday saying ‘Yeah… Remember when I said under oath that if something juicy came along I’d reboot the Hillary probe? I got a whole truck full o’juicy.’

Left, Cheryl Mills. Right, Huma Abedin

Left, Cheryl Mills. Right, Huma Abedin

Know those 33,000 missing emails? FBI found 650,000 emails on a computer shared by Huma Abedin and her sex pervert husband, Anthony Weiner. Abedin, if you’re unfamiliar, is Hillary’s self-described “second daughter.” Her most trusted aide. Except for Cheryl Mills, who is an attorney, nobody is closer to her than Huma. Huma’s a human pilot fish. Constantly swimming alongside in the sewer of filth Felony Grandma oozes all over the globe.

Well, Friday about noon Comey threw the grenade, then Sunday night the Wall Street Journal dropped the MOAB. Friday we find out Comey’s rebooting the investigation. Sunday we find out it’s because of these newly found 650,000 emails.

Now we wait.

Rich Lowry at NRO pretty well captures the magnitude of it, and I recommend you read it, and follow the embedded link to the WSJ to fill in the details. These are truly historic days, indeed.


The FBI’s Clinton Foundation Probe

By Rich Lowry — October 30, 2016

Who’s #IranDeal’s $10M Bag Man?

Bundles of $100 BillsWhoa…

The indispensable Andrew C. McCarthy* over at National Review has once again asked the $64,000 question. Or in this case, the $10,000,000 questionWho got that sweeeeeet tip?

You’ve doubtlessly heard about the $400M in palettes of cash “leverage” given to the Iranians to get our hostages back. Well, like they say in every infomercial ever “But wait! There’s more!”  Shortly after that news broke, an enterprising New York Sun reporter, Claudia Rosett (therefore making her indispensable) combed through the shoebox of federal government receipts to find an additional (illegally structured!) $1.3B!

While “the most transparent administration in history” continues to insist that this transaction is completely legit, Claudia could not find the 13 transfers of $99,999,999.99 by searching for “Iran” listings in the judgment fund. Acknowledgment of payments to Iran is nowhere to be found. Instead, she happened upon this $1.3 billion (minus the 13 cents) by locating cases in which the State Department was a party.

“But wait! There’s even MORE!”

And with that, another intriguing wrinkle emerged: a 14th unexplained transfer by Treasury, on State’s behalf, in the amount of $10 million — bringing the total to $1.31 billion.

Whereupon Mr. McCarthy asks the aforementioned $64,000  $10,000,000 question:

Is that extra $10 million a sweetener for someone in this deal?

Good question.

Look – This entire thing is like if George W. Bush paid off the Bin Ladens. It’s UNTHINKABLE a President would do this but here we are. Read it. And be horrified.

Why Is Obama Stonewalling on Details of the $1.7 Billion in Iransom PayoffsBy Andrew C. McCarthy — August 27, 2016


*Mr. McCarthy is the lawyer who put away “The Blind Sheik” for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The man knows bad guys and bag men when he sees them.

Trump is Bat Guano Insane

Not an hour ago, a grown man, who happens to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party for President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, said this:


What does one even say? I’m utterly speechless.

Kevin Williamson at NRO, a favorite writer of mine, summarizes the book on one Donald J. Trump’s manifest unfitness for any office of public trust. I could not agree more. Enjoy.


This Election Is Not an A/B Test
‘Not Hillary Clinton’ isn’t good enough
By Kevin D. Williamson — May 6, 2016

As soon as it became clear that game-show host Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee, the usual radio ranters and Fox News mouths began the inevitable litany: If you aren’t for Donald Trump, then you must be for Hillary Clinton — it’s Himself or Herself.

There is more to this than A/B testing.

“If you aren’t for Trump, then you’re for Clinton” is a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’d write that any thinking adult would be ashamed for falling for that kind of sixth-grade debater’s stratagem, but a Republican electorate capable of choosing Donald Trump as its standard-bearer is incapable of shame.

The angry insistence — him or her! — is, for the moment, mainly an attempt to forestall further criticism of Trump. That criticism consists of stating a fact that is not a matter of degree but a binary proposition, a yes/no question. It is not that Trump is less mentally stable than Mrs. Clinton (probably true) or that he is more dishonest than Mrs. Clinton (difficult to say) or that he might do even more damage to the republic, or any other point of comparison between the candidates.

The issue, instead, is this:

Donald Trump is unfit for the office.

He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.

A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.

His long litany of lies — which include fabrications about everything from his wealth to self-funding his campaign — is disqualifying.

His low character is disqualifying.

His personal history is disqualifying.

His complete, utter, total, and lifelong lack of honor is disqualifying.

The fact that he is going to have to take time out of the convention to appear in court to hear a pretty convincing fraud case against him is disqualifying.

His time on Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island, after which he boasted about sharing a taste with Epstein for women “on the younger side,” is disqualifying.

The fact that he knows less about our constitutional order than does a not-especially-bright Rappahannock River oyster is disqualifying.

There isn’t anything one can say about Mrs. Clinton, monster though she is, that changes any of that.

Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president. He is not fit to serve on the Meade County board of commissioners. He is not fit to be the mayor of Muleshoe, Texas.

If he indeed is the Republican nominee, Donald Trump almost certainly will face Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election. That fact, sobering though it is, does not suddenly make him fit to serve as president, because — to repeat — the problem with Trump isn’t that he is less fit to serve in comparison to Mrs. Clinton, but that he is unfit to serve, period.

Paul Ryan is right to withhold his support, and those who have suddenly discovered that attending the Republican convention conflicts with their cat-shampooing schedule — both Presidents Bush, nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — have in this matter chosen the better part, while former Texas governor Rick Perry has shown poor judgment. Trump, who long claimed (falsely) that he was self-funding his campaign and therefore was beholden to no one, has just named a hedge-fund boss and former Goldman Sachs partner to raise money, but donors are walking sideways away from him—as they should.

“Unite the Party” talk ignores the question: “Unite with what?” The answer, in this case, is a coddled, petulant, celebrity megalomaniac leading a small movement of cable-news-inspired populist drama queens whose motto is “Eek! A Mexican!” It is shallow, but celebrity is the most powerful force in American culture, more powerful than money and certainly more powerful than argument. Those of you joking about Kanye West running in 2020 shouldn’t laugh too hard.

But celebrity isn’t all-powerful. Trump had a smashing victory in the New York Republican primary, but he received far fewer votes than did second-place Democratic finisher Bernie Sanders, and barely half of Mrs. Clinton’s votes. The idea that a Trump candidacy is suddenly going to put into play states such as New York and New Jersey is fantasy. Those crying “Unite the Party!” might want to think about how closely they wish to be united with a candidacy that may very well lose 35 states and hand the Senate over to Chuck Schumer, who is of course another recipient of Trump’s many generous donations to progressives.

Those shouting “If you don’t support Trump, you’re for Clinton!” do not wish to speak or think very much about what the Trump movement and its enablers, from Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter, have done to the Republican party and to the conservative movement. They’re going to want to think about that even less as the months go by, and by January there’s very likely to be an outbreak of convenient amnesia. But the rest of us should be frank about what has happened.

The Republican party is preparing to nominate for the presidency a man grossly unfit for the office.

— Kevin D. Williamson is the roving correspondent at National Review.

###

Dixiecrats = GOP? No.

UPDATE: Hah! Quite by accident I came across another excellent article – brilliant, in fact – on the absurdity of GOP turning racist overnight in the sixties.  This time it’s by Kevin D. Williamson, “The Party of Civil Rights,” at NRO.  Check it out.

Came across this wonderful blog post giving some good, historical detail and sound analysis on why it’s nonsensical that the party of Lincoln, who for the entire nation’s history stood on the side of civil rights, would all of a sudden, in 1964-1965 just POOF turn into a bunch of racists. It’s written by a black conservative by the name of Bob Parks who writes at Black & Right.  Read his About Me page.  He’s an impressive fellow.

So! I recommend it highly.  Click here or read it below.

===

The Dixiecrat Myth

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown”and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of  Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?

I’m sure the more learned Democrats will have issues with these explanations.

Oh well.