Displaying posts published in

July 2016

Clinton Won the Battle, Sanders the War Hillary is living in Bernie’s party. So she backs free college and a ‘public option’ while jettisoning trade and charter schools. Juan Williams

Bill Clinton took Democrats to the political middle. He met with Republicans to pass welfare-to-work laws and put more police on the streets. Barack Obama steered the party leftward with “change we can believe in.” He promised to end long-running wars, deliver an economic recovery, offer medical coverage to the uninsured and unify an increasingly diverse nation.

Hillary Clinton will claim the Democratic nomination this week in Philadelphia, but the party is no longer defined by its standard-bearer. The energy rests instead with a rising generation of Democrats excited to use activist government to protect them in anxious economic times.

Older Democrats and minority voters provided a “firewall” that allowed Mrs. Clinton to defeat her rival in the primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Democrats who call themselves “somewhat liberal” went for Hillary by 13 percentage points, according to exit poll data analyzed by Public Opinion Strategies. “Moderates” backed her by 23 percentage points. But among the quarter of Democrats who see themselves as “very liberal,” she ran even with the socialist.

Bernie Sanders and his activist supporters have moved Mrs. Clinton and the party’s platform to the left. The result is that the Democrats have taken on an identity that comes from a new base: voters under 40 who have no problem with Mr. Sanders’s socialist vision. A 2015 study by the Pew Research Center found that 51% of millennials “identify as Democrats or lean Democratic,” compared with only 35% for Republicans. Two-fifths of millennials are people of color and immigrants.

This is not your father’s—or even your older sister’s—Democratic Party. It is far more left-leaning than under Bill Clinton or President Obama.

Almost 60% of Democratic voters agree that “socialism has a positive” impact on society, according to a February poll by OnMessage Inc. and the American Action Network. In Iowa 43% of Democrats said in January that they would use the word “socialist” to describe themselves, a survey by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics found.

Forty-seven percent of Democrats told Gallup last year that they are both “socially liberal and economically moderate/liberal”—the highest level in the poll’s history. In 2001 only 30% of Democrats described themselves that way. Between 2000 and 2015 the percentage of “Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters” who consider themselves liberal has gone up to 42% from 27%, according to a Pew study in February.

Mrs. Clinton has been running to the front of this liberal parade. This month she wrapped her arms around one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest causes by backing tuition-free college at in-state public universities for families making under $125,000 a year.

She broke with Mr. Obama by calling for repeal of the so-called Cadillac tax on health-insurance plans, a priority for labor unions. She gave a sop to the teachers unions by backtracking on her decades-old support for charter schools. It is clear that in this new liberal order of Democratic politics, the unions will be the enforcers. CONTINUE AT SITE

Why Are They Trying to Make Us Kill Our Patients? California’s new assisted-suicide law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. By Philip B. Dreisbach M.D.

Dr. Dreisbach is the director of the Desert Hematology Oncology Medical Group at the Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

I am an oncologist/hematologist who has been practicing in California, primarily at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, for 39 years. It has been my privilege to have treated and cared for more than 16,000 patients with cancer or blood diseases and to have provided pain relief and comfort for the dying.

I am also one of six concerned physicians who, along with the American Academy of Medical Ethics, have sued in a California Superior Court to try to block as unconstitutional the state’s Physician Assisted Suicide law, which went into effect on June 9. More recently, a group of doctors and health-care professionals in Vermont joined a lawsuit filed July 19 to try to block the way that state’s 2013 assisted suicide law is being interpreted and misapplied.

Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown and voted against by every elected Republican member of the state legislature, California’s radical measure is part of an organized, nationwide, social-engineering campaign, heavily funded by big donors such as the leftist George Soros.

Our state’s physician-assisted suicide law instantly removes penal-code protections from a vulnerable segment of the population deemed “terminally ill.” The law allows anyone labeled as terminally ill to request assisted suicide—but it also accepts heirs and the owners of caregiving facilities to formally witness such requests, even though the probate code does not even accept “interested” parties as witnesses to a will.

The law does not require an attending physician to refer the patient for psychological assessment. It thus does not allow for screening for possible coercion, or for underlying mental conditions that could be behind the suicide request—unless the patient has signs of mental problems, which may not be visible to a suicide-specialist doctor they may not even know. In these and other ways, the law devastates elder-abuse law and mental-health legal protections, and it deprives those labeled as terminally ill of equal-protection rights that all other Americans enjoy.

All of us in the practice of cancer care have seen patients, diagnosed with so-called terminal illness, who have experienced a marvelous remission of disease. Very little is absolute—except death itself.

On the day that physician-assisted suicide was legalized, my hospital and the other local hospitals announced that they were opting out and would not facilitate the killing of any patients. Some local hospices informed me that they would continue to give palliative care, instead of helping patients kill themselves.

Syrian Man Blows Himself Up Outside German Concert Authorities say 27-year-old set off device that also injured 12 after being denied entry to Ansbach event By Anton Troianovski

BERLIN—Authorities said a 27-year-old Syrian man tried to enter an outdoor concert in southern Germany and then blew himself up, injuring 12 people, in what appeared to be this country’s first suicide bombing in years.

The bombing took place in central Ansbach, a small town in the state of Bavaria that was hosting a concert that attracted 2,000 people on Sunday night.

Just after 10 p.m., the man sought to enter the concert but couldn’t get in, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann told reporters early Monday morning in Ansbach. Investigators believe the man then set off a bomb that killed him and injured 12, three of them seriously, Mr. Herrmann said.

No one had life-threatening injuries, officials said.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether the man was only seeking to kill himself or also to hurt others, Mr. Herrmann said.

But investigators were looking into whether the blast was motivated by Islamist extremism, he said.

The man had come to Germany two years ago and applied for asylum. His asylum application was rejected last year but he wasn’t deported because of the civil war in Syria, as is standard practice in Germany, Mr. Herrmann said.

The man was already known to the police, he said, because he had twice been treated in a hospital after trying to take his life. He was also known because of a previous drug misdemeanor, a police spokeswoman said.

The spokeswoman said the police have formed a 30-person task force supported by state police, who would help analyze the explosive device, which was filled with metal clamps. The bomber’s mobile phone and other technical devices were also being analyzed and police were searching the refugee shelter where he resided, she said.

Israel Deserves Better by Yleem D.S. Poblete

The German intelligence service recently reported many clandestine Iranian attempts to obtain dual-use chemical, biological and nuclear technology.

In the Iran nuclear deal, the parties decided to engage “in different areas of civil nuclear co-operation,” including construction and modernization of Iranian light water reactors, provision of technical assistance and on-the-job training. Meanwhile, Israel has been denied a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with the US.

Israel’s reported MOU requests on security assistance, missile defense, and regional qualitative military advantage are justified.

The terms of any U.S.-Israel agreement must withstand comparison to the concessions offered Iran in the JCPOA and show unequivocally that Israel, a trusted ally and major strategic partner, fared better in negotiations than an unconstrained enemy.

The one-year anniversary of the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Western powers and Iran focused public attention on the regime’s activities and Obama Administration policies and actions regarding this avowed enemy. Virtually unnoticed, despite the linkage to Iran-related developments, were reports that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is being pressured to set aside reservations and accept the terms the White House is offering for the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S.

As recent developments show, such an acquiescence would be mistake. There is cause for concern.

Iran continues to take Americans and other Westerners hostage, indicting three dual-nationals just days ago on unknown charges. This remains a troubling pattern of diplomatic blackmail, negotiation by coercion. Last month in Lebanon, a so-called parliamentarian for Hezbollah, a terrorist surrogate of the Iranian regime, called for “Israeli civilians to be kidnapped in a future war with Israel.” He “boasted” that Hezbollah’s missiles “can now reach Tel Aviv from Iran, not just Damascus, Beirut, or Cairo.”

The German intelligence service recently reported on numerous Iranian attempts to clandestinely obtain dual-use chemical, biological and nuclear technology. The report by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), the domestic intelligence service of the Federal Republic of Germany, also noted “a further increase in the already considerable procurement efforts in connection with Iran’s ambitious missile technology program, which could, among other things, potentially serve to deliver nuclear weapons.”

In early May, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi, reportedly revealed at a conference in Tehran that the regime had test-fired a high-precision ballistic missile “with a range of 2000 kilometers and pinpoint accuracy of 8 meters.” In March, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched two Qadr medium-range ballistic missiles. On one of them, in Hebrew, was inscribed the phrase, “Israel must be wiped out.”

Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists by Soeren Kern

“I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany. … I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets. … I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits. ” – Germany’s axe-attacker, in an Islamic State video.

“Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid. If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.” – Rainer Wendt, Chairman of the German Police Union.

The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.

A 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker brandishing an axe and shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest”) seriously injured five people on a train in Würzburg, Bavaria. The assailant was shot dead by police after he charged at them with the axe.

The teenager, who had claimed asylum after arriving in Germany in June 2015 as an unaccompanied minor, had been placed with a foster family just two weeks before the attack as a reward for being “well integrated.”

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said police had found a hand-painted Islamic State flag in his room at his foster home in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt. They also found a farewell letter to his father which read: “Now pray for me so that I can take revenge on these infidels. Pray for me that I can get to paradise.”

Shortly after the attack, the Islamic State released a video purporting to show an Afghan asylum seeker holding a knife and making threats against Germany:

“In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany.

“Here I am. I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.

“I will make you forget about the spectacular attacks in France, if Allah permits.

“I will fight to the death, if Allah permits. I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits.”

In the video, the Islamic State identified the attacker as Muhammad Riyad, who can be heard speaking Pashto, a language spoken in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. But German media identified the attacker as Riaz Khan Ahmadzai. The discrepancy raised questions about the teenager’s true identity.

WHAT IRAN SHOWS US ABOUT THE GLOBAL JIHADIST MOVEMENT By: Benjamin Weingarten –

According to the very State Department that pushed so hard for the Obama administration’s Iran appeasement deal, that same nation upon whom we have lavished over $100 billion, lobbied on behalf of and promised protection of its nuclear infrastructure, remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.

While many are aware of the pernicious activities of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard across the globe, and the Khameinist regime’s support of Shia jihadist groups like Hezbollah, lesser discussed is Iranian collaboration with Sunni jihadists.

For the latest evidence of an alliance that might surprise those who view Sunni and Shia Muslims as diametrically opposed mortal enemies, look no further than the recent news out of the U.S. Treasury Department.

As reported in the always-insightful Omri Ceren’s latest dispatch, Treasury announced that it was imposing sanctions on three senior Al Qaeda members stationed in Iran.

According to the Treasury press release, it took such action to “disrupt the operations, fundraising, and support networks that help al-Qaida move money and operatives from South Asia and across the Middle East.”

As Ceren highlights, one such Al Qaeda operative, Abu Bakr Muhammad Muhammad Ghumayn, controlled the financing and organization of Al Qaeda in Iran.

Another operative, Yisra Muhammad Ibrahim Bayumi, engaged in direct dialogue with the Iranian government, serving as a mediator. He was “reportedly involved in freeing al-Qaida members in Iran.”

It strains credulity to believe that a closed Shia nation like Iran, often competing against Sunni forces, would be unaware of Al Qaeda officers within its borders. And in this case we have clear evidence that it was comfortable with Al Qaeda operating on its soil because Iranian authorities were negotiating with the aforementioned Bayumi.

Flowers to Stifle the Screams {Author’s adaptation of the original French version} by Nidra Poller

It may not be crafted by the media that encourage it, it’s not the fault of the kind souls that pour out their hearts in flowers and candles at each mass murder, but together they compose a distressing symbolic discourse.

How many flowers would it take to stifle the screams of a child in his stroller targeted by a man at the wheel of a 19-ton truck? “Même pas peur [not even scared],” is the slogan of the improvised memorials but we saw terrified people running in all directions when the truck attacked on the Promenade des Anglais. They hid in restaurants and ducked under the waters of the sea. Unverified whispers say some of the victims were crushed in the stampede.

Backtracking on the promised termination of the state of emergency the president hastily vowed to extend it as mournful Parisians trekked back to Place de la République, to lay flowers and peace & love messages at the feet of the Marianne statue sullied with hateful graffiti after three months of occupation by the Nuits Debout.

This softly floral reaction is not engineered by the media but it is blessed to the exclusion of more sober more combative emotions. A motorcyclist tried to stop the massacre with his bare hands. It’s not a rumor, it’s a fact attested by authentic video footage of the man hanging on to the door of the murderous truck. Did anyone try to identify this hero killed in battle? Or still alive? Would they even want to contemplate his courage, congratulate him posthumously for his gesture? [update July 21: the hero did go public with an account of his exploit]. At the other extremity and at the very bottom of the scale of human qualities crouches the recipient of a text message sent just before the attack: “Bring more weapons.”

So which is it? Did Bouhlel have one or several accomplices, or was his plan to fool the police into thinking the truck atrocity was the first event in a multiple-stage massacre? A 13th of November for the sunny South.

In fact, suspected accomplices are currently detained. Newscasters dutifully convey the information… with words as gentle as a rose petal, as if the truth could startle a tender congregation immersed in tears and compassion. For once, authorities state the naked radical Islamic truth of the atrocity, but commentators prefer to focus on the killer’s psychological problem, as if Daesh soldiers passed tough exams like cadets at St. Cyr Military Academy. They recite ad nauseam the rosary of signs of non-compliance, as if the fact that Bouhlel didn’t go to the mosque could resuscitate the dead. Or acquit Islam. Pitiful ignorance! Don’t they know that totalitarian movements always enlist thugs? Bouhlel was not a good Muslim, they repeat, citing pork, alcohol, sex, and salsa.

France: After the Third Jihadist Attack by Guy Millière

Successive French governments have built a trap; the French people, who are in it, are thinking only of how to escape. The situation is more serious than many imagine. Whole areas of France are under the control of gangs and radical imams.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: “France is at war.” He named an enemy, “radical Islamism,” but he was quick to add that “radical Islamism” has “nothing to do with Islam.” He then repeated that the French will have to get used to living with “violence and attacks.”

The French are increasingly tired of attempts to exonerate Islam. They know perfectly well that all Muslims are not guilty. But they also know that all those who committed attacks in France in recent years were Muslims. The French have no desire to get used to “violence and attacks.” They do not want to be on the losing side and they feel that we are losing.

Nice, July 14, 2016: Bastille Day. The evening festivities were ending. As the crowd watching fireworks was beginning to disperse, the driver of a 19-ton truck, zig-zagging, mowed down everyone in his way. Ten minutes and 84 dead persons later, the driver was shot and killed. Dozens were wounded; many will be crippled for life. Dazed survivors wandered the streets of the city for hours.

French television news anchors quickly said that what happened was almost certainly an “accident,” or when the French authorities started to speak of terrorism, that the driver could just be a madman. When the police disclosed the killer’s name and identity, and that he had been depressed in the past, they suggested that he had acted in a moment of “high anxiety.” They found witnesses who testified that he was “not a devout Muslim” — maybe not a Muslim at all.

President François Hollande spoke a few hours later and affirmed his determination to “protect the populace.”

Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: “France is at war.” He named an enemy, “radical Islamism,” but he was quick to add that “radical Islamism” has “nothing to do with Islam.” He then repeated what he emphasized so many times: the French will have to get used to living with “violence and attacks.”

The public reaction showed that Valls convinced hardly anyone. The French are increasinglytired of attempts to exonerate Islam. They know perfectly well that all Muslims are not guilty. They also know that, nevertheless, all those who committed attacks in France in recent years were Muslims. They do not feel protected by François Hollande. They see that France is attacked with increasing intensity and that radical Islam has declared war, but they do not see France declaring war back. They have no desire to get used to “violence and attacks.” They do not want to be on the losing side and they feel that we are losing.

WRONG AND RUDE ON ISRAEL AND IRAN BY RICHARD BAEHR SEE NOTE PLEASE

My witty friend Arthur P. calls the ticket Unable and Kaine….rsk

The Democrats are out selling Tim Kaine as a solid citizen, experienced politician, and a great choice for vice president on the Hillary Clinton ticket — someone who could step in quickly as president if needed. The traditional pro-Israel community, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are undoubtedly preparing to signal their comfort with him as a Clinton running mate, much as they did with the supposedly pro-Israel Barack Obama, twice. Kaine has voted in favor of foreign aid; he has traveled to Israel; he voted in favor of funding some weapons systems for Israel; he has raised a lot of money from liberal Jews (running for governor, senator, and head of the Democratic National Committee). Therefore, he must be a great supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. So great in fact, that he was happy to take money from the J Street political action committee and accept its endorsement when he ran for Senate. AIPAC, J Street, Kaine, all one big happy family in the pro-Israel club.

Of course, on the Iran nuclear deal, the single most important foreign policy decision since the vote on the Iraq war in 2002, Kaine was not only wrong, but extraordinarily disrespectful to Israel’s prime minister. He chose to boycott Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress on the issue in early 2015, saying that he thought Netanyahu’s aim was mainly to help himself with his own domestic politics in the Israeli elections, held two weeks later.

“There is no reason to schedule this speech [on March 3] before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17 and choose their own leadership,” Kaine said in a statement, after describing how he’d worked to delay the event. “I am disappointed that, as of now, the speech has not been postponed. For this reason, I will not attend the speech.”

Let us assume for a moment that Netanyahu had two goals in mind for his speech — to make the case for healthy skepticism and opposition within Congress toward the Iran nuclear deal, which was near completion at the time, and help himself politically. This must have come as a shock to Kaine. Imagine a leader concerned both about the security of his country and his own political future. Good thing such considerations never entered the mind of any American president. Certainly Obama must never have allowed domestic political considerations to influence his policymaking or the timing of his decisions. The attempt to bury the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, presenting it as an event caused by some anti-Muslim message by some obscure American filmmaker was quickly adopted by all the administration spinners — from Susan Rice to then-Secretary of State Clinton. This spin was necessary for Obama to continue running for re-election on the campaign theme he had developed — the fact that he killed Osama bin Laden and saved General Motors. Blaming the filmmaker was of course complete and total nonsense.

Amid email uproar, Wasserman Schultz to step down after convention Heidi M. Przybyla

Debbie Wasserman Schultz will step down as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the conclusion of this week’s convention, the Florida congresswoman said Sunday in a statement.

The announcement follows the growing controversy over the release of party emails that at times depicted staffers favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primary campaign.

Citing the importance of electing Clinton and her commitment to fulfilling her responsibilities to her Florida House district, Wasserman Schultz said in her statement that “going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention.”

However, despite reports of an increasingly limited role at the convention, she added: “As Party Chair, this week I will open and close the Convention and I will address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats, but for all Americans.”

However, former party spokeswoman Maria Cardona predicted on CNN that Wasserman Schultz’s statement is a beginning point for negotiations that could further minimize the Florida congresswoman’s role this week. Democrats want to avoid a chaotic scene at the convention, and some predict the chairwoman could be loudly booed by Sanders supporters, who were already marching through the streets of Philadelphia.Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, will preside over the four-day convention, and Democratic National Committee communications director Luis Miranda announced that party vice chair Donna Brazile will serve as interim head of the DNC through the election.

Sanders, who has called for Wasserman Schultz’s resignation, applauded her decision to step down.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic Party,” the Vermont senator said in a statement. “While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people.”