Rabbi Finds $98,000 In Craigslist Desk, Returns to Owner

Tweet

USA Today: Israel Has Endured "Three Months Of Near Daily Attacks By Palestinians"

USA Today reports that Israel has endured "three months of near daily attacks by Palestinians... Since late September, Jerusalem and the West Bank have been plagued by almost daily stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks." Among the dead was an American student. Today two were killed in Jerusalem's Old City during a stabbing attack before the terrorists were neutralized. This murderous Jewish hatred is not an aberration, a fringe, a tiny minority, but deeply rooted in Israel's enemies. A poll published just last week by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found 67% of Palestinians support stabbing attacks on Israelis. What would your nation do if it faced daily attacks from an enemy population? Should Israel not be pressured to protect its citizens from time to time, rather than having its arm twisted to concede and appease time and time again? If this were happening on the streets of London, Paris or New York, daily, would there not be a greater international outcry? Would there not be UN resolutions and demands for justice? Sad fact, but Jewish life has again become cheap. People of goodwill, civilized nations, if a truly moral compass pervaded our world, would together launch an international outcry. Israel can't count on anti-terror marches from world leaders in Tel Aviv. That's saved for France. And it's a damn shame. But like France, Israel's leadership should promise a "pitiless" response. If Jewish blood is less important to the world, it should be made far more costly to take by the Jewish State to make up for it. Tweet

John Kerry Excusing Palestinian Murder of Jews Blaming Israel

To hell with John Kerry. Jews are getting mowed down and stabbed to death day after day, after the "moderate" Abbas says Jews are defiling Al Aqsa with their "filthy feet" and glorifies the killers, as Imams incite their followers to kill, after Abbas says he is not bound by Oslo at the UN, the Secretary of Surrender blames Israel for the "frustration" of the Palestinians. Kerry and Obama have been rotten leftists from before their political careers. They are an embarrassment to America. See http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Kerry-to-visit-Israel-amid-crisis-423892


Tweet

Random Thoughts On The Democrat Presidential Debate

Did anyone notice the irony in Bernie Sanders slamming "casino capitalism" at a debate held at the Wynn in Vegas?

Ann Coulter should start watching the Democrat debates. That's where Israel never gets mentioned.
 
Hillary actually responded to a question about Edward Snowden saying "he broke the laws of the United States" and allowed info to fall "into the wrong hands." You mean kind of like that private e-mail server? Hillary for Prison 2016!

Why the jubiliation and excess cheering from the crowd at refusing to answer for her illegal actions easily exposed to foreign surveillance? What's wrong with the Dems in that room? They like bold lies and cover-ups? And what's wrong with Bernie Sanders for bailing her out on that question?

Most of this snoozefest was about how awful America is because of Wall Street, because America doesn't spend enough, and because rich people are not taxed enough. Not a word about the head-choppers all night. 

Jim Webb seems like the only sane person on that stage. Too bad he's not polished enough to impress. He seemed like a normal guy standing next to three leftist stooges and the smiling nobody all the way at the other end.

If Jim Webb is against affirmative action, against gun control, for coal, is the only person on stage willing to say that "all lives matter," and gave an actual answer on our greatest national security threats that didn't fall back on "climate change," why isn't he a Republican? Move him to the Republican debates.

Lincoln Chafee seems like he'd be useful if you needed someone to read a story to your grandkids. Not much else.

Asked who is the enemy they are most proud of having made in their career, aside from Webb, I heard the coal industry, the NRA, and "the Republicans." Donald Trump already has a more real enemy in El Chapo. Why no answer about the radical Muslims or those threatening America?

Why is "illegal alien" a forbidden word at the Dem debate? It's in the United States Code. US law doesn't say anything about those who are "undocumented." I guess they must think U.S. immigration law is racist.

Why does Hillary always have to remind us she's a woman? I guess she thinks we can't tell.

Tweet

THE "GENDER WAGE GAP" IS BOGUS

The 77 cents to the dollar figure that is bandied about so commonly is a "raw gender wage gap," the ratio of the median earnings of women and the median earnings of men. That's not as important. You have to compare apples to apples, taking into accounts such obvious factors as career fields, experience, education, and so on. If you don't account for the factors it's a completely meaningless statistic. Worse, it's a pernicious one, meant to deceive and create the impression of drastic discrimination where none exists. It is a fact that there are all sorts of factors therefore unconsidered that have nothing to do with minimizing women's accomplishments, but rather respecting women's choices. One can find all sorts of studies that demonstrate that once factors that account for variations in wages are taken into account the wage gap all but disappears, if not greatly decreases. I'll link to one such study, precisely because it was released by the Department of Labor in 2009. I would assume this would be a credible source to those who think this is some conservative conspiracy I'm espousing. "Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap. Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career interruptions, and motherhood. Other factors are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately impact them. Such factors for which empirical evidence has been developed include health insurance, other fringe benefits, and overtime work... [I]t can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap." Also, "statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent." The Department of Labor's own study flatly contradicts liberal conventional wisdom. I of course find it unsurprising that most would be unaware of this fact as well.

Here's the link.  Tweet

Corker-Menendez Bill On Congressional Involvement In Iran Deal Is Republican Capitulation And Inversion Of The Constitution

Why is the White House suddenly declaring they will sign the current Corker-Menendez bill on Congressional involvement in the Iran deal? Because it's a complete capitulation from Congress and an inversion of the Constitution. Article II, Section, Clause 2 clearly states that "two thirds of the Senators present" must "concur" on a "treaty." The Iran deal should be subject to a yes-or-no up-or-down vote requiring a supermajority for enactment. What this bill instead does is allow both houses of Congress to vote by simple majorities as to whether to lift current sanctions as per the eventual deal. If they vote against doing so, Obama may use his veto pen. It then would be incumbent upon the legislative chambers to gain two-thirds to override the President's veto. This arrangement effectively shifts the supermajority burden in the President's favor, rather than the strong Congressional check and balance intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

Sen. Bob Corker can pat himself on the back all he wants, but in reality he surrendered Congressional authority. That's why Obama will sign the bill. Shame on Congressional Republicans for their mock victory when they should have worked to pass a bill in line with the Treaty Clause. Not only that, but you need no bill for this process. If Obama was not going to treat the Iran deal as a treaty, a majority of Congress could have easily passed a law against lifting sanctions anyways which Obama could then veto. You need no special bill to line this out. What this bill does is effectively lock that process in and grants a victory to Obama by ensuring his Iran deal will not be treated like a treaty by the legislative branch.

Tweet

LEFT & RIGHT: THE MARXIST vs. MORAL MINDSET

"[P]olitical forms [cannot]...be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but...on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life... It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." - Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," 1859

Leftists look at the world through a Marxist lens. Karl Marx reduced every struggle to class conflict. Liberals are influenced and educated by leftists and it is no surprise therefore that liberals too, consciously or not, are constantly blaming the system or class conditions as the true cause of destructive and dangerous behavior. They don't like Marx, however, only look to economic class. The politics of the left is defined by categories of thinking tied to perceived oppressed classes needing protection. If you are not any preconceived protected class, you may become a target of the left. 

Yesterday, State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf stated, "We cannot kill our way out of this war [with ISIS]. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups...[such as] lack of opportunity for jobs." Time Magazine published "In Defense of Rioting" during Ferguson with the author writing that "in our capitalist society...[u]ntil I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin...I will be inherently privileged." Extremely high violent crime and murder rates in the black community are chalked up to "poverty" and blame is placed on "the system." After the 9/11 attacks, in a Newsweek cover essay, "Why They Hate Us," Fareed Zakaria argued that jihadism was a result of political/social/economic stagnation of Arab societies. The left launches campaigns to demonize Israel and blames all Palestinian jihad terror on Israeli "oppression" and "occupation." The left's refrain is that "the rich" must pay their "fair share." Abortion is viewed as a "women's rights" issue and a "woman's right to choose." Sexism, intolerance, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, intolerance, racism, and bigotry become the knee-jerk epithets of choice against anyone that dare take a position the left disagrees with. Only a Marxist-style framework could produce this kind of thinking.

On the other hand, conservatives view the world through a moral prism. This requires unabashedly making moral judgments and disavowing moral relativism. This morality mindset looks to values and ideology rather than perceived oppression and protected classes. Misconduct is more often attributed to downright evil ideologies, backwards cultures, warped or absent values, or an inability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Conservatives refer to a "clash of civilizations," and are far more unembarrassed in calling out and blaming the Islamist ideology of America's enemies. George W. Bush at least at times referred to "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam," while Obama and his minions are incapable. ISIS is a deeply religious Islamic millenarian group, with a theology that must be understood to be combatted. Ronald Reagan called the Soviets an "evil empire," and George W. Bush warned of an "axis of evil." Black crime rates are disproportionate because of a culture in need of repair and moral fiber in need of strengthening far more than any white racism. No one seems to have imparted a basic moral constitution or meaningful values into Ferguson rioters. Israel is a vibrant democracy facing a primitive evil enemy bent on her destruction since her birth. The right believes that taxation is a species of "legalized larceny" without a compelling public interest.  Instead of gender guiding the entire opinion, the conservative asks when the moral obligation to protect the unborn child comes into being.  Refusing to stand up to evil or with perceived justice is far more ignoble than any particular set of pre-packaged group-based insults.

This is not all-extensive list, more examples could be given if more issues were examined closely. Granted, this is merely my proposition, but it's also a thought experiment I challenge you to take. Listen to the debates of our day and see if you can find examples constantly, on your own, that too neatly fall into this left-Marxist, right-Morality dichotomy.

Tweet

The Facetious Argument That A Congressional Invitation To Israeli PM Netanyahu To Speak Before Congress Without White House Permission Is "Unconstitutional"

An argument has been circulating among law professors, posted on various legal blogs and picked up by more popular political blogs, declaring House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress "unconstitutional."  My immediate reaction was one of surprise to see this argument even surfacing and seriously making the rounds.  While I have long known not to take the ramblings of law professors on constitutional issues too seriously, I failed to heed my own admonition. This was so facetious that even I didn't see it coming. Yet what I found most disturbing was its emanating with certain academics claiming to root their argument in textual and originalist constitutionalism.

The rather absurd contention seems to have originated on Opinio Juris with Temple University law professor Peter Spiro arguing that Congress has violated the "the logic of presidential control" in diplomatic relations. Even the White House, where an official told reporters that Netanyahu had "spat in our face" by accepting the invitation, has only called the Boehner invitation a mere "breach of protocol".  Spiro writes, "If this were happening beyond the political anomalies of the Middle East, I wonder if it might be using some stronger language."  Oh really? Had John Boehner invited one of the Castro brothers without White House permission to address Congress upon Obama's normalizing relations with communist Cuba, would the White House have even complained about a so-called "breach of protocol"?  This question answers itself.

Even the Volokh Conspiracy's reliably pro-Israel George Mason University law professor David Bernstein joined Spiro's ranks.  "Since I give Obama a hard time when he acts unconstitutionally and contrary to the separation of powers, I hereby give Boehner a hard time for inviting Netanyahu despite the absence of any apparent constitutional authority to do so," Bernstein writes.  Perhaps he has shared his hand right there, attempting to increase his constitutional bona fides at the expense of his well known unassailable pro-Israel views, with very little downside.  If that's the case, he has chosen the wrong issue to use for such a demonstration.  I am not attacking motives, but rather commenting on the professor's own statement.  Me thinks though doth protest too much.

Bernstein does little but rehash Originalism Blog's University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey's post and write that they "do strike me as likely being right." Ramsey's argument is all the more distressing given that it claims the mantle of originalist interpretation of the Constitution.  Ramsey's argument amounts to the following:  "First, Congress has no Article I, Section 8 to host a foreign leader... Second, reception of foreign leaders is an exclusive power of the President.  Article II, Section 3, provides that 'he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.'... The President’s power here is properly understood as exclusive."  He then goes on to cite a historical affair involving the Presidency of George Washington as evidence of original meaning. 

While it is true that Congress has no such power explicitly listed in Article I, Section 8, it is also true that pointing that out is utterly irrelevant.  Congress is not exercising a legislative power, but merely hosting a speaker.  No law is being passed, no vote is being taken. A close ally is addressing Congress, and Congressmen clearly have the ability to listen to speeches. The Weekly Standard's legal blogger Adam White further rebuts both the points made by Ramsey rather convincingly, and is worth excerpting at length:

True, Congress does not have a specific, explicit constitutional authorization to meet with foreign leaders, but then again the same could be said of Congress's convening of hearings, oversight inquiries, public events, or other receptions undertaken to support Congress's ultimate lawmaking and appointment-confirming actions. Congress does, after all, have constitutional powers to make appropriations in support of foreign policy, to confirm the appointment of diplomatic personnel, and to ratify treaties. Hearing from foreign leaders -- merely hearing from them -- can support those constitutional objectives, just as congressional hearings support Congress's legislative actions...  Ramsey attempts to analogize this to the "Citizen Genet Affair," the 1793 episode in which the French government directed communications to Congress, rather than to President Washington, in the hopes of finding an audience more receptive than the Washington administration, given its neutrality between Britain and France... The administration, through Secretary of State Jefferson, asserted that the president alone was "the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations," and Congress acquiesced to that assertion of power. But this analogy loses all sense of proportion: France's efforts in 1793 -- commissioning privateers, planning land-based expeditions in the United States, and establishing French prize courts in the United States -- went well beyond the mere speech that Netanyahu would make to Congress. Indeed, one wonders how far such arguments against Congress cut. Would Professor Spiro argue that members of Congress cannot travel abroad to meet foreign officials -- such as Nancy Pelosi's 2007 visit to Syria? Would Professor Ramsey prohibit Republican presidential candidates, including members of Congress, from traveling abroad to meet with foreign audiences and leaders, as President Obama did in 2008 -- including a meeting with Netanyahu, and then-Prime Minister Olmert -- and Governor Romney did in 2012?... Nothing Congress does, pursuant to its longstanding constitutional powers affecting foreign policy, will confuse anyone as to the official position of the United States, under President Obama, with respect to Israel... Finally, speaking of the Supreme Court, Professor Spiro's aggressive criticism of Congress's relations with foreign leaders conveniently leaves aside the third branch of government: the Supreme Court. Would Spiro, or other law professors critical of Congress and Netanyahu, impose similar constraints on the Court's communications with foreign nations and leaders? The Court often receives "amicus briefs" from foreign nations and leaders, urging the Court to adopt various constitutional interpretations -- not just in the small subset of cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" (over which the Court has constitutional jurisdiction), or even in cases affecting foreign policy more broadly (e.g., Guantanamo and immigration), but also those involving purely domestic issues of constitutional law, such as the death penalty. Would Spiro and others prohibit the Supreme Court from accepting any such briefs, except the briefs authorized by the president? Or is Congress the only branch of government that must be walled off from foreign voices?

While White authored a highly persuasive rebuttal to the silliness circulating among some in legal academia, he also made a fundamental error.  He conceded "that the president's authority to 'receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers' is surely a broad grant of power," and launched his counterargument after agreeing to that faulty foundation. The "Father of the Constitution" James Madison wrote in 1824, "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution." Alexander Hamilton in March 1788 said in Federalist no. 69 during the ratification debates:

The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It is a circumstance which will be without consequence in the administration of the government; and it was far more convenient that it should be arranged in this manner, than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.

The idea that this very clause provided a "broad power" over foreign affairs was the "declamation" of those who opposed ratifying the U.S. Constitution. It is precisely an argument of those who argued against the Constitution becoming the supreme law of the land in the first place, warning against an overpowering executive. In turn, Hamilton made clear during the debate over ratification that it contained no such authority, but was merely a formalism allowing the President to receive ambassadors without the legislature convening.  This is precisely the opposite of the conventional wisdom espoused by even the rebuttal to the frivolous arguments advanced by those arguing Boehner violated the Constitution.  

Justice Joseph Story wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" in 1833, "From the nature and duties of the executive department, he must possess more extensive sources of information, as well in regard to domestic as foreign affairs, than can belong to congress."  This is in no way precludes the Congress inviting the leader of a close ally to address a joint session.  

Despite protestations from some legal scholars,  the House Speaker does not have to "consult" the President before issuing an invitation to a close ally to address Congress. Congress is not a subservient branch of government to King Obama, and nothing in the Constitution suggests as much. Lawless Obama's spokespeople whined about Boehner breaching "protocol" in issuing the invitation to one of our closest allies. I shed no tears. This coming from the President who has repeatedly threatened to act without Congress (i.e., to act with his his phone and pen), having made good on those threats. Yet now he has the gall to protest a "breach of protocol"?  Netanyahu was wise to accept the invitation to sway the American people and U.S. Congress away from a delusional foreign policy. As of today he is scheduled to address a joint session on March 3, primarily on the threat posed by that Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons.   

The White House has announced they will arrange no meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu during the Israeli leader's visit to Washington. While this is revealing in and of itself regarding the President's relationship with the State of Israel, it is indeed his Constitutional prerogative.  Tweet