Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Monday, March 23, 2015

Rush Ingraham, Levin, Beck Agree. Jeb Is Not Their Type Of Candidate.

Jeb Bush Faces 'Warlord' Radio Host Opposition

Sunday, 22 Mar 2015 06:53 PM

By Greg Richter

0
inShare

As Jeb Bush seeks to follow his father and brother into the White House, he faces opposition from conservative talk radio, Politico reports.

The leaders of conservative talk, led by Rush Limbaugh, are referred to by some of the former Florida governor's aides as "warlords," Politico said, because they have an "unreasonable, unrealistic and pugilistic agenda" and they "thrive off of conflict."

Bush takes the opposite tack, intending to win the GOP nomination and ultimately the presidency with an agenda of "inclusion and optimism, not discontent and fear," Politico said.

But he has to face those voices over the airwaves, which haven't, so far, been kind to him.

"He's not a conservative," Limbaugh has said.

Even worse, Limbaugh has compared Bush to the not-so-loved candidate expected to carry the Democratic nomination: Hillary Clinton.

"The ideal, the perfect ticket, for the 2016 election: Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush," Limbaugh told his audience. "Now, they can figure out who’s on top of the ticket on their own, but when you compare their positions, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, on the key, important issues, they are two peas in the same pod."

With Friends Like Reubner And Obama, Israel Has Its Hands Full! Jews Like Ruebner Are Like The Copos In The Concentration Camps. They Serve The Master Against Jews!

March 23, 2015, 07:00 am

5 ways Obama can 'reassess' US-Israel relations

By Josh Ruebner, contributor

Getty Images

The White House is understandably livid with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, in a desperate bid to retain power, won Israel's election last week by laying bare the racism and colonialism at the heart of Israel's policies toward Palestinians. To pander to an increasingly nationalist and intolerant voter base, Netanyahu admitted that Israel's colonization of Palestinian land is designed to constrict Palestinian growth, renounced his lukewarm support for Palestinian statehood and engaged in race-baiting against Israel's Palestinian citizens.

The Obama administration is absolutely correct that now is the time to "reassess" U.S.-Israeli relations now that the Israeli prime minister has slammed the door shut on Palestinian statehood, the cornerstone of U.S. policy for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue for the past 15 years. And President Obama is fully justified in discounting Netanyahu's feeble attempts to walk back his renunciation of Palestinian statehood.

On Friday, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest reaffirmed the Obama administration's unwillingness to take Netanyahu's flip-flopping seriously. "The divergent comments of the prime minister legitimately call into question his commitment to this policy principle" of Palestinian statehood. "Words matter," Earnest asserted.

The current nadir in U.S.-Israeli relations is reminiscent of another era in which Israel defied U.S. policy goals and called into question its commitment to the U.S.-backed "peace process." Forty years ago, Israel's foot-dragging on then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's efforts to broker a second disengagement of Israeli forces in the occupied Egyptian Sinai Peninsula led President Ford to similarly reassess U.S.-Israeli relations. The Ford administration put real teeth into its reassessment by postponing the delivery of weapons to Israel and deferring consideration of economic aid. This tangible pressure on Israel worked, bringing it back to the table and eventually paving the way for complete Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

To date, the Obama administration has not publicly expressed any willingness to be as bold as Ford, bending over backwards to reiterate the inviolability of U.S. military aid to Israel, which has climbed to a record $3.1 billion annually during the president's tenure even as Netanyahu has repeatedly humiliated the president and frustrated his policy goals.

Instead, speculation about the Obama administration's likely punitive measures has focused on the possibility of withdrawing the traditional U.S. veto of actions in the U.N. Security Council critical of Israel. Such resolutions could include condemnation of Israel's ongoing, illegal colonization of occupied Palestinian territory or establishing the parameters for a two-state resolution. Neither resolution, however, would be more than symbolic and actually affect Israel's actions, unless coupled with more palpable U.S. pressure.

Here are five steps the Obama administration can take to show that it is serious about this reassessment.

1. Clog the arms pipeline. Even though Congress will appropriate more military aid for Israel in this year's budget, there is a myriad of ways in which the Defense and State Departments can delay, if not completely suspend, the signing of contracts and the actual delivery of weapons.

2. Report on Israel's violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). Under the AECA, countries receiving U.S. military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel killed more than 2,200 Palestinians — the vast majority of whom were civilians — last summer, oftentimes with U.S. weapons such as F-16 fighter jets and Hellfire missiles. The Obama administration should send a report to Congress documenting these human rights abuses and suspend future deliveries of specific weapons systems as outlined in the AECA.

3. Sanction Israel under the "Leahy Law." Under the Leahy Law, specific units of militaries which commit human rights abuses are ineligible to receive U.S. training and weapons. In addition, individuals who commit human rights abuses are denied U.S. visas. While there is some evidence that high-ranking Israeli military officials have recently been denied U.S. visas, the State Department's reporting on the implementation of Leahy Law sanctions is opaque. More extensive and public sanctioning of Israel under this law is warranted.

4. Declare Israeli settlements a national emergency. Under the National Emergencies Act, the president has broad and unilateral powers to declare an emergency in response to a foreign policy crisis. By designating Israeli settlements as an emergency, the Obama administration could regulate, or even prohibit, any transaction in foreign exchange that will directly or indirectly contribute to the expansion of Israeli settlements.

5. Shut down "charitable" funding of Israeli settlements. Dozens of organizations currently recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as 501(c)(3) nonprofits funnel tens of millions of dollars to Israeli settlements every year. There is nothing charitable about dispossessing Palestinians from their land. IRS guidelines do not allow for the funding of illegal activities, which Israeli settlements are according to U.S. policy and international law.

After more than six years of offering Israel more and more carrots only to be repeatedly snubbed, it is long overdue for the Obama administration to brandish the proverbial stick.

Ruebner is the policy director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and author ofShattered Hopes: Obama's Failure to Broker Israeli-Palestinian Peace.

Obama WILL Turn The Mideast Peace Talks Over To The UN With The Intention Of Crushing Her!

BREAKING: Obama Launches His Plan to Commit Treason Against the United States of America

The nation of Israel has hordes of enemies waiting just beyond the borders of the Jewish democracy. However, the most dangerous country to Israel’s continued existence may be an ally.

Sources contend that President Barack Obama might stop blocking a United Nations resolution that would “call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement” in the wake of Benjamin Netanyahu’sre-election as prime minister.

Such a move would favor the Palestinian Authority in peace talks by automatically dictating a two-state solution regardless of Palestine’s behavior.

The administration understands that Congress is behind Netanyahu, so the president may seek to use the power of U.N. as a workaround to the Constitution and our treaty partnership with Israel.

In addition, Obama is apparently reconsidering his opposition to Palestine joining the International Criminal Court, which would allow the Palestinians to press war crimes charges against the Israelis.

Under current federal law, passed by Congress and approved by the president, the Palestinians would lose all aid from America — which totals over $400 million and is one of the things keeping the Palestinian Authority solvent— upon joining the ICC, according to Breitbart.

However, sources are suggesting the president is trying to find ways around the ban, because who cares about the law?

Some commentators characterize the power struggle in the Palestinian Authority as being between aterrorist organization in Hamas and a corrupt, Western-favored organization in Fatah. They’re wrong, though.

It’s a power struggle between a terrorist organization in Hamas and a corrupt terrorist organization in Fatah.

Keep in mind that Fatah played major roles in both Intifadas. The terrorist group Black September, responsible for the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre and various plane hijackings, was also an offshoot of Fatah.

These are the two parties President Obama wants to bypass Congress to appease over the objections of one of our closest allies in the Middle East. And all because the guy they didn’t want to win, did.

I shall leave that fact for your summary judgment and ask you whether this is a president who has thebest interests of the country or its allies in mind.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree President Obama would be committing treason by abandoning U.S. support for Israel in the U.N.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Anti-Gunners Are Going To Try To Ban Bullets Again!

AMMO BAN? NRA WARNS IT'S MORE THAN BULLETS

'You're left holding your gun making pew-pew noises to defend yourself'

Published: 15 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png
Text smaller
Text bigger

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/03/AR-15.jpg

The federal bureaucracy, in the form of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, recently announced a ban on ammunition used in AR-15 rifles, which are among the most common firearms in America, but then suddenly backed off.

So breathe a sigh of relief and move on?

Not if you like the Second Amendment, according to a National Rifle Association commentator.

Colion Noir, a practicing attorney who graduated from the University of Houston, has been described by the Los Angeles Times as someone who doesn’t fit the stereotype of NRA members: “Old, fat, white guys.”

“At 29, he’s not old. Nor is he fat – he’s slender and stylishly dressed with sneakers made by Prada. He’s also not white.”

And he’s not shy about the Second Amendment, posting a recent NRA commentary on the ATF plan to banish bullets for the AR-15 and then pull back.

“Make no mistake, that so-called ammo ban, proposed by the ATF that they’re now shelving is nothing more than a gun ban by another name. It’s semantic drug smuggling, if you ask me. Take a kilo of gun ban, wrap it in officer safety Saran wrap and smuggle it in the rental car of common-sense gun legislation — and bingo, you have backdoor gun control.”

And he warned the ammo-ban proposal will return.

“If you’re still floating on the whole Obama-doesn’t-want-to-ban-guns cloud of naivety, think about it like this. When you get locked out of your house, what’s the first thing you think to do – try the back door.

“It takes nothing more than a two-second Google search to hear quotes of President Obama wanting to ban all AR-15s. And because his administration couldn’t get that ban through the front door of Congress, they tried to get it through the back door with this ammo ban,” he said.

Simply ban the ammunition, he said, and the gun becomes “nothing more than a fancy club.”

“Don’t be lulled into complacency because they’ve gone back to the drawing board on this ridiculous ammo ban proposal. ‘Cause that’s all they’re doing, going back to the drawing board,” he said.

“I can’t begin to stress how dangerous of a precedent this ammo ban would set if it happens. At that point, all ammo is fair game – just come up with some impotent commonsense reason, some crafty language and boom, you’re left holding your gun making pew-pew noises to defend yourself with because you thought the ammo ban was no longer something to worry about … and now you don’t have any ammo.”

He said the ultimate Obama goal is to ban “every gun in America.”

See Noir’s comments:

The Times reported Noir became “an Internet sensation” with a number of gun videos and was a star at an NRA convention in Los Angeles.

And his forecast that the issue would return was fulfilled almost as soon as the words were out of his mouth.

Fox News reported that four House Democrats have taken the ATF’s ban idea and turned it into a proposal for legislation.

From Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and others was the “Armor Piercing Bullets Act.”

“There is absolutely no compelling argument to be made for anyone else [other than police] to have access to them,” Engel said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ammo-ban-nra-warns-its-more-than-bullets/#KSbSFsbqGxjVAmVi.99

What Will Be World Reaction If Obama Abandons Israel?

Obama Considering Abandoning Israel at UN

By Lea Speyer March 22, 2015 , 10:30 am

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/barack-obama-smiling.jpg

(Photo: Gage Skidmore/ Wiki Commons)

In his first post-election comments, US President Barack Obama issued some harsh criticism against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, further increasing tensions between the two world leaders.

In an interview published Saturday in The Huffington Post, Obama confirmed that he spoke with Netanyahu on Thursday, waiting several days after the election to congratulate the Israeli leader in yet another snub.

The president said he told Netanyahu, “it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible,” in reference to comments made by the Israeli leader during the elections rejecting the idea of Palestinian statehood.

Netanyahu’s comments are seen by critics as a last minute effort to spur supporters to the polls on Tuesday. He also warned that Israeli Arab citizens were voting “in droves,” thereby endangering the possibility of a Likud win in the Knesset.

The prime minister’s comments were quickly condemned as racist by the White House.

“We indicated that that kind of rhetoric was contrary to what is the best of Israel’s traditions. That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly,” Obama stated.

“And I think that that is what’s best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don’t believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the meaning of democracy in the country.”

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/111-Store-BIBITShirt-600WIDE.jpg

Post elections, Netanyahu seemed to backtrack on his comments rejecting Palestinian statehood. However, the prime minister cleared up his position, saying that he would support a two-state solution only if Israel had a viable Palestinian partner for peace.

Netanyahu called on the Palestinian Authority to break its partnership with the Gaza-based Hamas terror group and recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state of Israel. Until these conditions are met, according to the prime minister, Israel could never agree to peace.

Obama, however, remains unconvinced. The president made clear that his administration is currently reviewing its policies towards Israel and other options besides peace negotiations to bring about an independent Palestinian state.

“We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region,” Obama said.

When asked whether the US would “continue to oppose Palestinian efforts to gain statehood at the United Nations,” Obama answered that “we’re evaluating what’s taking place.” Should Obama pull support of Israel at the UN, it would reverse decades of US foreign policy.

According to Israel’s Channel 10 news, the 30 minute phone call on Thursday between Obama and Netanyahu left the prime minister with “the impression that he intends to abandon Israel at the UN.”

On Sunday, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro reiterated Obama’s position while speaking to Army Radio. While the US has yet to make an official decision about changing its policies towards Israel, Shapiro said Netanyahu’s “confusing” comments raise doubts about Israel’s true intentions on the peace process.

“I can’t deny that we have serious worries that we are dealing with concerning some of the things that were said at the end of the elections. One of them is the two states for two people solution,” he said.

In a second interview on Israel Radio Sunday morning, Shapiro said that the US’s defense of Israel at the UN is based on Jerusalem’s commitment to a two-state solution.

“There are a lot of ideas and we will weigh the situation,” he stated. “We have not given up on the idea of two state for two people.”

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/33529/obama-considering-abandoning-israel-at-un-jerusalem/#OO2Xua8iTvLwuRET.99