I Want a President for Americans who Follow the Rules, Go to Work, and Obey the Law

Back

Christopher Chantrill

It's true! The pundits have just discovered that Republicans and Democrats really are different, after all. First, there's the Kaiser Family Foundation poll that shows that Democrats want specifics from politicians and Republicans want principles. Then there's the MSNBC campaign switch, reported by young Ezra Klein. He quotes Benjy Sarlin:

I was caught off guard by how specific and personal Democratic voters' issues tended to be. One woman told me she had lost a job because she had to take care of a sick relative and wanted paid family leave...

By contrast, Republican voters tend to be excited by more abstract issues: One of the most common answers I get from Cruz voters when I ask about their leading concern is "the Constitution." There are fewer "I have a specific problem in my own life, and I'd like the government to do x about it" responses.

If young Ezra Klein wants to know why Democrats and Republicans are different, he should bone up on my "Three Peoples" theory, which explains the whole procedure.

On my theory, rank-and-file Democrats are People of the Subordinate Self. They are peasants and workers, as the Marxists used to say. When they have a problem they look to the lord of the manor, or the ward boss, or the politician to fix it; they do not imagine that they could fix it themselves, because they don't have the power.

Republicans are different. They are People of the Responsible Self. They experience themselves as responsible for fixing things on their own. That is why they are interested in rules and principles. They just want the rules to be set forth, as in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the U.S. Constitution, and they will do the rest using their God-given talents.

Liberals? They are the third leg of the triad, the People of the Creative Self, but we are not talking about them today. Go to my blog if you want more.

According to my understanding of history, 1,000 years ago most everyone was a subordinate peasant, grubbing for favors from his feudal lord. Yet today, the average American is self-motivated. He follows the rules, goes to work, obeys the law, and expects to solve his own problems. What happened?

What happened was the Reformation, the Puritan revolution that birthed the Mayflower, the Great Awakening that birthed Methodism, and the Second Great Awakening that birthed Mormonism. These religious convulsions taught peasants that they were responsible beings that could direct their own lives and thrive. The result was what Deirdre McCloskey calls the "Bourgeois Era," the rise of the middle class.

But liberals don't like that. Their whole shtick is to find another helpless class of victims, tell them how special they are, and make them into the "little darlings" of the ruling class. Because without the wise and compassionate help of the liberals, the little darlings would be helpless in the cruel hands of the one percent and the corporations and the global white patriarchy.

Only the opposite is true. You've heard tell, no doubt, about how the white working class is descending into opiate addiction and suicide? That, I believe, is the horrible fate that awaits any group that has been embraced as the "little darlings" of the liberal ruling class. There was a time that liberals loooved the working class. But then came Norman Lear with his cunning notion of working stiff Archie Bunker as the quintessential racist, sexist, homophobe of the secret patriarchal conspiracy. Every liberal piled on and it was soon curtains for the white working class, and liberals made blacks and women into their new little darlings.

People who resist the siren call of the liberals and refuse to become their pets and little darlings are what we call "Republicans". They follow the rules, go to work, obey the law. And they wive and thrive.

Fast forward to 2016. Which groups are really pissed off right now in America, apart from the Republican base wanting to take the GOP establishment out to the woodshed? It's the white working class that is rallying to Donald Trump and the Black Lives Matter enraged that with Obama nothing has changed. What do these two groups have in common? They are past and present little darlings of the liberals.

And that is why I want a president that respects the American people, who honors the responsible Americans who follow the rules, go to work, and obey the law. As a bonus, I'd like him to show the subordinate victims how to climb out of the hell of thinking that a politician is going to solve their problem. Because I believe there is still time to save the little darlings from a fate worse than death.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

My Problem with Trump on Health Care

Monday - February 01, 2016

RUSH: As for Trump, I have to... I was surprised.  I was just a little stunned when Trump starts speaking positively... He didn't come out for single-payer health care, but he made it clear that when it comes to health care, he's closer to the Obama approach than to the traditional Republican.  I was stunned.  I was stunned when I saw what Trump had said on TV, literally taken aback by it.  Anyway, we'll get into all this in detail as the program unfolds today.  And, again, your host -- your beloved host -- is in a lion's share of the audio sound bites today.  These are somewhat interesting, actually, somewhat relevant. So I'm gonna lead off with them rather than relegate them to the third hour as I've been doing in recent days.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Look, here's a good way to illustrate the point.  And when I say I was surprised by... I was surprised that it was admitted to; not that Trump would think what he thinks.  I'm not surprised by any of that.  I've often thought that Mr. Trump may not really know ideologically the composition of his support base except on the issue of immigration, and his health care comments sort of indicated that to me.  But, anyway, more on that as the program unfolds.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Okay.  Mike in Franklin, Tennessee. I'll grab a call here before the hour expires.  How are you?  Great to have you on the program, sir.

CALLER:  Hi.  I'm good.  How are you?

RUSH:  Good.  Thank you.

CALLER:  I listened to your opening remark about Trump and you're concerned about him appearing to gravitate closer to Obamacare than you would like.

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  I hear Trump making specific comments about a small, specific segment of society and, you know, mainly the unfortunate who are having issues one way or another not being able to get health care or take care of themselves.  I don't hear him talking single-payer or mandated health care like Obamacare.

RUSH:  Now, but see, my problem is that we're already doing that twice:  Medicaid, Medicare. We're spending hundreds of billions. People are treated; they're not dying on the sidewalks.  They can go to the emergency room any time.  But that is how Obama sold Obamacare.  You go after emotion.  See, emotion's always gonna trump thought, sadly.  And we're gonna relive this. After we've got Obamacare, that was designed -- and it's interesting how it's failing. It doesn't work!  Government running things doesn't work. 

Now we hear that, "Well, maybe the government making sure people on the sidewalk get to the hospital and don't die..." We've been there, done that.  It was a red flag for me.  I don't know what to tell you.  It was a red flag because it said to me that the solution to this problem is Washington, and it's not.  The solution to the problems that we have in this country is get Washington out of them. I mean, all these things that are wrong. That's why we're in this mess.  So that's why it was a red flag.  I appreciate your call and giving me an opportunity to explain that.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now just to expand here a little bit, folks.  To me the problems with health care are a lot like the problems with immigration.  And not just those two.  I mean, you can take pretty much every problem that we have in this country, and this is what's so frustrating to me.  You can tack it all, all.  Now, there's been some help, but you can tack it all to Barack Obama and Democrat Party.  Everything that has happened that makes you unhappy, has you ill at ease, worried about the future -- you live in the greatest country on earth. 

For the last seven years we've been led by people who do not believe in this country, do not like the way this country was founded, and they have gone about to change it.  They have set about and they have succeeded to transform it, not just politically; culturally as well.  They have done their best to turn this country upside down.  They have practiced from the belief that the people who have been successful in this country have not earned it, that the game was rigged and it was given to them, that it was handed to them. And that the losers, as they look at things, life's winners and losers, they think it's unfair, an unfair system that created that, so they want to re-rig the game and pick winners and losers. 

But their objective is to create losers.  Their objective is to create losers who do not see any future for them as self-reliant.  Who only see a future for themselves if the government is involved in their life somehow, some way, every day.  The Democrat Party no longer has any middle-of-the-roaders in it, it no longer has any centrists in it, it no longer has any moderates.  Well, maybe Joe Manchin, but you can't name more than a couple.  They are total radicals now, and defined as radicals by people who have never liked the country. 

They have not respected what it stood for, what it was formed to be, the ways in which it was founded, none of it.  They're angry, they're mad all the time, unhappy, and they want to spread that unhappiness.  They create chaos after chaos after chaos to keep people on edge with the ultimate aim being to have as many people as possible turn to Washington, DC, for the solution to everything not right in their lives.

Meanwhile, they are the people creating all of these things that are not right in people's lives.  It is a singular quest, and the quest is for power.  It is not about improving the lives of the most people.  It's not about freedom and liberty.  It's not about the US Constitution.  It's about the acquisition of singular power for as long as they can hold on to it. 

Let's get specific.  You look at the problems with immigration.  If we had enforced our immigration laws, we would not have the problems, we would not be in the trouble we're in today.  We've got plenty of immigration law, and it's good.  And were it enforced, we wouldn't have this problem.  There isn't a need for comprehensive immigration reform.  There isn't a need for new law.  It's all there.  All we have to do is enforce it.

If we had allowed the laws of supply and demand, i.e., the marketplace to run health care instead of government for the last 50 years, we wouldn't be where we are in health care today, either.  Health care is this massively complex and impossibly expensive proposition today.  But it need not be.  Why isn't the hotel business massively complex and impossible to afford?  Why isn't the airline business?  Pick any business.  Why isn't it as screwed up as health care? 

I can imagine all the answers being, "Everybody gets sick, Rush, everybody needs health care."  Right.  But why does a Band-Aid cost 500 bucks or whatever it costs, if you're in a hospital.  You know, the market is an amazing thing that functions exactly as it should.  I love using the example of hotels.  We have range of hotels in this country, motels, hotels, whatever you want you can find it.  You can find the most expensive five star hotel experience in the world if you want to pay for it, and if you want to spend 20 bucks a night or an hour, you can do that. 

Whatever you want, the hotel business has it for you.  It's all based on ability of the customer to pay.  Not everybody can afford a five-star, multi-room hotel suite, but some people can and will happily pay for it, so some of them are available.  But if you're not into that, if you want to spend whatever it is at a Motel 6 or take your pick, it's there for you.  There's no reason health care shouldn't be the same.  But the problem began when Harris Wofford said (paraphrasing), "Well, if our Constitution's gonna provide you with a lawyer, it ought to provide you health care. It ought to be a constitutional right." 

And then came the notion that all health care should be equal, that everybody should get the same kind of treatment, i.e., the best, no matter what it cost. The Democrat Party came along and said that's what we're gonna provide for you.  Is it working?  You know what's happening in health care right now?  The people who can afford the best are getting it.  You know what's happening?  Doctors are leaving Medicare, leaving Medicaid, setting up private practice, and they're taking on 25 or 30 customers who pay 'em a retainer like you'd pay a lawyer, against whatever you're gonna need health care-wise the rest of the year. 

So you pay to reserve your doctor, and then whatever you need health care-wise, you pay for that. But the doctor is always available for you, you know what you're gonna get, and the market's making it possible. Until Obama and the gang figure out how to shut that down, which they will, because it undermines their whole premise that everybody's entitled to the same. 

There's been no such thing.  There's no such thing as total equality, total sameness when we're talking about outcome.  Because people are different.  They have different education, ambition, intelligence, desire, you name it.  But the desire to spread equality of outcome using class warfare and class envy, which is their stock-in-trade, creates false promises, impossible promises, which can never be kept, which keeps people perpetually upset and angry and feeling disadvantaged or what have you. 

If the solution to immigration is to simply enforce our laws -- and it is.  It isn't really more complicated. Well, it's a little bit more complicated because we have to deal with the massive reality of allowing people to get away with breaking the laws for who knows how many decades now.  But fix that, secure the border, enforce the law, problem solved.  It is not complex.  It may sound complex by people who don't want to do it.  And if the marketplace would just be allowed to work in health care, where whatever you want you can get, stop going to the doctor for hangnails and so forth, it would make a lot more sense.  It may not totally reform it and fix it, but it would make a lot more sense than what we have now. 

This system is unsustainable.  Obamacare was not designed to succeed.  Obamacare was designed to create the very chaos, the very inequities, the very inequalities that we have so that one day, in total frustration, massive numbers of Americans would throw their hands up and say, "Look, just let the government do it," or the government would say, "You know, it's such a mess, we've tried, let us fix it, we'll be the sole provider, we'll be the sole source."  "Yeah, yeah, man," 'cause that'll be seen as making it less complicated. 

But it doesn't work.  It never has worked.  Wherever you go in the world, this approach never, ever has worked.  And our country cannot take any more of this and maintain its brilliance in its founding, it's opportunity for the most, its prosperity, it's just not possible.  Besides that, elements of the Democrat Party are taking direct aim at that America for whatever host of varying reasons.  So when I hear candidates start talking about issues that make me think I'm listening to Democrats or make me think I'm listening to people who think the solution to all this is more government, bigger government, smarter government, what have you, red flags fly high, because government -- and this is not a cliche, and it's not simplistic conservatism -- government is the problem. 

Who says Barack Obama's an expert in anything?  Yet he's elected president.  What's he an expert in?  He taught constitutional law, he's not even an expert in the Constitution.  Is he an expert in health care?  He certainly isn't.  There isn't a Democrat who is.  And yet they are invested in by people that vote for 'em as the experts.  They cause the problems, they create the problems, then they demand they be allowed to create the solution, and people go for it. 

Socialism's a fraud.  I've been amazed.  There's something about it that's seductive.  It has been demonstrated to be a fraud I don't know how many times.  Socialism, communism, totalitarianism, whatever you want to call it, it's a demonstrable fraud.  False promises, phony promises, impossible promises.  Demonstrable failures throughout human history, and yet it continues to seduce people, and I'm convinced it does so by the expert usage of the fairness and equality and compassion arguments. 

It's not so much that those work.  What's really insidious about this is that proponents of free markets, proponents of getting government out of as much of this as possible and just let the market handle it, those people are successfully called mean-spirited, heartless, cold, and nothing could be further from the truth about every one of them who is accused of being that.  They are the exact opposite in fact.  

If you ask me, it's people like Barack Obama who are really cold-hearted and mean-spirited, but they get credit for all this compassion. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton pose a real threat to the future of this country.  They pose a grave danger.  Either one of them guarantees exactly the misery we have today, multiplied. No question about it. It's not possible for them to make life in America better, not even for the people who are going to be the beneficiaries of whatever it is they're passing out. 

Think I'm wrong? 

Take a look at their beneficiaries now and find the happiness for me.  Find the happiness among those in poverty.  Find the happiness among what they call the poor.  Find the happiness in the minorities that vote for them in droves.  Find the happiness. I mean, even their wealthy voters and supporters, you can't run into 'em without finding people angry, mad, ticked off about something from Hollywood to academia.  They're constantly enraged, constantly angry.  Where's the happiness?  Where is all of this utopia that's supposed to have happened by now? 

Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton? Multiply whatever you think is wrong now.  Whatever you think of health care, whatever you think of spending, whatever you think of the financial system, whatever you think of the culture, whatever you think of any aspect of American life, guaranteed you'll be even more miserable.  Guaranteed you'll be even more worried.  Guaranteed you'll be even more depressed because it's only going to get worse.  It can't get better.  What they believe in did not work.  What they believe in is destructive. 

So, yeah, today begins a really, really crucial year.  This is the day it really begins because this is the day votes are cast for the first time.  And, believe me, that's going to change the dynamic of everything.  Tonight and tomorrow is going to be much different than all the past months, because all the past months have just been speculation to fill time.  Wild guesses, educated guesses, expert analysis, what have you.  Tonight, reality begins.  And nobody knows for sure what's gonna happen tonight or next week in New Hampshire or beyond that.

But it won't take long to start getting a feel for it, because after the votes are counted, for some people it's going to be senseless to remain in the race.  You'll see people dropping out.  And that alone is going to change the dynamic.  The people dropping out do have supporters.  They're gonna go somewhere.  Nobody knows how that's gonna shake out.  Might have experts who think they can tell you, but nobody knows.  This is the year where we're going to find out if a majority of people in this country actually want what's happening today, this destruction, this mess, this deterioration, if they want it stopped.  We'll find out.  I think they do.  

EXPOSED: 22 Of Hillary’s Emails Too Top Secret To Release…And That’s Not Even The Worst Of It

www.tpnn.com  |Colleen Conley|56 minutes ago

While Hillary fumes over the State Department’s refusal to release 22 of her emails from her tenure as secretary of state — deeming them too highly classified to be made public — something equally, if not more, disturbing about this particular court-ordered email dump has come to light.

As the New York Times points out, State announced that 18 emails exchanged between then-Secretary Clinton and President Obama are also being withheld from public view. While John Kirby, spokesman for the State Department, said the emails in question do not involve classified information, tradition holds that presidential communications are typically not released until a much later date.

The news is enlightening, however, in view of what Obama has said about the Clinton scandal resulting from Hillary’s exclusive use of a personal email server that was unsecured and not protected by governmental firewalls.

As Breitbart pointed out, the news that Clinton-Obama communications were managed through Hillary’s personal server raises the appearance of a confict between what the president said and what he actually knew. Breitbart notes that “the New York Daily News reported last March that Obama said he discovered Clinton’s use of a personal email server through the media.”

Obama, it now seems, knew about Clinton’s use of a private server on which she conducted official government business as he personally sent her messages on that very system.

While Hillary is increasingly finding herself under fire for “Emailgate”, it may be that Obama himself will be caught up in the scandal as it continues to unfold. Recall Howard Baker’s famous question during the Watergate investigations: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

The Clinton campaign has decried the State Department’s withholding of 22 emails just days before the all-important Iowa caucuses, stating in an email blast that it “is overclassification run amok” and urging them to be made public. Clinton argued that the emails in question were not marked top secret at the time they were sent “and have been called ‘innocuous’ by certain intelligence officials.”

You can watch President Obama’s claim of having no knowledge of the email server by clicking on the video below, as the president spoke with CBS News

Will Trump's Support for Eminent Domain Abuse Hurt Him in Today's Iowa Caucus

reason.com  |59 minutes ago

Donald Trump has repeatedly endorsed the idea that government officials should have virtually unlimited power to seize private property via eminent domain. Trump has even praised the Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the majority opinion of liberal Justice John Paul Stevens' allowed a Connecticut municipality to bulldoze a working-class neighborhood on behalf of a speculative development scheme that was supposed to broaden the tax base while also benefitting the Pfizer corporation (that scheme turned out to be an utter failure).

What's more, Trump does not just talk the talk. In his real estate career, Trump repeatedly tried to profit from eminent domain abuse, such as when he joined forces with Atlantic City officials in the hopes of kicking an elderly widow out of her home in order to make way for a limousine parking lot for the nearby Trump Plaza hotel and casino (that eminent domain boondoggle was laughed out of court).

As voters head to the polls today in Iowa, it remains to be seen if Trump's embrace of eminent domain abuse will hurt his chances. Writing last week at The Washington Post, reporter Katie Zezima offers a few reasons why it might:

The topic could resonate in the first voting states of New Hampshire and Iowa, where companies have run into stiff opposition after floating the idea of using eminent domain for pipelines or other projects. Eminent domain is a particularly hot issue for many conservative and libertarian-leaning voters, who want to limit the power of government to encroach on personal property....

On Saturday, Trump...talked about how eminent domain was necessary in Pella, Iowa, where many landowners strongly oppose the prospect of the government taking land for a new regional airport.

Eminent domain is a contentious issue in other parts of Iowa as well. Last year, Gov. Terry Branstad (R) said he supported the use of eminent domain for some pipeline projects. One proposal would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day from North Dakota, cutting across 18 Iowa counties. A $2 million transmission line to send wind energy from Iowa to Illinois also included the use of eminent domain; last year, the project was put on hold while the company behind it figures out how to move forward.

According to a 2014 Des Moines Register poll, 57 percent of Iowans favor the pipeline, but only 19 percent said eminent domain should be used to construct pipelines or power lines.

Will Trump's support for eminent domain abuse hurt him in today's Iowa caucus? We'll find out soon enough

France Issues An Ultimatum That Could Lead To A Catastrophe For Israel

www.westernjournalism.com  |Yochanan Visser|47 minutes ago

Just a few days after the Obama administration increased pressure on Israel with the sudden enforcement of 20-year-old guidelines about labeling products manufactured in the so-called West Bank (Samaria and Judea), France stepped in to further pressure the Jewish State.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced Friday that France would soon organize an international conference with the aim to break the current deadlock in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The conference should enable new peace negotiations between each side, Fabius hopes.

“France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the two-state solution,” Fabius told reporters.

But apparently Fabius is not optimistic about the outcome of such a conference, so he decided to issue an ultimatum. When asked what would happen if his initiative should fail Fabius answered, “Well… in this case, we need to face our responsibilities by recognizing the Palestinian state.”

He added he saw “colonization” continue despite calls to cease these activities by the EU, U.S. and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Fabius was referring to Israel’s supposedly “illegal” activities in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), the heartland of both ancient and modern day Israel.

Israeli officials were flabbergasted by the ultimatum and reacted with fury.

“The foreign minister’s statement offers an incentive to the Palestinians to reach a deadlock. It is not possible to conduct negotiations or to achieve peace in such a manner,” an unnamed Israeli official toldthe Hebrew-language paper Ma’ariv, shortly after Fabius’ announcement.

“The French know their initiative is hopeless, but they’re doing anything to leave their marks and show they’re a relevant player in the international arena,” another Israeli official said sarcastically.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu underlined the French threat to Israel during his opening remarks Sunday at the weekly cabinet meeting and said when the conference doesn’t produce the desired results, “France would essentially adopt the Palestinian position.” He added this “gives an incentive to the Palestinians not to come to the negotiations and not to compromise.”

The Israeli prime minister did not rule out Israeli participation in the conference, but said there needed to be some “sobering up” regarding the French intention to recognize a Palestinian state.

“In any event, we will make an effort so that there is a sobering up here, and our position is very clear: We are prepared to enter direct negotiation without preconditions and without dictated terms,” Netanyahu said.

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the French initiative and said the Palestinian people would no longer tolerate the ‘occupation and settlements.’ He accused Israel of robbing the Palestinian Arabs of natural resources and said he would not accept temporary or interim solutions.

“The region will not enjoy security and stability unless the Israeli occupation and settlement activities end,” Abbas declared. “We will stay here on our land and in our homeland, where we have developed our historical and cultural identity and made humanitarian contributions for thousands of years.

It is unclear to which “humanitarian contributions for thousands of years” Abbas was referring. Many have pointed out (among them Joan Peters in her book From Time Immemorial) that the “Palestinians” as a people exist only sincethe founding of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1964 and their “humanitarian contributions” have been mainly the invention and the execution of numerous terror attacks.

Hamas, meanwhile, rejected the French plan as untenable. Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said “the calls from the international community to renew peace talks were futile and unacceptable. The world was trying to implement solutions that had previously failed,” he said.

The French initiative has led to speculations in the Israeli media about Fabius’s motivation.

Ha’aretz analyst Barak Ravid wrote the idea for the conference was not even raised during a meeting in Jerusalem between a high-ranking French official and Israeli diplomats last week.

“It almost seems that Fabius raised the idea knowing that it would fail, thus paving the way for other measures. If an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does take place, it will be a significant achievement for him. But if it does not come to pass within several weeks, he will be able to say that he tried to restart the negotiations countless times, and now the only way France can save the two-state solution is by recognizing a Palestinian state,” Ravid concluded.

The Ha’aretz journalist could be right. But contrary to what he thinks, Fabius is not merely seeking out a legacy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

“The French PM is not stupid and neither naïve,” Ravid wrote. Indeed, the French foreign minister knows what he is doing, and it probably has little to do with seeking a legacy.

As Ravid pointed out, Fabius has been the driving force in the EU to pressure Israel. Could it be the French FM saw the change in long-standing U.S. policy toward Israel’s policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians and decided to increase European pressure on Israel? After all, the French PM knows that when France recognizes the virtual Palestinian state, other European countries will follow suit.

Jerusalem Post analyst Caroline Glick wrote Jan. 21 that the Obama administration coordinates its new policy on Israel with the European powers. The timing of the French move a couple of days after the Obama administration announced the enforcement of the labeling policy indicates she was probably right.

Israel, meanwhile, seems to be aware of the dangers of the current situation. The government in Jerusalem knows the current political offensive against Israel can end in a bid to get the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution that will set a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. When that happens, Israel knows it cannot longer be assured of an American veto to block such a resolution as long as Obama is in office.

The risk of such a scenario is not that the situation on the ground will change except for more Palestinian terror against Israeli targets. The real danger lies in the diplomatic shift this scenario will cause. When the UNSC adopts a resolution setting a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the so-called West Bank — and world powers like France recognize a Palestinian state — it will be much harder for Israel to maintain its hold on Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinian Arabs apparently noticed the writing on the wall and stepped up their terror attacks against Israel over the weekend. There were several stabbings and vehicular attacks, and a member of the Palestinian Security Forces staged a shooting attack near an IDF checkpoint in the Beit El area in Samaria. The terrorist was shot dead after wounding three soldiers. He worked as a bodyguard for a PA prosecutor in Ramallah.

Monday the Palestinian Authority police praised the officer who carried out the attack. The police released a statement that said “with great pride, the members of the Palestinian police eulogize the brave martyrdom of their colleague.” The EU and the Obama administration didn’t react to the attack or the statement of the PA police.

Sponsored Links 

You May Like

The Root of All Stomach Problems? (Avoid These 4 Foods!)Probiotic America Supplements

What’s the #1 WORST food for belly fat? (free quiz)Truth About Ads Guide Book

Kentucky Drivers Are Stunned By This New RuleProvide-Savings Insurance Quotes

Drivers from Kentucky are in for a big surpriseUS-Quote.com

  

by Taboola 

You Got Nailed

Stephen Colbert Exposes Trump's Flip-Flops In Hilarious "Trump vs Trump" Debate

On The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, host Stephen Colbert played a hilarious "debate" consisting of videos of Donald Trump showing how he's radically changed position on a variety of issues--sometimes with only weeks in between the time the videos were shot.

It's pretty eye-opening:

Given that the oldest video in this montage (minus, of course, old endorsement commercials) is from December 2011, where he praises Megyn Kelly, I'd say that these are all fair for Colbert to use. Trump's praise of Hillary Clinton as someone who is "doing a good job" a mere three years ago is not something that can or should be ignored by the electorate. Mitt Romney was absolutely crucified for his changes of heart on issues--and this was an evolution that occurred over a matter of years, not weeks. It's ludicrous to give Trump a pass.