Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 28, 2016, 01:57:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97475 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: Today at 01:41:10 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Obama's November Surprise
by Gregg Roman
The Hill
September 26, 2016
President Obama is contemplating a surprise move to permit anti-Israel action by the UN Security Council during his final months in office.

There is growing speculation that President Obama will spring a diplomatic surprise on Israel during the interregnum between the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 8 and his departure from office in January.

Some say the surprise will be a speech laying down parameters for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or some type of formal censure of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but the scenario generating most discussion is a decision to support, or perhaps not to veto, a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.

This would be a bombshell. Washington's long-stated policy is that a Palestinian state should be established only through an agreement negotiated directly between the two sides. In practice, this would require that Palestinian leaders agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and concede the so-called "right of return" for refugees of the 1948 war and their descendants to areas within Israel's borders, a prospect which would mean the demographic destruction of Israel.

Past administrations understood the folly of recognizing Palestinian statehood before a peace settlement.

For decades, Palestinian leaders have made it clear they won't do this: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas doesn't mince words, telling a gathering of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo in November 2014, "We will never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel." Efforts to win recognition of Palestinian statehood by foreign governments and multilateral institutions are designed to skirt this precondition for statehood.

Any state that comes into existence without Palestinian leaders formally recognizing Israel will be a brutal, unstable train wreck, with areas under its jurisdiction likely to remain a hotbed of terrorism. On top of whatever existing factors are producing the endemic corruption and autocracy of the Abbas regime (not to mention the Hamas regime in Gaza), unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will vindicate radicals who have been saying all along that there's no need to compromise.

On the other hand, official Palestinian acknowledgement once and for all that Israel is not just here to stay, but has a right to stay, would deprive Palestinian leaders of time-honored tools for manipulating their constituents – appealing to and inflaming their baser anti-Jewish prejudices, promising them salvation if they'll only shut up 'til the Zionists are defeated, and so forth. Instead, they will have to do things like govern well and create jobs to win public support.
Palestinian incitement to violence starts early. Above, the second grade Palestinian textbook Our Beautiful Language depicts Israelis uprooting trees from Palestinian land.

Previous American administrations have understood that recognizing Palestinian statehood before Abbas and company allow Palestinian society to undergo this transformation would be the height of irresponsibility. This is why American veto power has consistently blocked efforts to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state by way of the UN Security Council.

Notwithstanding his apparent pro-Palestinian sympathies and affiliations prior to running for the Senate and later the White House, President Obama initially maintained this policy. The expressed threat of an American veto foiled Abbas' 2011 bid to win UN member-state status for "Palestine." He settled for recognition of non-member-state status by the General Assembly in 2012.

As moves by the PA to bring the issue of statehood to the UN picked up steam last year, however, it appeared to walk back this commitment. While U.S officials privately maintained there was "no change," Obama and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power refused – despite the urging of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid – to state publicly that the U.S. would use its veto to stop a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood.

The conventional wisdom was that Obama's refusal to make such a public declaration was intended to exert pressure on Netanyahu to tone down his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, and later to punish him for it or hold it out to secure concessions. As his presidency enters its final months, it's clear something even more nefarious is at work.

Congress must use the tools at its disposal to make a reckless policy reversal by Obama as difficult as possible.

President Obama's failure to clarify his administration's position has greatly damaged prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Even if it is Obama's intention to veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes up at the UN, his refusal to publicly state this – or, put differently, his determination to go on the record for the history books not saying it – has fueled perceptions among Palestinians and European governments facing pressures of their own that American will is softening.

It is imperative that Congress use the tools at its disposal to make this unwise path as difficult as possible for the Obama administration.

Ultimately, a one-sided UN declaration such as this serves only to postpone by a long shot the day when Palestinian leaders accept Israel as it is – the homeland of the Jewish people – and allow their subjects to enjoy the lasting peace and prosperity they and their neighbors deserve.

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum.

 on: Today at 01:13:17 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Has anyone asked why she visited so many countries?   I strongly suspect it was to hit them up for money for the Clinton Foundation.  Why else?  It had something to do with that I suspect.
The only other reason would be just so she can state, like she is doing, that she did visit so many countries as though that is a gold star on her resume:

That's right.  They had already planned the Foundation all the way back in the 90s.  That is from a post of yours, I believe.  She became the first fitbit Secretary where it is taxpayer paid miles, not steps, that are counted.  A resume is a list of accomplishments, not of addresses.  I recall that women first voted in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush.  What did she accomplish?  Liberation of Libya - to al Qaida?

One place she visited on behalf of women's rights was China.  Then when she wrote "Living History" she had the book translated to Chinese to sell more copies with any scolding of the regime omitted.  All the nice things she said about the PLA and PRC were left in the book. Caught in that by the NYT(?) she was 'appalled' to learn that criticism of the Chinese government was censored by the communist government!  (Who could have seen that coming?!)  She immediately posted those chapters to her website on the internet - where it was censored again by the communist government, as all anti-regime content is. (And who could have seen that coming?)  Meanwhile she kept all the money for the selected text books.  Was she bragging about being ignorant, stupid about what oppresive regimes do or was she just being duplicitous in profiting while giving legitimacy to a totally oppressive regime? 

 on: Today at 12:35:08 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Has anyone asked why she visited so many countries?   I strongly suspect it was to hit them up for money for the Clinton Foundation.  Why else?  It had something to do with that I suspect.
The only other reason would be just so she can state, like she is doing, that she did visit so many countries as though that is a gold star on her resume:

 on: Today at 12:26:52 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Of course .  One of the few times I agree with Obama and now Republicans (and few crats) make a stand and over ride a veto.  This WILL come back to hurt us.

But the internet control  give away - watch they will do nothing.

 on: Today at 12:25:28 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
Is this a national issue relative to this election, why was it brought up in this debate with time for big issues so limited?  I presume the answer to that was to isolate Trump from blacks, stop and frisk is hugely unpopular with blacks.  Also to distract attention away from current failures.

This is like abortion question, questioners pick apart the most extreme conservative position on rare cases and ignore the 98% where babies are getting slaughtered for convenience reasons.  In this case, the black and Hispanic neighborhoods are becoming war zones.  Bothering innocent people isn't a big part of the fix.

The policy as I understand it is stop, question and frisk, not stop and frisk.

 on: Today at 12:15:38 PM 
Started by G M - Last post by DougMacG
Follow up from Presidential discussion:

DDF:  I'm trying to do homework and also read the Trans-Pacific Partnership to pick it apart, and maybe send some things to Trump's campaign that he can use.
At 5,544 pages (it's hard to tell because the actual government link with the text is in several links due to its size), it weighs more than 100 lbs.

I'm very interested in seeing that.

From a previous post in this thread:
Crafty:  In that only 5 out of 29 parts are about Trade, perhaps it would make more sense for our discussions to be the Sovereignty thread?

This is my concern.  I support the freedom to trade across borders without undue government interference, but I would like to know what the other 24 chapters are about.  Is this where Hillary sees the gold standard in international agreements.  What are the real infringements on our sovereignty in the TPP?  Removing these is where Trump could call the countries back together and get a better agreement, one that doesn't violate our constitution or sovereignty, one we can sign.

 on: Today at 11:28:35 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Fact-Checking Lester Holt
Here’s the legal back story on that stop-and-frisk ruling.
Sept. 27, 2016 6:55 p.m. ET

We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.

Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.

Here’s what really happened. The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case was Shira Scheindlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court put it this way:

“Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges . . . and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule’ . . . and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”

The court then remanded the case to another judge who would not present an appearance of bias against the police. In a follow-up opinion, the appellate judges cited a New Yorker interview with Judge Scheindlin that included a quote from a former law clerk saying “what you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”

This is an extraordinary rebuke by a higher court and raises doubts that the merits of her ruling would have held up on appeal. As Rudolph Giuliani makes clear nearby, the judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality applied only to stop and frisk as it was practiced in New York at the time. Such police search tactics have long been upheld by higher courts.

In the end, the clock ran out on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and new Mayor Bill de Blasiochose not to appeal. We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.

 on: Today at 10:36:52 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: Today at 10:29:41 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
After the Republic
By: Angelo M. Codevilla
September 27, 2016

 on: Today at 10:22:32 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DDF
All appropriate caveats apply: Polls can be wrong, a bad sample can throw off the RCP average, et cetera. After the election, when all the votes are counted, we’ll have real data. Some will argue that this is an imperfect measuring stick, because Trump is competing against Clinton as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and most third-party candidates in Senate races are minimally consequential. Of course, this is part of the point. Trump alienates and repels a portion of the electorate that is usually more open to voting for a Republican nominee.

That is critical.

I think the appropriate thing to do is find and expose Johnson's negative points. He (Johnson) should be in the debates, but not just for Johnson's sake, but for the sake of finding out the negative portions that don't come to light, such as his support of TPP. The public has been focused so much, on attacking and endorsing Clinton or Trump, that even though the likelihood of a Libertarian victory is diminished with the inherent power of the DNC and GOP, the fact that Johnson (Stein to a much lesser extent), will pull needed votes from either candidate, MUST BE addressed. Johnson should receive much more attention than he is currently receiving, and not all of it positive.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!