The Role Of The President

On Wednesday, Jazz Shaw Hot Air posted an article with the following headline?

Is Biden Out of the Loop on Israel-Hamas Negotiations?

The article then goes on to explain why Jazz Shaw is asking this question:

You’ve probably seen the breathless headlines emerging this week featuring Joe Biden suggesting that a ceasefire deal in Gaza was “close” to being finalized and that at least some hostages and prisoners could be exchanged. Most of us would likely be glad to see hostages coming home, so that’s good news, right? And Biden assured us that he’d gotten that information from National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, so the claim must have been pretty solid. There’s only one problem with the story and the assumptions that followed, though. As the Free Beacon quickly pointed out, some reporters had been following up with their sources in Israel and around the Middle East where the major players are involved. None of them seemed to have any idea what Biden was talking about. 

Anyone who has paid attention for the past eighteen plus years understands why a cease fire and a two-state solution are both bad ideas. What assurance has HAMAS given that the hostages are still alive and what has HAMAS done to indicate it is willing to release them? A cease fire would only give Hamas a chance to regroup and rearm, and a two-state solution would create another terror base for Islamist extremists. It has become very obvious since October 7th and Israel’s response that almost all of the ‘humanitarian aid’ sent to Gaza since 2005 has been used to build tunnels and acquire weapons. Why would we give the residents of Gaza a chance to do that again? Many have already stated that they want to repeat the actions of October 7th. Why would we encourage or allow that? Until hate is not taught in Gaza schools and UNRWA camps (see kindergarten graduation picture here), a two-state solution will never result in peace.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

I have seen some conservative commentators previously asking why the United States isn’t assuming its traditional role as a peacemaker and shepherding these negotiations through to the finish line. But does anyone really want Joe Biden at that table at this point? The two sides are at an impasse and have been for a while now. Israel isn’t going to accept a deal that hurts their interests, fails to release all of the hostages, or prevents them from eliminating Hamas. Hamas won’t give up what they see as the last bit of insurance they have against complete obliteration. 

Negotiating this situation would have been a serious challenge for Henry Kissinger on his best day. And Joe Biden couldn’t have matched Kissinger’s skills on his best day, which has long since faded in the rearview mirror. But the fact that he keeps coming out and saying things like this, leaving the media scrambling to either verify it or explain what went wrong is a problem. The world is a powderkeg at the moment and the person potentially in control of the fuse no longer has the cognitive abilities to be trusted with a pack of matches.

When WOKE Takes Over

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article about a change in the information collected by the government from broadcasters.

The article reports:

The Biden Administration is so concerned about preserving democracy and the norms that underlie it that they are, once again, ignoring Supreme Court precedents in order to do the right thing no matter how many Constitutional limits they have to blow through. 

…This time the issue is collecting DEI information from broadcasters, which has been tried before and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court–twice.

We have this story via an FCC commissioner who dissented from the decision. He was previously the General Counsel of the FCC, so he knows of what he speaks better than almost anybody. 

…There is one and only one reason for the FCC to require broadcasters to publish their DEI-related employment stats, and it has everything to do with making broadcasters vulnerable to pressure from activist groups pushing them to change the racial and gender balance of their employees. 

The point is to outsource what the government can’t do to pressure groups: impose de facto quotas.

The Court has twice rejected similar attempts by the FCC, but they seem to believe that in this case, the third time is the charm. 

The FCC claims that there is no evidence that forcing broadcasters to disclose this presumptively private information will have any impact. 

The article concludes:

Government grants go to nonprofits with Left-wing agendas, pushing for things the government cannot. It is the outsourcing of the cultural revolution in the way that post-9/11 intelligence and even military operations were outsourced to private contractors. 

It’s legally dubious, morally wrong, and over the long term it has been pretty damn effective. 

There is no plausible reason for forcing companies to release private employment data legally protected under privacy provisions except to give ammunition to outside pressure groups. 

Unfortunately, it’s no surprise that our benevolent betters are fine with tearing up the Constitution. They have been working at it for years now. 

I remember what happened in California when names of donors to a conservative cause were released–their homes were picketed and some were put out of business. The requesting of this information by the FCC is illegal and needs to end immediately.

The Perversion Of Justice Continues

When something is called a crime but has no victim and the people who were supposedly injured by the ‘crime’ say that they were not injured, what is the appropriate punishment? In New York the punishment is to destroy the person who didn’t commit the crime because you dislike his politics and he might become President.

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted the following screenshot and commentary:

So this is a pre-emptive penalty because no actual fraud occurred?

This quirk in New York’s appellate procedure certainly offers one explanation. Engoron and AG Letitia James want to use the process as the punishment, and want to denude Trump of his legitimate wealth right in the middle of a political campaign they oppose. The massive fine will force Trump to either leverage these properties — and with banks outside of New York, thanks to Engoron — or to sell them off and put a large chunk of his wealth into the hands of New York for years

Did Engoron deliberately scale up the judgment to put Trump in this position? Let’s just say that New York’s system incentivizes it — and based on his deportment in the trial, it’s a reasonable conclusion.

It’s tough to overstate the absurdity of this situation. Appellate courts exist to allow citizens to seek redress for injustices in trials, both criminal and civil, that would result in ruination otherwise. This stands that process on its head. To seek redress for an injustice in a New York courtroom, the citizen must participate in his ruination just to knock on the door — even if an injustice has truly occurred. 

Please follow the link to the article to see exactly what is going on. I firmly believe that this verdict will have a chilling effect on business growth in New York in the coming years.

 

Why We Need Voter Identification Laws

As of January 2024, 34 states required voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day. The states vary on exactly what that identification should be, but some identification is required.

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article that illustrates why requiring voters to show some form of identification is a good idea.

The article reports:

Here’s a story that shows a political prank can turn into a good case for the need for voter identification when registering to vote. It involves five recording artists and a house in Katy, Texas.

Katy is a city west of Houston, in the Houston metro area. Katy’s population at the time of the 2020 census was 21,894. The point is that it is a small city, most often thought of as a suburb of Houston. There is a story out today that recording artists  Drake50 Cent, Chris Brown, Trey Songz, and The Game are all registered to vote with the same address in Katy. 

The house is described as “a beige, $300,000 house in a modest new development in Katy.” The homeowner had no idea why the men were registered to vote at that address. Neighbors said they had not seen the performers. 

It’s a prank that uses a federal loophole in voter ID laws. 

…The apparent prank shines a spotlight on a potential loophole in federal voting registration law that allows virtually anyone to register friends, enemies or celebrities to vote. Whether the intent is malicious or not, experts say it is still illegal.

The article concludes:

What is this federal loophole that allows people to register to vote without an ID? It is the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Eligible voters without a driver’s license or a Social Security number are able to take advantage of it. There are some people who are eligible to vote but don’t have either. It might be someone born outside the United States who never applied for a Social Security number. 

When they go to vote, they have to show some other form of identity, like a utility bill. For example, Drake wouldn’t be able to do that. 

Don’t worry. This doesn’t pose a threat to the singers’ actual voter registrations if they are registered in Texas. 

This story, odd as it is, is a good example of the need to close the federal loophole that allows voter registration applications to be presented without identification. It invites shenanigans and creates extra work for election officials.

It is particularly urgent to get voter identification in place because of the number of illegal aliens currently in America that may be encouraged to vote.

Misled Again

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about the continued funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Evidently things are not what they seem.

The article reports:

The Biden administration is continuing to build a disappointing track record of weak responses to foreign affairs crises and deceptive promotion of its own efforts at home. The latest example comes on the heels of the explosive revelations that at least a dozen members of the United Nations’ Palestinian relief agency, the UNRWA, took part in the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7. In response, the White House claimed that they had reinstituted a freeze on funding for the UNRWA that had already been in place under Trump but was lifted by Joe Biden. That seemed like a step in the right direction at the time, but now we’ve learned that a very important detail was left out of the announcement. As Guy Benson reports at Townhall, the “freeze” in funding only applies to new, additional funding requests. Previously approved funds will continue to flow to them as usual.

  • That really does not solve the problem. We have all seen the pictures of Hamas hijacking the aid trucks that come into Gaza and stealing the supplies. How much of what we send actually goes to people in need rather than terrorists?

The article concludes:

Guy Benson correctly points out that this sleight of hand from Biden’s team is part of a larger pattern. You will recall that when Biden grudgingly agreed to add the Houthis back to the list of designated terror groups, he did assign them a designation, but it was a toothless classification compared to the position they occupied on the Foreign Terror Organization (FTO) watchlist under Donald Trump. That’s basically what he’s doing with the UNRWA. He’s giving someone a slap on the wrist when what they really need is a punch in the nose.

Joe Biden’s incompetent policies both at home and abroad aren’t simply embarrassing on the world stage, though that’s clearly true also. They are dangerous. They pose a threat to our own troops as we recently saw yet again and they put our allies at risk. He seems unwilling to do anything of substance that could be seen as too contrary to the wishes of Iran. You really have to ask yourself why.

Does the Biden administration support America?

Things That Stand In The Way Of Freeing The Israeli Hostages

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about another planned terrorist attack on Israel that was stopped because of good intelligence and military action.

The article reports:

Perhaps Hamas has not received the memo. Using hospitals as cover and human-shield strategies while plotting terrorist attacks no longer works, at least according to the IDF and Shin Bet. Acting on intelligence that Hamas’ leadership abroad had coordinated weapons distribution from a cell embedded in a Jenin hospital, the IDF conducted a raid and killed its leader and two other operatives.

Hamas had planned to run another October 7-style massacre out of the West Bank using the Ibn Sina hospital as its command center, Israel claims:

According to the Jerusalem Post:

According to a joint statement by the IDF, Israel Police’s YAMAM counterterrorism forces, and the Shin Bet, Hamas terrorist Mohammad Jalamna was killed during the operation, along with two fellow terrorists who hid alongside him at the hospital.

27-year-old Jalamna, a resident of the Jenin refugee camp, held direct communications with Hamas leadership abroad. According to the statement, he was responsible for transferring weaponry and ammunition to Hamas terrorists across the West Bank for shooting attacks targeting Israelis. …

Furthermore, Jalamna used the Jenin hospital as a secret base of operations as he was planning an infiltration attack akin to and inspired by the October 7 massacre, it added.

At some point, we have to admit that the only solution to terrorism is to kill all of the terrorists.

The Times of Israel reported:

“This is not another round, not another exchange of strikes, not another operation – a complete victory,” he tells the Bnei David military academy in Eli. “Nothing less than that. I am committed to it, our fighters are committed to it, and the absolute majority of the people are committed to it. We will not settle for less than total victory.”

Turning to reports of a hostage deal, Netanyahu says that Israel “will not end this war with less than the achievement of all its goals. This means the elimination of Hamas, the return of all our hostages, and the promise that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel.”

“We will not remove the IDF from the Gaza Strip and we will not release thousands of terrorists,” he pledges. “None of this will happen. What will happen? Absolute victory!”

Most Israelis understand that they live in a dangerous neighborhood. They need to let the Netanyahu government finish what Hamas started on October 7.

Even Hamas Opposes A Two-State Solution!

On Monday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about a recent comment by Hamas Leader Abroad Khaled Mashal.

The article reports:

For Khaled Mashal, it marked the first time that Hamas successfully turned the West into cheerleaders for their genocide, which fuels their fight in Gaza to this day. “From the river to the sea” means exactly what it states, Mashal asserts in this interview caught by MEMRI — and that is a radical-Islamist Palestinian state replacing Israel entirely:

…“I believe that the dream and the hope for Palestine from the River to the Sea and from the north to the south has been renewed. This has also become a slogan chanted in the U.S. and in Western capital cities, by the American and Western public,” he said.

“Palestine is free from the River to the Sea—that’s the slogan of the American students and the [students] in European capital cities.

“The Palestinian consensus—or almost a consensus—is that we will not give up on our right to Palestinian in its entirety, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea and from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat or the Gulf of Aqaba,” he continued.

The Charter of Hamas has always said that its goal was to drive Israel into the sea. Why are we still surprised when their actions support this goal? I wonder if the Americans chanting “from the river to the sea” understand the meaning of what they are chanting.

As Americans, we need to remember that Hamas’ sponsors in Tehran routinely promise “death to America.” Only Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and their Obama-administration minders refuse to take that either seriously or literally.

 

 

Peaceful Protest?

On Sunday, Hot Air posted an article about the pro-Hamas protests outside the White House on Saturday. The protests were not peaceful.

The article reports:

The thousands of people screaming about peace and ceasefires outside of the White House yesterday certainly weren’t acting as if peace was important. In fact, as Fox News reported, many of them were becoming overtly violent. The speeches and chants gave way to attempts to break down the security fencing that had been erected to keep them out. They also began hurling things at the Metropolitan Police as well as the United States Park Police. The tone of the chants coming from the rioters shifted a bit also. Instead of only decrying Israel and demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, they were demanding that the United States stop striking back against the Houthi militants in Yemen. The potentially violent situation was bad enough that some White House staffers and journalists were temporarily “relocated” to keep them safe. The situation was completely out of control.

I have some questions for the protesters. Does the ceasefire include returning the innocent hostages that have been held for more than three month? Will reparations be paid by Hamas to the families of the innocent civilians Hamas killed or the families of the hostages? Why isn’t Hamas being tried in the World Court for the purposeful killing of civilians and the use of civilians as human shields?

The article notes:

As Bob Hoge pointed out at RedState, there were more than the normal Palestinian flags on display. People were hoisting ISIS flags as well. Yes, that would be the same ISIS terrorists that are so famous for their peaceful, humanitarian efforts around the world. Making things all the more bizarre, the person the protesters were attempting to influence (Joe Biden) wasn’t even there. He was already at Camp David. Also, Andy Ngo was on the scene as usual, filming the action and later posting it to Twitter.

Some of the protesters were protesting the attack on the Houthis, another terrorist group.

Please follow the link to read the entire article–I wonder if the people protesting truly understand what they are supporting.

This May Not Be The Path To Victory

On December 7th, Hot Air posted an article with the following title:

Which Constituency Group Won’t the Democratic Party Betray?

The article has a list of groups the Democrats have betrayed in recent years. That list includes law enforcement, parents, Catholics, Hispanics, black voters, female athletes, and most recently, Jews.

Here are a few highlights from the article:

Once a party that welcomed and embraced police enforcement, or at least the unions that represent law enforcement, the Democratic Party made defunding the police a part of their rhetorical platform after a series of altercations that resulted in the deaths of black suspects like Daunte Wright, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others. Many Democrats were silent, because they were not cops.

…Then, the Democratic Party came for parents. Once COVID forced the closure of schools and parents got a look at what curriculum was actually being taught, parents began to object vociferously. Democrats’ view was that parents shouldn’t have rights over their kids’ education, and that it’s the job of the state and the unions to do that.

…Next, the Democratic Party came for Catholics. Catholics have historically called the Democratic Party their political home going back to John F. Kennedy. Once now-Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was nominated, the party began to turn on Catholics. Late California Senator Dianne Feinstein asked her during her Appellate Court confirmation hearings about her Catholic dogma living too loudly within her. The Biden Justice Department and FBI have been caught red-handed using priests and choir directors in the Church to conduct surveillance on the rising threat of “traditional Catholics”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

…The Democratic Party betrayed Hispanics, a voting bloc that has voted, at least historically, almost monolithically Democratic. But that has begun to change as Democrats declare war on small businesses and ignore the flow of illegal immigrants flowing across the border, both issues that bother Hispanics already here in the country immensely.

…Even the Atlantic has recognized that the Democratic Party is taking black voters for granted, and betraying them in the process.

…Yesterday, the House GOP held a hearing on Title IX, and offered up witnesses talking about the profound unfairness that biological males presenting as females are making a mockery of women’s sports in high schools and colleges all over the country. The Democrats in the House offered up their star witness, Fatima Goss Graves, the president of the National Women’s Law Center. Here’s what she had to say about girls complaining about dudes bigfooting their sports and drinking their milkshake.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The frightening thing about this is that the Democrats at some point will realize that the only way they can win is to let illegal immigrants vote or cheat. That is not a good thing.

But It Looked Really Good On Paper

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article about Measure 110, passed in Oregon in 2020. The law decriminalized the possession and use of small quantities of virtually all hard drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines. The idea of the law was to change the focus from jailtime to rehabilitation.

The article reports:

The results of this move have been spectacular, provided you were hoping for it to be spectacularly bad. Particularly in cities like Portland, citizens are unable to walk the streets without tripping over addicts who are shooting up or passed out on the sidewalk. This reality has an increasing number of people rethinking the policy and talk of repealing Measure 110 is growing. (Associated Press)

…Decriminalization has now been attempted in multiple American cities and it has failed every single time. There isn’t one place you can point to where decriminalization has resulted in fewer overdose deaths and more people recovering in treatment programs. The opposite is what has happened.

Republicans in Oregon are reportedly pushing the Governor to call a special session to repeal the measure and criminalize both possession and public drug use. They are also asking for rehabilitation treatment to be mandatory instead of voluntary as it is now. The second part of that proposal is probably doomed to failure, however. It’s almost impossible to force someone into an addiction treatment program if they aren’t ready to seek help for themselves. If you do that, they’ll probably just be biding their time until they are released and can go search for their next fix.

Every parent knows that it is easier to ignore your child’s bad behavior than to deal with it. However, at some point you have to deal with it and the sooner you deal with it, the easier it will be. Somehow our ‘public servants’ have never grasped this concept.

The article concludes:

This was always predictable, or at least it should have been. When you remove the disincentive for a particular behavior and make it easier to engage in that behavior, you’re going to wind up with more of it. Given the addictive nature of the drugs in question, once the line has been crossed it’s very difficult to walk it back. The rise in homelessness was also a predictable result. If people with jobs become addicted to opioids, their performance at work will begin to go downhill. When they eventually lose their jobs, they have little else to occupy their time beyond looking to score drugs. Unable to pay the rent, they eventually wind up out in the street. This really shouldn’t be confusing to any of these politicians. The only question now is whether they can find the intestinal fortitude to admit their error and try to put the state back on an even keel.

Let’s learn from out mistakes!

 

 

An Interesting Fact About College Protests

On Thursday, Hot Air posted an article about the pro-Palestine protests that are happening at some of our elite colleges.

The article notes:

TV host Mike Rowe said that eight years ago, he was switching the news channels on his television and saw several college students setting fire to the American flag and dancing around a pile of burning flags. They were telling reporters in interviews they were disgusted with Old Glory and “fearful” of the flag.

“It wasn’t lost on me in the moment that all of these events were happening at what is considered the best of the best elite universities across the country,” Rowe told me. Among supposedly non-elite students, though, the situation wasn’t and isn’t as bad.

Rowe said it didn’t take long for him to figure out why those “elite” students drew those conclusions about Old Glory: The idea of associating fear with the flag came from the very people who were supposed to be instructing these privileged students.

Rowe said the evidence was crystal clear when Jonathan Lash, then the president of Hampshire College, chose not to assure the students that no country offers more liberties to their people and therefore there was nothing to “fear” from the flag. Instead, he spoke up in ways they understood to validate their fears.

“Lash actually removed any traces of the American flag from the campus and said in a statement that removing the flag from the campus ‘will better enable us to focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors,’” Rowe explained.

Lash, a former Peace Corps volunteer, federal prosecutor, Harvard graduate, and president of a Washington-based environmental think tank, left the college in 2018. Hampshire College, under Lash in 2015, was one of the first elite schools in the United States not to accept SAT scores from applicants, in part because Lash said SATs were strongly biased against students of color.

The article notes that Mike Rowe has observed that these protests are not happening in community colleges and trade schools. Generally speaking, students at those schools are concerned with graduating and making a living–they are not from homes that guarantee their future.

The article concludes:

The Department of Education tallies show there are nearly 4,000 colleges and universities across this country with 40% of their students holding some type of job while attending school.

In contrast, there are just a little over 1,000 community colleges and 7,407 trade and technical schools as of 2022 with 80% of those students employed while attending school in the former.

Rowe said that when the protests at the elite universities started to unfold after the Oct. 7 massacre, he wondered what seemed so familiar. “And the answer isn’t because it’s familiar in terms of bad behavior. It was familiar because it’s another thing that never happens at schools where people go to learn a skill.”

Unfortunately, the students at the elite colleges often go into politics and attempt to shape national policy.

A Tweet That Says It All

On November 5th, Hot Air shared the following Tweet:

Has the Department of State not heard the chants of “from the river to the sea”? Do they not understand what those chants are saying? Are they not aware that Hamas wants a one-state solution–a world without Israel?

The article at Hot Air includes the following quote:

[I do believe Hamas has made it very clear they’re on the “one state” team, and that state is NOT Israel. I have never seen such consistently malevolent, ignorant buffoons in such high places before. ~ Beege]

A two-state solution will not work. We also need to remember that before October 7th, there was a truce between Israel and the Gaza Strip. We have seen how well that worked out.

Unfortunately, we are faced with an evil we have not seen since Nazi Germany, and out only option is to destroy it.

Standing Strong

On November 3rd, Hot Air posted an article about a recent statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The article reports:

Benjamin Netanyahu has learned to take Hamas at its word. The United States, and specifically Antony Blinken and Joe Biden, still have not. As Blinken met with the unity government in Jerusalem to push Israel to ‘pause’ operations for aid to flow into northern Gaza, Netanyahu delivered a rather humiliating public rebuke.

The article quotes The Times of Israel:

In a brief televised statement before the start of Shabbat, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has told visiting US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he rejects any temporary halt to the fight against Hamas that does not include “the release of our hostages. He also says Israel “will not enable the entry of fuel to Gaza.”

Netanyahu begins by promising that victory will be “sharp and clear” and will “resonate for generations.”

He says Israel’s enemies aim to destroy the country and will fail. “We won’t stop until victory,” he says, specifying that this means “to destroy Hamas, [and attain the] return of the hostages and the restoration of security for our citizens and children.”

The article concludes:

No kidding. So why are Biden and Blinken insisting on pauses and negotiations with the monsters of October 7 rather than supporting their effort to eradicate them? Why are we publicly playing into Hamas’ hostaging strategy when our own citizens are at risk rather than ending the incentives of such strategies forcefully and decisively? Incoherent hardly covers it; moral idiocy comes a lot closer to explaining the Biden administration’s pressure.

We need to remember that Israel was at peace when Hamas attacked. Hamas did not attack military targets. They attacked innocent civilians in the most brutal ways possible. If there are no serious consequences for their actions, what is going to stop them from repeating those actions?

America’s Actions Are Not Helping End Terrorism

On Wednesday, Hot Air posted an article about Israel’s delay in its attack on the Gaza Strip.

The article reports:

The story about why Israel has yet to make a ground invasion of Gaza is becoming clear, and it is yet another embarrassment for the United States under Joe Biden.

Israel has been prepared to enter Gaza to eliminate Hamas, but the ground invasion keeps getting delayed. The reason why?

The US is unprepared to defend US military installations in the area.

If that is true, then every one of our current military leaders ought to be relieved of command.

On October 23rd, The National Review reported the following:

The IDF is getting antsy that further delaying the ground invasion of Gaza could hinder its goal of destroying Hamas, while the Biden administration is putting pressure on Israel to wait even longer for ongoing hostage negotiations to play out.

A ground invasion of Gaza has been reported as “imminent” for weeks following the October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians, leading to swirling speculation about what the hold-up was; but a clearer picture is starting to emerge.

The Times of Israel on Monday reported that

the Israel Defense Forces believes that in order to attain the objectives of the war against Hamas, laid out by government officials, the military must begin its ground offensive in the Gaza Strip sooner rather than later. . . .

After 16 days of airstrikes, the IDF has told the government that it is fully prepared for a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip, and believes it can achieve the goals set out for it, even at the risk of heavy casualties to soldiers, and amid repeated attacks by Hezbollah in the north, The Times of Israel learned.

The new excuse by the Biden Administration looks utterly pathetic because it is an admission that despite decades of having troops and assets in the region, our military is not prepared to defend our interests.

That is quite the reality if true, and quite the message to our enemies if either true or false.

Do we want Israel to deal with the terrorists in Gaza or do we want more terrorism around the world?

Please follow the link to read the entire article. We need a new President.

The People Who Know

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported that Jordan and Egypt have refused to take Palestinian refugees. They are not being heartless–they are protecting their regimes. There is a lot of history behind this decision.

The article reports:

How could Germany, of all countries, ask Jordan to accept a mass of Palestinian refugees? The PLO under Yasser Arafat tried to seize power in Jordan after King Hussein offered them sanctuary following the 1967 war with Israel. After two assassination attempts, Hussein finally used armed force to push Arafat and his collection of ingrates into Lebanon through Syria, another Arafat disaster that the Palestinians called Black September.

They gave that name to its terror wing, which is why Germany in particular should recall that history. After its ejection from Jordan, the PLO and its Black September wing went on an international terror spree, attempting to force the West to stop supporting Israel. One of its most well-known operations was the attempted abduction and murder of Israeli athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympics. As in Munich, Germany (West Germany at the time, of course).

How clueless does a German chancellor have to be to ask Jordan to recreate the conditions for another Black September — especially when the Gazans are so closely aligned with Iran? Clueless enough to attempt to ask Egypt next, apparently…

The article also notes:

Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has already rejected this idea, and with even more reason. As I wrote last week, Hamas sprang out of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood wants al-Sisi dead. Why in the world would anyone think that al-Sisi would allow tens of thousands of potential Muslim Brotherhood foot soldiers into his country now? If Germany or any of the other leaders in the West took even a moment to consider the precarious nature of both regimes, they’d be embarrassed to even have floated this idea.

The only country that should give refuge to the Gazans at the moment is Iran. They authored the present misery of the Gazans through their proxy Hamas. Iran won’t take them in either, though, even apart from the logistics of that kind of relocation. For one thing, the Persian Shi’ite mullahs couldn’t care less about the mainly Sunni Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank, but also they can’t afford their destabilizing presence either. They already have a restive population that the IRGC can barely contain, and that population hates the Palestinians and the way that the mullahs exploit their cause to justify their oppression.

Looking for a home for Palestinian refugees is like asking people to provide a home for a teenage murderer who has somehow escaped jail. Sometimes kindness involves great risk that can only end badly.

 

Only Some Immigrants Are Really Welcome

On September 25th, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the Romeike family. This family fled Germany in 2008 because the German government would not allow them to home-school their children.

The article reports:

The Romeike family fled Germany in 2008 after authorities cracked down on the practice of home-schooling, and applied for asylum in the US. Initially, a judge granted their asylum request, but when the Obama administration appealed the decision, that started a long legal odyssey that may have come to an end late last week:

The family moved to the U.S. from Germany in 2008. Their application for asylum said they were fined by the German government roughly $9,000 after homeschooling their children, court documents show.

An immigration judge initially granted the family’s application for asylum. The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the decision, and the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals revoked the family’s asylum status, documents show.

The family, with the help of the U.S. Home School Defense Association, appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled against the family.

“They have not shown that Germany’s enforcement of its general school-attendance law amounts to persecution against them,” Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.

Did the Biden administration find out that they might be conservative Christians?

Please follow the link to read the rest of the article.

This is ridiculous. We have an open southern border that is letting in murderers, terrorists, cartel members, gang members, etc., and the government had decided to deport a family that includes American citizens. What level of insanity is this?

Does Anyone Actually Believe This?

On Saturday, Hot Air reported the latest amazing statement by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

The article reports:

The Biden administration thinks you are stupid. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Joe Biden has “done more to secure the border than anybody else.” She delivered that statement with a straight face to the press corps and no one laughed at her.

She has stated:

“Look, the president has done what he can from here, from the federal government, from the White House to put forth and manage our border in a safe and humane way to respect the dignity of every human, as he says all the time, and making sure that our communities are safe, and you have seen him do that,” Jean-Pierre said.

She later said: “The president has done more to secure the border and to deal with this issue of immigration than anybody else. He really has. June saw the single largest month-to-month drop in unlawful border crossing because of the policies this president put in place.”

The problem with the border is bi-partisan. As long as we keep electing Republicans who want cheap labor and Democrats who want future voters, we will have an open border. If the voters want change, they will have to vote in change. The conclusion of the article is very telling.

The article concludes:

Not only has Joe Biden thrown open the southern border to prove he is not Donald Trump, which we already knew anyway, but he is prosecuting Governor Abbott who has been left to fend for himself in protecting the Texas border with Mexico. Abbott began Operation Lone Star in March 2021 and the Biden DOJ has fought him ever since. Abbott is defending his buoy barrier in the Rio Grande River at Eagle Pass now. Think about that – the American president is trying to stop a governor from protecting a sovereign border. Biden’s top job is to protect the homeland, but, never mind.

The administration describes Abbott’s efforts as political stunts.

Jean-Pierre also said at the time: “We continue to see political stunts from many Republicans out there and that’s not how we’re going to fix this issue. They want to secure the border, we’ve been doing that work on our own, and we’re asking them to, ‘Hey, you know what? There’s an immigration reform plan that the president put out on the first day, they should work with us and do this in a bipartisan way.’”

You can’t make this up.

The problem with the Democrats’ “immigration reform” plan is that they demand blanket amnesty of all illegal aliens. That’s a deal-breaker for Republicans. Why would we reward law-breakers? Republicans were burned when Reagan agreed to amnesty during his administration. Democrats want the future voters. Republicans want law and order on the border. Just enforce the laws already on the books and put enough personnel on the border. That would be a solid start to bringing the situation back under control.

As long as you put a ‘poison pill’ in the bill that the Republicans cannot accept, you can continue to blame the Republicans for the lack of reform. Until the Republicans learn to (or want to) stand up to those tactics, we will have an open border.

Forgetting Their Oath

According to chron.com:

The CIA oath reads: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Schooled CIA employees know that the Constitution also defines the role of federal employees: “To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.”

On Friday, David Strom posed the following question at Hot Air:

Did the CIA work to rig the 2020 election?

The article notes that there are many ways to rig an election–illegal voters, fraudulent ballots, faulty voting machines, etc., but there is also the matter of spreading disinformation.

The article reports:

I couldn’t say if the 2020 election was stolen–there certainly were irregularities as there always are in elections–because any vote changes or illegal ballots have to be in the right place in the right numbers, and no evidence has been accepted by courts indicating that enough illegal votes to change the results were cast.

But certainly, the election was rigged. Lots of illegal changes to election laws were made without legislative approval, Big Tech censored conservatives based on phony claims, and the media colluded with outside groups to distort the truth or deny facts.

Among the riggers was the CIA, apparently. Not just former CIA agents, about which we already knew, but the CIA as an organization.

At least that is what has been asserted by Judicial Watch, and the evidence on its face supports that conclusion. So Judicial Watch is suing the CIA to force them to divulge what ought to be public information about events near the end of the campaign.

Note the statement “no evidence has been accepted by courts.” This may be the Achilles Heel in the indictments against President Trump. He may force that evidence to be heard in court.

The article concludes:

It issue is that letter that gave cover to Joe Biden when the Hunter Biden laptop, where 50 former intelligence officials claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop “had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.”

However deceptive this letter was, in itself, it was perfectly legal and I would oppose censoring it once it was published. It was a low-down dirty trick and it worked, but low-down dirty tricks are generally legal. Of course, media outlets should not have taken their claims at face value in the middle of a campaign, but that is a separate issue.

However, the wrinkle is this: because of the high rank these officials had the CIA had to preapprove the publication of the letter, and the CIA almost certainly knew the laptop was real (as the FBI also did, having had it a year). Further, there is substantial evidence that the CIA helped recruit further signatories for the letter, which would be a definite no-no. The CIA isn’t even supposed to be involved domestically, and certainly shouldn’t get involved in political campaigns.

Did those in the CIA violate their Oath of Office?

Tell Us How You Really Feel

David Strom posted an article at Hot Air on Thursday titled, “Christopher Wray is a low-down dirty liar and should be gone.” Wow. That’s a strong statement.

The article explains the reason for the headline:

FBI Director Christopher Wray has a habit of lying before Congress.

This is in addition to his running the FBI like a secret police force determined to take down anybody the current regime dislikes.

Last month, during hearings about the government’s surveillance of Catholic Churches in America, Christopher Wray claimed that Richmond memo which called for the surveillance of Catholic Churches was the result of a rogue set of FBI agents who worked alone and didn’t represent a larger movement within the FBI to go after political conservatives. Wray assured us that he was deeply concerned about this and was investigating how it happened. It turns out that his statement was totally false.

The article reports:

That investigation, by the way, was his excuse for withholding information from the committee, including redacting documents and not allowing the agents involved to speak to the committee. In itself, this is a bizarre standard, as there are no criminal charges involved and the Congress is charged with oversight of the Executive Branch. Is it now the case that any time the FBI or any other agency wants to hide information from Congress they can just claim they are “investigating” the matter and will tell Congress nothing?

…So what did Wray lie about specifically?

On July 25 the FBI finally provided the committee with a less-redacted version of that Richmond document. The report says that its information on Catholics was “primarily derived” from an “FBI Richmond contact”; an “FBI Portland liaison contact” who informed on a subject who “gravitated to” traditionalist catholicism; and an “FBI Undercover Employee” who reported on a subject who attended a Catholic church in California.

It also says the FBI’s Los Angeles field office “initiated an investigation” into a subject, and that the Richmond office “[c]oordinated with” FBI Portland to prepare the field report. In other words, this was a widespread bureau effort. Why was this suspicion about religion so widespread at the FBI?

Also troubling is the FBI’s decision to redact the Portland and Los Angeles roles from the original version of the Richmond document it provided Congress in March. In a letter with the less-redacted version, acting assistant FBI director Christopher Dunham said the redactions had been necessary to protect “information specific to ongoing criminal investigations.”

It may be time to scrap the current FBI and start from scratch!

Looking At The Big Picture

On Wednesday, Hot Air posted an article about the efforts to put President Trump behind bars.

The article is titled:

Why are so many people determined to defend Donald Trump, including me?

The author of the article, David Strom, admits that he does not like President Trump and thinks he is a bad human being, but still defends him.

The article explains a few of the reasons for this:

I ran across a reminder of why I reflexively defend Donald Trump against his critics, despite not liking the guy.

The answer is simple: the people going after him are tyrannical liars, or at the very least so blinded by their hatred that they have abandoned reason. And because they hate Trump with a white-hot passion that outshines the sun they are willing to destroy America.

Donald Trump is their Great Orange Whale, and they are determined to kill him whatever it takes. Law, truth and reason all must bend or be broken if the destruction of Trump is the end result.

The article cites an article by Max Boot titled, “Donald Trump Is Guilty, The only remaining question is what exactly he’s guilty of.” Compare that with the way the political left is reacting to the mounting evidence against President Biden.

The article notes:

Who thinks like that?

Totalitarians, like Soviet Secret Policeman Lavrentiy Beria, who famously said “Show me the man and I will show you the crime” do.

That Max Boot, a prominent neoconservative, could become so twisted that his hatred of Trump that he became a distorted version of a Soviet secret policeman should be amazing, but it is actually quite a common occurrence in the annals of Trump hatred.

Totalitarianism is a small price to pay if Donald Trump is put behind bars.

…What they all have in common is a blindness or indifference to the facts: Donald Trump is many things, but a traitor or insurrectionist he is not.

Moreover, he actually abused his power as president less than most. Perhaps this is so because he was less sophisticated in the ways of Washington than his cosmopolitan predecessor and successor, but the reality is that both Obama and Biden abused the intelligence and justice systems and turned them into their personal Stasi, while Trump did not.

Trump never sent the FBI to raid Hillary Clinton’s or Joe Biden’s house. Guess who did?

Trump SAID “Lock her up,” but left her alone. Biden is actually trying to lock up Trump and has turned the Justice Department into his family’s legal team. His Justice Department just tried to give a plenary “get out of jail free” card to his son by deceiving a judge. Imagine if Trump did such a thing.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It illustrates how warped our media, justice system, and political system has become in recent years.

A Major Green Energy ‘Whoops’

On July 3, a website called environmental progress posted the following:

Last August, in an amalgamation of ‘The Green New Deal’ meets ‘Build Back Better’, President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act gifted the renewables industry with billions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded subsidies. What few backing the bill realized was that the largest beneficiary would likely be China due to its expansive grip on the global solar photovoltaic (PV) industry.

Worse than that, it might end up misdirecting the world’s clean energy efforts into dirtier than appreciated energy technologies because of the country’s ongoing dependence on coal-fired energy.

Information unearthed by Environmental Progress points to a gaping oversight in how the figures influencing government net zero policy and investments in solar worldwide are compiled and collated due to the difficulty of collecting accurate information out of China, especially for the purification processes used to create silicon wafers.

Key to this blind spot is that the source material for most of the assessments is provided by a small number of data compilers, many if not all of them working in collaboration with the International Energy Agency (IEA). The data is voluntarily submitted by the industry in response to academic surveys. The nature and profile of the respondents is never publicy revealed, so that there is the potential for conflicts of interest to develop.

A further puzzle is how that data feeds into an organization called Ecoinvent, a Swiss-based non-profit founded in 1998 that dubs itself “the world’s most consistent and transparent life cycle inventory database”. This data is relied on by institutions worldwide, including the IPCC and IEA itself, to calculate their carbon footprint projections, including the sixth assessment report published as recently as March 2023.

Based on such data, the IPCC claims solar PV is 48 gCO2/kWh. But, as we’ll see below, a new investigation started by Italian researcher, Enrico Mariutti, suggests that the number is closer to between 170 and 250 gCO2/kWh, depending on the energy mix used to power PV production. If this estimate is accurate, solar would not compare favorably with natural gas, which is around 50 gCO2/kWh with carbon capture, and 400 to 500 without.

On July 24, in a similar article, Hot Air noted:

I think we all know how the Chinese came to be at the forefront of solar panel manufacturing – the same way they’ve done everything else. They don’t have an innovative bone in their collective billion bodies, but what they do have is conniving. Plus cheap labor, no environmental strictures, and enterprise once they steal what they need to make something. And that’s exactly what happened with the solar industry. There were once German leaders in solar technology who are long out of business because of the Chinese filching their designs.

I think it’s time to rethink this ‘green energy’ thing.

 

I Thought Hostile Work Environments Were A Problem

On Monday, Hot Air quoted an Axios article about what it is like to work for President  Biden.

Axios notes:

Zoom out: Biden’s temper comes in the form of angry interrogations rather than erratic tantrums.

He’ll grill aides on topics until it’s clear they don’t know the answer to a question — a routine that some see as meticulous and others call “stump the chump” or “stump the dummy.”

Being yelled at by the president has become an internal initiation ceremony in this White House, aides say — if Biden doesn’t yell at you, it could be a sign he doesn’t respect you.

Hot Air notes:

[Yeah, and if he hits you, it means he *really* loves you. Axios tries mightily to normalize this behavior, but it’s disturbing, especially for someone Biden’s age. He’s always been needlessly combative; one clip from the 1987 campaign showed him challenging a critic to a fight, and he did something similar in the last presidential campaign with an auto worker defending the 2nd Amendment. His natural pugilism is the kind of overcompensation one usually sees from stuffed suits, but this sounds as though it’s being compounded by Biden’s cognition issues. And if a Republican president exhibited this kind of behavior, Axios and other media outlets wouldn’t hesitate to point that out. Beege will have more on this later today. — Ed]

Angry outbursts are part of the disease of dementia, but of course no one is willing to talk about President Biden’s not being able to find his way off a speaking platform or making odd remarks during speeches. It doesn’t sound as if working in the White House is very much fun right now. Evidently the civility that Joe Biden claimed he would bring back to America does not extend to his own staff in the White House.

Yuengling Does It Right

On Saturday, Hot Air posted an article about Yuengling Beer. I am not a beer drinker, so I am not qualified to comment on the quality of their beer, but I can comment on how well the company handled a tricky situation.

The article reports:

Yuengling Brewery has a unique story. It is a sixth-generation family-owned and family-run American brewery. It is America’s oldest brewery, celebrating its 194th anniversary. Wisdom is often a bi-product of age and I think it applies in this case. The company’s president is listed as Richard Yuengling Jr.

…Ironically, Yuengling is a German-origin name that means “young man” in English. Four women run the business now. To celebrate 194 years in business, Yuengling rolled out limited-edition, 12-ounce cans that read, “Let’s Go USA,” while featuring a Stars and Stripes design. No Pride rainbows or transgender characters to draw attention to the brand or insult regular Americans in order to attract The Woke. The pride this company is celebrating is old-fashioned patriotism. How refreshing. The sisters attribute the company’s continued success to “amazing employees and very loyal consumers.”

Even with such an All-American kind of family and business brand, a little scandal may fall. In 2016, for example, the patriarch, billionaire Dick Yuengling, publicly endorsed Donald Trump and Eric Trump visited him. The two men held a press conference. The rainbow mafia went nuts and D.C. gay bars started to boycott the beer, followed by other bars.

This week the brewery found itself dragged into another controversy. For many years, Yuengling has been a sponsor of Musikfest, an annual festival held in Pennsylvania. On Monday, the festival shared a promo on its Facebook page about this year’s event. Yuengling was included in the post, as a sponsor. Four days later the post was edited and Yuengling was removed from the text of the promotion. Why? Because social media followers went nuts.

A “family-friendly drag show” is a part of the festival’s events this year. The original promotion said that “babies in arms” would be admitted. Children under 2 “may not be recommended for some performances.” After the backlash began, ArtsQuest — the venue hosting the event — issued a statement absolving Yuengling of any involvement. And the age for admission into the show had been raised to 18+.

The article contrasts the actions of Yuengling with the actions of Budweiser:

And that, my friends, is how a company does damage control. Mind you, Yuengling has nothing to do with the drag show, “family-friendly” or not, and was only mentioned in the Facebook promo because it was listed as a sponsor. Yuengling quickly worked to nip the backlash in the bud. The well-respected brewery’s name was immediately removed and then the venue changed the age of admission to 18+. Bud Light waited too long to correct the damage brought on by its woke marketing director. They then half-assed the response – they suspended or fired a couple of people and hemmed and hawed about the whole situation. The CEO has still not apologized to Bud Light’s customers (now former customers) and three months down the road, Anheuser-Busch’s CEO is still trying to do clean-up. The CEO refused to do the one thing that would have started a thawing of the chill that Bud Light’s boycotters began – a simple apology. Now it’s too late.

If I drank beer, I would go out and order a Yuengling. They handled the situation correctly.

Please follow the link above to read the entire story.

The Discussion Expands

Today, Hot Air posted an article reporting that the New York State legislature has passed to form a commission to study reparations to address the lingering, negative effects of slavery.

The article quotes an Associated Press (AP) report:

New York would create a commission to consider reparations to address the lingering, negative effects of slavery under a bill passed by the state Legislature on Thursday.

“We want to make sure we are looking at slavery and its legacies,” said state Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages before the floor debate. “This is about beginning the process of healing our communities. There still is generational trauma that people are experiencing. This is just one step forward.”

The state Assembly passed the bill about three hours after spirited debate on Thursday. The state Senate passed the measure hours later, and the bill will be sent to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul for consideration.

The article concludes:

The history of slavery in New York is complicated, as are most things from that era. Slavery certainly took place in the earliest years, as it did pretty much everywhere Europeans went. (And as it did across most of the globe in various forms for nearly all of recorded history, if we’re being honest.) But nobody has legally owned a slave in New York State for almost two centuries. It was one of the earliest states to outlaw the practice. Not only are all of the slaves and the owners dead, but their great, great, great, great descendants are as well.

So if the New York legislature wants to have the same conversation that California’s lawmakers did, they will be dealing with the same reality. Any potential reparation checks that are decided on will be paid to people who have never been slaves and paid for by people who have never owned slaves in a state that was among the earliest to free slaves, even before it was mandated by the federal government. If you want to talk about the generational social and financial impacts of racism up through the early second half of the 20th century, that’s certainly a conversation we can have. But nobody today owes anyone anything based on the practices of people who lived more than two centuries ago.

So what will happen when the State of New York realizes that it is going bankrupt and cannot pay reparations? How will the people anticipating a cash windfall react when they find out that the cash windfall is not coming? Unfortunately, we may be paving the way for a ‘summer of love’ event in New York and California similar to what happened in many states during the summer of 2020.

Holding People Accountable

On Thursday, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about a recent common-sense ruling by the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

Alternate headline: Pottery Barn rules apply to walkouts. In an 8-1 decision in which only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson fully dissented, the Supreme Court ruled today that unions have to reimburse employers for damages caused by striking workers. The National Labor Relations Act does not confer immunity to unions or workers — the latest ruling from a court that has stiffened the boundaries for labor activities in the last few years:

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability.

The majority found that if accusations by an employer are true, actions during a strike by a local Teamsters union were not even arguably protected by federal law because the union took “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property “rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” It asked the state court to decide the merits of the accusations.

The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Three conservative justices backed more sweeping concurring opinions. A single justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

The case involved Teamsters who created truckloads of cement and then walked off the job–leaving the trucks full and no one to offload the trucks. Obviously, if the cement was left in the trucks, it would ruin the trucks. The Supreme Court (with the exception of one Justice) held the Teamsters liable for the damage they had caused. Striking is legal–damaging property is not.

The article also notes two important aspects of the case:

The Teamsters argued that they can’t be responsible for hypothetical risks to employer property in the absence of workers. Barrett emphatically rejects that, and concludes that the union organized the walkout specifically to create the highest potential risk of catastrophic damage when they had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it…

…Congress created the National Labor Relations Board to deal with labor disputes, not property torts. The latter are matters for civil litigation separate from labor-management negotiations. It’s this argument from KBJ that has Thomas call for an end to the Garmon precedent, and which Alito et al expressly reject in their concurrence. To think otherwise would be to create an Open Season on employers’ property under the guise of ‘negotiations.’

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes some very interesting arguments.