Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

This follow-up is provided in quick-succession to the prior Blast e-mail to provide an overview and to

disseminate useful updates of a few ongoing matters; the info-explosion continues apace (and todays
summary of Rush is attached). It may be recalled that, last week, in an effort to decrease the length of
these Blast e-mails, a summary note was composed, the points in which would STILL not be
anticipated to change:
It may be assumed that, pending further study of his Foreign Policy positions, I like Scott
Walker for POTUS-16; Ted Cruz must answer for his lets register the Illegals
Amendment, and I still feel Hillary will decide not to run. The TEA [Taxed Enough
Already] will increasingly dominate the GOPs policies, particularly as they are passed by
Congress; there will be an ongoing erosion of support for doctrinaire socialconservatives on myriad fronts [Gay Marriage, Pot Legalization, Abortion Procedure].
Further, it may be assumed that subsidiary issues [ensuring gun-rights, repealing
Common Core, eliminating Corporate Welfare] will abide by Constitutionally
Conservative Concepts; Levity will not be eschewed [Stephen Colbert Ripped Sweeps
(Video)]; neither international nor state-level concerns will be ignored, and attention
will be paid to how the media report the news [or choose not to do so].
Some specificity can be gleaned from updates [all carefully documented] related to International Affairs
[Kurdistan still suffers as BHOs military/diplomatic policy continues to fail on all fronts], National Affairs
[the GOP-Establishment must be monitored, lest it revert to its moderate ways], Statewide Affairs
[Corbett will hopefully sign-off on key-bills that had been stalled due primarily to union-pressure, while
were still poised to roll-out the Log Cabin (LGBTQ) Republicans], and Loco-Regional Affairs [Philly
remains both in the shadow ofand benefitting from the proximity ofboth NYC/DC]. Regarding the
Iggles, I maintain the #1 rival has shifted from Tom Landrys Cowboys to the Meadowlands Giants,
although one must revert to the former mindset when pondering what will occur tomorrow @ 4:30 p.m.
Regarding my blogging-effort on PoliticsPA, the ideal way to illustrate the intellectual
bankruptcy and ethical vacuousness of the Dem-activist is to note what I wrote and how
he replied thereto; it may be noted that he has given-up trying to refute the way his
views have been incrementally summarized and, instead, has reverted to name-calling.
Me:
Typical of the confirmed-leftie, you are even stooping to engage in
historical revisionism with regard to your own postings of extremely
recent vintage; damage accrued from your retreat is compounded by
how you would unabashedly treat Israel at this moment in time.
You stated unequivocally: Israels refusal to submit to inspections by
the International Atomic Energy Agency should disqualify them from
U.S. military aid.
Therefore, you wouldnt have sustained any support for the IDF [for
decades], you wouldnt have collaborated in the creation of the Iron
Dome [nor would you have rearmed it], and you wouldnt be employing
intelligence-coordination between D.C./Jerusalem while the rest of the
Middle East is in turmoil.

Once the gravitational-force of anti-Zionism has enveloped you, there is


no escape from being drawn into the block-hole of anti-Semitism;
Jewish lives are so cheap [recalling, for example, your
disproportionate lament regarding the need for more Israeli civilian
casualties to match those in Gaza] that you would apply a costeffective criterion to justify a conclusion that condemns the Iron Dome
[that every other sentient being has praised].
There appears to be no end to your venom directed @ Israel, and you
even had the gall to claim Israels leaders in 48 would recoil @
characterizing Israel as a Jewish State; you would perhaps benefit
from noting a quote from her Declaration of Independence [DECLARE
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE
KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL].
DD:
By military aid, I meant financial, not intelligence sharing.
As for Iron Dome, I think it is an ineffective system and a waste of U.S.
taxpayer dollars. If Israel wants to waste money on it, thats up to them.
We have major debt problems in this country. I would half our own
military budget, as most of it is wasted as well. Israel should pay for its
own defense.
Look, I get it. You are an anti-Arab racist and like institutional racism in
Israel, and using U.S. money to kill Arabs because you are too
lazy/scared to pull the trigger yourself.
Me:
Inasmuch as your reply to my having set you straight was to revert to
refuted-arguments and name-calling, it is desirable to restate your
views [at this moment in time], based upon the aggregate of your
language:
You oppose Israel [because BB is engaged in ethnic-cleansing] and,
thus, the U.S. should try to overthrow, dismantle, disband Israel. [You
also had conditioned this posture on the result of an effort to alter
Israels Basic Law, ignorant of the fact that her Declaration of
Independence unambiguously states that Israel is a Jewish State.]
***If Israel wishes to redefine itself as a Jewish state, rather than a
Jewish/democratic state, then it should be able to do so. However, if it
does do, the U.S. should cease to support it.I conditioned my
opposition to Israel itself IF it passes the horrific bill in its
current/proposed form; such an Israel would be an insult to the
founders of modern Israel.***

In addition, you stated unequivocally: Israels refusal to submit to


inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency should disqualify
them from U.S. military aid. Therefore, you wouldnt have sustained
any support for the IDF [for decades] and you wouldnt have
collaborated in the creation of the Iron Dome [nor would you have
rearmed it].
You support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder
implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel
and kill its citizenry.
You base your charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by
their parents and/or teachers by citing the perceptions of a radical
human-rights activist that might yield this conclusion; you have
acknowledged that Hamas has ordered UNRWA both to remove
references to the Shoah and to promote anti-Semitism.
You claim that the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its
impact on the Founders/Framers disregarding the Enlightenment
was not as great as that of the Magna Carta.
*
Your latest response was lamer than lame; you suggested Israel and
America could still share intelligence [despite the absence of any
military interaction] and you feel Israel should self-fund the Iron Dome
[that you dont consider to be cost-effective]. You then lapsed into adhominem diatribes that failed to refute the above conclusion.
Blogging on PoliticsPA has also addressed statewide politics [e.g., suggesting Cawley
should have supplanted Corbett, suggesting Cawley should run in the 8th in 16,
lambasting Kerns]; this is the way I conveyed a gambit critiquing AG-Kane, who seems
sadly politicized and incompetent:
I had initially been impressed with her; she spoke @ the biennial
Comedy-Night in Philly and seemed both self-effacing and interactive.
Yet, the accumulation of glitches is highly-problematic. For example, I
have been critical of Corbett regarding Sandusky [despite my being a
GOP Committeeman for two decades], but she screwed-up the roll-out
of her findings; hidden therein was evidence that Corbett had not
rendered an explanation for why the investigation had been on a hiatus
[basically] during the year prior to his election in 10, only to be pickedup shortly after his inauguration. Specifically, they interviewed everyone
in Second Mild in 11and there is no reason why they couldnt have
done so in 10. Yet, because of the false accusations of damages, this
point was overlooked and, to-date, no one has asked Corbett what he
had been supervising during this critical time-period [for he couldnt

have known whether molestation was ongoing, as he was allowing a


perp to run the streets]. I know he wanted a perfect prosecution, but
the need for a time-frame shift seemed apparent.
This is an example of AG-Kanes problems, notwithstanding all the selfinflicted problems; indeed, the cry of racism cannot justify having
failed to prosecute on-tape corruption by legislators [and her slap-onthe-wrist of Sen. Washington was appalling].
And now the false-accusation about the child-porn has been
superimposed, ending with she mis-spoke???
Puleeeze!
Blogging, generally, has addressed Illegals [e.g., refuting Christina Flowers on Immunity
and rule-of-law, to which she replied I dont care!]. Academic efforts [published in
peer-reviewed medical journals] have addressed gun-laws and e-cigs [Government's
own Research Shows E-cigs Not a Gateway to Smoking].
The salutary effect of the midterms has been emphasized [as Hope] while how to fix what BHO has
done remains a challenge [as Change]; the import of social-issues has [justifiably] not been prominent.
Emphasized repeatedly [both herein and in op-ed pieces published on multiple respected platforms] has
been the plight of Kurdistan and the specters of Iran and Islamism, both to Israel and to the world. In the
process, unusual hyperlinks have been preserved [conservative-celebrities] and relevant news-bytes
have been conveyed [Robot Proves Antarctic Ice Thicker than Thought] while other issues are monitored
[Justice Ginsburg in surgery for coronary blockage]. Rather than routinely providing groups of hyperlinks,
daily, selective observations have been preserved [e.g., Judicial Watch Victory: Obama Gives Up Fast and
Furious Documents]; when aggregated hyperlinks convey an overarching message, meta-analysis has
been provided [Dana Carvey: Comedians 'Afraid to Make Fun' of Obama Because They'll Be Called
Racist; #2: Obama Makes GQ'S List of Least Influential People of 2014; Hume: Hagel Ousting Says a Lot
About Obama Admin.'s Attitude Toward the Military].
Media analysis has emphasized the justifiable dominance of Fox and the despicable
behavior of the Mainstreamers regarding coverage of myriad issues [e.g.,
ObamaDontCare] and scandals [e.g., Benghazi, IRS, NSA]; is it not shocking that The
New York Times Israel reporter is unhappy that CAMERA keeps correcting her.
Specifically regarding Ferguson coverage, Roger Simon lambasted the New York Times
and other members of the media hall of shame; this piece provides historical context.
Regarding Illegals, Obama admitted his executive actions on immigration changed the law; Despite
Obama's Claims, Amnesty Will Give Some Illegal Immigrants Federal Benefits. In terms of remedies, a
Judge OKed Lawsuit Against Guest-Worker Program Expanded by Executive Amnesty [the federal
government will have to prove that there is actually a shortage of high-tech American workers to keep
the program intact]; also, the Congressional Research Service affirmed the power of Congress to Block
Funding for Obama's Executive Amnesty. Thus, Conservative Lawmakers Offered House Leadership a
Three-Pronged Strategy to Combat Executive Action: move a short-term spending measure that
defunds Obamas executive orders, pass an authorization to sue Obama over his actions, and restrict all
funding that would go toward providing work permits or green cards to illegal immigrants. {Also,

OBAMA USED TURKEY PARDON TO MOCK CONCERNS OVER EXECUTIVE AMNESTY and, in keeping with
its innate liberalism, the Jewish Exponent ran a [biased] news-article entitled Jews Back Obamas Order
to Not Oppress the Stranger; as a result, this was my comment: It is unfortunate that the Torah was
corrupted by Obama in this fashion; America already "welcomes" immigrants who arrive LEGALLY; also,
it may be recalled that the strangers who visited Abraham departed rather than moving permanently
into his tent.}
The meaning of the 2014 midterms was discussed at the David Horowitz Freedom
Center conference in Palm Beach; regarding POTUS-16, Carly Fiorina actively exploring a
'16 presidential run as Cruz successfully Wooed New York Jewish Donors. ["Reviews of
Mr. Cruz were uniformly positive as many New York Jews got their first taste of the tea
party darling and discovered that the Princeton-educated lawyer was rather well-spoken
and engaging. Cruz had a private two-hour meeting with the most highly sought-after
donor of all. After sitting next to Sheldon Adelson at Sunday night's ZOA dinner, Mr.
Cruz and Mr. Adelson met for two hours at the St. Regis Hotel. Michael Steinhardt [the
investing legend and megaphilanthropist who chaired the same Democratic Leadership
Council that catapulted Bill Clinton to the White House] hosted Mr. Cruz at his
investment firm's office."] {Also, showing his superficialityand recalling he feels that
the gun laws should differ between cities/rural-regionsCARSON said COPS COULD BE
TRAINED TO SHOOT FOR THE LEGS.}
Regarding Ferguson, a few quasi-scandals have emerged. Lefties remain dissatisfied, blaming the DA and
claiming the GRAND JURY ANNOUNCEMENT had been 'CALCULATED' TO CAUSE RIOTS; SHARPTON
claimed the GRAND JURY DECISION PROVED THE FEDERAL GOV'T 'NEEDS TO STEP IN' to achieve equal
justice under law [despite the fact that BHO doesnt choose to apply this concept to the IRS]. The media
are misbehaving, with CNN and the Huffington Post Accused of Recruiting for Ferguson Riots and The NY
Times accused of being reckless for having published Darren Wilsons address. And a Video of the Man
Robbed by Michael Brown Standing in His Now-Looted Store Shows Other Side of Tragedy.
Media Ignore the 224 Teenagers Killed in Chicago Since Michael Brown's Death and the
demographics associated with urban murder; this was a source of tension during the
weekend prior to the announcement of the grand jury decision, when former New York
City Mayor Rudy Giuliani debated Michael Eric Dyson [one of the worst of the racial
arsonists, a regular guest on MSNBC and other more respectable networks]. Richard
Baehr and Jason Riley provided commentary, some of which follows.
A Washington Post columnist criticized Giuliani for daring to raise
the issue that a few dozen blacks are killed by white police each year
(most all of them in circumstances that are NOT controversial), and
more than 100 times that number of blacks are murdered by other
blacks each year. Dyson said that when blacks kill blacks, the killers are
brought to justice. Actually, not. Chicago closed 26% of its nation's
leading murder toll of 507 in 2012.
The New York Times is promoting a pro publica study that alleges that black youths are
21 times more likely to be killed by police than white youth. The study is of ages 15-19.
If blacks in that age group are 21 times as likely to be criminals as whites in that age
group, why is this police death toll ratio a problem? The fact that the pro publica study

did not explore rates of criminality between blacks and whites in that age group, is
telling. Of course the New York Times never mentions this issue or that
the comparison of youth shootings was only for those aged 15-19. The Times has
disgraced itself by publishing the address of Darren Wilson. They seem to be
OK with the violence in Ferguson and elsewhere, so why not further incite some
enraged black to try to kill Wilson and his family?
A kerfuffle arose between Missouri Governor Nixon [D] and Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder [R]
following the riots. Initially, MO Lt. Gov said Gov. Nixon Ignored Ferguson Mayor's Plea for Help During
Ferguson Riots. Then, MO Governor Jay Nixon Denied the Obama Admin Pressured Him Over National
Guard and called this charge against him "absurd." Next, it was revealed that Valerie Jarrett was Keeping
In Touch With Gov. Nixon During Ferguson Fiasco. Finally, it seems that, per MO Lt. Gov, Officials Must
Explain 'Under Oath' Why National Guard Stood By as Ferguson Burned; Kinder claims Nixon told the
National Guard [which he had previously mobilized] to stand down in Ferguson, Missouri, on Monday
night as the city burned in riots. {Also, Thousands of pages of grand jury docs reveal numerous instances
of inconsistent, fabricated or provably-wrong statements by witnesses, MICHAEL BROWN'S MOTHER
said 'HE WANTED TO KILL SOMEONE' and Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder (R) said that Michael
Brown's stepfather should be "arrested and charged" for inciting riots in Ferguson.}
Regarding events in Israel, 77% of Israeli Arabs Prefer Israeli Rule to Palestinian;
nevertheless, UN Chief Ban claimed More Countries Will Recognize State of 'Palestine'
[extortion], despite Muslim deceit [e.g., the Al Aqsa lie]. {Also, Irvin J. Borowsky,
Publishing Magnate and Ecumenical Pioneer, Died yesterday at 90; this was my
comment: My mother idolized him for decades and, as a result, contributed to his
ecumenical works; I met him on occasion and found him to have accomplished a unique
dimension of interfaith dialogue [documented in books he distributed] while using glass
to convey his message [both in his museum and in his home].}
Islamism is continuing to run-rampant [NYT: US Weapons Already Finding Way Into the Islamic States
Hands; ISIS Continues Blowing Up Churches In Mosul; The Islamic State is Developing 'Colonies' in
Middle East as it Gains Credibility Among Jihadists; Jihadist camps spreading across Syria; Nigeria's Top
Muslim Leader Excoriated Military for Boko Haram Advances; Fort Sam Houston was Locked Down After
a Saudi National 'Rammed' Car into Gates; and Kurds and Shiites Contest Iraqi Territory Regained from
the Islamic State as Military is Allegedly to Arm Yazidis]. Also, U.S. TO LEAVE MORE TROOPS IN
AFGHANISTAN THAN FIRST PLANNED to fill a gap left in the NATO mission by other contributing nations.
POLL SHOWED THE UKIP [their version of the TEA Party Movement] REPLACED LABOUR
AS PARTY OF THE WHITE, WORKING CLASSES; thus, FOR THE TORY PARTY, MAY 2015
WILL BE AN EXTINCTION EVENT.

{The following are from the Republican Jewish Coalition.}


IRAN NUKE TALKS EXTENDED; INCOMING GOP CONGRESS LIKELY TO TAKE ACTION
{Related Items: Spain's Jose Maria Aznar commented on avoiding a bad Iran deal (for now), inasmuch as
Iran is still on the verge of a nuclear weapon; the latest extension of talks risks acceptance of
containment and, thus, most observers feel Iran had a good week.}

The P5+1 talks with Iran did not reach an agreement before the November 24 deadline. In fact
negotiators could not even agree on a framework for a comprehensive nuclear deal. The participants
instead agreed to extend the talks for another seven months, until March 2015. The New York Times
notes in its report:
In agreeing to extend the existing interim agreement, Iran assured itself of a
continuation of the sanctions relief that had brought it $700 million a month in money
that had been frozen abroad - something that might well add to the threat of new
sanctions from the newly elected Republican Congress.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office Tweeted Tuesday that the "arrogant" powers
had tried hard to bring the Islamic Republic to its knees but had failed.
Lee Smith brings us a round-up of concessions the U.S. has reportedly already made to Iran, as detailed
by The Israel Project's Omri Ceren. On sanctions, centrifuges, enrichment, and other important points,
the news is not good.
Aaron David Miller identifies four faulty assumptions the U.S. is making about Iran that have made a
nuclear deal with Iran impossible so far.
Elliott Abrams argues that the Iran talks and the Israeli-Palestinian talks are alike, because "it is long
past time to recognize that a comprehensive agreement is not attainable... and similarly we should be
thinking now [about] how to manage the real world consequences."
Providing a rare glimpse into the specifics of the nuclear negotiations, former Obama foreign policy
advisor Dennis Ross said Tuesday that "the US had demonstrated flexibility during the talks, including a
willingness to back down on demands over the Arak heavy water facility and the Fordo enrichment
facility, but that its positions were received by intransigence by the Iranian counterparts...The former
diplomat said that Iranian negotiators were either unwilling or incapable of budging from a series of red
lines [adding that] Iranian negotiators' hands may be tied by the anti-American ideology of the Islamic
Republic's religious leadership and specifically that of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei."
There is widespread opposition to President Obama's desperate efforts to reach an accord with Iran. A
new poll by Frank Luntz in the U.S. found that:
69% of Americans would reject a deal under which Iran agreed to stop R&D but kept its
current nuclear capabilities, compared to 31% who would accept such a deal.
62% of Americans consider that Iran is an enemy of the US, while 37% consider it
neutral, and 1% consider it an ally. It found that 73% of Americans consider that Iran is
an enemy of Israel, while 25% consider it neutral, and 1% consider it an ally.
A staggering 81% of respondents do not believe the current government in Iran can be
trusted to keep agreements, compared to 5% who think it can be trusted. And an even
more overwhelming 85% do not believe the Iranians' assertions that their nuclear
program is peaceful, as compared to 8% who do.

Republicans in Congress have warned the President that they will not accept a bad deal with Iran, a
position held by some Democrats as well. Efforts to toughen sanctions and to give Congress a role in any
final agreement with Iran are under consideration for the next session of Congress.

OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE ACTION OVERREACH ON IMMIGRATION


Last Friday, President Barack Obama signed two executive actions that would shield millions of illegal
immigrants from deportation and provide them with documents enabling them to work and participate
in Social Security.
The RJC expressed "strong concern that President Obama has exceeded his legitimate authority by
making such far-reaching changes unilaterally and in defiance of the constitutionally designated lawmaking organ of our government - the Congress." Many Republican leaders spoke out against the
President's action and six Senate Democrats have as well. Republicans are discussing plans to use
Congress' power of the purse to limit the President's actions on immigration, but they are also
determined to avoid a government shutdown over the issue.
Analysts have been examining the President's recent public statements on immigration, the executive
actions he announced, and the memo from the Justice Department Office of Legal Council meant to
justify his actions. Josh Blackman has a very detailed legal analysis of the OLC memo here.
Newt Gingrich argues that the President's speech did not match the far-reaching actions he is taking:
But the policy the White House actually announced, as opposed to the policy the
President described in his speech, was not merely a directive to emphasize enforcement
against those who have committed crimes, or even a simple pause on deportations for
millions of Americans here illegally. The policy the White House actually announced, in a
memo from its Office of Legislative Affairs hours before the President's speech, was a
17-point plan including several new programs without congressional approval, budget
appropriation or spending authorization, and many of which the President either didn't
mention or which bore only a faint resemblance to what he described in his speech.
The President, according to the White House, has directed the Department of Homeland
Security to "create" a "new deferred action program" that will give millions of people
here illegally "work authorizations" for at least three years. It establishes extensive new
criteria by which people can register to be exempt from deportation. DHS will likely
have to employ thousands of bureaucrats to process those who "come forward and
register, submit biometric data, pass background checks, pay fees, and show that their
child was born before the date of this announcement." Applicants supposedly will also
have to prove they have been in the United States for at least five years and will have to
pay taxes.
Well, a brand new program that hands out three-year work authorizations and
processes more paperwork than many state Departments of Motor Vehicles is not
merely saying, as the President put it in his speech, that "we're not going to deport

you," and it is certainly not simple "prioritization" or "prosecutorial discretion," as many


administration officials have been calling it before and after the announcement.
It is new law, created by the executive without constitutional authority.
Now, Obama may have conceded the point. When hecklers interrupted Obama's speech in Chicago on
Tuesday by yelling complaints that his deportation policy is still too stringent, Obama responded by
saying, "What you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, so
that's point No. 1. Point No. 2, the way the change in the law works is that we're reprioritizing how we
enforce our immigration laws generally." [Emphasis added. Video here]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen