moreadsense

Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, April 24, 2014

J Street Urges Administration To Deal With Hamas Terrorists

Terrorist group Hamas agreed with the Palestinian Authority-ruling Fatah on Wednesday to implement a unity pact, both sides announced in a joint news conference. While the U.S. and Israel both announced their reluctance to deal with a government including Hamas, true to its form, J Street urged the Obama administration to deal with the group which still calls for the violent destruction of Israel.

In a statement released on its website, the pseudo-Israel-advocacy group said:
However, we also recognize several important realities: first, that one makes peace with one’s enemies not one’s friends; second, that Hamas – although weaker today – still has a significant base of political support within Palestinian society; and, third, that overcoming the split between Fatah and Hamas (and between the West Bank and Gaza) has always been a condition for effective resolution of the conflict.

Many who oppose a two-state deal have argued that these divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Reconciliation would, however, increase President Abbas' ability to carry out a two-state agreement. Now, these opponents of a two-state agreement are likely to shift to arguing that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.

We believe that any Palestinian government must abide by its international commitments, including recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence as a means of achieving its goals in order to play a constructive role in working toward peace through a two-state solution. Were the Palestinian government to reverse course and advance or adhere to Hamas policies in conflict with these principles, there would be almost no chance of peace with such a government or of American aid to it.
J Street ignores that the position of both Israel and the U.S.: if Hamas renounced terrorism, recognized Israel's right to exist, renounced violence and agreed to recognize existing agreements, they would deal with the terrorist group. The terrorist group continues to refuse those basic conditions. J Street continues:
The best way to test this is for the US to put a clear choice before the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is precisely why J Street has called today for the United States to put forward a framework for a two-state deal that sets out parameters for resolving the core issues of the conflict.

Again, J Street is ignoring the truth. The U.S. did put forward a framework for a two-state deal. In fact both the U.S and Israel believed a deal between the parties was close. But the Palestinians broke the one of the agreed-to conditions for the negotiations and went straight to UN organizations for official status.

The US State Dept. announced that it will not force Israel to negotiate with the Hamas terrorists:
In Washington State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said the US was troubled by the announcement [of Hamas joining the Palestinian govt.] which "could seriously complicate" negotiations to extend peace negotiations.

"This certainly is disappointing and raises concerns about our efforts to extend the negotiations," she said.

"It is hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that doesn't believe in its right to exist." She also indicated there could be broader implications for an array of US policies towards Palestine, including aid, should Hamas enter into government without abiding a set of principles, including recognition of Israel, agreement to previous agreements, and a commitment to non-violence, dictated by Washington.

The J Street Challenge: The Seductive Allure of Peace in Our Time (Trailer) from Peace Tolerance on Vimeo.

For more about J Street, watch the trailer for "The J Street Challenge" embedded above.

Is John Boehner Trying To Get Tossed Out On His Ass? He Publicly Mocks His Caucus About Immigration


John Boehner has either gone totally insane or he is trying to get booted from his job as Speaker of the House.  According to the Cincinnati Enquirer the Speaker theatrically mocked the GOP caucus he is supposed to be leading for being afraid to reform immigration policy during a Thursday speech to the Middletown Rotary Club.

 Boehner gave his impersonation of the Republican refusal to take on the immigration issue.
"Here's the attitude. Ohhhh. Don't make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard," Boehner whined before a luncheon crowd at Brown's Run County Club in Madison Township.

"We get elected to make choices. We get elected to solve problems and it's remarkable to me how many of my colleagues just don't want to ... They'll take the path of least resistance."

Boehner said he's been working for 16 or 17 months trying to push Congress to deal with immigration reform.

"I've had every brick and bat and arrow shot at me over this issue just because I wanted to deal with it. I didn't say it was going to be easy," he said.
The GOP-controlled House has refused to pass the immigration proposal passed by the Democrat-led Senate that includes a path to citizenship for millions of people living illegally in the United States. Boehner has come under fire for siding with President Barack Obama's push to get reform passed.
 Is John Boehner that out of touch? Does he really think he can get his caucus over to his side by mocking them? What ever happened to sealing the borders first? Does he really believe that Barack Obama will follow any provisions to seal the borders? We are talking about the guy who changed his own healthcare bill over 25 times, and he LIKED that law.

Before he mocks anyone, Boehner needs to  prove to hisr caucus and the American people (who want the borders sealed first) that he can guarantee that the borders will be sealed. Once he does that he needs to explain to his caucus why they should want the progressive Democrats to have 12 million more voters, it's like voting your own party out of existence.

Today Boehner committed the political version of "suicide by cop,' it's called "career suicide by hubris."

Must Watch Trailer For Must Watch TV Series

Watch the Trailer for the New TNT Series The Last Ship...it looks great, and as an added bonus my friend Adam Baldwin has one of the leading roles (although he tells me he will not be wearing a Jayne hat)


Steve Wynn and George Clooney Fight Over Whether Or Not Obama is An A**hole



Damn! Sometimes I miss all the fun! 

George Clooney stormed away during his fancy Vegas dinner with hotel tycoon Steve Wynn after Wynn called President Obama an asshole and trashed Obamacare. Now the two are crapping all over each other via the media.

Wynn says Clooney got drunk on tequila shots and when Wynn attacked the President ... he says George hurled an F-bomb and left. Clooney says Wynn was trashing the Affordable Care Act. He says "I said that the President was my longtime friend and then he said, 'Your friend is an asshole.'" Clooney adds, "At that point I told Steve HE was an asshole and that I wasn't going to sit at his table while he was being such a jackass."

Norm Clarke of the Las Vegas Review-Journal talked to both parties:

The two-time Oscar winner issued the following statement in an email sent through his publicist: “There were nine people at that table ... so you can ask them. ... Steve likes to go on rants.
“He called the president an asshole ... that is a fact ... I said the President was my longtime friend and then he said ‘your friend is an asshole.’ ... At that point I told Steve that HE was an asshole and I wasn’t going to sit at his table while he was being such a jackass.

“And I walked out. There were obviously quite a few more adjectives and adverbs used by both of us. Those are all the facts. It had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with character.”

The incident occurred two weeks ago at Botero restaurant, inside Wynn’s Encore hotel.

Clooney was in Las Vegas to promote his Casamigos tequila during the Wine &Spirits Wholesalers of America convention.
On the other side:
Dinner had ended, and “the place was empty,” Wynn said.

Clooney took exception, Wynn said, when one of the CAA execs told a joke about former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev.

“He stood up and threw a hissy fit” at the CAA guy, Wynn said in a telephone interview, his first comments on the dust-up.

“Then he sat down and started talking about the Affordable Care Act, and that’s when I spoke up,” said Wynn, a frequent critic of Obamacare. “He didn’t like that either. I think my discussion about the Affordable Care Act was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

“When he’s drinking, he considers himself a close personal buddy of the president.

“He got up and said, ‘I don’t have to listen to this (expletive) stuff. The only person who got excited at the table was George, and he ran off to another bar.”

Clooney’s partners were “mortified,” Wynn said.

“Clooney’s fun to be with when he’s sober,” Wynn added. “If you have a chance to drink with him, you want to get there early, and don’t stay late.

“Everybody who’s in my business, the casino business, knows to take actors with a grain of salt.”
My Mom, of blessed memory, always said there were three sides to every story--one guy's, the other guy's, and the truth.

Perhaps Wynn was trying to demonstrate why the RNC should have their 2016 convention in Vegas. Perhaps Clooney was trying to get free publicity for his new tequila during the Wine &Spirits Wholesalers of America convention.

In the end we will never know the truth...but it is fun to see them trash each other.

It's Time For Conservatives to Jump Off the Bundy Bandwagon

There has been a reluctance here to cover the story of Mr. Bundy's Standoff with the Bureau of Land Management. To be honest, I didn't really understand how it became such a huge cause amongst many of my conservative friends.

 On one hand I agree with the rancher when he talks about "state's rights" and the overreach of the federal government, but on the other side he has said publicly that he believes the federal govt. has no power, is defying a court order, and breaking a law that most every other rancher is following.  

But now Mr. Bundy has shown himself to be a racist and its time for all of his conservative supporters to jump off his bandwagon.

This is from this morning's New York Times:
He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
I believe Mr. Bundy's cows should be able to graze on the despite the  tortoises, I also believe the federal government owns too much land in the western part of the country (including 85% of Nevada).

Here's the real issue though. One of the main objections many of us have to amnesty for illegal immigrants is that they broke the law to come into the country.  If we object to the trespassing immigrants breaking the law, shouldn't we be objecting to American citizens breaking the law?

As Ben Shapiro wrote at  TruthRevolt yesterday:
Bundy's position on the federal government itself is unjustifiable. He stated in a recent interview: "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada. I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing." Obviously, the federal government does exist, and if the state of Nevada exists, it only does so because it was formed with the permission of the feds under the Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution of Nevada explicitly denies Bundy's interpretation of the law: "no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States."
Like the Illegal Immigrant, Cliven Bundy has broken the law to get what he wants.  He should fight within the system to change the law.  If he was going for an act of civil disobedience to make a statement, he should be prepared to accept the consequences. One of the consequences is confiscation of property including Elsie and all the other cows. But Mr. Bundy is trying to have it both ways break the law but face no consequences.  Beyond that I am not aware of any attempt of his to try and change the law, just his refusal to follow it.

In the end Cliven Bundy's actions are indefensible from a conservative point of view while the federal government should not be owning the land---they do. In the end the govt. was protecting its property rights however unjustified they are.

Now that Mr. Bundy is shown to have at best racially insensitive beliefs, it time to end his 15 minutes of fame and its time for my conservative friends and colleagues who have shown him support to run away as fast as humanly possible.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out:
This has always been a tricky case, one where sympathies and the law go in opposite directions, as John Hinderaker noted at Power Line last week. Legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg on which to stand, and his weird insistence that the federal government has no jurisdiction on federal land has no basis in law or reality. Having the BLM show up with a small army to collect a debt made it easy to sympathize with Bundy and to call their actions into question, but they’ve been pursuing this case through the courts for more than two decades, too, while Bundy grazes on federal land. The federal government may own too much land, but that’s an issue for the states to fight in court, not ranchers with guns.