Are Far-Left Democrats Anti-Religion?


QUESTION: Do these Democrats who are in league with those trying to undermine our economy and future for their personal power have any conscience whatsoever? Do they even believe in God or just money?

HJ

ANSWER: They are true Marxists who will NEVER publicly admit their beliefs. The only way to determine that is to judge them by their actions. The House Democrats changed the oath someone must swear and removed the words, “So Help Me God.” (See New York Times: May 11, 2019) They rebuffed objections from the Republicans that those words have been in there since the nation was formed.

The leading Democratic Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein has discriminated against Catholic judges being appointed. She has been against religion for decades.

You cannot be a Socialist and religious at the same time. I personally do not understand this but the far-left Democrats are also the most anti-religious people you will ever meet. They are in full agreement with Marx that it is just the opium for the masses.

“Restoring Jewish sovereignty” is not “West Bank annexation”


Reclaiming patrimony in the ancient Jewish homeland after 3,000 years

David Singer image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesApril 6, 2020

Restoring Jewish sovereignty is not West Bank annexationBenjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz have reached a critical point in their negotiations to form a Government of National Unity: whether to seize the opportunity presented by President Trump to restore Jewish sovereignty in Judea and Samaria—the heartland of the ancient and biblical Jewish National Home—after an absence of 3000 years.

Netanyahu wants to do so in tandem with President Trump—immediately a Government of at least 61 members headed by him as Prime Minister is formed. Gantz is not prepared to do so unless the Arab States —notably Jordan— and the international community agree – virtually guaranteeing it will never happen.

The Jewish media do not seem to have grasped this unique opportunity given to the Jewish People to turn a 3,000 year old dream into a miraculous reality.

The correct name of the “West Bank” is “Judea and Samaria”

Using what can only be described as the language of the enemies of the Jewish people – the mainstream Jewish media in Israel and elsewhere have been headlining their reports of the ongoing struggle between Netanyahu and Gantz with very similar headlines:

These Jewish media reports are doing the Jewish People a great disservice.

The correct name of the “West Bank” is “Judea and Samaria”—the geographic place name used for 3,000 years until 1950—when its name was changed by Transjordan following its illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria and the ethnic cleansing of all Jews living there in the 1948 War of Independence. Transjordan and Judea and Samaria were unified into one territorial entity and renamed Jordan. The West Bank was the area of Jordan on the West Bank of the River Jordan. The area on the East Bank of the Jordan River comprised what was formerly Transjordan.

The term “Judea and Samaria” had been recently used in Part II A of the 1947 UN Partition Resolution.

The 1950 change of name to “West Bank” has since been used to mask any Jewish claims or connection to the land. To rub salt into the wound the United Nations now calls it the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”

The term “annexation” connotes taking something to which you have no claim. Yet the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine included Judea and Samaria as areas in which the Jewish National Home could be “reconstituted”.  This right to do so is preserved today by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Language is important.

The Jewish media is letting the Jewish People down at this critical moment in Jewish History. In seeking to underplay the Netanyahu-Gantz divide—the Jewish media is giving ammunition to our enemies to use “West Bank annexation” at every opportunity.

“West Bank annexation” is a distinctly anti-Jewish phrase

“West Bank annexation” is a distinctly anti-Jewish phrase. “Restoring Jewish sovereignty in Judea and Samaria” states the Jewish case. Four more words for media to include in their headlines and reports that create a very different perception and understanding of what is at stake.

As Jews recount the miracle of the Exodus from Egypt at their Seders this week—think of the miracle Jews may be soon blessed to witness with their own eyes—reclaiming patrimony in the ancient Jewish homeland after 3,000 years.

Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators –  whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

What is the Fairness Doctrine


QUESTION: My concern about the “Fairness” doctrine is who decides what is fair and if it is a time thing, is time at midnight on Sunday or 0400 on Saturday morning given to answer prime time actually fair. But the television market is quite fragmented already.

PP

ANSWER: The Fairness Doctrine did not require preapproval from a central place to decide if it was fair. It simply required that they present both sides. Therefore, they would have to have an opposing view to say why the other side is wrong. They do that when the President makes that State of the Union Address. The opposition party gets the same amount of time to say he was wrong and why.

It is about presenting both sides – not that someone approves it is fair or not.

The mainstream media is just no longer trustworthy. I KNOW some good journalists who cannot write about what they think is the truth. The editor upstairs won’t let it be published.

FT On the Grab for Power


I strongly urge everyone to report this everywhere you can. What Izabella Kaminska has written about here is very important. It is about the rush to change our monetary system without any consideration. They are using the virus to propose drastic changes to the economy without any testing or analysis. There are very FEW Journalists worth reading these days. She has integrity and tries to report the truth – a very major breath of fresh air.

This is your future and that of your family.

Please post this everywhere you can. It is vital to our economic survival.

This has been the plan proposed since 2018 by Legarde when she was the head of the IMF. Now she heads the ECB.

Proposal for New Internet with Kill Switch


COMMENT: As an Englishman qualified to practice law in Virginia and Federal Courts, and very interested in your criticisms of injustices in the American litigation system, I have a suggestion which may seem trivial at first glance but would have an important impact.

My suggestion is that you promote a simple but very beneficial change in the American Rule of Costs, under which each side in litigation pays its own legal costs (subject only to certain statutory exceptions). In most of the rest of the world, the loser in litigation pays most or all of the costs. At present a potential litigant with a just case is discouraged from proceeding in an American court by the prospect that, even if he wins, his gain would be less than his legal costs. This obviously tends to deny to the poor and middle-classes their right of access to the courts. For civil defendants, the American Rule encourages frivolous cases, and promotes corrupt and uneconomical settlements, including those otherwise unjustifiable by, for example, insurance companies. In criminal cases the present American Rule obviously militates against the innocent, and promotes the corrupt practice of plea-bargaining.

A change in the American Rule to that of the rest of the world is clearly desirable from the point of view of individual rights, and the interests of the US economy, where the total cost of unproductive litigation must be huge. Together with that change, it would also be desirable to impose the Common Law prohibitions of Barratry and Champerty to prevent lawyers from taking financial interests in their clients’ gains from civil cases, which encourage ambulance chasing.

Lawyers have a productive part to play in the Economy, essentially aiding commerce and industry. There should be more to American legal practice than endless politicking and unproductive litigation!

KG

REPLY: That is a very good suggestion.