Why are we in the UN again?I came here as a friend of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. –Like you, I came to protest this third Durban conference which is an effort based on a set of lies and organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression. Durban III will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has lost its way. It's obsession with the Jewish obvious: . For over 50 years, 82 percent of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel. Hitler couldn't have been made happier.
Given all the good Israel does in the world, given its democracy and its striving to follow the highest standards of human rights, even in the face of the most brutal , the most fanatic enemies, the Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people will know that.
But friends, I come here today to make a different case. I come with what you might at first think is a radical proposition: I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN's anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.
Please hear me out.
By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.
For over fifty years the indigenous black African population of Sudan — Christians and Muslims alike — have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.
In South Sudan, my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.
Everybody at the United Nations is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency to provide for them; this agency, UNWRA, treats them with a special privilege.
Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN even resisted using the word "slavery" to describe the enslavement of tens of thousands of my people. Why? Because slavery is a crime against humanity. When Khartoum insisted that the term "abducted people" be substituted for the word "slaves," the UN, caved to Arab pressure and agreed. Try that in America. Try calling Frederick Douglas an "abducted person." It's outrageous.
The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the root causes of Sudan's conflicts. Take Darfur, for example. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a "tribal conflict." It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism, as it has typically been practiced in Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam. The Darfuris are not Muslim enough in the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum. And they also do not want to be Arabized. They like their own African languages and dress and customs. They resist Arabization. The Arab response is genocide! But nobody tells the truth about Darfur.
In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The regime is targeting the black Africans – Muslims and Christians. This happened to the Nuba people before. In the 1990's hundreds of thousands were murdered; a large number of women were raped; children were abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Nobody at the UN told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.
Do you see a massive amount of outrage and reports and protests about this coming out of the UN or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Do you hear them condemn Arab anti-black racism?
Look at the pages of the New York Times, or the record of the UN condemnations, What you will find is "Israeli crimes" and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages by exaggerations of Palestinian suffering. Why? Because what Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin that we are all supposed to address. The truth is that the West commits a real sin when it abandons us: the actual victims of non-Westerns. Our suffering has become almost tabu.
Let me return to the topic of slavery. Because, while there are issues that divide public opinion, we can all agree that for one man to own another is a sin, and it should be stopped. The Americans tore themselves apart over the issue of slavery.
Chattel slavery, a centuries-long practice in Sudan, was revived as a tool of war in the early 90s. The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad and therefore legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.
I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.
I don't like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.
I was only nine years old when I was made a slave. An Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat destined to Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family's left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word "no." All I could say was "yes," "yes," "yes."
The United Nations knew about the brutal enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs from the early days of the conflict.. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group — sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening.
As soon as the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, the UN agency backtracked, and proceeded to criticize the NGOs that worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN's actions.
My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League. So much for "human rights for everybody.
As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.
I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United "do-nothing" Nations closed their doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least twenty six of them.
After this event the Sudanese realized that the Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So they continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for very long distances, the refugees' only hope was to reach Israel's side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.
The fact that even Darfuris, who are Muslims chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area, speaks volumes.. Israel is racist? Israel is against the Muslim world? Ask the thousands of black Muslim Darfuris who found shelter inside the Jewish state!
When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response was absolutely the opposite of what the United Nations alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as "heaven." No-one called them "abid" – an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations.
Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. It is a state of people of the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Beautiful black Jews. And Israel is a state that has taken my own black people in, rescued them, and helped them.
So, yes … my claim may be a radical claim: I claim that the victims who suffer most from the UN anti-Israel policy are not the Israelis but all those people who have to be ignored in order for the UN to tell its big lie against Israel: all those victims of non Western abuse, especially all those victims of Arab/Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab/Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.
So far, the Israelis have only been cursed by the UN. But look at the situation of the Copts, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, Hindus and Bahais who suffer from Islamic oppression. The Sikhs. We all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned. So that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.
Before I conclude let me tell you a story that reflects a special connection that the people of South Sudan feel towards Israel. In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor. And then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked and numb. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: "This is our people." I was never able to find an answer to my question.
On July 9 of 2011 South Sudan has become an independent state. We achieved freedom despite the opposition from the Arab world and despite the United Nations whose General Secretary Bi Ki Moon lobbied for the unity of Sudan. For South Sudanese, that would mean continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization , Arabization and enslavement.
In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel's legitimacy.
As a friend of Israel, I salute the President of the Republic of South Sudan Salva Kiir who had the courage to publicly state that South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built— not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.
I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its people, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth.
My Jewish friends taught me something I now want to say with you .
AM YISROEL CHAI!
The people of Israel lives!
Thank you.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Simon Deng: The UN Ignores Arab Acts of Enslavement and Genocide So They Can Continue To Attack Humane Israel
Monday, April 9, 2012
A Hate Crime Against Jewish Students at Florida Atlantic University
I'm not a fan of hate crime laws, but if we are going to have them, they need to be enforced equally for all groups.
Are Mitt and Bibi Friends?
The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.
When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government. When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with. And when Mr. Romney first ran for president, Mr. Netanyahu presciently asked him whether he thought Newt Gingrich would ever jump into the race.
Only a few weeks ago, on Super Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Mr. Romney about the situation in Iran.
"We can almost speak in shorthand," Mr. Romney said in an interview. "We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar."
Mr. Netanyahu attributed their "easy communication" to what he called "B.C.G.'s intellectually rigorous boot camp."
"So despite our very different backgrounds," he said through an aide, "my sense is that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them."
...
The men reconnected shortly after 2003 when Mr. Romney became the governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Netanyahu paid him a visit, eager to swap tales of government life.
Mr. Netanyahu, who had recently stepped down as Israel's finance minister, regaled Mr. Romney with stories of how, in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, he had challenged unionized workers over control of their pensions, reduced taxes and privatized formerly government-run industries, reducing the role of government in private enterprise.
He encouraged Mr. Romney to look for ways to do the same. As Mr. Romney recalled, Mr. Netanyahu told him of a favorite memory from basic training about a soldier trying to race his comrades with a fat man atop his shoulders. Naturally, he loses.
"Government," Mr. Romney recalled him saying, "is the guy on your shoulders."
As governor, Mr. Romney said, he frequently repeated the story to the heads of various agencies, reminding them that their job as regulators was to "catch the bad guys, but also to encourage the good guys and to make business more successful in our state."
A few years later, Mr. Romney had dinner with Mr. Netanyahu at a private home in the Jewish quarter of the Old City, in central Jerusalem, where the two spent hours discussing the American and Israeli economies. When Mr. Netanyahu informed Mr. Romney of a personal campaign to persuade American pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney offered up his Rolodex.
Before he left Israel, Mr. Romney set up several meetings with government officials in the United States for his old colleague. "I immediately saw the wisdom of his thinking," Mr. Romney said.
Back in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney sent out letters to legislators requesting that the public pension funds they controlled sell off investments from corporations doing business with Iran.
Even as Mr. Netanyahu, a keen and eager student of American politics, has tried to avoid any hint of favoritism in the presidential election, friends say he has paid especially close attention to Mr. Romney's political fortunes in this campaign season.
And the prime minister keeps open lines of communication to the candidate. When it was Mr. Gingrich's turn to leap to the top of the polls, Mr. Netanyahu was startled in January by an article exploring why Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino executive and outspoken supporter of Israel, was devoting millions of dollars to back Mr. Gingrich. It described Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Adelson as close friends.
Mr. Netanyahu's office quickly relayed a message to a senior Romney adviser, Dan Senor: the prime minister had played no role in Mr. Adelson's decision to bankroll a Romney rival.
Who Said It? The Progressive Media Matters or White Supremacists?
(h/t Israel Matzav)
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
White House Press Secretary Doing His Best Not to Admit Obama's Mistake
Q Quick question on health care. Yesterday, you mentioned a couple times the President is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe and he now says, in his words, the President “obviously misspoke earlier this week. He didn’t say what he meant, and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”
So I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly, did not misspeak. What do you make of the President’s former law professor saying he did?
MR. CARNEY: Well, you can choose words however you like. What Professor Tribe said is that the President clarified, and he did, and he expanded on his remarks of Monday when he took a question on Tuesday.
The premise of your question suggests that the President of the United States, in the comments he made Monday, did not believe that the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise, and I know you don’t believe that. So what I accept --
Q Well, except this is from Professor Tribe, who knows a lot more than you or I about constitutional law.
MR. CARNEY: What I accept and what I think I acknowledged yesterday --
Q This is a former --
MR. CARNEY: -- is that in speaking on Monday, the President was not clearly understood by some people. Because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. CARNEY: He referred to things like -- well, what Laurence Tribe said is that he did not say what he meant, because Laurence Tribe clearly knows that the President understands judicial precedent -- he has a little experience with it -- and the importance of judicial review.
The President spoke on Monday. The President expanded and clarified his comments on Tuesday. His whole point is that he is pretty conversant with judicial precedent, and the judicial precedent here is clear: That on matters of national economic significance -- and let’s not forget that health care is, what, 15 percent of our economy -- that the precedent is overwhelmingly on the side of upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, there is no debate between the plaintiff or the defendant on the issue of whether or not health care is something -- is a matter of national economic significance. This is not -- that’s not even an issue in the case that appeared before the Supreme Court.
So the President’s unremarkable observation is that since the New Deal era, the Lochner era that preceded the New Deal and the change in approach by the Court, there has been a longstanding precedent set where the Court defers to Congress and to congressional authority in passing legislation to deal with and regulate matters of national economic significance. That’s all.
Q Last thing. On the point of critics claiming the President was attacking the Court, your colleagues have correctly noted that when the President said that the justices are unelected he was quoting conservative commentators who have said that for years. However, are you then suggesting that if you were to lose in this case, the President will not attack the Court? Does he consider them fair game in this process to attack them?
MR. CARNEY: The President believes that the Supreme Court has a final word on matters of judicial review, on the constitutionality of legislation. He would, having been a professor of law. The fact of the matter is that, going back again to the comments the President made on Monday and on Tuesday, he believes that because of the overwhelming precedent here in this case, that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. That was the point he was making all along, both Monday and Tuesday.
Q What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment, because he talked about the Court not being in a position to overturn acts of Congress.
MR. CARNEY: The President -- look, Bill --
Q You're standing there saying --
MR. CARNEY: As your colleague --
Q -- because he made a mistake, and you can't admit it.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging -- you're sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleague --
Q I'm just noting your --
MR. CARNEY: The President spoke, in answer to a question, relatively briefly, and in the context of this case, made the statement that there is no judicial precedent -- that there is longstanding judicial precedent which would argue that the Court should not overturn this law. I grant to you -- I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the Commerce Clause; he did not refer to the full context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks, notably people sitting in that chair and others, missed that and --
Q It's our fault.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, look, others -- look, others --
Q It surely is. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I'm just saying that there's a lot of -- it's kind of ridiculous to believe that the President wasn't talking about the context of the case. But I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, asked again on Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely.
Q Were his comments Monday messy?
MR. CARNEY: You guys -- it's your job to come up with clichés like "game on" and things like that. But I'm not going to engage in that.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Talks with Iran are already a Farce
Can we just bomb them already and get this all over with. There is zero chance these talks are going to go anywhere and all they are doing is giving Iran more time to build a nuke.Iran's foreign minister raised new doubts Wednesday about the resumption of international talks over its disputed nuclear program, saying the location may not be Turkey — as previously agreed — and suggested Iraq and China as possible alternate hosts.
The statement by the foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, was made a little more than a week before the talks between Iran and the so-called P5-plus-1 countries — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, which are the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany — are to take place. A change of location on such short notice, especially for such a charged diplomatic negotiation, seemed at the least to represent another complication.
Other Iranian officials quoted in the country's state-run press had expressed irritation in recent days about the choice of Turkey, apparently angry with the Turks' stance on two other big issues: the anti-government uprising in Syria and the proposed NATO missile shield designed to thwart Iranian missiles, in which Turkey, a NATO member, is participating.
One of those officials, Mohsen Rezaii, the secretary of the Expediency Council, an advisory group to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had even suggested Syria as a possible choice, which was bound to be rejected by at least the Western members of the P5-plus-1 group, who have called Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, unfit to rule.
Mr. Salehi, who publicly endorsed the choice of Turkey just a few weeks ago, is the most senior Iranian leader to suggest other locations.
Even a Broken Obama Makes a Good Point Occassionally (Even If It Wasn't the Point He Was Trying to Make)
This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class.
Talk about over the top. Who attacks a budget for social darwinism (side note, does this attack mean he is a social creationist?)? Most of the speech is the usual class warfare kind of claptrap which tries to make the case that the poor people will starve and children will end up like Oliver Twist if you enact this deficit reduction legislation. But what I actually thought was a relatively good point was when he said:
The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.
If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.
The reason I think this is all a valid point is simple. In order to reduce the deficit on the back of domestic discretionary spending, you will have to cut a lot of popular programs. The math is unavoidable. The worst part is that domestic discretionary spending is actually not what is killing our finances. As I wrote before, its the entitlements that are killing us, domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP has actually been trending down over the decades:
Now I might question the need for scientific grants from the Federal government but based on my Federal Tax Receipt, I spent about $50 last year on that. Conversely, I spent several thousand dollars on social security and medicare payments to the elderly and thousands more on entitlements to a smattering of other people. Should we privatize the national weather service? Sure, it's probably a good idea (I don't remember weather forecasting being in the constitution) but at the end of the day, that won't make much of a difference to our well-being. Put another way, in 2012, even if we give up our entire military and shut down almost every federal agency (other than the IRS, CMS and SSA), we will just be meeting our obligations, we won't even be running a surplus.
The fatal flaw in the Ryan budget is that it leaves the entitlements alone for the foreseeable future. He doesn't touch Social Security at all and his medicare reform plan only starts helping after Medicare's scheduled point of bankruptcy (some help). And don't even get me started on his tax plan.
It seems that the GOP's Ryan worship has yoked them with a politically unpopular plan that doesn't even seriously tackle the main threats to our well-being as a nation.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Gary Johnson on the Colbert Report
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Obama the Tyrant
His factual claims are false. His principle is a direct assault on the Constitution's creation of an independent judicial branch as a check on constitutional violations by the other two branches.
It is certainly not "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn a law passed by "a democratically elected Congress." The Court has done so 165 times, as of 2010. (See p. 201 of this Congressional Research Service report.)
President Obama can call legislation enacted by a vote of 219 to 212 a "strong" majority if he wishes. But there is nothing in the Constitution suggesting that a bill which garners the votes of 50.3% of the House of Representatives has such a "strong" majority that it therefore becomes exempt from judicial review. To the contrary, almost all of the 165 federal statutes which the Court has ruled unconstitutional had much larger majorities, most of them attracted votes from both Democrats and Republicans, and some of them were enacted nearly unanimously.
That the Supreme Court would declare as unconstitutional congressional "laws" which illegally violated the Constitution was one of the benefits of the Constitution, which the Constitution's advocates used to help convince the People to ratify the Constitution. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explained why unconstitutional actions of Congress are not real laws, and why the judiciary has a duty to say so:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. . . .
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Because Hamilton was the foremost "big government" advocate of his time, it is especially notable that he was a leading advocate for judicial review of whether any part of the federal government had exceeded its delegated powers.
Well before Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court recognized that the People had given the Court the inescapable duty of reviewing the constitutionality of statutes which came before the Court. The Court fulfilled this duty in cases such as Hylton v. U.S. (1796) (Is congressional tax on carriages a direct tax, and therefore illegal because it is not apportioned according to state population?); and Calder v. Bull (1798) (Is Connecticut change in inheritance laws an ex post facto law?). The Court found that the particular statutes in question did not violate the Constitution. (The ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws; the carriage tax was an indirect tax, not a direct tax.) However, the Court's authority to judge the statutes' constitutionality was not disputed.
It would not be unfair to charge President Obama with hypocrisy given his strong complaints when the Court did not strike down the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and given his approval of the Supreme Court decision (Boumediene v. Bush) striking down a congressional statute restricting habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo detainees. (For the record, I think that the federal abortion ban should have been declared void as because it was not within Congress's interstate commerce power, and that Boumediene was probably decided correctly, although I have not studied the issue sufficiently to have a solid opinion.) The federal ban on abortion, and the federal restriction on habeas corpus were each passed with more than a "strong" 50.3% majority of a democratically elected Congress.
As a politician complaining that a Supreme Court which should strike down laws he doesn't like, while simultaneously asserting that a judicial decision against a law he does like is improperly "activist," President Obama is no more hypocritical than many other Presidents. But in asserting that the actions of a "strong" majority of Congress are unreviewable, President Obama's word are truly unprecedented.
The Government Would Ban Books If It Could
JUSTICE ALITO: Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth? What's your answer to Mr. Olson's point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video demand and providing access on the Internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?MR. STEWART: I think the -- the Constitution would have permitted Congress to apply the electioneering communication restrictions to the extent that they were otherwise constitutional under Wisconsin Right to Life. Those could have been applied to additional media as well. And it's worth remembering that the preexisting Federal Election Campaign Act restrictions on corporate electioneering which have been limited by this Court's decisions to express advocacy.
JUSTICE ALITO: That's pretty incredible. You think that if -- if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?
MR. STEWART: I'm not saying it could be banned. I'm saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its -
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, most publishers are corporations. And a publisher that is a corporation could be prohibited from selling a book?
MR. STEWART: Well, of course the statute contains its own media exemption or media -
JUSTICE ALITO: I'm not asking what the statute says. The government's position is that the First Amendment allows the banning of a book if it's published by a corporation?
MR. STEWART: Because the First Amendment refers both to freedom of speech and of the press, there would be a potential argument that media corporations, the institutional press, would have a greater First Amendment right. That question is obviously not presented here. But the other two things -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60 -- 90-day period -- the 60 -- the 30-day period?
MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy. That is, if it was subject to no reasonable interpretation -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And I suppose it could even, is it the Kindle where you can read a book? I take it that's from a satellite. So the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view?
MR. STEWART: Well, the statute applies to cable, satellite, and broadcast communications. And the Court in McConnell has addressed the –
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Just to make it clear, it's the government's position that under the statute, if this kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy, within the 60-30 day period, if it comes from a satellite, it's under -- it can be prohibited under the Constitution and perhaps under this statute?
MR. STEWART: It -- it can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required to use -- to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?
MR. STEWART: That's correct.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that?
MR. STEWART: Well, if it says vote for X, it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provision.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, I'm talking about under the Constitution, what we've been discussing, if it's a book.
MR. STEWART: If it's a book and it is produced -- again, to leave -- to leave to one side the question of.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Right, right. Forget the -
MR. STEWART: -- possible media exemption, if you had Citizens United or General Motors using general treasury funds to publish a book that said at the outset, for instance, Hillary Clinton's election would be a disaster for this -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Take my hypothetical. It doesn't say at the outset. It funds -- here is -- whatever it is, this is a discussion of the American political system, and at the end it says vote for X.
MR. STEWART: Yes, our position would be that the corporation could be required to use PAC funds rather than general treasury funds.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And if they didn't, you could ban it?
MR. STEWART: If they didn't, we could prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds.
JUSTICE BREYER: I wonder if that's -- I
mean, I take it the answer to the question, can the government ban labor unions from saying we love this person, the corporations, we love them, the environmentalists saying we love them, is of course the government can't ban that. The only question is, who's paying for it. And they can make a determination of how much money the payors can pay, but you can't ban it.
MR. STEWART: That's correct.
JUSTICE BREYER: All right. If that's correct, then I take it the interesting question here would be -- I don't know if it arises in this case -suppose there were a kind of campaign literature or -or advocacy that either a corporation had to pay for it, it couldn't pay for it through the PAC, because for some reason -- I don't know, the PAC -- and there's no other way of getting it to the public -- that would raise a Constitutional question, wouldn't it?
MR. STEWART: It would raise a Constitutional -
JUSTICE BREYER: Is that present in this case?
MR. STEWART: It's not present in this case. I don't think it would raise a difficult constitutional question because presumably if the reason the corporation couldn't do it through the PAC -- the only reason I could think of is that it couldn't find PAC-eligible donors who were willing to contribute for this speech. And if that's the case, the corporation would -- could still be forbidden to use its general treasury.
JUSTICE BREYER: I don't know about that. But I guess I would be worried if in fact there was some material that couldn't get through to the public. I would be very worried. But I don't think I have to worry about that in this case, do I?
MR. STEWART: That's correct, both because the question isn't presented here and because Congress -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, but if we accept your constitutional argument, we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book, assuming a particular person pays for it.
MR. STEWART: I think the Court has already held in, both in Austin and in McConnell, that Congress can or that Congress or State legislatures can prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: To write a book, to pay for somebody to write a book?
MR. STEWART: Well, in MCFL, for instance, the communication was not a book, but it was a newsletter, it was written material; and the Court held this was express advocacy for which the use of corporate treasury funds would ordinarily be banned. It held that because of the distinctive characteristics of the particular corporation at issue in that case, MCFL was entitled to a constitutional exemption. But I think the clear thrust of MCFL is that the publication and dissemination of a newsletter containing express advocacy could ordinarily be banned with respect to the use of corporate treasury funds.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Not just a -- I suppose a sign held up in Lafayette Park saying vote for so and so. Under your theory of the Constitution, the prohibition of that would be constitutional?
MR. STEWART: Again, I do want to make clear that if by prohibition you mean ban on the use of corporate treasury funds, then, yes, I think it's absolutely clear under Austin, under McConnell that the use of corporate treasury funds could be banned if General Motors, for instance -
JUSTICE SCALIA: And -- and you -- you get around the fact that this would extend to any publishing corporation by saying that there is a media exemption because the Constitution guarantees not only freedom of speech but also of the press?
MR. STEWART: Well, there is always -
JUSTICE SCALIA: But does "the press" mean the media in that Constitutional provision? You think in 1791 there were -- there were people running around with fedoras that had press -- little press tickets in it, "Press"? Is that what "press" means in the Constitution? Doesn't it cover the Xerox machine? Doesn't it cover the right of any individual to -- to write, to publish?
MR. STEWART: Well, I think the difficult Constitutional question of whether the general restrictions on use of corporate treasury funds for electioneering can constitutionally be applied to media corporations has never had to be addressed because the statutes that this Court has reviewed have –
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. I'm saying there's no basis in the text of the Constitution for exempting press in the sense of, what, the Fifth Estate?
MR. STEWART: In -- in any event, the only question this Court would potentially need to decide in this case is whether the exemption for media companies creates a disuniformity that itself renders the statute unconstitutional, and the Court has already addressed that question in McConnell. The claim was made that because media corporations were exempt, there was inequality of treatment as between those and other corporations. And Congress said no, Congress -- I mean, this Court said no, Congress can protect the interests of the media and of the public in receiving information by drawing that line. With respect to your -
JUSTICE SOUTER: To point out how far your argument would go, what if a labor union paid and offered to write a book advocating the election of A or the defeat of B? And after the manuscript was prepared, they then went to a commercial publisher, and they go to Random House. Random House said, yes, we will publish that. Can the distribution of that be in effect subject to the electioneering ban because of the initial labor union investment?
MR. STEWART: Well, exactly what the remedy would be, whether there would be a basis for suppressing the distribution of the book, I'm not sure. I think it's clear under -
JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, does it come within electioneering because of the initial subvention to the author?
MR. STEWART: It wouldn't be an electioneering communication under BCRA because BCRA wouldn't apply to the print media. Now, it would potentially be covered by the -
JUSTICE SOUTER: We're -- we're talking about how far the constitutional ban could go, and we're talking about books.
MR. STEWART: Well, I -- we would certainly take the position that if the labor union used its treasury funds to pay an author to produce a book that would constitute express advocacy, that that -
JUSTICE SOUTER: And the book was then taken over as a commercial venture by Random House?
MR. STEWART: The labor union's conduct would be prohibited. The question of whether the book that had already been -
JUSTICE SOUTER: No, but prohibition only comes when we get to the electioneering stage.
MR. STEWART: That's correct.
JUSTICE SOUTER: Okay.
MR. STEWART: The question whether the -
JUSTICE SOUTER: So for the -- for the labor union simply to -- to hire -- is there -- is there an outright violation when the labor union -- I guess this is a statutory question: Is there an outright violation when the labor union comes up with the original subvention? MR. STEWART: I guess I would have to study the Federal Election Campaign Act provisions more closely to see whether they -
JUSTICE SOUTER: Let's assume for the sake of argument that they would not be. The subvention is made, the manuscript is prepared, Random House then publishes it, and there is a distribution within the -what is it -- the 60-day period. Is the -- is the original subvention (a) enough to bring it within the prohibition on the electioneering communication, and (b) is that constitutional?
MR. STEWART: Well, again, it wouldn't qualify as an electioneering communication under BCRA because that statutory definition only applies -
JUSTICE SOUTER: You're -- you're right. I stand corrected. If the statute covered that as well, if the statute covered the book as well.
MR. STEWART: I think the use of labor union funds, as part of the overall enterprise of writing and then publishing the book, would be covered.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Obama Thinks a 219-212 Vote Should Be Enough To Change the Constitution
There are a couple of things wrong with this. First, Obamacare only passed the House 219-212 with a whopping 34 Democrats voting against it. If it weren't for the huge 2008 landslide, it wouldn't have passed at all, given how unpopular it is with most Americans. 62% of Americans think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. So if the Supreme Court decides the law is unconstitutional there doesn't seem to be any reason for them not to strike it down. The 219-212 vote was nowhere near the 2/3rds needed to amend the constitution (who have needed 291 votes for that).Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this - this court will recognize that and not take that step.
Another thing wrong with all of this is that Obama supposedly taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. Has he forgotten about Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 decision in which "an unelected group of people" overturned a duly constituted and passed law? Really, he seems to be questioning the entire concept of judicial review by the Supreme Court here.
Romney May Be Stealing North Dakota from Santorum
Recall that the 25 North Dakota delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa are technically unbound. The straw poll had no binding effect on the delegates who will ultimately be chosen. That said, it appears that the North Dakota Republican Party has made some effort to use that unbound loophole to their advantage; putting up for a vote at today's convention proceedings a group of delegates that seemingly leans heavily toward Mitt Romney. Romney placed third in the Super Tuesday straw poll in North Dakota with just under 24% of the vote.
However, news emerging from the convention this morning indicates that Romney may have the support of up to 60% of the national convention delegates placed in nomination and voted on by the state convention delegates.1formula used by the North Dakota State Executive Committee that yielded that outcome was weighted toward volunteers, donors and elected officials, obviously a group aligned with the establishment in the North Dakota GOP and more likely -- it could be argued -- to support Romney.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Obama is an Existential Threat to Israel
The beauty of Baku is that the Caspian Sea is right at the end of the runway. It's a straight shot, maybe 300 miles, from that base to Tehran. A good radar altimeter will get an F-4, F-16, F-15 strike fighter maybe 25 feet off the water. Going in at that altitude, you're not going to be picked up by radar.
But there's something even more important here. The Iranians are not expecting an attack from the north. Now, with the revelation of this relationship, they are. And that has a lot of implications beyond the tactical.
Think of it this way. Prior to this revelation, the Iranians -- although they noticed some connections between Israel and Azerbaijan -- didn't know how deep that connection was.
Now the Iranians can start bullying the Azerbaijanis. They can send a diplomat up to Baku and say, basically, 'if any Israeli plane hits us from the north, when we get our nuke, we are going to test it on Baku. Of course that will all happen behind the scenes, but the threat will be made.
Now, I want you to consider this: there are many ways to attack Iran. You can go for the nuke sites. Or you can go for a decapitation strike. A decapitation strike is a much easier operation if you're coming from Azerbaijan.
Think of it this way: every once in a while, the Iranians have a little get-together. They bring all of the Mullahs together in one place... Why not? They'd be doing us and the world a tremendous favor if they did that.
And it's not going to happen now.
I can guarantee that all of those new Soviet anti-aircraft missiles that the Iranians bought are all going up north now, pointed and waiting for something there. In fact, they'll probably put radars on the Caspian from the mountaintops there, just to see if there's anything come up off the water.
Strategic, tactical surprise: gone.
You have to ask for the motivation behind the leak. I mean, if the Israelis can do this operation, it's to our benefit! From a diplomatic standpoint, if you wanted to tell the Iranians that the Israelis did this, it's without our permission. And then try to butter up the Iranians after the strike, so they don't close the Strait of Hormuz, that's one thing.
But giving away all of the secrets of an ally? When you're doing that, you have to ask whether we still have Israel as an ally. We are not acting like an ally. In fact, if you ask me, based on the amount of time I expect the Israelis put in this relationship with Azerbaijan, I would start viewing this administration as an existential threat to Israel.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Tell Me Again Why the Travyon Martin Case Is Making National Headlines?
There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.
Anyway, there were also things that Travyon Martin could have done too. He could have simply said that he is staying with his father at his girlfriends house and that would have been it. I don't think 5'9" Zimmerman would have tried to tackle 6'3" Martin.
In other words, this was an unfortunate incident that probably could have been averted by both sides, so why is it making national headlines again? Aren't there bigger issues or worse crimes? Take the very recent home invasion in Oklahoma where Tyrone Woodfork brutally beat an elderly couple and even sexually assaulted & killed 85 year old Nancy Strait, probably in front of her husband of 65 years. It really is heartbreaking:
They met each other on a blind date on Thanksgiving 1946, married a month later and went on to have six children, 18 grandchildren and about 50 great and great-great grandchildren. They had recently welcomed a great-great-great grandchild.
After that beautiful, long life together where they clearly had found true love, for it to end in sexual assault and death like that, it's just horrible. Why is Obama not calling that family or speaking about this crime? Is it less horrible than the Travyon Martin case? And my guess is that Tyrone Woodfork probably had more hatred of white people than George Zimmerman had of black people, how else could he be so cruel to such a harmless elderly couple? I'm sure some of you are thinking that this case is different because the victims are elderly. Well, how about the 13 year old who was set on fire by two teenagers who said "you get what you deserve, white boy" while doing it? Or how about the recent murder of a 21 year old Mississippi State University student in a dorm where the victim is white and the suspects African American?
The fact is, while the recent coverage and statements like "blacks are under attack" will make you think that white on black crime is an epidemic, the opposite is actually true. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey compiled by the Department of Justice, there were about 430,000 violent crimes in 2008 in which the victim was white and the perpetrator was black. Conversely, there were only 91,000 crimes where the victim was black and the perpetrator was white. That's almost a 5:1 ratio.
But God forbid that the press rely on actual evidence or facts.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Veteran Israeli Reporter: Obama Leaks are Betraying Israel
Betraying an ally
To sum up, the American publications caused the following damage:
* Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel's and America's intelligence communities know about Tehran's nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.
* The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a "nuclear breakthrough". Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.
* The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.
Needless to say, this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama's declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel's sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel's vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.
Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them.
For a total of seven years, I served as Yedioth Ahronoth's reporter in Washington, so I know very well that with a few exceptions, the US Administration knows how to prevent leaks to the media if it so wishes. This is the case even when dealing with former officials, and most certainly when dealing with current government officials. What we are seeing here is not a trickle of information, but rather, a powerful current, a true flood that leaves no doubt as to the existence of an orchestrated media campaign with clear aims.
There is another interesting aspect to this story from an American point of view: In 2002, when President George W. Bush sought to embark on war in Iraq, US intelligence agencies provided him with all the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein is developing large quantities of nuclear and chemical weapons. Following the war, when no traces of such weapons were discovered in Iraq, a Congress inquiry found that US intelligence officials were so eager to satisfy their president that they cut corners and relied on unsubstantiated information.
Given American media reports in recent days, one must wonder whether history is repeating itself. Could it be that the US intelligence community is providing President Obama with what he needs for political reasons – that is, information meant to curb an Israeli or American strike on Iran?
Obama Administration Leaks Top Secret Agreement Between Israel and Azerbaijan
"The Israelis have bought an airfield," a senior administration official told me in early February, "and the airfield is called Azerbaijan."
...
"We're watching what Iran does closely," one of the U.S. sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed. "But we're now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it."
You would almost think that the Obama administration is on the Iranian's side.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
What is the Capital of Israel? The State Department Doesn't Know
Q: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the department about the travel of your boss. Is it the State Department's position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first media note was issued in error, without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that undersecretary, acting undersecretary for -- our -- Kathy Stevens will be travelling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it's a permanent-status issue. It's got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.
Q: Is it the view of the -- of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy -- the location of the U.S. embassy?
MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.
Q: Does that -- does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It's got to be resolved through negotiations.
Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?
MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue --
Q: (Inaudible.)
MS. NULAND: -- and I have nothing further to say on it.
Q: You've spoken to the issue --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
Q: -- but (haven't answered ?) the question. And I think there's a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying -- and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.
MS. NULAND: That is our --
Q: What is the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. That's all I have to say on this issue.
Q: What is the capital of Israel according --
MS. NULAND: Our embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.
Q: So does that mean you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.
....
Q: I just want to go back to -- I want to clarify something, perhaps give you an "out" on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your -- is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final-status issue, or do you think -- or is it just East Jerusalem?
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don't have anything further to what I've said 17 times on that subject. OK?
Q: All right. So hold on. So I just want to make sure. You're saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final-status issue.
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don't have anything further on Jerusalem to what I've already said.