Several thousand left-wing activists gathered in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square on Saturday evening, calling for an end to bloodshed in the Gaza Strip and a return to negotiations with the Palestinians.
Slogans chanted by the protesters included “Stop the war,” “Bring the soldiers back home” and “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies,” Channel 2 reported.
Channel 2 noted that prominent left-wing party Meretz as well as the Peace Now organization had opted not to take part in the rally, with the TV report speculating that the protesters may fall to the left of those groups on the political spectrum.
The demonstrations were cut short when Hamas unilaterally ended a humanitarian truce with Israel and resumed rocket-fire from Gaza.
Israeli police had even granted a permit for the rally once it was clear that a ceasefire that was in place meant the large gathering would not create a public safety problem.
Hamas shot some 20 Palestinians on Monday night for protesting against Hamas for the massive destruction inflicted on their neighborhood in Shejaia by the IDF in the past weeks, Channel 10 reported on Tuesday.
Oppose the polices of the terrorist organization -- policies that are inflicting terrible suffering upon the people of Gaza? You will be killed as an enemy.
That might be something for folks to consider -- especially those on the Left who insist that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Because it is all about him -- and any opposition to him is just "hatin'".
In Kansas City today, President Obama complained that Republicans continued to oppose his agenda in Congress.
“C’mon and help out a bit,” he said, addressing the GOP. “Stop bein’ mad all the time. Stop just hatin’ all the time. C’mon, let’s get some work done together.”
Hey Barry -- quit bein' an asshole all the time. After all, you are the guy who has rejected compromise with the GOP time and again.
Liberal darling and free-birth-control advocate Sandra Fluke is her own biggest donor in her state Senate race, according to official California campaign finance reports.
Fluke donated $12,000 to her campaign and $4,826.27 in non-monetary contributions. While $16,826.27 may not sound like a lot, Fluke also loaned her campaign $100,000.
Where does a 2012 law school grad working as a social justice attorney get a loan that size? Her campaign never responded to a Washington Examiner inquiry, so we’re left to speculate.
Perhaps the loan was in part secured by the family of Fluke’s husband, Adam Mutterperl. In 2012, Fluke married Mutterperl, an amateur stand-up comic and son of big-time Democratic donor William Mutterperl.
But wait -- if the family is securing the loan rather than Fluke herself, wouldn't that need to be disclosed? And if it isn't doesn't that violate the relevant campaign finance laws?
Frankly, I view the classes in question as a waste of time and money. But given the racist tirade by those objecting to the race of the teacher, I think the bigger objection is that teaching them constitutes the institutionalization of racism and grievance mongering.
Black community leaders in Fresno, Calif., are urging the Fresno Unified School District to re-evaluate the hiring of a white guy to teach three cultural studies courses at a brand-new middle school that will overwhelmingly serve minority students.
* * *
On Monday morning, a small band of activists showed up in front of the sparkling new school at the corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Church Avenue. The local press was also there.
“We’re just saying what the community wants,” said Rev. Karen Crozier, one of the activists. “We didn’t fight for a white male or female teacher to educate our babies.”
Crozier, who appears to be a professor at Fresno Pacific Biblical Seminary, also suggested that a white person cannot teach minority children in this instance because of racism.
“We still are at these racial fault lines, and we want someone who will be able to think critically about those racial fault lines and how do we help heal, to restore the problems that have existed,” she explained.
Apparently this idiot thinks that the way to "heal" and "restore" racism is to judge people based upon race and to exclude individuals from employment based upon the color of their skin. The hypocrisy is astounding -- or would be if it were not so common among "leaders" whose position depends upon stoking the racial hatred that they then use to justify their leadership positions.
All you have to do is look at the words of the "anti-Zionists" as they have protested not Israeli policy or the existence of Israel, but the very existence of the Jewish people.
In the late 1960s, the Austrian Jewish writer and Auschwitz survivor Jean Amery wrote, “Anti-Zionism contains anti-Semitism like a cloud contains a storm.” To put it mildly, Amery’s definition of modern anti-Semitism wasn’t accepted by post-Holocaust Europe as a force to be combated. Anti-Zionism was deemed by many Europeans to be a politically and socially correct world view. In short, they viewed it as a form of legitimate “Israel criticism.”
The calls for the dismantling of Israel and shouts to kill Jews on the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, and Frankfurt, to name some of the major European cities where they’ve occurred, are indicative of a lethal anti-Semitic mass movement. What unifies many European elites, large numbers of Muslims, motley crews of leftists and neo-Nazis is a loathing of the Jewishness of Israel.
The 19th-century anti-Semitic German historian Heinrich von Treitschke infamously said, “The Jews are our misfortune.” For the modern anti-Semite that slogan has been transformed into “Israel is our misfortune.”
Take a small sample of some of the headlines in the media about what is unfolding in Europe: “Neo Nazis, Islamists Declare ‘You Jews are Beasts’ During Protest of Israeli Operation” in Frankfurt; “Firebombs Fail to Ignite at Toulouse Jewish Center”; “Madrid Jews Vow Legal Action against Author Who Justified Expulsions”; “Jewish Museums in Norway closed for fear of Attacks”; “Well-Known Italian Philosopher: ‘I’d Like to the Shoot Those Bastard Zionists”’
; Pro-Palestinians Throw Molotov Cocktail at Paris Synagogue; It’s Like 1938, Says Israeli Ambassador to Germany”; “Anti-Semitic Attacks Scar British Cities.”
Germany, yes Germany, seems to be one of the main hubs of some of the most intense anti-Semitism. Protesters in Berlin chanted slogans calling for the gassing of Jews.
What we are seeing is not merely condemnation of Israel's policies and actions in defending itself from Hamas terrorism -- as if Israel does not have the right to oppose terrorism every bit as much as the United States does.. We are not just seeing calls for the disestablishment of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of the Promised Land of its Jewish inhabitants -- as if fulfilling the goals of the hard-line opponents of Israel does not constitute a de facto act of genocide. Instead we are hearing more than a few calls to move from the vow of "Never Again" that all people of good will agreed to following the destruction of Nazi Germany to a demand to "finish it now" -- a cry to bring to fruition Hitler's Final Solution to the "Jewish Problem".
Can one legitimately disagree with Israel and its policies? Certainly. But all too often, those who claim to be opposed to Israel's policies have a deeper agenda in mind. One therefore must take care not to give aid and comfort to the hatemongers who demand the destruction of the Jewish state and (either implicitly or explicitly) the destruction of the Jewish people with one's criticism. What's more, one must ask an even more basic question -- when one's criticism of Israel gives aid and comfort to the supporters of genocide, doesn't one have a moral duty to avoid saying that which one knows the Jew-haters will use to justify and sanitize their malignant ideology?
Obama is ginning up talk of impeachment in order to make sure that the American people are tired of the subject when he does commit an impeachable offense by overturning our nation's immigration laws by executive order.
On Tuesday’s Special Report, he speculated that the Obama administration may be trying to exhaust the idea of impeachment and “softening people up for” when the president uses executive action to grant legal status and work authorization to millions of immigrants in the country illegally. Such an action would be “clearly lawless and it would be biggest domestic overreach of a president in memory” and “an impeachable offense,” he said.
But if Obama did go ahead with his amnesty-by-fiat plan, Krauthammer still thinks impeachment wouldn’t work. “I would be 100 percent against impeachment because it’s political suicide,” he said.
Let's face it -- Barack Obama could sacrifice a virgin to Satan on live national television and the Democrats would refuse to vote for his removal, while the MSM would make the argument that the GOP was acting as part of a Koch-funded scheme to suppress the religious liberties of African-Americans. Impeachment needs to stay off the table -- though a report by the House Judiciary committee documenting Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors would be an excellent road map for the Justice Department to use for obtaining an indictment of Obama under his Republican successor.
Doesn't Malaysia have more pressing things to worry about than this -- like keeping their airplanes in the air?
Malaysian politicians and religious leaders have attacked the use of Scottie dogs during the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony, claiming it was disrespectful to Muslims.
Around 40 Scottie dogs were used in the opening ceremony in Glasgow last Wednesday to lead teams around Celtic Park.
The dogs, which all wore tartan dog coats with the name of each team on them, were widely praised on social media, with many people stating they thought they had “stolen the show”. Hamish, who led out the Scotland team, received one of the biggest cheers of the night.
Judy Murray tweeted after the ceremony: “Scottie dogs in tartan coats at CG opening ceremony. Barkingly brilliant.”
However, not everyone was as impressed. Political and religious leaders in Malaysia have claimed the use of dogs connected to Muslim countries was “disrespectful”.
Possibly making matters worse was the fact that Jock, who was supposed to lead out the Malaysian team, sat down and refused to move as soon as his coat was put on, meaning he had to be carried by the team representative.
Good on Jock, who I am sure was as offended by being associated with Malaysia as Malaysia was to be associated with him -- and with better reason.
No, we don't need to tighten things up -- nobody is voting for anyone else, and certainly not on behalf of dead folks.
Francis J. DeGregory was a World War II Army veteran who served in the Battle of the Bulge. He died in 2008 and is interred at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery.
Dara Welty was an aspiring opera singer and La Jolla native who died of a blood clot during a visit to Bolivia in 1998, at 22.
Both went on to vote — repeatedly — in San Diego County elections, records show. They remain registered to vote to this day, DeGregory as a Republican and Welty as a Democrat.
* * *
The review found that 26 ballots have been cast in the names of 10 dead San Diego County citizens since 1998.
Mail-in ballots were the most common way to vote in the name of a deceased person, accounting for 21 of the votes in question — and all the votes cast for DeGregory and Welty.
The election in which the most posthumous votes were cast was in November 2012. Six votes were cast in the name of the deceased that round, twice as many as in the next-closest election.
It isn't about Republican or Democrat to me -- it is about making sure that elections are fair and honest. That's why I serve as the election judge for my precinct, and why my Democrat alternate judge and I have worked so very hard to make sure that everything runs efficiently on election day. And it is why we try to keep track of deaths in town (and people moving) so as to prevent fraudulent votes.
And I know that we are looking at a mere handful of votes in this article -- but how many are going undetected? And how big is their effect, cumulatively, in a close election?
That is the only way to interpret this demand from the president.
Building on Secretary Kerry’s efforts, the President made clear [in a phone call to Israeli PM Netanyahu] the strategic imperative of instituting an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement.
The thing is, that ceasefire failed to stop Hamas from building tunnels, acquiring more advanced weapons, or attacking Israel. It was clearly a failed program that did nothing to increase Israel's security while allowing Hamas to become more entrenched and more dangerous. And yet somehow Obama believes that this is the best basis for stopping the current conflict. That is a fundamentally non-serious approach to the situation -- and is functionally, if not intentionally, pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic.
Obama condemns Hamas actions, but makes demands of Israel.
Obama called for an "immediate, unconditional" humanitarian ceasefire, according to a White House readout of the call.
Negotiations to extend a 12-hour truce broke down over the weekend. Israel says it offered to extend the ceasefire for another 24 hours, only to see new rocket fire from Gaza. Israel then resumed its own military actions in Gaza.
"Hamas has broken five cease-fires that we accepted," Netanyahu said on Fox News Sunday. "They rejected all of them, violated all of them, including two humanitarian cease-fires in the last 24 hours."
On the call with Netanyahu, Obama stressed the need to enact a "sustainable ceasefire" that both "allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives, and addresses Gaza's long-term development and economic needs while strengthening the Palestinian Authority."
Hamas repeatedly breaks ceasefires, but Obama demands that Israel unconditionally submit to one on Hamas' terms. He calls the Prime Minister of Israel and insists on a policy "to enact a 'sustainable ceasefire' that both 'allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives, and addresses Gaza's long-term development and economic needs while strengthening the Palestinian Authority.'" Interestingly enough, he indicates no concern about the security needs of Israel -- nor does he pressure Hamas or threaten to cut off the IS supplied "humanitarian aid" that has been diverted to build tunnels to attack Israel and to buy weapons to attack Israel. All the concessions are to be on the part of Israel.
Once again we see a functionally, if not intentionally, anti-Semitic policy from the Obama Administration.
I'm sure that her position is consistent with some constitution -- just not the Constitution of the United States.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting congressional delegate for the District of Columbia, angrily sputtered during a congressional hearing Friday that the White House should not be held up to scrutiny, saying that there was no right to know what it was doing behind closed doors.
“You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,” Norton said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.
It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government officials. Instead the leading advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia literally argued that even the congressional committee charged with oversight shouldn’t be asking questions in the first place.
Now that argument is wrong on so many levels.
First, Congress is responsible for making the laws. How can it determine if the laws need to be changed or modified if it cannot know how (or if) the Executive Branch is carrying them out.
Second, Congress is responsible for funding the government. How can it determine what to budget if it does not know what is going on in the Executive Branch?
Third, Congress has the right to impeach a president and other Executive branch officials for high crimes and misdemeanors. How can it determine if there is cause for impeachment if it is denied the information needed to make such a determination.
What Eleanor Holmes Norton describes is not a federal system -- it is a dictatorship with a rubber-stamp legislature, much like one finds in Cuba or North Korea. But then again, anyone who has followed her career would recognize that such a system is exactly what she supports -- provided it is a dictatorship controlled by an ideological ally like Obama.
The supposed number of civilian dead is used to batter Israel for daring to go after Hamas, an aggressive terrorist organization that regularly rains missiles down on Israel's civilian population. But when one considers where the numbers come from, are they worthy of acceptance?
The media has engaged in journalistic malpractice by reporting casualty figures for civilians coming from Gaza as gospel. The figures come from the Gazan Ministry of Health, which is controlled by Hamas. The Ministry of Health counts everyone not in uniform as a civilian. Most Hamas fighters don’t wear uniforms. The UN is sometimes sourced for the figures, but the UN gets its figures from … the Gazan Ministry of Health. Contrary to early reports that 80% or so of the early casualties were civilians, Al-Jazeera published names and ages, and about 3/4 were men of fighting age (16-50), compared to a rough estimate of 20% of the Gazan population (40% to 50% of which is fourteen and under). Some of those men were undoubtedly civilians, but it strains credulity to believe that 80% of the casualties were civilian but just-so-happened to be overwhelmingly fighting-age men. (Here’s the most recent analysis from the IsraellyCool blog). For that matter, how do we know that the Minsitry of Health isn’t counting deaths from natural causes as deaths from Israeli actions? A simple “the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health claims” before reciting casualty figures that the media has not itself verified would resolve the problem. Obviously, there have been civilian casualties, and I doubt that a more accurate count would change many minds about the conflict. Still, as co-blogger Ilya suggested to me, relying on Hamas for casualty figures is like relying on old East German economic reports showing it to be wealthier than West Germany. (I’ll leave for another time the perplexing question of why the only time the media indulges in day-by-day casualty counts is when Israel is involved. Quick… within a large margin of error, how many civilians did NATO kill in Serbia? Afghanistan? Libya?)
The point? The reported casualty numbers come from a source that has a vested interest in making Israel look bad and Hamas look good. But the reality is that accepting these numbers is at a minimum like accepting claims from Saddam Hussein's official spokesman, "Baghdad Bob" -- or taking official press releases from Josef Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda as the unvarnished truth. I'm sure there are some civilian casualties. When even a Hamas-friendly news source like Al Jazeera presents information that calls into question the official numbers, it is the height of irresponsibility for the press to fail to inform the public of the source of their figures and their likely unreliability.
This summary, from the left-wing newspaper Haaretz, shows the problem quite clearly.
The document recognized Hamas’ position in the Gaza Strip, promised the organization billions in donation funds and demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas’ disposal. The document placed Israel and Hamas on the same level, as if the first is not a primary U.S. ally and as if the second isn't a terror group which overtook part of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup and fired thousands of rockets at Israel.
Now think about this for a minute -- Israel was expected to give up everything while Hamas was expected to give up nothing. Despite the fact that Hamas is the aggressor in this conflict and is currently getting its ass whipped by Israel, the ceasefire document read as if Israel was capitulating to a power that was overwhelming it on the battlefield. No wonder the Israeli cabinet rejected the plan unanimously.
I'm regularly assured by Democrats -- those who claim to be friends of Israel and those who are partisans of the Palestinians -- that Obama and Kerry are friends and allies to Israel. Dare I suggest that this proposal shows such an assessment to not be based in reality. At best, the policies of this administration must be viewed blithely unconcerned about Israel's national security -- and it would not be unfair to argue that those policies are functionally anti-Semitic by virtue of their support for the terrorist organizations (Hamas and Fatah) that control Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
Because the First Amendment doesn't apply to Clinton critics, apparently.
Soon there will be three anti-Clinton books on the market, which is apparently enough to have gotten under the skin of Team Hillary.
The First Family Detail by Ronald Kessler, set for release next month, will join Clinton, Inc. by the Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper and Blood Feud by Ed Klein on bookshelves. Yesterday we reported that Clinton, Inc. has shot up the charts and now both Halper and Klein’s books are outselling Hillary Clinton’s recent memoir Hard Choices.
“With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. “Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their beings that it is completely made up should not get down in the gutter with them.”
"Their behavior" which must not be allowed consists of writing and publishing books critical of the Clintons. Which explains why the response to the books has been to attack the authors personally rather than actually refute the claims found and documented in the books.
Because, you know, this guy is a danger to national security or something.
Maybe Radcliffe should have tried the southern U.S. border instead...Daniel Radcliffe may have led a charmed life until now - but it seems not even he can work his magic on U.S. customs officers.
The Harry Potter star was stopped by American border guards yesterday when he tried to cross into the country from Canada, because he had failed to properly upgrade his visa.
That's our homeland security for you - deny entrance to a multi-millionaire actor, but allow in millions of criminals who will leech off our system for decades to come. What the hell, it's only tax-payer money.
Since we have clearly secured our northern border, how about if the Dictator-in-Chief gives the order to secure the southern one -- you know, the one with the problem.
Then again, if he were inclined to do the right thing he would never have become a Democrat Senator.
Sen. John Walsh remained steadfast Thursday amid allegations he plagiarized a research project required for a master’s degree, winning fresh backing from fellow Democrats in Montana and the governor who appointed him to the Senate earlier this year.
The revelations that Walsh included both conclusions and verbatim passages from the writings of other scholars in his 2007 U.S. Army War College thesis, known as a strategy research project, “will not change Senator Walsh’s commitment,” his campaign said.
Asked if Walsh was considering abandoning his race for election to the Senate against Republican Rep. Steve Daines, campaign spokeswoman Lauren Passalacqua said: “Absolutely not.”
It is now clear that at least 3/4 of the strategic research project was plagiarized. Such a degree of borrowing of other's words and ideas is not an oversight or an error -- it is intellectual theft. Walsh's refusal to bow out shows just how unfit he is for any position of public trust.
The Mexican government on Tuesday expressed its “concern” over the decision by Texas authorities to send 1,000 National Guard troops to the border to help stem the massive arrival of undocumented child migrants from Central America.
“Attention to the immigration phenomenon must be paid from a long-term regional perspective and based on the principles of good neighborliness and shared responsibility,” the Foreign Relations Secretariat said in a statement.
“The strategy for responding in an effective and humane manner to this phenomenon includes the necessary shared responsibility among the countries of origin, transit and destination of migration flows,” the statement continued.
Good neighborliness and shared responsibility?
Does that mean printing maps for your citizens in order to make it easier for them to find their way across our nation's border instead of stopping them -- as has been Mexican policy for years?
Does that mean agreeing with neighboring countries to help their citizens cross your territory so they can illegally cross into the United States?
You must be kidding me when you talk about good neighborliness. And "shared responsibility" would involve your country doing its part to keep those illegal border crossings to a minimum.
As far as I'm concerned, the only responsibility the US as the "destination country" has regarding illegal aliens is rounding them up, shipping them back home, and ensuring a full accounting is kept so that the amount spent in doing so can be deducted from the foreign aid earmarked for the origin and transit countries -- not the increases in foreign aid that the presidents of Guatemala and El Salvador are demanding as a payoff to stop the flow of their citizens into our country,
In 2009, a deputy solicitor general arguing a case before the Supreme Court argued that the Federal Election Commission had the power to ban books if they were deemed electioneering (see pages 27-30). The following spring his boss, then Solicitor General Elena Kagan, tried to finesse the matter and failed -- leading to the decision in the Citizens United case which among other things made it clear that the federal government does not have the power to ban books due to the First Amendment.
The chairman of the Federal Election Commission today blasted Democratic colleagues opposed to his effort to protect conservative media after they imposed rules on the publisher of Rep. Paul Ryan's new book, opening the door to future book regulations -- or even a ban.
“By failing to affirm this publisher’s constitutional right, statutory right, to disseminate a political book free from FEC conditions and regulations, we have effectively asserted regulatory jurisdiction over a book publisher,” warned Chairman Lee E. Goodman, one of three Republicans on the six-person FEC.
“That failure reveals a festering legal uncertainty and chill for the free press rights of books and book publishers to publish and disseminate political books free from government regulation,” he added.
Seems to me that we once again have agents of a rogue administration seeking to limit the political speech of their opponents -- and in this case doing so in direct contradiction of the holding of the Supreme Court just four years ago. But then again, Obama and his cronies have never liked that ruling and the Dictator-in-Chief himself engaged in an unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court justices during his State of the Union address just days later. Here's hoping we'll see Paul Ryan take this matter to court and another SCOTUS smackdown of Barack Obama and his minions over the failure faithfully execute the laws and uphold the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Over at Hot Air, I came across this headline on a post.
Arizona inmate takes nearly two hours to die
by lethal injection in botched execution
May I point something out here? The guy is dead via lethal injection. By definition, the execution was a success.
And as far as the amount of time -- and even the possible suffering involved -- it seems appropriate given the nature of the crime for which has finally paid the appropriate penalty.
Joseph Wood, 55 at the time of his death, carried out the double murder in August 1989 when he shot his former partner Debbie Dietz and her father Gene at their family-run car body shop in Tuscon, Arizona.
Wood, who was said to have assaulted Debbie during their relationship, walked into Dietz and Sons Auto Paint and Body Shop and shot 55-year-old Gene in the chest.
Then, as a desperate Debbie tried to phone for help, Wood grabbed her round the neck.
The Arizona Daily Star reports that witnesses heard him tell his her "I told you I was going to do it. I love you. I have to kill you, b****" before also shooting the 29-year-old fatally in the chest.
When police arrived Wood turned his gun on officers, prompting them to open fire and shoot him nine times.
So sorry -- I just can't bring myself to give a damn that he may have experienced a bit of discomfort. He got 25 years longer than he deserved.
But if there is some opposition by drug companies to using their drugs in executions, there is an easy solution.
Or the injection of lead, 9mm at a time, to the base of the skull until breathing ceases.
By: Tammi Rossman-Benjamin
7 Groups Demand Cal State Governing Board Investigate
Los Angeles, CA, July 22, 2014 – Citing broad academic and community outrage, seven groups, today, urged the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees, the group with ultimate authority over educational and fiscal matters at SFSU and all CSU schools, to launch its own investigation into San Francisco State University (SFSU) Professor Rabab Abdulhadi’s recent use of $7,000 from SFSU to fly to Jordan, the West Bank and Israel to meet with known terrorists. AMCHA Initiative co-founder Tammi Rossman-Benjamin will deliver the letter and remarks at today’s bi-monthly Board of Trustees meeting.
“On June 24, President Wong defended Abdulhadi’s use of public funds for her personal advocacy mission as ‘research’ and stated that his investigation concluded it complied with ‘established rules without fault or violation’,” wrote AMCHA Initiative, Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel, Proclaiming Justice to the Nations, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs and Zionist Organization of America. “We are extremely troubled by President Wong’s statement, as are many others throughout the state and across the county.”
Hundreds of California taxpayers have written to State Controller John Chiang to express their outrage and call for an investigation into the misuse of state funds. The following are excerpts from some of the letters:
“Please help put a stop to this outrageous abuse of power and resources by any faculty member or administrator.”
“I am appalled to read about state funds supporting the travels of SFSU professors for a purely political agenda. You have a fiduciary responsibility to better oversee public funds.”
“I am opposed to any professors using California State funds to go on political tours. It is essential that politics and research be separated very carefully…”
“This must be audited and the money reimbursed to the state by Rabab Abhulhadi.”
“[T]here is no legitimate personal political advocacy that taxpayers should fund, particularly when it involves taxpayer funds used for non-educational purposes, e.g. spent primarily for political advocacy…”
“I am writing to you today to express my outrage over SFSU President Wong’s decision to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to meet with terrorists. As a California taxpayer and resident, I am calling on you to audit the university and put an end to President Wong’s funding of terrorist trips.”
“I am…disturbed that funds designated for educational and research purposes are going for avowedly political purposes that encourage violence and intimidation here on US campuses as well as foster acts of terror overseas.”
CA faculty are also outraged that Wong condoned the use of university funds for political advocacy. Yesterday, dozens of faculty from universities throughout California sent a letter to the State Controller indicating that they are appalled that Abdulhadi has been allowed to use state funds “to advance her own political agenda…to promote an academic boycott of Israel,” and they are “deeply disturbed that SFSU President Wong has condoned Prof. Abdulhadi’s use of state funds as legitimate research.” In addition, 12 faculty members from UC San Diego sent a letter to the CA State Controller stating: “President Wong’s justification of this abuse of California taxpayers’ money as legitimate “research” is outrageous and so broadens the term “research” as to make it meaningless.” Individual faculty also wrote to Chiang stating:
“At my own university [Yale University], if I were to do this I would have to repay the university, at a minimum. Disciplinary action might also be undertaken for such misuse of university funds.”
“As a professor, I always attended and reported to colleagues about any state and even self funded conference in which I participated. I cannot imagine my and my colleagues not keeping our fiscal and intellectual commitments to our employing university!”
SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi’s trip to the Middle East came under scrutiny when a California Public Records Act (PRA) Inquiry in May, requested by AMCHA Initiative, revealed Abdulhadi received more than $7,000 from SFSU to meet with the following members of known terrorist organizations:
Abdulhadi, in her own words, acknowledged her trip as purely political. At a SFSU public event, she called her trip a “political solidarity tour” whose primary purpose was to promote “resolute actions in support of the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.” Abdulhadi was the faculty advisor to the SFSU knife-wielding student investigated by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force and was caught on tape glorifying terrorism to students.
“We are turning to you, as members of the CSU Board of Trustees with ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the University, with a question that many concerned citizens in our state and across the country are asking: Is a self-described “political solidarity trip” to promote the academic boycott of Israel, which itself has been declared as contrary to the values of the university by Chancellor White and hundreds of other University leaders, consistent with the educational mission of the California State University and a legitimate use of taxpayer funds?,” wrote the groups.
“Across California, professors are trying to game the system and politicize the campus,” stated Rossman-Benjamin. “As California faculty, we are extremely concerned. Please put a stop, once and for all, to this egregious abuse of power and resources and uphold our scholarly values.”
A copy of the full letter can be seen here.
AMCHA Initiative is a non-profit organization dedicated to investigating, documenting, educating about, and combating anti-Semitism at institutions of higher education in America. AMCHA Initiative’s efforts are bolstered by a network of more than 5,000 members and supporters of the Jewish community — including university alumni, parents and grandparents, rabbis, religious school principals and synagogue members — who have joined together to speak in one voice to ensure the safety and well-being of Jewish students on college and university campuses across the country.
At least as a starting point for negotiation.
Well, that sounds reasonable -- as long as we start with THESE pre-1967 Borders.
Or at a minimum, there is always this possibility.
You know, if we really want to talk about "ancestral homelands", "right of return" and such things, it seems to me that we ought to consider the historical extent of Israel as a starting point -- and perhaps look at the possibility of telling the descendants of the bands of conquering Mohammedans with tenure in the region only since the seventh century that they need to make room for the area's rightful owners.
After all, look what plagiarism did for Joe Biden.
A new report by the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin finds that Senator John Walsh (D., Mont.) apparently plagiarized large parts of his thesis in 2007 while obtaining his master’s degree from the United States Army War College.
Walsh, who was 46 at the time, failed to cite and used the exact language from various sources, including documents from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, among others. The Times reports that parts of Walsh’s thesis were taken “word-for-word” without citations or footnotes; the article estimates about one-third of the thesis fails to cite sources, while another third provides footnotes, but uses the “authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks.”
Now here's the question -- will the appointed senator and Democrat nominee for the seat this fall stay in the race? Will he resign his Senate seat in disgrace? Or as a Democrat, will doing the honorable thing not be required or expected of him?
Mind you, John Kerry is a joke of a human being and is only slightly more competent to be Secretary of State than Obama is to be President -- but was this really necessary?
Reuters reports that Kerry and his aides were checked with a metal detector. Security personnel reportedly raised a handheld metal-detector wand to Kerry’s suit jacket before waving him through.
Kerry’s aides were also subjected to the handheld wand and were told to walk through a metal detector.
The man is an American cabinet official on a diplomatic mission from the US government. Do the Egyptians really believe he is going to assassinate their president? But then again, maybe the use of the metal detector on Kerry and his entourage is a subtle reminder of how the standing of the United States has fallen under Barack Obama, and how our government is no longer trusted by those who lead friendly nations.
Based upon the suggestions from a number of Republican activists and my own further reflections on the proposal I set fort a month ago, I have made some changes here. The major one is the creation of the section entitled "Reaffirmation of the Principle of Federalism", which combines the previous two sections entitled "Reaffirmation of States' Rights" and "Texas State Sovereignty" due to each dealing with issues of state powers and federal limits under the Tenth Amendment. It also removes the term "States' Rights", which for better or for worse has historical connotations not intended by the plank where it was used.In light of the Hobby Lobby decision and Democrat efforts to undercut statutory protections of religious liberty, I added language supporting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There are also a few stylistic changes as well.
We, the Republican Party of Texas, affirm our belief in nature's God and declare our support for government based upon a moral and spiritual foundation. We affirm freedom for every individual as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution. We believe that citizens' needs are best met through free enterprise, private initiative, and volunteerism. We support the “Rule of Law” and believe in upholding the law of the land.
THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
We believe government exists by the consent of the governed and that it must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens. The function of government is not to grant rights, but to protect the unalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
REAFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM
The 13 original Sovereign States in Constitutional Convention created the Constitution of the United States of America and subsequently ratified that document creating a Federal Government and granting to that Government limited and enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines Federal powers as those enumerated in the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the States and to the People. We oppose congressional, judicial, and executive abrogation of the principle that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. We oppose unreasonable and intrusive federal mandates.
We recognize the rights of the individual to own property. We resist any effort by government to take private property without an overwhelming need for public use. We strongly oppose civil forfeiture of private property absent the conviction of its owners for a crime involving its acquisition or use.
ETHICS AND STANDARDS
We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We will work to expose and stop corruption. We reject the buying and selling of endorsements in all elections.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
We support a military force of sufficient strength and readiness to deter any threat to our national sovereignty or to the safety and freedom of our citizens. We support the Constitutional mandate to protect and secure our national borders. We oppose placement of United States troops under any foreign command, including the United Nations. We support lawful efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect citizens in their homes and in their communities. We urge reform of the legal system to accomplish a swift and balanced administration of justice, including consideration of rights of the victim. We support capital punishment when appropriate.
We support the individual constitutionally protected natural right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes. We encourage personal responsibility for the care and use of these firearms. We support the Castle Doctrine and the right of individuals to stand their ground when confronted with criminal violence, and reject the notion that law-abiding citizens have a duty to retreat rather than defend themselves from criminals.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
We claim freedom of religion for every citizen and expect the protection of government in securing to us this unalienable right. We affirm the right to religious expression, including prayer, in both private and public. We support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
We recognize the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society. We affirm that parents have the fundamental right and primary responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children and to provide nurturing care, discipline and training in moral values.
RIGHT TO LIFE
We believe all human life is sacred regardless of age or infirmity, and therefore we oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the public funding of any of these abhorrent practices. We reject government efforts to force employers to pay for these practices directly or indirectly under the guise of "health care benefits".
We believe that the primary responsibility for meeting basic human needs rests with the individual, the family, and the voluntary charitable organizations. We recognize, however, that there are special social needs that must be addressed through state human service programs. We support requiring welfare recipients to work towards self-sufficiency. We reject the notion that the federal government may mandate the purchase of any insurance product or penalize the failure to do so, as well as federal regulation of insurance products offered for sale.
We recognize the contributions made to our quality of life through ethnic diversity. We reject efforts to sanitize history because it offends some based upon race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
We believe that no individual is entitled to rights that exceed or supersede the natural rights of others guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Texas. There shall be no discrimination by government in favor of or against any individual due to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
We believe that all children should have access to quality education. Parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children, and we support their right to choose public, private, or home education. We support incentives to promote competitive excellence. We encourage cooperative initiatives to help all Texans become literate in English. We support the distribution of educational funds in a manner that they follow the student to any school, whether public private, or home school. We reject federal imposition of educational standards and the tying of federal education funding to adopting federally mandated standards. We reject zero tolerance policies that mindlessly impose punishments that lack a rational relationship to the supposed offense.
We accept the necessity for limited taxation in order for government to perform and administer those services that meet essential public needs. However, we recognize that the power to tax is also the power to control, and believe that the best way to control government is to strictly control the amount of taxes imposed on the people. We encourage further simplification of tax systems, the elimination of the estate tax, and broad-based rate reduction where possible. We reject the imposition of a state income tax and support a meaningful cap on increasing property taxes so that homeowners need not fear being taxed out of their homes.
We recognize that government regulation can be a major impediment to productivity and to competition. We must rely more on market forces and less on government. Regulatory power now exercised by the federal government must be eliminated or returned to state and local governments to the degree that it is practical to do so.
We believe that a strong, diversified economy based on a positive work ethic, a well-trained and well-educated work force, a business-friendly environment, and safe work place will help Texas compete in a world market place. We believe that developing our human resources is essential to the future of Texas. We support the Texas Right to Work Law.
We appreciate the quality of our environment. Our air, water, and land are at the heart of our existence and must be protected through balanced management. We support reasonable laws and volunteer efforts to improve air and water quality. We continue to seek responsible solutions to controversies surrounding uses of our wilderness. We seek to preserve the environment while serving the best interests of our Texas citizens. We oppose as unconstitutional the declaration by any President without approval from Congress of any large tract of land as a national monument. We call on the State of Texas to use the resources at its disposal to challenge any such declaration in the courts of the United States.
The jury is a fundamental institution of liberty, because it is the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. The jury has the right and the authority to acquit if jurors feel justice will be served.
America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants, and the Republican Party honors them. We believe that control of our borders is critical to both national security and national sovereignty.
We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty for illegal immigrants. We oppose granting government benefits to those illegally present in the US. We believe that current laws against employing illegal immigrants should be vigorously enforced, particularly to stem the now too common crime of identity theft in obtaining employment. We support the imposition of civil and criminal penalties for employers that knowingly employ illegal aliens. We support the mandatory use of E-Verify so that employers can determine whether job applicants are legally entitled to employment in the United States.
The Republican Party is a party by the people and for the people. We appreciate the productivity of our citizens, affirm the infinite worth of all individuals, and seek the best possible quality of life for all. We invite all citizens to join us in working together for a better Texas.
CROSSPOSTED AT Texas GOP Platform Reform Project.
Next time you hear someone say that Islam is a tolerant religion or that it does not allow for coercion in religious matters, point this one out to them.
Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Saad Sirop of Baghdad has confirmed a troubling report from Mosul that the Islamic State is now presenting Christians in that city with a final ultimatum of conversion, subservience or death.
According to sources known to Aleteia, but kept anonymous due to security concerns, a number of mosques in the city of Mosul, and through loudspeakers, called on Christians Friday to leave the city. They said they were doing so because bishops had refused to attend a meeting this week with members of the Islamic State in which the new rulers would dictate terms to the Christians: pay a special tax or convert to Islam.
Christians have until tomorrow to leave, or face execution.
That is the way it goes in Muslim countries -- Christians can submit, convert, or die. And sometimes they are left only the latter two options.
So, Dan, what is your solution to this alleged problem?
Statement from Dan Patrick on the use of Common Core in AP US HistoryHOUSTON – Today, Dan Patrick, Texas State Senator and Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor, issued the following statement on the use of Common Core in AP US History in Texas.
“Common Core is a threat to our state's high-quality education standards. As State Senator, I carried H.B. 462, which was signed into law in June 2013, to keep Common Core out of Texas. I also asked Attorney General Greg Abbott to issue an opinion against the use of Common Core in Texas. In this opinion he agreed that the intent of H.B. 462 was to prohibit the outright adoption of the national Common Core standards.”
“Today, I applaud SBOE Member Ken Mercer and his efforts to fight Common Core. Ken is leading the charge to prevent Common Core from being brought back into Texas classrooms via a backdoor through the Common Core aligned AP US History exam. As Lt. Governor, I will fight to ensure that Texas continues to educate students with our own high-quality standards, rather than national mandates pushed by special interests.”
Interestingly enough, Dan Patrick does not offer an explanation of what is wrong with the AP exam beyond vague invocations of "Common Core". For that matter, Dan doesn't offer any explanation of what he thinks are wrong with the Common Core standards for US History. Nor does he offer a solution for the alleged problem. Is it his intent to make the teaching of AP US History -- or administering the exam -- illegal in the state of Texas because it is "contaminated" with Common Core?
By the way -- I've taken a quick look at what appear to be the Grade 11 & 12 Common Core standards for Social Studies. Their requirements are similar to the requirements of US History TEKS 29, 30, 31, and 32 in terms of the skills required. So I'm curious -- what is the real objection here? Does Dan Patrick really expect the College Board to use the standards adopted by the state of Texas -- as opposed to the standards in effect in over 40 other states -- to write its standards and examination?
Here's the reality -- the College Board is not going to roll over and submit to the demands of one state -- or even ten -- when their standard are different from what the rest of the country uses. And unless Dan Patrick and the anti-Common Core crowd want to deny Texas students the ability to get college credit for their high school coursework, they are going to have to accept that the exams will be use Common Core standards as a part of their template.
I would have ignored the following email, but for the fact it came in the form of an email blast from the allegedly defunct Denise Pratt campaign.
SCANDAL: Republicans throw local conservative judge under the bus
"Deals" struck behind closed doors - attorneys plot to profit from child abuse cases
The Republican primary season in Harris County is one of the most contentious and vicious in recent memory. It is made all the more sanguine by the fact that Republicans joined forces with Democrats in several key family court races to depose sitting pro-family judges or put transparent Obama supporters (one-time R’s) on the bench.
Such moves are not simply the result of ignorance, as evidenced by the case of Denise Pratt. Republicans from start to finish were virtually complicit with Pratt’s attackers. [Silence is not the absence of wrongdoing but rather, passive wrongdoing.]
Pratt, like many Republicans, was the victim of a leftist tirade. The Houston Chronicle, and its neophyte reporter Kiah Collier, succeeded in filling the blogosphere with patent falsehoods about the embattled judge. The reality? Pratt allowed plaintiffs to speak directly to her, minimizing the role of attorneys and impacting the pocketbook of a few left-leaning attorneys with an ego to protect. Moreover, many of these attorneys profited from a system that perpetuates abuse and is biased against the traditional family unit.
The attorney leading the charge against Denise Pratt is a man named Greg Enos, who went so far as to tap her phones and monitor her private, privileged communications while she sat as judge. Harris County is starting to look more like an episode of Dukes of Hazzard with men like Enos running around loose. Enos would likely be content if Boss Hog were sitting in Pratt's place. Instead, Obama supporter and pro-abortion attorney Alicia Franklin will.
No self-righteous “crusade” legitimizes the violation of a judge’s private communications.
Collier (Chronicle reporter) consistently references "many attorneys" as her source for most of the alleged "facts" she prints in her ongoing witch-hunt against Pratt, even though Pratt has more than once thoroughly and publicly addressed the allegations - and has been 'no-billed' by her fellow citizens.
Further, Collier produces an Excel sheet as her primary evidence for the alleged dismissals, even though she fails to include that a majority of all cases thrown out were thrown out because they had not been re-filed, or were possessed of other clerical issues that did not permit a hearing. When an attorney fails to request reinstatement of a case, it dies – simple, the end. Why are the left-leaning attorneys who have made it their mission to sink Pratt, not aware of this? Or could it be, that the implied allegation of incompetence or foul play is merely a red herring, a means to an end? Where liberals are concerned, stranger things have happened. And where liberal attorneys are concerned, red herrings and straw man witch-hunts are a virtual certainty. Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earl, anyone?
Dismissals of the kind attacked by Collier in her role as Enos-lackey were lawful and a normal clerical practice of courts with large caseloads and backlogs of cases that are inactive and not in compliance with the rules of the courts. Making dismissals is part of any judge's JOB, and turning dismissals into a scandal would be akin to gasping in shock that a preacher preaches or that a lawmaker makes laws.
Reducing a common part of a judge's duties to the absurd is beneath even the Chronicle, a publication that always seems to endorse the most liberal Republicans for offices.
So, a few attorneys do not like Denise Pratt or her decisions - what manager in an organization is loved or adored by all its employees? If businesses were run this way, businesses would fail.
A judge should be less concerned about popularity with attorneys and more concerned about the law they are charged with protecting.
With only 32 family law attorneys (Democrats or primary opponents make up the entire list) out of over 500 family law attorneys in Harris County opposing Judge Pratt, the odds are that Pratt was doing something worth doing.
CONSIDER THE SOURCE. LET'S STOP ALLOWING THE LIBERAL LEFT TO DICTATE THE PARAMETERS OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.
Denise Pratt for Judge · PO Box 8012 · Baytown, TX 77522 · USA
We are left with only two conclusions here. The first is that the Pratt campaign's MailChimp account was hacked and some unauthorized individual sent out this anonymous rant. The second is that disgraced former judge Denise Pratt and her campaign organization sent out this email -- and that they are making accusations of criminal activity against those who brought her down. Given that the Pratt campaign has not come out and said they were hacked, I have to conclude (once again) that Pratt and her die-hard supporters are engaged in a bizarre campaign of libel.
I don't use the word libel lightly. After all, this email states that Enos and company tapped government phone lines. I'm hoping Enos files suit against Pratt and her campaign over this accusation, and forces her to put up or shut up.
And that when all is said and done, Denise Pratt crawls into a hole somewhere and disappears from all public notice.
UPDATE -- JULY 24, 2014: A comment below by someone calling himself "Truther1" accused me about lying by connecting this email to Denise Pratt. However, here is a screen cap of the portion of the email showing it as coming from the Pratt campaign -- To view the image click here. So no, I'm not lying and no I'm not trying to politicize the family courts here in Harris County. Indeed, Denise Pratt is a product of just such politicization of the Family Courts by the pay-to-play slatemakers.