As the economic crisis created by the coronavirus deepens, it is astounding that these Senators think this is a good use of the taxpayers’ money. Once this money arrived in the PA and Gaza, it would be used almost exclusively to line the pockets of various officials and to pay expenses related to the ongoing jihad against Israel.
“As Americans go Broke, Sanders Demands Taxpayers Give Hamas $75 Million,” by Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, Breaking Israel News, March 29, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):
A group of Democratic senators called for the U.S. State Department to reverse its policy and give funding to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting that the government reverse its policy and resume giving monetary aid to the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria and the Hamas-led government in Gaza.
“Given the spread of the coronavirus in the West Bank and Gaza, the extreme vulnerability of the health system in Gaza, and the continued withholding of U.S. aid to the Palestinian people, we are concerned that the Administration is failing to take every reasonable step to help combat this public health emergency in the Palestinian Territories,” the letter read.
The Democratic politicians seek to squeeze $75 million in aid to the Hamas-led government in Gaza and the PA in Judea and Samaria under the guise of the FY 2020 Appropriations Act.
It should be noted that President Trump slashed funding to the PA in 2018 as per the Taylor Force Act, also known as the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), that cuts some aid to the Palestinians until they end stipends to terrorists and the families of slain attackers.
In 2016, the PA paid out about $303 million in stipends and other benefits to the families of so-called “martyrs”. The funds are disbursed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO/Fatah). The families of convicted Palestinians serving time in Israeli prisons receive $3,000 or higher per month, higher than the average Palestinian wage.
Any monies that go to Gaza must necessarily go through the government which is run by Hamas. Hamas, recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, was elected as the ruling party in Gaza in 2006. Gaza receives billions of dollars of humanitarian aid, much of which is usurped by the Hamas government for use in terrorist infrastructures….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-04-01 07:18:562020-04-01 07:22:32Sanders, Warren, other Democrat Senators call on US to give Palestinian Authority and Hamas $75 million
Elizabeth Warren reacted to Secretary Pompeo’s statement that in the view of the Administration, Israel’s settlements did not violate international law with characteristic swift certainty:
“Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region. Not only do these settlements violate international law — they make peace harder to achieve. As president, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution,” Warren said.
Was Pompeo’s announcement merely a cynical attempt to “distract” the public “from its failures in the region”? Surely such an announcement was certain to have exactly the opposite effect – it would focus the media’s attention on the Israelis and Palestinians as it had not been so focussed since the Great March of Return began on March 30, 2018. Every major media outlet – CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post – covered Pompeo’s remarks in detail. Those remarks were hardly designed to “distract” from supposed “failures in the region.” And as for those “failures,” what does Warren have in mind? Was the defeat, by the Americans and the Kurds, of ISIS in Syria a “failure”? Was the collapse of ISIS in Iraq, to which American military assistance contributed, a “failure”? Was the body-blow to Iran’s economy, that the Administration brought about by reimposing sanctions, that in turn led to the streets of Iran now being filled with Iranians shouting against the regime, a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the massively corrupt UNRWA a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority, because of its Pay-for-Slay program, a “failure”?
Warren then blithely noted that the settlements “violate international law.” This was not always her understanding. At a Town Hall in August 2014, Warren called into question the notion that future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Clearly she did not then regard the settlements as being “illegal.”
And two years later, in September 2016, ahead of a U.N vote on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren was one of 88 senators who signed a letter to President Obama sponsored by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, urging him to “veto any one-sided UNSC resolution that may be offered in the coming months”: the resolution was approved by the Security Council 14-1-0, with the United States shamefully abstaining.
Again, Warren was still willing to urge the government to veto a Security Council resolution that treated the West Bank settlements as “illegal.”
What changed her mind? Perhaps, after Bernie Sanders’s claim that he would take some aid money away from Israel and give it to the Palestinians in Gaza, Warren felt she needed to establish her bona-fides among the “progressives” in the Democratic Party, who have become increasingly anti-Israel. And what better way to do it than to instantly attack Pompeo on the “legality” of Israel’s West Bank settlements?
A law professor for many years, Warren is well-versed in reading statutes and codes. As a professor of bankruptcy law, she can comprehend the Bankruptcy Code, so he Mandate for Palestine ought to be child’s play. If she reads that Mandate, she will understand that the League of Nations established, on a sliver of land that had been identified with the Jewish people for two thousand years, and that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire, the Mandate for Palestine. That Palestine Mandate was entrusted to Great Britain, whose task it was to prepare that territory for independence as the Jewish National Home. There were other Mandates that were intended to create Arab states – Syria, Lebanon, Iraq – but the Mandate for Palestine was intended solely for the Jews. Warren would then want to know, as the thorough policy wonk she is, precisely what territory was to be included in that Mandate. Upon investigation, she would discover that the Mandate for Palestine applied to all the territory from Dan in the north to Beersheva in the south, and from the river Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the West. In other words, all of what is present day Israel, and the entire West Bank, was included in the Mandate. Israel cannot be called the “occupier” of land that was assigned by the League of Nations to be part of the Jewish National Home, which would then become the State of Israel. When the League of Nations shut down, its successor organization, the United Nations, implicitly recognized in Article 80 of its Charter (the so-called Jewish People’s article) the continuing in force of the Mandate for Palestine. The only thing that prevented the West Bank from becoming, as it legally should have, part of the state of Israel in 1949, was that Jordan managed to hold onto the West Bank, and remained its “occupier” until 1967.
Elizabeth Warren never mentions the Mandate for Palestine, which is the indispensable document in judging the legality of the Israeli settlements. Nor does she mention, in any of her statements online, U.N. Resolution 242 and its significance in giving Israel the right to “secure and recognizable boundaries.” She has a duty to study both the Mandate, and Resolution 242, before making her self-assured and dismissive pronouncements about how those settlements “violate international law.” And she might also explain why those same settlements did not “violate international law” back in 2014, when she opposed making aid to Israel contingent on its halting of settlement building. Did she know something in 2014 about the settlements’ legality that she then forgot, or did she learn something since about their supposed illegality?
Then there is Warren’s remark that the settlements are not only “illegal,” but that they “make peace harder to achieve.” How does she, and the many others who mindlessly repeat this mantra – “settlements make peace harder to achieve” – know this? Because the Arabs – the Palestinians – keep telling them so.
What kind of “peace” is possible between Israel and the Palestinians? Some may insist that by squeezing itself back within the 1949 armistice lines, what Ambassador Abba Eban called “the lines of Auschwitz,” Israel makes peace more likely. But those who recognize that the war being waged, by all possible means, including terrorism, combat (qitaal), economic and diplomatic warfare, and demographic jihad, against Israel has no end, for Muslims, until the complete disappearance of the Jewish state, will not be so quick to put their trust in treaties. That is especially true because the Muslim model for all treaty-making with non-Muslims is the agreement that Muhammad reached with the Meccans at al-Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D., a treaty that was to last for ten years, but which he broke after 18 months, attacking the Meccans as soon as he felt his forces were strong enough to win. Given that Muhammad is the Model of Conduct for all Muslims, Israel cannot rely on a peace treaty with Muslim Arabs to be kept indefinitely.
Instead, there is another and better way to maintain the peace between Israel and its neighbors. That is deterrence: the enemy’s understanding that if Israel is attacked, it will respond, and much more devastatingly. Egypt and Syria now know what they did not know in October 1973, when they launched a surprise attack on Israel. Despite early losses, Israel delivered punishing blows in response. No Arab state since has tried to attack Israel; terror groups are a different matter, for their members are ready to be “martyrs.” For rational actors – fanatic Muslim groups and groupuscules are not among them – deterrence works. It kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for more than four decades after World War II. Israel must remain overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger than its enemies for deterrence to be effective.
That is where the West Bank settlements come in. The 400,000 Jews who live in the West Bank, with all of the adults having undergone military training when fulfilling their mandatory service in the IDF, are an indispensable part of that deterrence. Those settlements throughout the West Bank, especially those strategically placed on the Judean hills, and overlooking, the Jordan Valley, are a powerful obstacle to invasion from the east. The settlements significantly improve Israel’s deterrence, and a credible deterrence is the only guarantee that peace between Israel and the Arabs will be kept.
Warren claims the settlements will make peace “harder to achieve.” She has things backwards. The settlements may make a “peace treaty” harder to achieve, but they will make the only peace that really matters, a peace based on deterrence, easier to achieve.
In addition to the Mandate for Palestine (especially the Preamble and Articles 4 and 6), and U.N. Resolution 242, Elizabeth Warren should read about the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya and its continuing significance, in Majid Khadduri’s magisterial War and Peace in the Law of Islam. That’s all the studying she need devote to the matter for now. The exam will be take-home. We’re all hoping that Professor Warren earns an A.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-11-29 07:01:442019-11-29 07:02:55Elizabeth Warren: Those Settlements 'Violate International Law and Make Peace Harder to Achieve' by Hugh Fitzgerald
The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.
The Democrat party platform for 2020 is a staggering political humanitarian hoax that disguises anti-Americanism as altruism. The Democratic National Committee presents itself as “working hard to advance issues like immigration reform, education reform, health care reform, and alternative energy.” Sounds great – all humanitarian hoaxes do. So, let’s see how this works.
Countries are defined by four basic elements and the Democrat party has taken aim at all four. We will examine these elements one at a time.
Territory refers to the demarcation of a country’s physical borders that define its earthly space and separate it from other countries, each with its own government. Without borders there is no country.
The open borders platform embraced by the Democrat party is their signature anti-American immigration reform. Open borders deliberately threaten the sovereign territorial borders of the United States by rejecting any attempts to defend the borders against the current mass invasion of illegal immigrants. While disingenuously insisting that open borders are a humanitarian issue, Democrat candidates oppose border wall funding and propose abolishing ICE so that nothing and no one can stop the flow of this massive invasion.
Open borders are an anti-American power grab by Democrats with twin benefits to themselves. First, mass immigration will overwhelm the country with illegals who will vote for the Democrats who let them in, creating a one-party system for the foreseeable future. Second, uncontrolled immigration will collapse the economy by overloading the welfare system – it is the destructive socialists’ Cloward-Piven strategy on steroids.
In a stunning interview published on YouTube July 11, 2019, Nancy Pelosi tutors illegal aliens on how to avoid deportation and actually says that the United States is part of a global community and illegals have rights!
Excuse me? Illegals are illegal by definition and are most definitely NOT entitled to the rights of citizens according to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, anti-American globalist Nancy Pelosi, voicing the 2020 Democrat party platform, declares the United States is not a sovereign country with defensible borders, and that U.S. politicians have no right to stop this illegal migration.
Former Florida Rep. and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Allen West responded saying that Pelosi’s actions border on treason, “Unless I am grossly mistaken, Ms. Pelosi just violated her oath of office and has committed a high crime and misdemeanor.”
Globalism and American sovereignty are mutually exclusive. American sovereignty depends upon defensible territorial borders and a sovereign American government that upholds the U.S. Constitution. The 2020 Democrat party platform is a globalist, no-borders, anti-American, attack on the Constitution that advances the doctrine of one world government.
Population refers to the people living in a country. The United States is the third most populous country in the world with almost 329 million people as of May 2019. The U.S. Census Bureau is the primary source of information about our nation’s people. The Census Bureau counts the entire U.S. population every ten years. The results of the census are used politically for apportionment. Apportionment determines the proportional number of members each U.S. state sends to the House of Representatives, and also establishes the number of eligible voters in that state. The question of citizenship has been part of the U.S. Census since its inception until Barack Obama eliminated it.
The Democrat party platform rejects restoring the census citizenship question because its results will reduce their apportionment in Congress and the number of eligible Democrat voters when illegals are not counted.
Demography is the study of the characteristics of a population and it is often said that demography is destiny. What does this mean?
Demography studies the size, structure, and distribution of different groups of people defined by age, sex, religion, education, nationality, ethnicity, etc. Social demography examines the relationship between economic, social, cultural, and biological processes influencing a population. As the demographics of a population change public policy adapts to meet the changing requirements. So, flooding America with an immigrant population, particularly those with globalist and/or sharia-compliant hostile norms, changes the demographics and eventually public policy. This is the essence of the open borders immigration reform embraced by the Democrat humanitarian hucksters led by huckster-in-chief Barack Obama himself.
In America, Barack Obama imported 43,000 sharia compliant Somali refugees into the United States, many were resettled in Minnesota. Ilhan Omar, also a sharia compliant Muslim, was elected by her constituency and protects their hostile norms in the name of diversity actually accusing anyone who objects as Islamophobic or racist. The same thing that is happening in Minnesota happened in Luton, England because demographics are destiny.
The small English town of Luton had only one mosque. Following the European Union demand for mass immigration of sharia compliant Muslims into England, the number of mosques swelled to thirty. This changed the demographics of Luton. The hostile social and cultural norms of sharia compliant Muslim immigrants created crime and social chaos in Luton. UK journalist began reporting on Muslim grooming and rape gangs that were raping little English girls according to sharia law. British authorities protected the Muslim perpetrators in the name of cultural diversity, and punished Tommy Robinson for exposing the crimes and the British coverup. Demographics are destiny.
Culture refers to the pattern of human activity and the symbols that give significance to them. Culture manifests itself in the forms of art, literature, clothing, customs, language, and religion. The way people live and what they believe constitutes their culture. Their principles and moral values also form an important part of their culture. People from different parts of the world have different cultural values. Cultural differences contribute to the diversity in people’s thinking and living styles.
Culture is not innate it is learned. Culture is passed down from generation to generation at home and in school. American traditional Judeo-Christian values were taught at home and reinforced in schools. Not anymore. Since Barack Obama forced Common Core education into the public school system, American education has become globalized instruction that reflects its anti-American, antisemitic, anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-globalist agenda. Common Core comports with the United Nations Agenda 2030 and its 17 sustainable goals designed to internationalize the world under one world government. The Common Core rejects American sovereignty, American exceptionalism, American Judeo-Christian traditions, and the American meritocracy. Common Core’s educational goal is to prepare the world’s children for membership in the globalized new world order of one world government.
Common Core has had a calamitous effect on America, American children, and American families. Joy Pullman’s recent book, The Education Invasion: How Common Core fights parents for control of American kids, describes this catastrophe and exposes the federalized education scheme and the globalist funding that promoted it. Parents and teachers are finally recognizing the crippling anti-American nature of Common Core and are fighting to have it removed.
Common Core is the globalized anti-American education reform embraced by the Democrat party platform in 2020. Its anti-American curriculum content provided by Pearson Education is Obama’s dream of a globalized, internationalized pro-Muslim education facilitated courtesy of the Qatari government, Qatar Foundation International, and the Libyan Investment Authority’s major Islam-promoting donors.
Common Core teaches American history as white racist oppression. Our American children are being indoctrinated to be self-loathing Americans who will reject Americanism, American Judeo-Christian values, American exceptionalism, the American meritocracy, and eventually vote for collectivism and one-world government. Common Core is part of the anti-American information revolution that will be won at the ballot box – no bullets required.
The current Democrat party platform presents reparations as the remedy for white racist oppression. Reparations?? Really?
Any student of history knows slavery was a heinous historical reality in every part of the world including the United States. Any student of history also knows that Americans and Republican President Abraham Lincoln went to war and 750,000 Americans died to free the slaves in this country. Slavery is still legal in 15 countries including China, Russia, North Korea, India, Uzbekistan, Dem. Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Sudan, Dominican Republic, Yemen, Iraq, Indonesia, Philippines, Guatemala, and Nigeria.
Racism in America began as the consequence of slavery. Slavery was outlawed in America with the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, eight months after the end of the Civil War, but the racist attitudes that supported it did not immediately disappear. America is not a racist country – we elected a black president – enough talk about reparations.
Race hustlers in the Democrat party platform disingenuously focus on historical slavery and intentionally ignore the ongoing slavery integral to Islamic sharia law. Women are the property of their husbands – owning a human being is slavery. Young infidel girls are groomed to be sex slave – rape and sex grooming is slavery. In the name of diversity, the Democrat party has surrendered its Judeo-Christian culture to the barbarism of Islamic sharia law.
The United States of America was formed as a constitutional representative republic designed to provide minimum government and maximum freedom for its citizens. The Democrat Party 2020 platform offers maximum government and minimum freedom for the people. This is how the reversal works.
Barack Obama’s post-presidency “resistance” movement has mobilized his loyal soldiers embedded in the government, and unleashed a cadre of anti-American activists, politicians, and community organizers bound together by identity politics and an anti-American ideology seeking to overthrow the duly elected President Donald Trump. Obama’s hope for change agenda is the Democrat party 2020 platform featuring:
Anti-traditional norms of our Judeo-Christian culture
Economy killing Green New Deal
Centralized government offering one-payer health insurance
Dissolution of the Constitution and our representative republic in favor of socialism and one world government
Obama’s resistance movement poured the footing for this anti-American revolution of the 21st century. He subverted the liberal Democrat party launching its transformation into the extreme leftist, anti-American, anti-Christian, antisemitic, pro-socialist, pro-Muslim, pro-globalist debacle that it is today.
Radical newcomers Omar, Tlaib, Cortex, and Pressley have cracked the once unified Democrat party and radicalized it to staggering levels. Obama’s sycophants and embedded operatives targeted the pillars of American society including the meritocracy, the family, Judeo-Christian norms, and the Protestant work ethic. The 2020 Democrat party and its platform is an anti-American, antisemitic, anti-Christian, pro-communist, pro-Muslim, pro-globalist consortium of bad actors with common cause to shatter the United States of America from within.
If the Democrat party prevails in 2020 and manages to destroy the four elements that make a country a country, America will cease to exist as a sovereign nation. What then?
Historically, to the victor goes the spoils – not this time. The leftist/socialist/Islamist alliance of the 2020 Democrat party platform will shatter and the infighting will begin. The leftist socialist Democrats foolishly presume they will impose their socialist fantasy of collectivism upon America. The Muslim Brotherhood leftist sharia-compliant Democrats foolishly presume they will settle America and make it Muslim. Both alliance partners are too arrogant to realize that they are the useful idiots of the globalist who have outwitted them. The globalists have exploited them and their common cause to create the social chaos required for globalist ambitions to rule the world themselves under one world government.
Leftists and Islamists brought a knife to a gunfight. English aristocrat Sir Bertrand Russell described the planned globalist takeover in his classic 1952 book, The Impact of Science on Society. The fight for world domination is not new – it just has new scripts, new actors, and new costumes.
Barack Obama won the starring role of U.S. President in the 2008 Washington D.C. theatrical hit “Hope and Change” and then renewed his contract for the 2012-2016 season. As with so many long-running shows, “Hope and Change” flopped at the box office in 2016. The audience rejected Hillary Clinton, the actress hired to replace Obama, and stopped buying tickets to the play. A new script titled “Resistance” was created for Obama, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez auditioned for the supporting role of New York congresswoman and won the part. She performs her scripted lines well and will continue to do so until she is replaced by another auditioned actress.
The Democrat party is currently auditioning parts for the 2020-2024 season of “Resistance.” Its plot disguises anti-Americanism as altruism which explains why its globalist authors have requested anonymity. “Resistance” poses a clear and present danger to the world order of sovereign nations. Americans must recognize the humanitarian hoax being performed in “Resistance” and stop buying tickets at the box office.
Voters are being urged to invest in “Resistance,” and millions of dollars are being spent to promote it. This particular globalist extravaganza enjoys record levels of free publicity by the mainstream media and on the Internet.
The 2020 presidential elections will determine the success or failure of “Resistance.” Voting Americans will decide if art imitates life or if life imitates art.
EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2019-07-13 20:18:082019-07-13 20:21:45The Humanitarian Hoax of the 2020 Democrat Party Platform: Killing America With Kindness
As Republicans in the U.S. Congress are debating the pluses and minuses of their repeal and replacement legislation for Obamacare, the Democrats are accusing their colleagues of wanting “thousands of people to die.”
The scheme is to paint Republicans as murderers. It’s the “big lie.”
Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator of its cultural life for twelve years, Joseph Goebbels wrote,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Watch the below video to understand how a variety of Democrats, and media pundits, are repeating the “big lie” that “thousands will die”:
TRUTH: It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying.
Here are a few examples of policies and legislation supported by Democrats that are causing people to die:
A total of 111 people in California took their own lives using lethal prescriptions during the first six months of a law that allows terminally ill people to request life-ending drugs from their doctors, according to data released Tuesday.
A snapshot of the patients who took advantage of the law mirrors what’s been seen in Oregon, which was the first state to legalize the practice nearly two decades ago. Though California is far more diverse than Oregon, the majority of those who have died under aid-in-dying laws in both states were white, college-educated cancer patients older than 60.
The End of Life Option Act made California the fifth state in the nation to allow patients with less than six months to live to request end-of-life drugs from their doctors.
Illinois is in a fiscal meltdown, the state is bankrupt. In 2016 the Illinois Obamacare co-op became 16th to collapse. Americans for Tax Reform reported:
Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented. Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.
Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.
Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining. Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare. Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.
Tens of thousands of people in the Land of Lincoln are without healthcare. Illinois is ruled by Democrats.
St. Paul, MN, June 27, 2017 – Planned Parenthood abortionists in St. Paul, Minn. would “break the baby’s neck” if the child was born alive, according to a new video just released by Pro-Life Action Ministries. This would be a violation of both federal and Minnesota law.
In the video, a former Planned Parenthood client says that when she went to Planned Parenthood earlier this year for a late-term abortion (at 22 weeks, 1 day), she asked the two abortionists, “If you guys were to take him out right now while he’s still, his heart rate is still, you know, going, what would you guys do?” According to the woman, one of the abortionists looked at the other one, then looked back at the client, “and she told me that we don’t tell women this, and a lot of women don’t even ask this question, but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sanders-people-die.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-06-28 06:56:332017-07-20 19:14:58It's Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying!
The Daily Signalpublished a video with commentary on the debate taking place at the U.S. Senate to confirm Senator Jeff Sessions to become the Attorney General of the United States. Senator Mitch McConnell shut Warren down for viciously attacking a fellow Senator.
Elizabeth Warren has become the face of the party of the unhinged, uncivil and increasingly irrelevant, a.k.a. Democrats.
Hours after staging a 24-hour talkathon against Betsy DeVos’ nomination for education secretary, Senate Democrats were back at it Tuesday night. This time, Republicans had the last word.
As the Senate debated the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., delivered a blistering critique. She accused Sessions of trying to “chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.”
That’s when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stepped in to call out Warren for violating Senate Rule 19—impugning the motives and conduct of Sessions.
The Senate proceeded to vote, 49-43, prohibiting Warren from speaking throughout the remainder of the debate on Sessions.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/elizabeth-warren-hillary.jpg393640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-02-08 07:05:532017-02-09 08:45:38VIDEO: U.S. Senate shuts down Elizabeth Warren for visciously attacking Jeff Sessions
Will Joe run, or will he not? That is the question. If I had to venture a guess I’d say that, before year’s end, Hillary Clinton will be either sitting on the bench or exchanging her large selection of polyester pantsuits for a selection of orange or black-and-white striped jumpsuits. Her campaign is in steep decline, and when the talking heads on the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC begin to devote major segments to the question of her political future, the end cannot be far away. But who do the Democrats have to replace her? Unlike Republicans, the Democrats have little or no “bench” strength. Bernie Sanders, the doddering old socialist from Vermont is drawing large crowds, but we can’t be sure if people come to hear his plan for turning the U.S. economy into another Greek economy, or if they come to see whether or not the Black Lives Matter storm troopers will once again drive him from the speaker’s platform.
On Saturday, August 22, Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was summoned to Biden’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington. And while their meeting was not videotaped for public consumption, there’s not much doubt about the subject matter of their chat. They discussed the very real possibility that Hillary Clinton will soon be forced out of the race, perhaps with criminal indictments lodged against her.
So exactly who is Elizabeth Warren and what has she ever done, if anything, to make her a viable candidate for president or vice president of the United States? Warren has roughly the same presidential qualifications as Barack Obama, who was roughly as qualified as, say, Rosie O’Donnell. Yet they are the sort of candidates most liberals prefer because they’re full of you-know-what. In other words, like Obama, she has no presidential qualifications whatsoever. And wouldn’t it be fun to see Warren, who has spent her entire adult life lecturing about personal and corporate bankruptcy, debate Donald Trump, who is not only skilled at using the bankruptcy statutes to his benefit, but who has become a multi-billionaire trying not to go bankrupt?
Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1978, and has since taught at a number of major law schools, including Houston, Texas, Michigan, Penn, and Harvard. During that academic career she has gained fame as a leading authority on the subject of bankruptcy law.
Warren freely admits that for most of her adult life she was a Republican. However, she has also explained that she became a Democrat in 1995 when she stopped believing in a free market economy… i.e., capitalism. In fact, it is she who has taught Barack Obama to say that, if you’ve achieved some financial success in your life, or if you’ve built a large and profitable business, “you didn’t do that yourself… someone else did that for you.”
In 2012, after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, the Boston
Herald reported that Prof. Warren had described herself on Harvard job applications as being part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian. In the debate that followed it could not be proved that she had any Indian blood whatsoever in her lineage. Instead, she supported her claim by saying that, as a young woman, she could remember her older brothers speak of their Native American heritage. And since it looked good on a Harvard job application she simply ran with it.
Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, defeating Senator Scott Brown and regaining the Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate. However, the fact that she was the first female senator from Massachusetts was rarely mentioned by Warren or other Democrats… presumably because they did not wish to call attention to the fact that the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts was Republican Ed Brooke, elected in 1966, some 46 years earlier.
And that brings us to vice president Joe Biden. The current vice president of the United States grew up in Scranton, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware, where his father worked as a used car salesman, providing a practical grounding for Biden’s later political career. He met his first wife while he was a student at the University of Delaware and she a student at Syracuse University. Even at that early stage of their relationship he told her that his long term goal was to become a member of the United States Senate by age 30, before running for president of the United States. During his college career he majored in history and political science, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965, ranking 506th in a graduating class of 688… not necessarily the greatest predictor of long term success at the top of the political world.
After earning a law degree in 1969 Biden was elected to the Newcastle County (Delaware) Council, and just two years later he ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate. However, on December 18, 1972, just days before he was to take his seat in the U.S. Senate, he suffered the first of two major family tragedies in his life. His wife and three children were involved in an auto accident while Christmas shopping in a small town west of Wilmington. His wife and year-old daughter were killed and his two sons were seriously injured, but both recovered fully.
During his Senate career, which spanned six full terms, he was a member and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee where he gained a well-deserved reputation for being wrong on almost every significant foreign policy issue. He was also a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving as chairman of the committee for eight years and ranking minority member for eight years. He served as chairman in 1987 when Senate Democrats conducted the shameless public “drawing and quartering” of conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and as ranking minority member in 1982, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a partisan sideshow that Justice Thomas referred to as a “high-tech lynching.”
In 1987, Biden launched the first of two campaigns for the presidency. However, in September 1987 he was publicly denounced for having plagiarized several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party. His dishonesty quickly became a national issue and he was forced to abandon his presidential ambitions.
But then, beginning in 2003, Democrats began to take notice of a young man they thought might be a future Democratic presidential candidate, an attractive young black man from the south side of Chicago, a former “community organizer” and a sitting member of the Illinois state senate, a man named Barack Hussein Obama. The only problem was that, having been born with dual US-British citizenship, and having acquired dual US-Kenyan citizenship at age 2, Obama was
ineligible to serve as president of the United States.
To solve that problem, Democrats introduced two resolutions in the 108th Congress in 2003, and two resolutions in the 109th Congress in 2005, all aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution to make Obama eligible for the presidency. They even went so far as to pluck him from almost total political obscurity and gave him the plum assignment of making the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It was the political launching pad that sent Obama to the United States Senate in 2005 and to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
But Democratic leaders were still concerned about Obama’s lack of eligibility and his complete lack of experience. In an attempt to submerge the issue of his ineligibility, Democratic leaders caused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairman of the 2008 Democrat National Convention, and Alice Travis Germond, convention secretary, to delete the words, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” from official nominating certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifications that allowed state election officials to print ballots.
Although one would think that either the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or at least one member of the U.S. Congress, Democrat or Republican, would care enough about the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility, that was not the case. All failed in their constitutional obligations and in November 2008, the low-information voters of the United States caused Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be elected president and vice president of the United States, respectively.
But there was a reason Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate. Democrats knew from the outset that, not only was Obama totally without experience and qualifications, he was hopelessly naïve and was unable to utter a simple declaratory sentence without having a teleprompter telling him what to say. To resolve that problem they caused Biden to be selected as Obama’s running mate. With Biden occupying the vice president’s chair, he would be in a position to whisper in Obama’s ear, hopefully preventing him from making any really stupid mistakes.
Unfortunately, that’s not the way things worked out. Within five minutes of entering the Oval Office, Obama made it quite clear to Biden and everyone else that he didn’t need anyone’s advice. What we have witnessed since that day is much like a high school student who won a Kiwanis Club “President for a Day” contest and who arrived at the White House with no one but his high school social studies teacher (in Obama’s case, Valerie Jarrett) as his principal advisor.
On May 30, 2015, Biden suffered the second major personal family tragedy of his life. His son, 46-year-old “Beau” Biden, a former attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer. It is reported that the younger Biden’s deathbed wish was that his father seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.
With the impending demise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, there is every reason to believe that
Biden will enter the race. But there is also every reason to believe that, if he does, Democrats across the country will use Beau Biden’s death, shamelessly, as a sympathy factor to help gain support for his campaign. They used that tactic in 1964 to help LBJ win in the wake of JFK’s death, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t use the same classless tactic again in 2016.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/biden-warren-e1441538580567.jpg347640Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-09-06 07:23:452015-09-06 07:23:45A Biden-Warren Ticket in 2016?
While all of these plans would certainly increase access to higher education, they would also be expensive. President Obama’s relatively modest community college plan would cost $60 billion over the next decade. What makes this an even worse idea is that all of that taxpayer money wouldn’t solve the most important problems currently facing higher education.
Whatever the other social or spiritual benefits of attending college are, they don’t justify wasting that so much time and money without seeing much improvement in wages or job prospects.
Proponents of debt-free college argue that these programs are worth the cost because a more educated workforce will boost the economy. But these programs would push more marginal students into college without any regard for how prepared they are, how likely they are to graduate, or how interested they are in getting a degree. If even more of these students enter college, keeping the low completion rates from falling even further would be a challenge.
All of these plans would just make sure that everyone would have access to the mediocre product that higher education currently is. Just as the purpose of Obamacare was to make sure that every American had a health insurance card in their wallet, the purpose of debt-free education is to make sure that every American has a student ID card too — whether it means anything or not.
But there are changes coming in higher education that can actually solve some of these problems.
The Internet is making education much cheaper. While Open Online Courses have existed for more than a decade, there are a growing number of places to find educational materials online. Udemy is an online marketplace that allows anyone to create their own course and sell it or give it away. Saylor Academy and University of the People both have online models that offer college credit with free tuition and relatively low examination fees.
Udacity offers nanodegrees that can be completed in 6-12 months. The online curriculum is made in partnership with technology companies to give students exactly the skills that hiring managers are looking for. And there are many more businesses and non-profits offering new ways to learn that are cheaper, faster, and more able to keep up with the ever-changing economy than traditional universities.
All of these innovations are happening in response the rising costs and poor outcomes that have become typical of formal education. New educational models will keep developing that offer solutions that policy makers can’t provide.
Some of these options are free, some aren’t. Each has their own curriculum and some provide more tangible credentials than others. There isn’t one definitive answer as to how someone should go about receiving an education. But each of these innovations provides a small part of the answer to the current problems with higher education.
Change for the better is coming to higher education. Just don’t expect it to come from Washington.
Bryan Jinks is a ?freelance writer based out of Cleveland, Ohio.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-warren-hillary-e1438627374773.jpg364640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-08-03 14:44:372015-08-03 14:44:37Who Is Doing More for Affordable Education: Politicians or Innovators? by Bryan Jinks