Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-17-2016, 04:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Trump Administration and Israel

Introducing Mike Pence: Israel’s Best Friend
Mike Pence has an impeccable record of ardent support for the Jewish state.
By Jerrold L. Sobel

This may come as a shock to some people but politicians often say things just to get elected and forget what was said once they do. This past week, riding in on what portends to be the greatest pro-Israel administration since the inception of the Jewish state, president-elect Donald Trump and his vice president Mike Pence will assume the reins of power on January 20, 2017.

In choosing Pence as his running mate this past July, Trump wasn’t looking for a carbon copy of himself but a calm, establishment conservative well versed in the ways of Washington and a voice of reason to offset his own brashness. His faith in these qualities was exhibited this past Friday when he chose the vice president-elect to head their transition team, abruptly replacing New Jersey governor Chris Christie ( Joining him in this luminous position is a team of unprecedented pro-Israel/Jewish advocates which, for starters, include:
  • Jason D. Greenblatt -- Trump chief lawyer, close friend and orthodox Jew.
  • Rudy Giuliani -- Long time influential friend of Israel, welcomed guest in Jerusalem’s corridors of power.
  • David Friedman -- Speculated as possible ambassador to Israel ( under the new administration, Friedman has an impeccable pro-Israel stance
  • Steven Mnuchin -- Served as Trump’s campaign finance chairman and mentioned as possible Secretary of the Treasury. His father, Robert is a renowned Jewish philanthropist.
  • Jared Kushner -- Orthodox Jewish son-in-law of the president-elect and close confidant has been described as “de facto campaign manager (,” and was reportedly highly influential in the billionaire’s selection of Mike Pence as running mate.
  • Richard Grenell -- On a short List of candidates for UN ambassador. Arthur Schwartz, a strategist for pro-Israel groups stated: “Ric Grenell has proven to be stridently pro-Israel.”

However, none of these refreshingly pro-Israel supporters have an actual congressional voting record, as does Mike Pence. Long before dreaming of one day serving as our 48th vice-president, Pence has had an impeccable record of ardent support for the Jewish state.

As far back the 104th Congress (2003-2004) he sponsored House Bill, H.Con.Res371 ( The bill supports the construction by Israel of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks, and condemns the decision by the United Nations General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice render an opinion on the legality of the security fence.

The United Nations General Assembly ruled: ‘‘The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around east Jerusalem and its associated regime, is contrary to international law.’’ The carnage inflicted upon Jewish civilians by Palestinian terrorists with unfettered access to Israel meant nothing to the UN.

In support of his bill, Pence spoke before the House and 164 bipartisan but mainly Republican supporters on July 9, 2004. and stated in part:

“With this extraordinarily biased decision (, the International Court of Justice has become an international disgrace. This outrageous ruling confirms what many of us have feared, that opponents of Israel have overtaken the judicial process at the U.N.’s highest judicial court and have begun to use it for political aims on the world stage.”

During the 111th Congress (2009-2011), he was amongst 33 cosponsors of H.Res 1734 ( Reaffirming Congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state; a decision not loved by all. The Arab American Institute ( had compiled a scorecard to catalogue the voting record of the 112th Congress (January 3, 2011-January 3, 2013) on issues of importance to the Arab American community. Pence was roundly disparaged for the following:
  • Supporting the Jerusalem Embassy Act.
  • Withholding US contributions until the UN retracts accusations of Israeli war crimes.
  • Opposing any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
  • prohibiting any US government document from referring to “Palestine.”
  • Defunding the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

If they didn’t love him on those issues it’s doubtful they did after he signed the Hoyer-Cantor Letter ( to then Secretary Clinton in 2010. It was written to counter an Obama onslaught against Israel for what then was another failed peace initiative. It read in part:

"We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts. But our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.”

This past October Pence stressed both his and the president-elect’s support for the Jewish State by echoing Trump’s vow to: "make America and Israel safe again" and said his administration would "stand side-by-side with the Jewish people.” Speaking of side by side, in a video prepared for the Israeli public, Pence had this to say:

"Israel is not just our strongest ally in the region. As I've said for so many years, Israel is our most cherished ally in the world.” He went on: "Donald Trump and I stand with Israel ( because Israel's fight is our fight. Israel's cause is our cause. And Israel's fate is our fate.” (see this short 3-minute video -see video #1 at bottom of this post).

Well respected on both sides of the aisle throughout his tenure in the House of Representatives from 2001-13, he was a ranking member of the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he advocated for robust military aid for Israel. (

In 2012, Pence left the House of Representatives to serve as governor of Indiana, but never wavered in his steady support of Israel. He visited the Jewish state in late 2014 and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During the trip David Brog, a member of the board of directors at Christians United for Israel, praised the Indiana governor as one of the Jewish state’s "most steadfast supporters." (

For proponents of Israel and Jewish concerns eight years of political winter has finally ended. The Trump administration is replete with many friends of Israel, but none greater than Mike Pence.

Video #1

Last edited by Paparock; 11-17-2016 at 07:18 PM..
Old 11-17-2016, 08:03 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Designated Terrorist Group CAIR freaking out

Designated Terrorist Group CAIR freaking out over reports that the Trump Transition Team has brought Islam-expert Frank Gaffney aboard as a national security adviser

The terrorism-tied Muslim Brotherhood’s leading North American front group, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), is ‘advising’ President-elect Donald Trump to cut ties with Frank Gaffney as a national security adviser whom CAIR has described as an “anti-Islam conspiracy theorist.”

Let us hope that Frank Gaffney is appointed because then perhaps some of the Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the U.S. Government can be reversed! Gaffney (founder of the Center for Security Policy) is far more than a theorist but is in fact one of the leading experts in the field of Radical Islam. I am posting his ten part course on the Muslim Brotherhood at the bottom of this post which is most enlightening! Paparock

More information on the Muslim Brotherhood in America can be found here>

Muslim group to Trump: Drop 'anti-Islam conspiracy theorist' as adviser

America’s largest Muslim advocacy organization urged President-elect Donald Trump to cut ties with a national security adviser the group described as an "anti-Islam conspiracy theorist."

“Discredited conspiracy theorists like Frank Gaffney should not come within 100 miles of any administration that seeks to maintain credibility on the world stage or uphold longstanding American values of religious diversity and inclusion,” Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a statement Wednesday.

“With these kinds of associations, President-elect Trump is dividing America at a time when we are most in need of unity.”

Reports emerged Tuesday ( that Trump’s transition team has added Gaffney as a national security adviser.

Gaffney, who served in the Pentagon under former President Ronald Reagan, is now a radio host and founder of the Center for Security Policy.

Reports added that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and former Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) also joined Trump’s transition team alongside Gaffney. The trio was brought on after former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and lobbyist Michael Freedman were fired earlier this week.

Gaffney reportedly backed the theory that President Obama is Muslim and born outside the U.S. The former Reagan administration official has also insisted the government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, describes Gaffney as “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.”

Gaffney told Breitbart News Daily the day after Trump’s White House win the billionaire should focus on curbing Muslim Brotherhood influence on the U.S. when he takes office, saying an early goal should be "stopping, designating, rolling up the Muslim Brotherhood in America as the terrorist organization it is."

“It’s going to be vital to everything else he’s trying to do. We’ve got to stop taking counsel from them, direction from them, and allowing them to operate in our midst subversively, and that’s what’s been going on for some 50 years now," he said.

Gaffney also served as a national security adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) before he exited the GOP presidential primary race.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-17-2016 at 08:26 PM..
Old 11-18-2016, 02:42 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default Donald Trump offers Jeff Sessions attorney general post

Donald Trump Offers Jeff Sessions Attorney General Post

President-elect Trump has offered Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions the post of attorney general, sources directly involved in the selection process tell CBS News.

The choice of Sessions to be the nation’s top prosecutor is sure to be controversial.

Trump transition to the White House - live blog

Sessions has been one of Mr. Trump’s closest and most consistent allies.

But when Sessions faced Senate confirmation for a job 30 years ago, it didn’t go well.

Nominated for a federal judgeship in 1986, Sessions, R-Ala., was dogged by racist comments he was accused of making while serving as U.S. attorney in Alabama. He was said to have called a black assistant U.S. attorney “boy” and the NAACP “un-American” and “communist-inspired.”

Sessions was the first senator to back Mr. Trump during the campaign and is an architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration, counterterrorism and trade policies.

His name has been floated for attorney general and secretary of defense. The Trump transition team released a statement Thursday saying the president-elect is “unbelievably impressed” with Sessions, citing his work as a U.S. attorney and state attorney general in Alabama.

But confirmation for the four-term lawmaker, even in a Republican-controlled chamber, is not guaranteed.

Sessions had been confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate in 1981 to be the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

In 1986, however, his racially-charged comments and record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney, which Sessions denied and defended, prevented his nomination as judge from going forward, even in a GOP-majority Senate. Sessions later withdrew from consideration, though he went on to become state attorney general and won election to the U.S. Senate in 1996.

“Mr. Sessions is a throwback to a shameful era, which I know both black and white Americans thought was in our past,” the late Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Edward Kennedy, said during the 1986 confirmation hearing. “It is inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let alone a U.S. federal judge.”

During the hearing, a former assistant U.S. attorney, Thomas Figures, who is black, said Sessions referred to him as “boy,” and told him to be careful what he said to “white folks.” Sessions said he never called Figures “boy,” but Kennedy produced a letter from an organization of black lawyers that said Figures made the allegation about Sessions to the organization’s investigators at least twice.

Sessions told the committee that he told Figures to be careful what he said to “folks.”

“I believe that the statements and actions of Mr. Sessions regarding race, and regarding civil rights, impact tremendously on whether he is decent,” Figures told the committee. Figures died in 2015.

Sessions was also criticized for joking in the presence of an attorney with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division that the Ku Klux Klan was “OK” until he learned they smoked marijuana. During his confirmation hearing, he said his comment about the Klan “was a silly comment, I guess you might say, that I made.”

Sessions told the committee he made the joke while his office was investigating the 1981 murder of Michael Donald, a black man who was kidnapped, beaten and killed by two Klansmen who slit his throat and then hanged his body in a tree in Mobile, Alabama. The two men were later arrested and convicted.

Sessions said he never meant the joke to suggest he supported the Klan. He said the joke was intended to convey that he thought it was “bizarre” that Klansmen had smoked marijuana after one of their meetings.

“All of us understood that the Klan is a force for hatred and bigotry and it just could not have meant anything else than that under those circumstances,” Sessions said, noting that he had been involved in the decision to try one of the killers in state court so he could face the death penalty.

Sessions’ spokesman said the senator was unavailable to be interviewed for this story.

Barry Kowalski, a former Justice Department attorney who was in Mobile, working with Sessions on the Donald case, said he was there for the so-called joke about the Klan, and he did not interpret it as a racist comment. He said it was a joke. “That was totally hospital room humor,” Kowalski told the AP Thursday.

“I can only speak from what I saw,” Kowalski said. “He couldn’t have been more supportive of making sure we got convicted the murderers of the last black man who was lynched by the Klan.”

Gerry Hebert, another former Justice Department attorney who had worked with Sessions in the early 1980s, told the Judiciary committee about racist comments Sessions made regarding the NAACP being un-American and said Sessions agreed with another person’s comment that a prominent white civil rights lawyer was a disgrace to his race for trying voting rights cases.

“I filed all these things away thinking, ‘God, what a racist this guy is,’” Hebert told The Associated Press.

During Sessions’ confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Joe Biden asked Hebert if he would be comfortable trying a voting rights case before Sessions as a judge or whether he would ask that Sessions be recused because of racist comments he had made. “I would certainly raise the issue, absolutely,” Hebert responded.

Most of the senators who voted against Sessions in 1986 are no longer alive or in office. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy is the only one who voted against him still in the Senate.

Today, Sessions would face confirmation as a member of the chamber. Senators often are deferential to current and former members who are nominated for Cabinet posts. The last time the Senate rejected one of its own was in 1989 when then-Sen. John G. Tower, a Texas Republican, could not get confirmed as President George H. W. Bush’s defense secretary amid reports of heavy drinking and womanizing.

If Sessions is nominated for a position in the Trump Cabinet, his confirmation hearing could occur as early as January. The Republicans will have only a 52-48 advantage, assuming Republicans win an upcoming Senate election. That means Sessions couldn’t afford to lose any votes from members of his own party. If there are Republicans upset by his comments - not just years ago about race but also what he has said in recent years about immigration - his confirmation could be a challenge.

Sessions is an immigration hard-liner, not in step with mainstream Republicans. In the past year, he has supported mass deportations for immigrants in the country illegally, suggested that the administration quickly deport unaccompanied children and families who have been caught crossing the border illegally, linked terror attacks against the U.S. to Muslim immigrant families and complained that the Obama administration has increased the number of green cards issued to immigrants from “Muslim-majority countries.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said he would support a Sessions nomination.

“I’d vote for him. I like Jeff. He was the early, only supporter for Donald Trump in the Senate,” Graham said. “And I believe Jeff Sessions has earned the right to serve President Trump in the highest levels, and I think he’s a good, competent, capable man.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would also support Sessions, spokesman Conn Carroll said. “Sen. Lee has worked closely with Sessions in the Senate and has the utmost respect for his abilities,” Carroll said.

Sessions was asked by reporters at Trump Tower Thursday whether he thought he would be confirmed by the Senate.

“People have to make that decision. The actual senators will cast those votes on any confirmation,” Sessions said.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2016, 03:13 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Donald Trump's Choice for National Security Adviser Has One Priority: Combatting 'Rad

Donald Trump's Choice for National Security Adviser Has One Priority:
Combatting 'Radical Islamic Terorrism'
Michael Flynn is also known for his long military career and his unceremonious exit from the Defense Intelligence Agency.
BY Mike Segar/ Reuters

Michael Flynn, the retired Army lieutenant general and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) whom Donald Trump has reportedly picked to be his national security adviser, is known for his long and distinguished military career, his unceremonious exit from the DIA, and for his controversial views on Islam, torture, and Russia.

Flynn, a registered Democrat, was an early and ardent supporter of Trump’s improbable presidential run, giving the Republican presidential hopeful a much-needed endorsement from the national-security establishment. He led crowds at Trump’s rallies to chant “Lock her up” about Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic opponent. “Donald Trump is about the future of this country and making sure that we take a direction … that puts us back on a track that we can continue to be the global leader around the world,” he told Fox Business Network in July.

But his tenure at the DIA, as well as his remarks about Islam and torture, made Flynn a divisive figure. He might have had trouble winning Senate confirmation had Trump nominated him for a Cabinet position that requires one; the position of national security adviser does not. Flynn said he believes the Obama administration’s failure to describe the conflict with groups like ISIS as “radical Islamic terrorism” aims to “dumb us down”; said on Twitter that “we are facing violent, but very serious and cunning radical Islamists”; and, also on Twitter, called the fear of Muslims “rational.” Additionally, he once retweeted an anti-Semitic message that read “Cnn implicated. 'The USSR is to blame!' ... Not anymore, Jews. Not anymore.” He apologized and later deleted the message. Flynn has also declined to back away from Trump’s support of the waterboarding of terrorism suspects, telling Al Jazeera that he is a “believer in leaving as many options on the table right up until the last possible minute.”

Before these controversies, however, Flynn was the consummate military man. He distinguished himself during the war in Afghanistan where he was General Stanley McChrystal’s intelligence chief. In the early phases of the war on terrorism, Flynn, as director of intelligence for Joint Task Force 180, was in charge of intelligence-gathering and collection for most of the forces leading the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. As Marc Ambinder noted in The Atlantic in May 2011, McChrystal and Flynn “introduced hardened commandos to basic criminal forensic techniques and then used highly advanced and still-classified technology to transform bits of information into actionable intelligence. … Such analysis helped the CIA to establish, with a high degree of probability, that Osama bin Laden and his family were hiding” in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. It’s in that position Flynn also angered the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment, writing a report in which he called many intelligence analysts “ignorant,” “incurious,” and “disengaged”—assessments he stood by even when he was criticized for them.

President Obama named him head of the DIA in 2012, but he was forced out two years later, effectively over his management style. He viewed his firing as unfair and as payback for unpleasant truths he spoke about Islamist terrorism in general and the threats posed by ISIS in particular. While at the DIA, Flynn advocated an immediate overhaul of the agency—an initiative that received pushback from the intelligence community. Reuters spoke to unnamed critics of Flynn who expressed concerns “about a management style that alienated some of his subordinates at DIA.” Still, his supporters say his experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as his candor, make him the right man for the position of national security adviser to Trump.

“I am, like, Mr. Change,” Flynn said in November 2010. “People that work for me know that we’re going to be innovative and, to a degree, we’re going to be uncomfortable in terms of how far we’re going to go to innovate. Because in war, if you stick with the norm, you’re going to lose.”

Flynn’s controversial views notwithstanding, he has said he is in favor of strengthening some old alliances—as well as building some new ones. He favors a hard line toward Iran, with which the U.S. and others Western nations recently signed an agreement that would freeze the Islamic republic’s nuclear program for 15 years; he supports closer ties with Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Egyptian president who took power after a military-backed coup toppled an Islamist-led, democratically elected government; and he backs closer ties with Israel. Additionally, in a recent op-ed in The Hill, Flynn argued the U.S. should extradite Fethullah Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based Turkish cleric who that country’s government views as a terrorist leader. Flynn did not disclose at the time that he was a paid lobbyist for the Turkish government.

Flynn also favors close relations with Russia, and prompted criticism when he showed up during the election campaign on RT, the Russian state-funded broadcaster that often serves as a propaganda arm for the Russian government. In one such appearance, he was seated near Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. Flynn has defended his appearances on RT, comparing them to CNN or MSNBC in the U.S. Both Flynn and Trump have said the U.S. needs to work more closely with Russia to combat what they see as the biggest national-security threat the U.S. faces: Islamist terrorism.

Trump “looks at people and leaders of countries and says: ‘Can I work with this guy? Do we have a common threat that we can focus on?’” Flynn told The New York Times in an interview before the elections. “He knows that when it comes to Russia or any other country, the common enemy that we all have is radical Islam.”

Flynn is likely to take on his new position with the same energy and conviction with which he carried out his previous jobs. He suggested as much in remarks last weekend after Trump’s victory. “We just went through a revolution,” he said. “This is probably the biggest election in our nation's history, since bringing on George Washington when he decided not to be a king. That’s how important this is.”

Last edited by Paparock; 11-18-2016 at 03:15 PM..
Old 11-18-2016, 04:56 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Bannon Critics Okay with Sharpton, Ellison

Bannon Critics Okay with Sharpton, Ellison
Those who have problems with Bannon advising Trump had no problem with race-baiter Al Sharpton serving as adviser to President Obama on race relations.
By Daniel John Sobieski

The mainstream media, having failed to derail or even anticipate Donald Trump’s victory, have now seized on discrediting one of the architects of his victory, calling Navy veteran, entrepreneur, and Breitbart publisher Steve Bannon a “white nationalist”. They cite as evidence some Breitbart headlines designed to provoke and attract readers as being beyond the pale. Compared to what? The New York Times, perhaps?

Publishers don’t necessarily control every jot and tittle of content in their publications, but if one concedes the point of Bannon’s critics, those who have problems with Bannon advising Trump had no problem with race-baiter Al Sharpton serving as adviser to President Obama on, of all things, race relations: As Politico magazine reported (

A few days after 18-year-old Mike Brown was gunned down in Ferguson, Missouri, White House officials enlisted an unusual source for on-the-ground intelligence amid the chaos and tear gas: the Rev. Al Sharpton, a fiery activist who became a household name by provoking rather than pacifying….

In Ferguson, Sharpton established himself as a de facto contact and conduit for a jittery White House seeking to negotiate a middle ground between meddling and disengagement. “There’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down,” a White House official familiar with their dealings told me. “He gets it, and he’s got credibility in the community that nobody else has got. There’s really no one else out there who does what he does.”

Let us be grateful for that. If one wanted to send a sane message about justice and peace, Al Sharpton is arguably the worst person to call. He is an instigator, not a peacemaker, someone who rose out of obscurity by propagating the false Tawana Brawley rape case in which New York city cops were accused of raping a black teenager. As Investor’s Business Daily noted, Tawana Brawley paid ( for her part in that big lie. Al Sharpton never has.

Sharpton embraced the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra meant to indict racist cops and police departments after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri after he committed a strongarm robbery on his way to assaulting Officer Darren Wilson. Blessed are the peacemakers, but Al Sharpton is not one of them.

The Sharptons of the world don’t want to solve the real problems of the black community, preferring to exploit back unrest with clueless race-baiting such as when Sharpton and his National Action Network organized the “Justice for All (” March in Washington, D.C. last December:

“You thought you’d sweep it under the rug. You thought there’d be no limelight,” he said. “We are going to keep the light on Michael Brown, on Eric Garner, on Tamir Rice, on all of these victims because the only way -- I’m sorry, I come out of the 'hood -- the only way you make roaches run, you got to cut the light on."

As IBD notes, Al Sharpton has made career of anti-Semitic and racial agitation:

Sharpton has made a career of racial incitement. He once called Jews "diamond merchants" and described whites moving businesses into Harlem as "interlopers."

He helped incite three days of anti-Semitic rioting in 1991 in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, turning a tragic traffic accident into a riot where two people died and more than 100 were wounded.

Then there was Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem in 1995, subject to the Sharpton campaign to drive out "interlopers." To scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton turned a tenant-landlord dispute into a racial conflict, resulting in arson of the store and seven deaths.

So the liberal left was okay with Sharpton, but thinks Steve Bannon is a “white nationalist” who threatens all human decency? This comes as the Democratic National Committee considers Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in Congress who has deep ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, for the position of SNC Chairman. As the watchdog group Jihad Watch reports:

Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Nor did the liberal left and the mainstream media, forgive the redundancy, have problems with the curious pasts and associations of Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin: As Investors Business Daily has editorialized:

Abedin also has some interesting family connections. Her father is said to be close with the Saudi government's Muslim World League, and her mother is said to be a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. World Trade Center bombing prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review: "The ties of Ms. Abedin's father, mother and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

The Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt with the Obama administration's approval after it had all but abandoned the government of Hosni Mubarak, a long-time ally and friend. It was while Abedin was advising Hillary that State dropped its long-standing policy of having no dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review, Huma Abedin’s family and work history suggested a devotion to Islamic supremacist ideology that may go a long way to explaining our imploding Middle East policy from Baghdad to Egypt:

Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

The Democratic Party also had no problem with venerating former KKK member Robert Byrd or with Hillary Clinton’s admiration for Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, whose objective was the extermination of the black race. They are quite about the racism of the Orwellian-named Black Lives Matter movement or that Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats.

Steve Bannon is not a white nationalist. He is a patriotic American. Steve Bannon’s only real crime is helping to get Donald Trump elected President of the United States.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-18-2016 at 08:03 PM..
Old 11-18-2016, 07:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Are Bannon's Critics For Real?

Inventor of term "Alt Right" explains why Bannon critics are full of hot air.
By Paul Gottfried

I’m beginning this commentary on the recent assaults on Steve Bannon by quoting my response to questions that a CNN-Digital reporter asked me concerning President-elect Trump’s friend and adviser:

There’s no indication that Steve Bannon, the Breitbart executive and Donald Trump adviser, who has been characterized as a white nationalist, is a racist or anti-Semite. Bannon is not a white identitarian or race realist. He comes from the world of Washington politics and journalism, not white identity politics. Although I don’t know the man, I doubt Bannon hangs out with people who burn crosses on other people’s lawns.

I expressed this view, more or less, not only to CNN-Digital. I also expressed it in a phone-call marathon to representatives of a Danish daily and the Jewish Forward and, in an hour and a half German conversation, with an editor of the German conservative weekly Junge Freiheit. In all these exchanges I had to answer the question of whether Steve Bannon was in fact an anti-Semite and racist, a judgment that was coming from, among others, such exemplary American “conservatives” as Glenn Beck (, Jonah Goldberg (, and writers ( for the Wall Street Journal. I was also asked whether as the co-inventor of the term “Alternative Right,” which has now been shortened to “Altright,” I could tell if Bannon, who likes the term in question, enjoys the company of “white nationalists.”

I tried to explain that the exceedingly elastic term “Altright” has been claimed by a number of groups that belong to the non-establishment Right. All those on the Right who are at war with the GOP establishment and neoconservative politics and who are combatting PC with particular ferocity have embraced the designation “Altright.” This is especially true of Millennials who scorn establishmentarian positions. But it’s not at all clear to me that those who write for Bannon’s website publication, some of whom are Orthodox Jews, have much to do with white identitarians who also use the term “Altright.” I would doubt that these writers go out to drink with the Philonazi blogger Matt Heimbach, who also claims the Altright moniker.

Like David Horowitz, David Goldman, Rudolf Giuliani, and dozens of other commentators, I find the charges leveled against Bannon to be outrageous slander. I am also horrified by the double standard in play when Bannon, who may or may not have complained to a now divorced wife about Jewish students in a private school, is depicted as the reincarnation of Hitler. At the same time, attacks on Jews or other ethnic groups coming from the Left are given short shrift by the media.

Disparaging descriptions of blacks, Latinos, and Catholics that have emanated from Hillary’s staff (and which have been revealed by Wikileak) occasioned a yawn from the mass media here and in Europe. And so has Hillary’s hateful obscenity about her husband’s Jewish campaign manager, which has never received the same critical scrutiny as Steve Bannon’s totally fictitious anti-Semitism and racism. What would happen to Bannon’s or any Republican’s career if, like Hillary (, he referred to someone as a “f-cking Jew bastard”? Presumably that person would not be the darling of the media establishment and the presidential candidate of George H.W. Bush, Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Alan Dershowitz.

I intend to raise these questions the next time someone calls on me as an expert on the Altright who can document Steve Bannon’s possible connection to neo-Nazi websites. Perhaps the interviewers would be interested in knowing what Hillary and John Podesta said about certain groups. Even more relevant, they might want me to explain how it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee is about to nominate as its new director Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim convert and close friend of Louis Farrakhan. Ellison is entirely explicit in his anti-white and anti-Jewish views ( and unlike Bannon, does not require reinvention to be turned into what he’s not. The fact that Ellison is heartily endorsed by such presumed idealists as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is not likely to hurt the reputations of either social justice warrior (

But one must wonder what would happen to a Republican politician who praised David Duke as warmly as Warren and Sanders have extolled the firebrand Keith Ellison. Why are the Black Muslims less distasteful racists than the white supremacist Duke, who by the way quit the Ku Klux Klan decades ago but who remains a code word for (Republican) racism? Or why does Al Sharpton remain a respected confidant of Democratic political leaders, after leading a black race riot against Jewish merchants in Harlem and after engaging in other demagogic incitements to racial violence. (All of Sharpton’s misdeeds are meticulously listed and documented in Carl Horowitz (’s Sharpton: The Rise of a Demagogue.)

Meanwhile Steve Bannon is condemned internationally for having possibly said, at least according to an estranged wife, that he objected to spoiled Jewish students in a private school? Perhaps the kids there were spoiled. Why should I even care what he said on this subject, if he really said it? Another accusation leveled against Bannon is that he allowed Bill Kristol, who made a fetish of belittling Donald Trump, to be attacked as a “renegade Jew.” But that charge (, hardly a proof of anti-Semitism, came from the fervently pro-Israeli David Horowitz. In a recent comment Horowitz laments that the “Left has lost touch with the American people.”

Given the Left’s ridiculous double standards, one has to wonder on what planet the Left and the rest of Bannon’s haters are standing.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-18-2016 at 08:04 PM..
Old 11-18-2016, 07:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Steve Bannon, Civil Rights Hero

School choice is now a presidential priority.
It could never have happened without Steve Bannon.
By David Horowitz

Many have called school choice – the movement to liberate African American youngsters from the failed schools that don’t teach them – the “civil rights movement of the 21st Century. Donald Trump is one of those who do, but it was Steve Bannon, the CEO of Trump’s presidential campaign, who put it on Trump’s radar and made it a centerpiece of Trumps “New Deal for Black America.”

I happen to know this because I was responsible for drawing Bannon’s attention to it in the first place. I bring this up now, not to draw attention to anything I have done, but to defend a man who has been viciously and baselessly portrayed as a “white nationalist” and “racist,” who has put himself on the line for black America in a way that few others have.

The attempt by desperate, hysterical and malicious voices on the left to isolate, stigmatize and silence Steve Bannon as a “white nationalist,” is despicable, not least because that is the very last thing he is.

“School choice” is a term to describe the provision of scholarships to poor children who are trapped in inner city public schools where year in and year out nearly half of them fail to graduate and the half who do are functionally illiterate and unable to function in a modern economy. These scholarships or “vouchers” would allow poor children to take the tuition that taxpayers already provide, and use it in a school, private or religious, that would actually teach them.

Vouchers are absolutely vital to opening the doors of opportunity to millions of poor black and Hispanic children – and poor white children as well. Democrats are fiercely opposed to vouchers because giving parents the power to choose would break the Democrats’ monopoly, undermine the lock that teacher unions have on the public schools, and threaten the slush fund that the unions provide to the Democratic Party. At the same time, Democrats – the Obamas and Clintons prominent among them – send their own children to private schools where they know they will get a decent education.

Republicans have long proposed voucher systems. But their proposals have failed because of the myopia and timidity that characterizes the Republican establishment. The voucher amounts they propose are too small – far less than an actual tuition – and the programs too modest to gain public attention and therefore support. Sixteen years ago, to get around this deficiency, I proposed to the top advisors of the Bush presidential campaign that they announce a $100 billion voucher program for inner city children. They passed on it. I also got my friend Congressman James Rogan to draw up a bill to do the same. It went nowhere.

Then Donald Trump came along and made my friend Steve Miller his chief policy advisor and my friend Steve Bannon the CEO of his presidential campaign. So I put a voucher proposal on their desks, stressing that it had to be more than $100 billion so the press couldn’t ignore it, and that it had to provide a tuition equivalent to what taxpayers were already paying to the public schools for not teaching their students.

Steve Bannon gave it the green light and Steve Miller went to work on the details. Under Bannon’s guidance, it soon appeared in a Trump speech in Cleveland as a $130 billion scholarship program for inner city youth. “As your president,” Trump announced, “I will become the nation’s biggest cheerleader for school choice.” Under Bannon’s guidance again it became the centerpiece of Donald Trump’s “New Deal for Black America,” which also included making black neighborhoods safe and bringing jobs to the inner city.

I can’t say enough about Donald Trump and his general, Steve Bannon, for getting behind a plan to liberate the children of the inner cities.

I had spent the last sixteen years banging my head against the stone wall of the Republican Party trying to persuade congressmen, senators, and the Bush White House of the importance and urgency of such a plan. But my pleas fell on deaf ears.

The school choice movement had been wandering in the wilderness for want of national leadership even longer. Millions of inner city children had been lost in those years for want of a decent education. Now the wall had come down, and there was a real prospect for something to be done.

School choice is now a presidential priority. It could never have happened without Steve Bannon. It could never have happened without someone in a position like Steve’s who cared about what happened to inner city children and who was willing to put his weight behind a program this ambitious, which no other Republican would touch.

When the history of the 21st Century civil rights movement is written Steve Bannon’s name will have a special place in its pantheon of heroes.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-18-2016 at 07:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 04:29 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Steve Bannon, Keith Ellison and the Left’s Ugly Record on Anti-Semitism.

Steve Bannon, Keith Ellison and the Left’s Ugly Record on Anti-Semitism.

Old 11-20-2016, 04:38 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Talking Leftists Have Their Panties In A Wad

Leftists Have Their Panties In A Wad
EXCITING!! Leftists are reeling over rumor that President-elect Trump might appoint Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense

According to a source with intimate knowledge of Trump’s thinking, Donald Trump wants legendary General James Mattis to run the Department of Defense. Gen. James Mattis, known to his troops as “Mad Dog Mattis,” retired after 41 years of military service. The Marine Corps Times called Mattis the “most revered Marine in a generation.”

Mattis was commander of the United States Central Command since 2010 and led the 1st Marine Division into Iraq in 2003. According to reports, President Barack Obama decided to force the Marine Corps legend out ( early because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way, and forced them to answer tough questions regarding Iran.

Daily Caller ( Mattis, the former commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, retired from the Marine Corps in 2013 after serving as the commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military action in the Middle East.

Reached by email Friday evening, Mattis declined to confirm whether he expected to be tapped to run the Pentagon. “Nothing for me to talk about now,” he told TheDC, adding, “Hope all goes well.”

Mattis would need a congressional waiver to accept the Defense Secretary position since the law requires people who take the job to have been civilians for at least the seven years prior.
“Mad Dog” Mattis has a legendary status among Marines for his reputation as a warfighter. He’s also among the most quotable people alive.

When the Marines arrived in Iraq in 2003, Mattis advised them in a speech: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

Some more memorable Mattis quotes:

“I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”

“The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”

“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

“The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”

“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

“There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”

“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

“There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great.”

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”

“I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.”

“Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”

I'm an Army Vet not a Marine however I'm going to state my opinion here and say "Semper Fi" for General James Mattis! Paparock

Last edited by Paparock; 11-20-2016 at 04:59 PM..
Old 11-20-2016, 06:13 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Angry Trump's likely Defense Secretary pick raises eyebrows in Israel

Trump's likely Defense Secretary pick raises eyebrows in Israel
General Mattis, Trump's likely pick for Pentagon chief, warns 'Israeli settlements' are turning country into an 'Apartheid' state.
By David Rosenberg

Donald Trump confirmed on Sunday that retired Marine General James Mattis is a leading candidate for Secretary of Defense, a day after the two met at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

The former Central Command (CENTCOM) commander was a strong critic of President Obama and his efforts to reach a rapprochement with the Iranian regime, saying that the President was “pretty much absent” in terms of crafting the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

But while Mattis has in the past attacked the deal, since its signing by the Obama administration he’s called the agreement a fait accompli that must be accepted.

“We are going to have to recognize that we have an imperfect arms control agreement,” he said. “What we achieved was a nuclear pause, not a nuclear halt. We're going to have to plan for the worst.”

Those comments, made this April during an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was a far cry from claims by candidate Trump that he would renege the nuclear deal or renegotiate for a better one.

Backers of the Jewish state, who fear an Iranian nuclear weapon could pose an existential threat to Israel, were not comforted by Trump’s likely pick for Pentagon chief, a man with a history of troubling statements vis-à-vis Israel.

Speaking at a gathering of the Aspen Institute in 2013, Mattis gave his emphatic backing for Secretary of State John Kerry’s “valiant” efforts to reach a two-state solution, saying that the foundation of a Palestinian state was of paramount importance for not only Israel but the United States.

"So we've got to work on this with a sense of urgency,” Mattis said. “And I paid a military-security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM, because the Americans are seen as biased in support of Israel, and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can't come out publicly in support of people who don't show respect for the Arab Palestinians.”

In addition, Mattis slammed Israeli control of Judea and Samaria as “unsustainable”, warning that Jewish “settlements” were liable to turn Israel into an “Apartheid” state.

"The current situation is unsustainable. It's got to be directly addressed. We don't want to turn this over to our children.

"We have got to find a way to make the two-state solution that Democrat and Republican administrations have supported - we have go to get there. And the chances for it, as the King of Jordan has pointed out, are starting to ebb because the settlements and where they're at are going to make it impossible to maintain the two-state option.

"For example, if I'm Jerusalem, and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here somewhere to the east and there's 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say that the Arabs don't get to vote - Apartheid. And that didn't work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country."

Speaking at a gathering of the Aspen Institute in 2013, Mattis gave his emphatic backing for Secretary of State John Kerry’s “valiant” efforts to reach a two-state solution, saying that the foundation of a Palestinian state was of paramount importance for not only Israel but the United States.

"So we've got to work on this with a sense of urgency,” Mattis said. “And I paid a military-security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM, because the Americans are seen as biased in support of Israel, and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can't come out publicly in support of people who don't show respect for the Arab Palestinians.”

In addition, Mattis slammed Israeli control of Judea and Samaria as “unsustainable”, warning that Jewish “settlements” were liable to turn Israel into an “Apartheid” state.

"The current situation is unsustainable. It's got to be directly addressed. We don't want to turn this over to our children.

"We have got to find a way to make the two-state solution that Democrat and Republican administrations have supported - we have go to get there. And the chances for it, as the King of Jordan has pointed out, are starting to ebb because the settlements and where they're at are going to make it impossible to maintain the two-state option.

"For example, if I'm Jerusalem, and I put 500 Jewish settlers out here somewhere to the east and there's 10,000 Arab settlers in here, if we draw the border to include them either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say that the Arabs don't get to vote - Apartheid. And that didn't work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country."

Not Mattis brightest hours or best work for sure! Paparock

Last edited by Paparock; 11-20-2016 at 06:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 05:06 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Bureaucratic Tyranny in Trump's Crosshairs

Bureaucratic Tyranny in Trump's Crosshairs
We can expect great things come January 2017. Yuuuge things, even.
By Karin McQuillan

Federal bureaucrats have been in a frenzy of activity in Obama's last months of office, pushing through 4,000 new regulations that will cost consumers more than $100 million. As liberal website Politico proudly reported (, "Obama's executive agencies are intent on pushing through the president's priorities without congressional interference[.]"

Trump has promised to rein in our overreaching bureaucracy through attrition. His rival in the primaries, Jeb Bush, suggested three bureaucrats retire for each new hire. That might save some money, but it will not get the job done of ending corruption and bureaucratic tyranny.

We have elected a man famous for two words: "You're fired!" For Trump to legalize that simple act, as necessary in the government as in business, will be nothing less than a revolution.

We have a VA that purposely lets vets die without medical care.

We have an EPA at war with the energy industry.

The Department of Education threatens public schools with loss of federal funds and mandates progressive lies about American history, teaching generations of schoolchildren to be ashamed of America and ignorant of our Constitution and our forefathers. Universities are forced by the DOJ to hire feminist and racialist thought police under an Obama bureaucrat's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act.

We have an IRS that has a political enemies list its employees punish at the behest of Democrats.

Homeland Security and FBI are under a gag order that forbids them to use the term jihad or Islamic extremism.

Everywhere we look, regulations are strangling business, intruding into the personal lives and property rights of ordinary citizens. The cost to families is crushing. One among the hundreds of Obama's new global warming regs: fuel-efficient furnaces will raise the price of furnaces almost $500 (

And most famously, we have Obamacare's 11,588,500 words of regulations destroying our once superb medical system and burying ( consumers under 30% and even 60% premium hikes for lousy insurance coverage.

[Right: The 20,000 pages of Obamacare regs, written without congressional review, have resulted in insurance rate hikes up to 58% (]

It is not an exaggeration to see the all-powerful, unelected bureaucracy as the worst enemy of American values, prosperity, and freedom.

To see a visual representation of the growth of regulations impinging on our lives, watch this amusing YouTube (View video #1 at bottom of this post) video by Patrick McLaughlin of the Mercatus Center. The volumes of federal regulations have grown since Eisenhower from 13 volumes to a wall of 235, with 16 entire new federal agencies that we survived better without.

Congress has done nothing about this because Congress is part of the problem. The members of Congress prefer to pass omnibus spending bills to avoid accountability and keep growing the size of government.

The good news is that Trump is committed to cleaning up the VA, and he can't do that without figuring out how to fire the VA monsters ( who purposely let vets die in order to collect their bonuses. Once he takes on the VA, he will have the key to clean up the whole government.

Betsy McCaughey writes at the N.Y. Post that Trump's must capture the right to fire people:

How hard is it to fire anyone at Veterans Affairs? One surgeon found guilty of abandoning a patient on the operating table and leaving the medical center still got an $11,000 bonus. ...

The same changes needed to turn around the VA have to be made across all federal departments. Right now, workers found guilty of serious misdeeds like tax evasion, watching porn on the job or fraudulent collection of unemployment benefits typically keep their jobs and get bonuses.

Firing requires so many months of documentation, hearings and appeals that bosses decide it's not worth the trouble. No-show jobs are rampant, costing $1 billion a year. Supervisors ignore the waste and just hire someone else to get the work done.

Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders led the fight against VA reform in the Senate, which raises the question: why couldn't McConnell override the Democrats beholden to government unions? We need a power show by McConnell backing up Trump to put reform across.

A bipartisan VA reform bill ( with real teeth has already passed the House[.] ... It will shorten the process for firing and demoting senior VA personnel, even eliminating appeals to the misnamed Merit Systems Protection Board, which protects criminals and dead wood, not merit.

Thomas Lifson, editor of AT, writing the day after Trump's victory, reminds us ( that letting people go through attrition does not rule out firing people for cause.

The worst roadblock to reform are the federal unions – which were created in 1962 by JFK by executive order. What was done by a pen can be reversed by a pen.

John McGinnis, constitutional law professor at Northeastern, has three good suggestions on how Congress and the courts can take back the power of regulatory discretion (

Trump will need to hire committed deregulators at each federal agency. ...

As president, Trump should sign a bill like the REINS Act, which requires Congress to enact important new regulations recommended by agencies before they can become law. ...

Finally, the new coalition can pass legislation to get rid of so-called Auer deference. That absurd doctrine forces judges to defer to agencies' interpretation of their own regulations, reducing the incentive to construct clear regulations in the first place.

The idea that civil service has been protected from political influence is a farce, exposed by Michael Bargo, Jr. on AT (

These four unions, active throughout the U.S., have a total of 8.1 million active members and since 1989 have given $533 million to political candidates, 98% of which went to Democrats. And this number does not include the other municipal public sector unions, etc. which amount to about 12 million members, giving a total number of public union members of 20.2 million ( This is the size of the bureaucratic opposition Trump has in the states and Federal government.

Bargo argues that it is not constitutional to have a private organization, a union, control the federal government. He also questions the right of agencies to levy punitive fines without court review.

During the campaign, Trump proposed that agencies be required to sunset two rules for every new regulation they promulgate. I thought it sounded sensible and practical, but Steven Hayward ( at was not impressed, saying bureaucrats will game it, the way they gamed Reagan's cost-benefit requirement. Philip Howard ( at The Atlantic likes Trump's proposal:

The advantage of this proposal is that it introduces into the bureaucratic culture the necessity of budgeting regulation. Britain has a similar law, which has thus far proven effective at cutting costs and slowing the pace of new regulation.

The problem of uncooperative agencies sabotaging reform applies much more to Speaker Ryan's wonky idea that the bureaucrats should be given a total "budget" of the number of regs they may create based on their "cost" – leaving the bureaucrats to measure and oversee their own excesses.

It is far more pragmatic for de-regulation to be instituted by Congress: when they make a new law, repeal the old law and all its associated regs. New Zealand has done just that (

New Zealand, facing the same problem of obsolete and contradictory law, set out to clean up its statutes. The process we used was to systematically re-write the corresponding statutes of each sector of the economy we reformed - such as the tax code and health care - so that the laws were clear and unambiguous[.] ... These re-written statutes were then passed by Parliament and all the related old ones were repealed. ... New Zealand's environmental laws, for instance, went from being 25 inches thick to just 348 pages. The action of repealing all the old laws also automatically repealed all the regulations built on those laws so the regulatory code was cleaned up at the same time.

The Mercatus Center also offers a practical approach ( Congress could appoint panels for each agency to identify regulations to abolish and vote the entire package up or down.

A commonly cited idea is to sunset all federal regulations after a given number of years. That too has been tried and gamed (

Sunset laws are easy to circumvent – the legislature simply passes an omnibus re-authorization. Indeed, sunset laws provide an opportunity for politicians to "go back to the well," getting campaign support from the affected special interests in order to reinstate the provision.

This brings us to Senator Cruz's approach, which cannot be gamed: bring the bureaucracy down to size by eliminating whole departments. Cruz pledged to eliminate the IRS (by merging its necessary functions into Treasury), Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Education.

A Cruz Administration will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose sole charge will be to wind them down and determine whether any programs need to be preserved.

Ending departments can be done. This July, the new government in Britain abolished ( the Department of Energy and Climate Change. They transferred remaining environmental policy to the Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy. In short, the global warming advocates were kicked out of government or moved under business and energy administrators.

Trump's senior economic adviser, Stephen Moore, is all in on eliminating the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Education, which employ 150,000 bureaucrats.

Trump has not signed on to all that, but he pledged ( during the primary that he would eliminate most of the Department of Education and the EPA.

Regulatory reform is notoriously difficult, but mostly because a lobbyist-controlled Congress is as invested in our grotesque regulatory growth as the bureaucrats themselves. We have never before elected a non-politician beholden to no one but his voters, who is an expert at firing people, and is a natural-born fighter.

This is going to be a historic showdown.

Video #1

Last edited by Paparock; 11-21-2016 at 05:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 01:55 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb A Message from President-Elect Donald J. Trump

A Message from President-Elect Donald J. Trump

Old 11-22-2016, 04:20 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Israel in the Trump Era

Israel in the Trump Era
By Caroline Glick

What can we expect from President-elect Donald Trump’s administration?

The positions that Trump struck during the presidential campaign were sometimes inconsistent and even contradictory. So it is impossible to forecast precisely what he will do once in office. But not everything is shrouded in mystery. Indeed, some important characteristics of his administration are already apparent.

First of all, President Barack Obama’s legacy will die the moment he leaves the White House on January 20. Republicans may not agree on much. But Trump and his party do agree that Obama’s policies must be abandoned and replaced. And they will work together to rollback all of Obama’s actions as president.

On the domestic policy front this means first and foremost that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced with health industry reforms that open the medical insurance market to competition.

With the support of the Republican-controlled Senate, Trump will end Obama’s push to reshape the US Supreme Court in the image of the activist, indeed, authoritarian Israeli Supreme Court. During his four year term, Trump may appoint as many as four out of nine justices. In so doing he will shape the court for the next generation.

Trump made clear during the race that the justices he selects will oppose the Obama-led leftist plan to transform the Court into an imperial judiciary that determines social and cultural norms and legislates from the bench.

Trump will also clean out the IRS. Under Obama, the IRS became an instrument of political warfare. Conservative and right wing pro-Israel groups were systematically discriminated against and targeted for abuse. It is possible to assume that Trump will fire the IRS officials who have been involved in this discriminatory abuse of power.

To be sure, much is still unclear about Trump’s foreign policy. But here too, certain things are already known. Trump will vacate the US’s signature from the nuclear deal with Iran.

Trump will not be able to repair the damage the deal has already caused – at least not immediately. He will not be able to reimpose the multilateral and UN Security Council sanctions on Iran that the nuclear deal cancelled. Such a move will require prolonged negotiations and their conclusion is far from assured.

Trump will likewise be unable to take back the billions of dollars that Iran has already received due to the abrogation of economic sanctions and through cash payoffs from the Obama administration.

At the same time, from his first day in office, Trump will change the trajectory of US policy towards Iran. He will oppose Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He will oppose Iran’s rise to regional hegemony.

A second conclusion that it is already possible to draw about the Trump presidency is that Trump will be much more like the hands off Ronald Reagan than the hands on Obama. His past as a businessman along with his lack of governmental or political experience will lead Trump to set general policy guidelines and goals and delegate responsibility for crafting suitable policies and programs to his cabinet secretaries and advisors.

This means that personnel will very much be policy in the Trump administration. Whereas Obama’s cabinet members and advisors have been more or less interchangeable since Obama himself determined everything from the details of his policies to the ways that the policies would be sold to the public (or hidden from the public), and implemented, Trump’s pick of advisors will be strategically significant.

Clearly it is too early to know who Trump’s advisors and cabinet members will be. But there is good reason for Israel to be encouraged by the advisors who have worked with Trump during the campaign.

Vice President-elect Mike Pence is one of the most pro-Israel policymakers in America. Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich is an outspoken ally of Israel and of the US-Israel alliance. Likewise, former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, former senator Rick Santorum, retired general Mike Flynn, and former UN ambassador John Bolton are all extraordinary champions of the US alliance with Israel.

Trump’s Israel affairs advisors during the campaign, David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt are also among the strongest advocates of the US-Israel alliance that have arisen in decades.

The striking friendliness of the Trump election team is even more notable when we consider what Israel would have faced from a Hillary Clinton administration. Clinton’s cabinet-in-waiting at the George Soros-funded and John Podesta-run Center for American Progress contained no serious advocates of the US-Israel alliance.

And her stable of advisors were not merely indifferent to Israel.

The Wikileaks revelations from Podesta’s emails, like the correspondences published by Judicial Watch from Clinton’s tenure as secretary made clear that Clinton’s team included several advisors with deep-seated hostility if not animus toward Israelis and toward the Israeli government.

The third thing that is already clear about the nature of the Trump administration is that it will not hesitate to abandon received wisdom on a whole host of issues and initiate policies that the bipartisan policy elites wouldn’t be caught dead even talking about.

Trump’s victory was first and foremost a defeat for the American elite, what Prof. Angelo Codevilla memorably referred to as America’s “ruling class.”

Trump’s campaign did not merely target the Democratic establishment. He attacked the Republican establishment as well. True, in his victory speech Trump said that he intends to heal the rifts in American society – presumably starting with his own party. But at least one thing ought to be clear about that reunification. As the president-elect, Trump will set the terms of the healing process.

There is every reason to expect that at a minimum, Trump will not soon forgive the Republicans who refused to support and even opposed his presidential bid. Members of the NeverTrump camp will be denied positions and influence over the Trump administration and sent into the political desert.

Another establishment that fell on its sword in this election is the American Jewish establishment. Led by the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish establishment, including its largest donors, stood almost as one in its support for Clinton. The American Jewish leadership placed their partisan preferences above their communal interests and responsibilities. In so doing they enfeebled the community in a manner that will be difficult to repair.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have anti-Semites in their ranks. The Jewish establishment ignored and pretended away the Democratic anti-Semites, even when they were burning Israeli flags at the Democratic convention. They said nothing when anti-Israel ravings that were at best borderline anti-Semitic of senior Clinton advisors like Thomas Pickering and Anne Marie Slaughter were published by Judicial Watch.

On the other hand, the Jewish establishment castigated Trump as anti-Semitic for the presence of anti-Semites like David Duke on the fringes of the Republican Party. Legitimate criticisms of anti-Israel financier George Soros were condemned as anti-Semitic while truly anti-Semitic assaults on Trump donor Sheldon Adelson by Clinton backers went unaddressed.

The consequence of the Jewish establishment’s almost total mobilization for Clinton is clear. The Trump White House won’t have an open door policy for those who falsely accused Trump of anti-Semitism.

Jewish Americans are going to have to either oust the leaders of the groups that put their party before their community or establish new organizations to defend their interests. Whatever path is chosen, the process of rebuilding the communal infrastructure the community’s leaders have wrecked will be long, difficult and expensive.

Unlike the American Jewish community, for Israel, the defeat of the American establishment is a positive development. The American foreign policy elite’s default bipartisan position on Israel was bad for both Israel and the health and reliability of its alliance with the US.

As I explained in my book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, there was a dismaying consistency in US policy towards Israel that ran from Bill Clinton’s administration through the George W. Bush administration and on to the Obama administration.

At least since the Clinton years, the received wisdom of the American foreign policy elite has been that the US must seek to swiftly cause Israel to sign a deal with the PLO. The contours of the deal are similarly clear to all concerned. Israel must surrender control over all or most of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and transfer the areas, more or less Jew free, to the PLO.

This bipartisan view is inherently hostile to Israel. It places all the responsibility for making peace on Israel. And as the sole responsible party, Israel is also the sole party that is guilty for the absence of peace. The flipside is similarly dismal. Palestinians are absolved of responsibility for terrorism, hatred and political warfare against Israel.

The anti-Israel hostility inherent in the two-state paradigm has brought on a situation where even pro-Israel US officials end up joining their anti-Israel colleagues in bearing down on Israel to act in manners that are inimical both to its national security and to the very concept of a US-Israel alliance. The foreign policy ruling class’s commitment to the two-state paradigm has blinded them to Israel’s strategic importance to the US and caused them to see the US’s only stable ally in the region as a drag on US interests.

Many of Trump’s advisors, including Gingrich, whose name has been raised as a leading candidate either to serve as Trump’s White House chief of staff or as Secretary of State, have rejected this received wisdom. In a Republican presidential debate in 2011, Gingrich referred to the Palestinians as an “invented people,” and noted that they indoctrinate their children to perceive Jews as subhuman and seek their annihilation. For his statement of fact, Gingrich was brutally assaulted by Democratic and Republican elites.

But he never rescinded his statement.

Trump’s election provides Israel with the first opportunity in fifty years to reshape its alliance with the US.

This new alliance must be based a common understanding and respect for what Israel has to offer the US as well as the limits of what the US can offer Israel. The limits of US assistance are in large part the consequences of the many genies that Obama unleashed during the past eight years. And the opportunities will come more in areas related to Israel’s relations with the Palestinians and the political war being waged against it by the Europeans and the international left than to the challenges posed by the ascendance of Islamism in the Middle East.

To be sure, Trump is inconsistent. But from what we do know we must recognize that his rise is a deflection point in US history.

It is a rare moment where things that were unimaginable a month ago are possible. And if we play our cards right, like the American people, Israel stands to gain in ways we never dreamed.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-22-2016 at 04:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 04:27 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default The Ellison Challenge

The Ellison Challenge
By Caroline Glick

Friday, November 18th, 2016

The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads today. And so do the Jewish Democrats.

Out of power in the White House and both houses of Congress, the Democrats must decide what sort of party they will be in the post-Obama world.

They have two basic options.

They can move to the center and try to rebuild their blue collar voter base that President-elect Donald Trump captivated with his populist message. To do so they will need to loosen the reins of the political correctness and weaken their racialism, their radical environmentalism and their support for open borders.

This is the sort of moderate posture that Bill Clinton led with. It is the sort of posture that Clinton tried but failed to convince his wife to adopt in this year’s campaign.

The second option is to go still further along the leftist trajectory that President Barack Obama set the party off on eight years ago. This is the favored option of the Bernie Sanders’ wing of the party. Sanders’ supporters refer to this option as the populist course. It is being played out today on the ground by the anti-Trump protesters who refuse to come to terms with the Trump victory and insistently defame Trump as a Nazi or Hitler and his advisors as Goebbels.

For the Democrats, such a populist course will require them to become more racialist, more authoritarian in their political correctness, angrier and more doctrinaire.

It will also require them to become an anti-Semitic party.

Anti-Semitism, like hatred of police and Christians are necessary components of Democratic populism. This is true first and foremost because they will need scapegoats to blame for all the bad things you can’t solve by demonizing and silencing your political opponents.

Jews, and particularly the Jewish state, along with evangelical Christians and cops are the only groups that you are allowed to hate, discriminate against and scapegoat in the authoritarian PC universe.

From the party’s initial post-election moves, it appears that the Democrats have decided to take the latter path.

Congressman Keith Ellison from Minneapolis is now poised to be selected as the next leader of the Democratic National Committee. This position is a powerful one. The DNC chairman, like his Republican counterpart, is the party’s chief fundraiser. When a party is out of power, the party chairman is treated like its formal leader, and most active spokesman.

Ellison is the head of the Democrats’ Progressive caucus. His candidacy is supported by incoming Senate minority leader Senator Chuck Schumer and outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid. Obama has indicated his support for Ellison. Senator Bernie Sanders is enthusiastically supporting him.

Ellison made history in 2006 when he was elected to serve as the first Muslim member of Congress. As the representative of an overwhelmingly Democratic district, once he won the Democratic primary in 2006, he was all but guaranteed that he could serve in Congress for as long as he wishes.

As Scott Johnson, a prominent conservative writer who runs the popular Powerlineblog website reported extensively in 2006, Ellison is an anti-Semite. He also defends cop killers.

As Johnson reported, Ellison was a long standing member of the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam. During his 2006 Congressional campaign, the local media gave next to no coverage to this association. But when it did come up, Ellison soothed concerns of Minneapolis’s Jewish community by sending a letter to the local Jewish Community Relations Committee.

In the letter Ellison claimed that he had only been briefly associated with Louis Farrakhan’s outfit, that he was unfamiliar with its anti-Semitism, and that he had never personally expressed such views.

The local media and the Jewish community were happy to take him at his word.

But as Johnson documented, his was lying on all counts.

Ellison’s association with the Nation of Islam dated back at least since 1989 and stretched at least until 1998. During that period, he not only knew about the Nation of Islam’s Jew hatred, he engaged in it himself.

As Johnson noted, in 1998, Ellison appeared at a public forum as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam. He was there to defend a woman who was under fire for allegedly referring to Jews as “among the most racist white people.”

Whereas the woman herself denied she had made the statement, Ellison defended and justified her alleged statement. Referring to her slander of Jews he said, “We stand by the truth contained in [the woman’s] remarks…Also it is absolutely true that merchants in Black areas generally treat Black customers badly.”

As Johnson reported, aside from engaging in anti-Jewish propaganda and actively promoting anti-Semitic messages and leaders, decades before the Black Lives Matter was formed, Ellison was a prominent defender of murderers of policemen.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Ellison likened the attacks to the Reichstag fire in 1933, intimating that the al Qaeda strike was an inside job. He then agreed with an audience member who said that “the Jews” gained the most from the attacks.

As a member of Congress, Ellison has been among the most hostile US lawmakers towards Israel. He has close relations with Muslim Brotherhood related groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Society of North America. Both groups were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, implicated in funding Hamas and al Qaida.

And now, Sens. Schumer, Sanders and Reid and President Obama along with the Democratic grassroots activists and other party leaders are supporting Ellison’s bid to serve as chairman of the DNC.

As Ellison’s statement about “merchants” makes clear, the Democrats’ Jew hatred may not be of the “Jews are the sons of apes and pigs,” variety. In all likelihood, it will be propagated through angry rhetoric about “bankers” and “financiers,” and “the rich.”

Ellison, a supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement, has libeled Israel by likening the Jewish state to apartheid South Africa. Under his leadership, we can expect for Democratic politicians to veer even further away from Israel and to embrace the slander that Zionism is racism.

The populist Sanders’ route seems more attractive to the Democrats than Bill Clinton’s moderate path because the notion is taking hold that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton was.

This view is hard to accept. Most Americans reject socialism, and populist or not, it is difficult to see how Sanders would have sold his radical positions to an uninterested public.

The other problem with the “Sanders would have won,” argument is that it misses the distinction between Trump’s populism and Democratic populism.

Trump’s populism stemmed from his willingness to say things that other politicians and authority figures more generally wouldn’t dare to say. Trump’s allegation that the political system is rigged, for instance, empowered Americans who feel threatened by the authoritarianism of the politically correct Left.

Trump’s opponents insist that his populism empowered white power bigots. But that was a bug in his ointment. It wasn’t the ointment itself. Trump’s willingness to seemingly say anything, and certainly to say things that were beyond the narrow confines of the politically correct discourse, empowered tens of millions of voters. It also empowered white bigots at the fringes of the Right.

Whereas empowering white bigots was a side effect of Trump’s populism, empowering bigots is a central feature of leftist populism. And this is where it gets dicey for Jews.

As Obama – and Ellison – have shown, when Democrats channel populism, they use it to demonize their opponents as evil. They are “fat cats on Wall Street.” They are “racists,” and other deplorables.

There are scattered voices on the Left that are calling for their fellow leftists to revisit their authoritarian practice of labelling everyone who doesn’t walk lockstep behind them as racists and otherwise unacceptable. But for the most part, the populists are winning the argument by essentially demanding more ideological radicalism and more rigidity.

This policy is completely irrational from a political perspective. It’s hard to see the constituencies that will be swayed to support an angry, hateful party.

But this brings us to the Jews, who voted 3:1 for the Democrats, and to the American Jewish leadership whose support for Clinton was near unanimous.

When anti-Semitic, populist voices like Ellison’s began taking over Britain’s Labour Party, British Jews began heading for the exits. When push came to shove they preferred their individual rights and their communal rights as Jews above their partisan loyalties.

So far, this doesn’t appear to be the case among Jewish Democrats.

Consider the Anti-Defamation League’s unhinged onslaught against Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon.

While ignoring Ellison’s record of anti-Semitism and support for Israel’s enemies, as well as his ties to unindicted co-conspirators in funding Hamas, the ADL launched a scathing assault on Bannon accusing him of being an anti-Semite.

The ADL’s assault on Bannon follows its absurd claim in the final days of the campaign that Trump’s ad criticizing George Soros was anti-Semitic. It also follows the group’s bizarre condemnation of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent video clip in which he stated the plain fact that the Palestinian demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the territory they wish to take control over is an anti-Semitic demand.

As many prominent US Jews on both sides of the partisan divide have made clear, the accusation that Bannon, whose Breitbart website is one of the most pro-Israel websites in the US, is anti-Semitic is appalling on its face. The allegation is simply unsubstantiated.

So why do it? Why allege that a friend of the Jews is a Jew hater while ignoring the actual anti-Semitism of another man?

The answer is depressingly easy to discern.

The ADL appears to be trying to give cover to the rising forces of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party. By falsely accusing Bannon and through him Trump of anti-Semitism, the ADL defuses the real problem of Democratic anti-Semitism. And if the ADL doesn’t think there is a problem with Ellison taking over the DNC, but alleges that Republicans hate them, then rank in file Jews will stay put.

The ADL of course isn’t alone in sending this message.

Following the election, Conservative and Reform congregations in major cities throughout the US organized communal “shivas,” to mourn Clinton’s defeat as if it was a death in the family. Such actions, along with characterizations of Trump and his advisors as Nazis or Hitler or white supremacists work to bind Jews to a party that is inhospitable to their communal interests while blinding them to the fact that Republicans do not hate Jews or the Jewish state.

For decades, American Jews have been at the forefront of every major social movement on in the US. But the Democratic Party’s move towards anti-Semitism, a move made apparent through Ellison’s rise, is one movement the Jews mustn’t lead.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2016, 04:48 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Mainstream media upset by all the retired military generals that Trump is considering

Awwww…mainstream media upset by all the retired military generals that Donald Trump is considering for his cabinet
AP Disturbed by ‘Parade of Retired Generals’ Seeking Jobs in Trump Admin

On Thanksgiving Day, the Associated Press published a story raising eyebrows at president-elect Donald Trump for meeting too many retired generals about positions in his nascent administration.

Though he has only actually given one ex-general a job, AP National Security writer Robert Burns fears Trump is becoming too reliant on members of the military.

“The military parade for Donald Trump has come early,” the AP says in its lead paragraph. “Two months before Inauguration Day festivities, an extraordinary number of recently retired generals, including some who clashed with President Barack Obama’s administration, are marching to the president-elect’s doorstep for job interviews.”

From there Burns goes on to wring his hands, saying that the “large number” of generals coming to Trump Tower “raises questions about the proper balance of military and civilian advice in a White House led by a commander in chief with no defense or foreign policy experience.”

The AP goes on to assert that Trump is considering all these generals because no one else wants to work for him.

“The tilt toward military officials may reflect a limited pool of civilian options,” Burns insists. “Many officials from previous Republican administrations politically disowned Trump during the campaign, calling him unqualified. And Trump suggested he wouldn’t want many of them, as he vowed to ‘drain the swamp’ by running establishment figures out of town.”

So far, the only general the President-Elect has actually named to a position is retired three-star Army general Michael Flynn, who has become Trump’s national security adviser. But Trump has been considering a long list of people from varied backgrounds — even some Democrats — for White House jobs. His transition team announced several surprise picks on Friday: SC Governor Nikki Haley as Ambassador the United Nations, and education activist Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

Regardless, Burns worries that there are just too many generals in line for jobs. To “prove” the point, he points to a recent comment Trump made about his thinking on candidates for Secretary of Defense.

On November 22, Trump told The New York Times that he is thinking a general, perhaps retired Marine General James Mattis, would do well as the next chief of the Pentagon.

“I think it’s time maybe, it’s time for a general,” Trump said. “Look what’s going on. We don’t win, we can’t beat anybody.” This comment, Burns says, shows Trump “favors a military mindset.”

“The appointment of too many generals to high civilian positions,” he warns, “could prompt fears that Trump is on a path to militarizing U.S. foreign policy or giving the military too much sway in decisions about war and peace.”

But many past Secretaries of Defense have hailed from the military. In fact, Harry S Truman’s George C. Marshall became one of the biggest proponents of peace in U.S. history by heading up the “Marshall Plan” to help rebuild Europe after WWII. And many others, while not reaching the rank of general, have had military backgrounds — including Robert Gates, who served under both Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Chuck Hagel, another of Barack Obama’s picks, and many others.

Burns’ concerns about warmongering stand in stark contrast to the facts of the presidential election; Trump continually touted his opposition the Iraq War and criticized his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for saber rattling against Russia and Syria.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-26-2016 at 04:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2016, 08:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Trump pick for Education Secretary good for religious Jews

OU: Trump pick for Education Secretary good for religious Jews
OU Advocacy Center head says Trump's choice for Education Secretary shows he is serious about school choice and helping religious students.
By Gary Willig

Nathan Diament, the executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, stated that President-elect Donald Trump's selection of Betsy DeVos as his Secretary of Education is good for the Orthodox Jewish Community in the US, the Algemeiner reported.

Diament called DeVos' nomination a “clear signal” that Trump would follow through on a campaign promise that made him "attractive" to Orthodox Jews, to support school choice.

Part of Trump's promise to support school choice was to establish tax-break vouchers to support parents who choose to send their children to private schools, such as Jewish day schools. Diament called this pledge the “number one kitchen-table domestic policy issue for the Orthodox community” because of the prohibitive costs of Jewish education in the US. Tuition in Jewish schools often costs many thousands - or even tens of thousands - of dollars per child.

According to Diament, Trump “spoke of reallocating $20 billion in federal-education spending to school-choice programs. That has the potential to greatly assist the Jewish community with its affordability challenge."

Diament said that DeVos “has a track record” of supporting charter schools, a key issue for school-choice advocates.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 04:27 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Trump and the Climate Change Clown Show

Trump and the Climate Change Clown Show
Chasing windmills at the expense of jobs and commerce is no way to make America great again.
By Brian C. Joondeph

Climate change is back in the news as President-Elect Donald Trump threatens to roll back much of the Obama climate agenda. The Obama administration added 229 major regulations at an additional annual cost of $108 billion, many of which involve energy policy. The "Clean Power Plan" is one such regulatory behemoth, jacking up the cost of energy under the guise of saving the planet from global warming.

Of course, the left believes that Trump will mandate dirty air and water, encouraging pollution on a mass scale. After all, Republicans prefer living in a toxic waste dump world, exposing themselves and their families to pesticides, carcinogens, smog, and all other forms of environmental filth. Or so we are told.

As the debate heats up ahead of Trump assuming office, now is a good time to take another look at the doomsday predictions of global warming and the upcoming extinction of life on Planet Earth. That's just hyperbole, right? Actually, it's not. A climate change scientist from the University of Arizona predicts human extinction in ten years.

Polar ice caps are a good barometer of global temperatures. If the ice caps are melting, the planet is likely warming. Environmental soothsayer Al Gore recognized this and made a bold prediction in 2008. He told a German audience that the northern polar ice cap would disappear in five years.

How did his prediction turn out? Not well. Al's prognostication was on par with recent media predictions of a Hillary Clinton landslide electoral victory.

Polar ice caps are measured via satellite, a process beginning in 1979. Recent NASA satellite data shows no recession of the polar ice caps since 1979. In fact, since 2012, the total extent of polar ice is above post-1979 average. The ice caps are growing, not shrinking. In the words of Al Gore, this is "an inconvenient truth."

It's all much like thawing a frozen Thanksgiving turkey. If you leave it in the garage for a day to thaw, and it's still frozen solid, it's safe to assume that the garage temperature is below freezing.

There is nothing wrong with making predictions. This is part of the scientific method. This requires four steps to make an accurate representation of natural phenomenon.

First, observe the phenomenon – in this case, what Al Gore and others believed to be warming of the planet. Second, formulate a hypothesis to explain the warming. One possibility is human endeavors. Another is solar activity. Third, use the hypothesis to make future predictions, such as melting polar ice caps. Fourth, test the predictions based on experiments or observations.

Did the ice caps actually melt? Obviously not – meaning back to the drawing board for Al Gore and his disciples.

What went wrong: the observations or the hypothesis? Or both?

Perhaps the original observation of global warming is flawed. Many other scientists observe global cooling instead, especially over the past 30 years. Accurate temperature recordings are a recent technology, especially compared to the timespan of human activity on the planet and the lifespan of Earth itself.

There may be dips and rises in a longer-term temperature trend line, much like the drive from Denver to the Eisenhower Tunnel in the Rocky Mountains. Despite a nearly 6,000-foot climb, there are short downhill stretches along the road. Observing only the downhill section of Floyd Hill, for example, one would incorrectly assume it's downhill from Denver to the top of the continental divide, overlooking the longer overall uphill journey. In climate change parlance, this would be labeled as a "hiatus."

Aside from the observations, warming versus cooling, what is the hypothesis as to what is causing the change? Some blame human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. Others attribute temperature changes on Earth to the Sun, our solar system furnace, a million times larger than Earth. Just as a home furnace turns on and off at the direction of a thermostat, the Sun has its own cosmic thermostat, well beyond our comprehension or control.

Turn down the Sun's thermostat, meaning reduced solar activity, and the solar system cools down. European researchers predict a "mini ice age" from 2030 to 2040 based on decreased solar activity. They liken it to the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s, which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

So is the planet warming or cooling? That the polar ice caps are not melting suggests that the Earth is not warming. Is it cooling? Perhaps, as some scientists recently noted based on temperature measurements.

What about the predictions? Al Gore's hot air is based on politics and carbon credit sales. His predictions carry as much weight as those of Leo DiCaprio and Emma Watson.

Even the scientists got it wrong. The International Climate Change Conference made a ten-year prediction in 2000 for rising global temperatures that was off by well over a degree in 2010, with an increasing gap between actual and predicted temperatures beyond 2010. If they can't forecast ten years into the future, how can they predict 50 or 100 years from now?

The science is far from settled. Observations need to be refined and standardized so apples are being compared to apples. Hypotheses must be reworked and tested to determine if they truly predict anything. And politics should have no place in the debate, as political agendas trump the scientific method.

Speaking of Trump, he told the N.Y. Times that he is keeping an "open mind" when it comes to climate issues. Good approach. Until the science is settled, only an open mind will be receptive to new or contradictory information.

In the meantime, Trump wants to roll back costly and economically harmful regulations from the Obama administration. Unlike future temperatures, the effects of these regulations are well known in terms of energy prices, jobs, and American industry competitiveness.

Chasing windmills at the expense of jobs and commerce is no way to make America great again.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-30-2016 at 04:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2016, 02:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Trump Victory Puts Kibosh On Obama U.N. Israel Action

US Officials: Obama Has Nearly Ruled Out UN Action On Israel
Sources say Trump’s victory put kibosh on internal discussions about last-ditch peace attempt

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has nearly ruled out any major last-ditch effort to put pressure on Israel over stalled peace negotiations with the Palestinians, US officials said, indicating Obama will likely avoid one last row with Israel’s government as he leaves office.

Frustrated by the lack of progress, Obama for more than a year had considered giving a major speech describing his vision for a future peace deal or, in a more aggressive step, supporting a United Nations resolution laying out parameters for such a deal. Although the goal would be to impart fresh urgency to the moribund peace process, either step would have been perceived as constraining Israel’s negotiating hand while strengthening the Palestinians’ argument on the world stage.

Discussions about those potential maneuvers, underway before the US election, have fallen off since Donald Trump’s surprise victory, officials said. Obama is now highly unlikely to approve either of those options presented to him by US diplomats, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to discuss internal deliberations and requested anonymity.

Officials left open the possibility that Obama could address the Mideast issue in a more limited way, short of weighing in on the contours of a future peace accord, before leaving office.

Discussions about those potential maneuvers, underway before the US election, have fallen off since Donald Trump’s surprise victory, officials said. Obama is now highly unlikely to approve either of those options presented to him by US diplomats, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to discuss internal deliberations and requested anonymity.

Officials left open the possibility that Obama could address the Mideast issue in a more limited way, short of weighing in on the contours of a future peace accord, before leaving office.

The Republican Party and many Trump supporters are vehemently opposed to UN actions targeting Israel. So any action by Obama would put Trump on the defensive, potentially aggravating him and forcing him to respond publicly.

That could lead Trump to stake out a hard-line stance in opposition to Obama, in turn making it difficult for him to play a neutral arbiter between Israelis and Palestinians in the future. Trump has voiced interest in being the president to finally solve the Mideast conflict and has suggested his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, could be the one to broker a deal.

Netanyahu has said little about Trump’s victory beyond congratulating him — possibly in an attempt to avoid antagonizing Obama while he is still in office. He’s ordered his Cabinet not to comment on the election results and told his ministers not to speak to Trump’s transition team.

For years, the US has officially opposed any attempts by Palestinians to seek recognition for statehood or allow multi-country groups like the UN to impose solutions.

“Our view hasn’t changed, that we believe that the preferred path for the Palestinians to achieve statehood is through direct negotiations that will lead to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said earlier this week.

Yet early last year, Obama began flirting with the possibility that the US could alter that stance by supporting a statehood bid at the UN, reflecting his dismay about a perceived lack of seriousness by Netanyahu about making peace. Obama was incensed when Netanyahu, during his re-election in 2015, voiced opposition to Palestinian statehood, though the Israeli leader later walked back that statement.

Though Obama and his aides have generally avoided speaking publicly about options being considered, they have conspicuously avoided ruling anything out. Officials maintained that all options remain on the table, unlikely at this point as they may be.

Maintaining ambiguity about what Obama might do could preserve any leverage the president still has over Israel’s government. Removing the threat of US action, on the other hand, could embolden Israeli hard-liners and amplify calls for increased settlement construction and even the annexation of parts of the West Bank.

But House Foreign Relations Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said there’s a problem with Obama’s unpredictability.

“If you are heavily signaling that you’re not going to oppose and veto UN Security Council resolutions that seek to impose one-sided solutions, the consequence is others will take your measure, and the momentum will build, given the natural attitudes at the UN,” Royce said in an interview. Israel’s supporters consider the UN to be strongly anti-Israel given its history of approving resolutions condemning Israel.

The House this week passed a non-binding bill sponsored by Royce and his Democratic counterpart urging Obama to continue blocking resolutions that attempt to impose preconditions on a peace deal. The bill passed with support from House GOP leadership and lawmakers of both parties.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2016, 03:55 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Muslims in State Department, Defense Department, and CIA debate quitting

Muslims in State Department, Defense Department, and CIA debate quitting
Presumably they're all extremely dedicated to fighting the war on radical Islamic terror.
By Ed Straker

Muslims working in the State Department, Defense Department, and intelligence agencies like the CIA wonder if, with the election of Donald Trump, they should quit their jobs (

The employees are on edge about everything from retaining their security clearances to the possibility of discriminatory treatment under Trump, whose top aides include known peddlers of conspiracy theories about Islamists infiltrating the U.S. government.

"I feel apprehensive," a Muslim intelligence official told POLITICO. "I fear that – whatever white power movement or equivalent all of a sudden feels empowered by the president-elect, whatever tidbits of that community make their way into government – at the most basic level people who are brown, Middle Eastern, Muslim or Sikh or whatever will either be looked at with a lens of suspicion or concern, or something more overt may take place."

... [O]thers fear Trump aides may make moves that are hard to prove as being based on overt ethnic or religious discrimination, such as simply appointing fewer Muslims or other minorities to prominent posts at State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon or elsewhere.

"My initial reaction was, 'Oh my God, should we quit and leave?'" said a State Department official of Muslim heritage who – like most sources contacted for this story – was unwilling to speak on the record for fear of angering the new administration. "People are still struggling to understand what it means right now. Does it make sense to stay on board? Do you wait to see what the policies are going to be?"

I would be very disappointed if Muslims working at the most sensitive levels of the government quit their jobs. I sleep better at night knowing that wonderful Muslims are working tirelessly to protect us at the most senior levels of the CIA, Department of Defense, and the State Department...unless they aren't committed to fighting the war on radical Islamic terror.

If they won't name radical Islam at the enemy we are fighting, they should resign.

If they view Donald Trump as more of an enemy than ISIS, they should resign.

If they have a problem with focusing on certain mosques and Muslim groups like CAIR to locate terrorists, they should resign.

If they have an objection to limiting immigration from countries where Muslim terrorists come from, they should resign.

If they blame America for terrorism rather than terrorists themselves, they should resign.

But I hope they don't have any problems with these policies. I sure would be sad to see them go.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2016, 04:31 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down CAIR Leader Calling For Overthrow Of Government Under President Trump!

CAIR Leader Calling For Overthrow Of Government Under President Trump!

If you don’t like somenting in the government you do your best to change it within the law, you don’t out and out call for a terrorist act. CAIR is supposed to be a council that improves the relationship between the Muslim community and the non-Muslim community here in America. In reality, it is the opposite. It makes relations much, much worse.

The organization is very suspicious and has frequently used rhetoric sympathetic to terrorism. The leader of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter, Hussam Ayloush, even said that the U.S. was to blame for the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Then CAIR rushed to the aid of the shooter’s family right after the attack.

Here is what Ayloush had to say about the recent election. Ok, repeat after me: Al-Shaab yureed isqat al-nizaam. (Arab Spring chant) Translation? Not good…

From Federalist Papers: The second line “Al-Shaab yureed isqat al-nizaam” in Arabic is (الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام‎‎), literally translated, it means “The people want to overthrow the regime.” It was a slogan first used during the Tunisian revolution, which kicked off the Arab Spring, where dozens of totalitarian Islamic nations were either toppled or faced serious street demonstrations. It was also the slogan during the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.

Ayloush is not just a nominal figure in Leftist circles. In 2012, he was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention and has attended at least two White House meetings, Daniel Pipes is reporting. The [White House] logs show Ayloush met with Paul Monteiro, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement on July 8, 2011 and Amanda Brown, assistant to the White House director of political affairs Patrick Gaspard, on June 6, 2009. According to reliable sources, Monteiro was White House liaison for secret contacts with CAIR, especially with Ayloush.

For the record, advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government is an extremely serious crime. In 18 U.S. Code § 2385, it reads:

“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States… Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”


It looks like this guy isn’t planning on joining us on earth anytime soon.

Read More Here>

Last edited by Paparock; 12-01-2016 at 04:51 PM..
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum