Beyond the Cusp

September 17, 2015

Ann Coulter Commentary on Republican Debate, Israel and the Jews, Twitter

Sometimes one need simply post the commentary. We have omitted commentary from people other than Ms. Coulter as most are not public figures and I am too impatient to chase each one down and get their permission to use their tweets (even if such is not required, it is something I would hope would be afforded me).
(Tweets rearrange to provide oldest on top to newest at the bottom)

****************************************

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.
354 retweets 617 favorites

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
Rubio running to be curator of the Reagan Museum.
205 retweets 445 favorites

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.”
409 retweets 465 favorites

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
1,463 retweets 1,447 favorites

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
Based on Census, another 300 immigrants entered the country during debate (33 per second) to vote against the GOP candidates’ tax &war plans

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
Christie also talks @ Israel in response to the question: What will AMERICA look like after you are president?

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 4h4 hours ago
Can we eliminate the words “fix” from the political discussion? I prefer the word “abolish.”

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
Ann Coulter retweeted John Podhoretz
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz
Holy shit, Ann. Shame on you.
38 retweets 79 favorites
Ann Coulter added,
U weren’t following tweets. About pandering on RR Israel prolife. Last Q was @ AMERICA & 4 Reps talk @ Israel AGAIN!

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago

Ann Coulter retweeted John Podhoretz
There aren’t even that many Evangelicals to pander to (probably the intended Israel pander-recipients).

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
How about Huckabee, Rubio, Kasich etc talk about Israel’s sturdy and effective border fence?

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
No, it offends me that so much time was wasted on things all GOPs agree on.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
And half the GOPS would bring the Jihadists here as “refugees.” Could they have talked about that tonight?

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
I had much more offensive ones!

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
It’s not about Jewish people; it’s about Republican panderers.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
True, but if we keep importing the 3d world, no GOP will ever be elected POTUS again, just President Obamas forever.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 2h2 hours ago
Soon, same will be true in US and there will be no GOP president to protect Israel. So all their little speeches=0.

****************************************

 

Ann Coulter reaction to people taking exception to her tweets, they should be so lucky.

Ann Coulter reaction to people taking exception to her tweets, they should be so lucky.

 

 

OK, I hear you with the enough already. For those wishing for more, more, here’s a link and help yourself.

 

Where often one can be let to slide for making commentary on the run when it is a simple one-off, this is just the next installment of Ann Coulter and such commentary. There will be the defenders of Ms. Coulter who will quote her support for Israel and mention her support for many particular items Jewish. Where I appreciate Ms. Coulter’s support for Israel one cannot simply brush aside her numerous past comments which denounce Judaism as being a religion capable of receiving blessings from Hashem. She has made commentary that only the believers in Jesus are to be saved and everybody else will be barred from Heaven, though Ms. Coulter has phrased such rejection with more colorful and graphic prose. Her acceptance of replacement theology is something one need accept or be armored against taking offense from such if they are to be amongst the Coulter cheering and excuse brigades.

 

Where Ms. Coulter’s political views often agree with mine and likely many others, personally I have some degree difficulty with her religious stand which claims that my soul is unacceptable before Hashem and that I have been cast to the forces opposing Hashem. The one blessing I can take is that in my belief there is no such thing as opposing Hashem and what He knows is our future and the timing of every main event independent of our individual acts. Hashem will have His will imposed even if it becomes necessary to bless a donkey with language and sight capable of viewing angels on the path in order to force one to look closer as Hashem did with Balaam as he rode to be employed to curse the seed of Isaac but the words he uttered were such praise that many start their prayers repeating one of the “curses” as they recite Ma Tovu to begin their prayers. Enough of the “Rant of the Day” and thanks for tolerating my shout at the world for the day.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

May 11, 2015

As If Only Followers of Islam Take Offense

Filed under: 24/7 News Reporting,Administration,Allah,Amalekites,Amendment I,Amendment II,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,AP,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab Winter,Arab World,Arabist,Arabs,Armed Services,Assimilation,Battle of Khaybar,Blood Libel,Calaphate,Christians,Civilization,College Campus,Columbia University,Conflict Avoidnce,Consequences,Constitutional Government,Constitutionalist,Core Beliefs,Coverup,Debate,Domestic NGOs,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,Geert Wilders,Guns,Hate,Havard,History,Idividual Protection,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Iranian Pressure,ISIS,Islam,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamic State,Islamists,Israel,Israeli Interests,Jihad,Judaism,Judeo-Christian,Leftist Pressures,Mainstream Media,Media,Media Bias,Media Censorship,Muslim World,Muslims,Myth,Nationalist Pressures,New York Times,Palestinian Pressures,Pamela Geller,Police,Politically Correct,Politically Incorrect,Politicized Findings,Politics,Religion,Robert Spencer,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secular Interests,Sharia Law,Shooting,Submission,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Constitution,United States Pressure,University,Victims,Washington Post,Washington Times,World Media,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:15 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

In the wake of the “Draw Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in Garland, Texas, the world of reporting and opinion journalism has largely taken the side of the Jihadists taking great offense each attempting to out-do the Muslims in taking insult. Their grand excuse is that what Ms. Geller, Mr. Spenser and Mr. Wilders were not expressing free speech but were expressing hate speech and therefore not worthy of Constitutional protection. I wonder if this exception which makes the “Draw Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” not protected speech as it gives strictest followers of Islam so upset that they believe that Ms. Geller, Mr. Spenser and Mr. Wilders, especially Ms. Pamela Geller, deserve to be put to death for their insult to Islam also apply to my distaste and deep seated ire when Islamic Imams and others when they call for “Death to Israel” or compare Jews to Apes and Pigs. Would the same self-righteous giants of the world of news and opinion journalism and other media moguls give the same leeway to Jews if they were to respond to such insult in a similar manner as the two would-be jihadists and assaulted the Imam making such reference and took out the same righteous indignation taken from such insult? We all know the answer to such a situation, they would claim that the Imam’s speech was protected as free speech and religious freedom and my insults taken were insufficient for me or others so taken with insults and angers to be permitted to take such drastic actions. There appears to be a slight difference of standards to which Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bahá’í, Buddhists, Shinto or virtually any religion other than Islam are held but to such behavioral expectations the most violent and easily offended practitioners of Islam are granted a special sympathy and understanding. So, according to some of the greatest stalwarts of the left, right and center of the media who control the reporting of news, opinion and the making of standards for the masses concerning that which is to be tolerated and that which must be persecuted as they deem that Islam has special rights when it comes to expectations of actions, commentary, even the simple drawing of pictures of the Prophet Mohammad even should they be honorable and perfectly good taste and distinctly noble by those outside Islam and even presumably by the adherents to Islam. Never mind that there exist a plethora of renditions representing the Prophet Mohammad in books and paintings from numerous periods of Islamic history.

 

Still, the lack of nerve shown by so many but at least there have been those who did stand upright and take a stand for free speech such as Foxx News Megyn Kelly and former CNN host Piers Morgan, while I doubt this will endear him to his old bosses and regain him his position with them, though perhaps it would be to their credit to take him back for showing a modicum of fortitude taking the path less taken. There were many others who have usually stood when others crumbled like a house of cards but this time they too tumbled and trembled from the fear of Islamist disapproval and violence. Such former heavyweights as Don Imus and the No Spin Zone’s own Bill O’Reilly among others went limp and wilted blaming Pamela Geller, and interestingly enough Pamela Geller alone not mentioning Robert Spenser and Geert Wilders taking on the most vulnerable target, the one already targeted for her standing against Islam and the attacks from so many Islamist groups such as CAIR which is tied to Hamas, Muslim American Society which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups which have also slandered and assaulted the reputation of Pamela Geller as well. It was a disgusting case of piling-on the weakest target. Fortunately for Ms. Geller, she has experienced such targeting before and continued to bounce back and continue in her crusade to uncover the less attractive sides of Islam and its most vehement and violent reactions which go beyond the accepted norms and expectations placed on all other religions.

 

The vehement attacks on Ms. Geller is a reaction she has faced before which will not have the effect which her attackers may hope it might as she has made a practice of walking the edge in her efforts to display the duplicity of the reactions to Islam and Israel and the media hypocrisy. We should not expect for Ms. Geller to calm her approach continuing forward though it is very likely she may not see any sympathetic media coverage with perhaps a few brave souls who have already warmed to her side already claiming that her freedom of speech though controversial is exactly the kind of speech the Constitution’s First Amendment was designed to protect. Where the First Amendment also protect the free exercise of religion, such freedom of religious exercise does not include murdering those who may not follow the precepts of ones’ religion and no matter what rules the religion exercises. Ms. Geller will continue pushing the envelope and continue proving that in the United States the people’s freedoms are paramount and will not be compromised simply because somebody’s sensitivities might be upset beyond measure and to the point of violence. Instead, if one uses violence to silence any American they may likely find the freedoms are better protected than initially believed. Let us hope that the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution continue to be kept sacred and not compromised in order to placate the sensitivities expressed and even to respond to the fact that some were driven to violence as a response. Violence must not be used to sacrifice freedoms as once such a response to violence destroys freedoms then all freedoms will become suspected as vulnerable to violence attacks over time. Such weakness can eventually lead to the compromise of all the Constitutional freedoms and the end of the promises of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which have survived just over two-hundred years. Could this be the first assault which will lead to the compromise of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and an end to the freedoms which have been taken for granted by the American people since the institutions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified and took their place as laws never before enshrined by any government in history. That may depend on the reaction of We the People and fortunately not on the weak kneed media elites, and for that the world can be thankful.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

March 7, 2015

The United States Lost Republic to Democracy

 

While a complete democracy is neither desirable nor practical, yet the United States has irrevocably moved steadily closer and closer to outright democracy since the first days of her founding under the present Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments which were debated and selected from an original thirteen and sliced down to a nice round number, ten, gave the first step in that direction by delineating the rights which were included in those guaranteed the people as they were gifts from the creator mentioned so specifically in the Declaration of Independence which many of the Founding Fathers believed was a part of the founding documents which defined the society and its governance just as much as the Constitution. As time progressed the Federal Government gathered unto itself more and more powers stealing them either from the States respectively, or from the people. This was from the government which supposedly was restricted by Amendment X which read, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Founding Fathers were divided into two groups, the Federalists and, of course, the anti-Federalists with one group desiring to balance the governance in favor of the most local governance as possible while the others believed that centralized powers were required in order for the governance to rule the entire nation. The first attempt to fashion a weak central governance over the newly liberated English colonies, the Federated States of America, was a dismal failure as without any powers to raise money and left at the mercies of the charity of the individual States the government very soon ran aground and became high, dry and out of funds. So, the United States of America’s Constitution was America 2.0 and made with powers given the central government unconscionable the first time around. Had the Federal Government continued to be restrained and restricted to its original powers then the United States would probably be in better shape and the European powers would still have militaries of sufficient size and capabilities that they would not be dependent upon the United States to be the sole determining force of NATO and the European Union would have died long before the Euro became the bane of Greece and the lucrative coinage for Germany. But the changes that put the final knife into the Constitution slashing it and tearing it and signaling the end of that Amendment X and the State’s rights it presumably protected came in along with the end of many individual rights for the individual American just before World War I began on July 28, 1914.

 

Earlier in that fateful year Amendment XVI established the income tax with the promise from the politicians that it would only tax the most wealthy one percent of the population and would never be permitted to become a burden on the average person and on that promise likely being the clinching argument allowed it to be ratified into law on February 3, 1913. As any American will attest, the income tax became far more than burdensome on the average person but also grew to such a point and the IRS which it founded gathered such information that the government through provisions and added regulations eventually could tell the average person their expenditures throughout the year and was rumored jokingly that the IRS could look up the color of the guest towels hanging in your bathroom. Now the Federal Government can tell you a whole lot more than the colors of items you have purchased, the extent and particulars of your every investment and virtually anything anyone might care to know about your life, your purchasing habits, your diet where you go on weekends for fun, where you vacationed the last ten years, the make and mileage on your vehicles and just about any other detail imaginable, and people worry about their privacy. Privacy in this world died a long time ago somewhere right before data mining and agreements between governments arranging for each to spy on the other’s citizens and then provide the information upon anybody that the other requested which eventually led to the decisions to forget the middle-man and simply for each nation to spy on their own citizens making everything so much easier and less complicated.

 

A short time later the Amendment XVII was ratified on April 8, 1913 establishing for the direct election of each State’s Senators instead of allowing each State to decide the methods their Senators were chosen. Previous to this Amendment to the Constitution most States chose their Senators in a various number of procedures with the two most used being the Governor choosing the Senator as each came up for election and possibly having to present them to the State’s legislature or higher branch of the legislative branches to have them approve the selection with some States requiring a larger vote for approval than a simple majority. The other method was for the Senator to be selected by the legislative branch of the State government and in most cases have them approved by the Governor under the same rules as legislation was passed or vetoed by the Governor. This Amendment took away the individual State’s ability to have their voices heard in the Federal Government making the Senate simply a less populous House of Representatives having both wings of the bicameral legislative governance chosen directly by the people. The reasoning presented was that the people were more knowledgeable as a group or mass intelligence than any combination of State Governors or legislatures in choosing the Senators. There was also the claim that State level politicians were too corrupt which was laughable as the majority of Federal legislative politicians were simply the most competent of the people in State governance. This was amidst the populace movement where the average citizen was presumed to have better sense when the whole was allowed to speak as through elections. What was completely ignored was that the Founding Fathers had planned for the Senate to be the legislative branch representing the States’ governance such that the Senate would guard over State’s rights and protect the powers of the State and limit the influence the Federal Government could have over them. This change brought on the slaughtering of the States individually and collectively such that they have long ago seen their powers slowly but inexorably misappropriated, stolen even, by the Federal Government which now faced no opposition from the individual States. This also allowed the Federal Government to control the individual States by demanding that the State acquiesce to the demands and whims of the Federal Government in order to receive funding such as requiring that the States meet caloric and vitamin requirements and curtail the choices offered the children otherwise not receive a large amount of Federal school funding which is earmarked for the lunch and other food programs. Further, the Federal Government has come up with this wonderful manner in which to place onerous demands on the States through unfunded mandates. These are programs that each and every State is required to carry out according to Federal regulations or even actual laws but for which the Federal Government no longer funds the program dumping the entire mess upon the States to finance. The numbers of these programs increases every year and this is partially due to the Federal government attempting to release itself from onerous financial obligations which were laid out in legislation for some program every State is required to carry out and funds were set aside for the first so many number of years and were presumed to be funded further by the Federal Government but somehow down the road the Federal funding ceased but the mandate continued and the States found themselves on the hook to finance program after program as the Federal Government cut off the flow but did not cut out the requirements.

 

Both of these Amendments to the United States Constitution were ratified but under suspicions of fraud. One was found to have received the final ratification a few weeks or a couple of months beyond the set time allotted for ratification to be permitted, Congress claimed that somehow this had been covered by some extension despite no such allowance stipulated as possible by the Constitution and the other was not ratified by sufficient States falling a couple short. Well, World War I struck on July 28, 1914 and the RMS Lusitania on May 7, 1915 was sunk by a German U-boat and American lives were lost as a result. There has been debate ever since the sinking as to whether the RMS Lusitania carried weapons or explosives for use in the war which was vehemently denied by Britain and the United States as well as the other allied powers and the debate has persisted and apparently will continue forward. Meanwhile, President Wilson argued against joining the war while simultaneously demanding that the U-boat attacks not target indiscriminately and especially avoid any further attacks upon civilian craft like the RMS Lusitania. Wilson was already stoking the public to allow an American effort join the efforts while also campaigning on a platform that he kept the United States out of the war. United States President Woodrow Wilson finally demanded a Declaration of War and the Congress responded giving him his desired declaration of war on April 6, 1917. As the initial Declaration of War identified only Germany as the nation the United States had declared war upon, this proved to be untenable; so after President Wilson again requested a Declaration of War and Congress did comply as they declared war on Austria-Hungary on December 17, 1917. The United States never actually declared war against all of the forces fighting against the allies who also consisted of the Central Powers, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. World War I came to an end on November 11, 1918 and by this date the horrific pandemic known as the Spanish Flu had broken out and some of the troops brought the virus home with them which caused the pandemic to break out and spread across the United States. By this time the two Constitutional Amendments numbers sixteen and seventeen were faint memories pretty much lost in the fog of the decade which followed them with the war and the flu who had time to be concerned about the potential of inconvenience of two little Amendments. Unfortunately, as was learned many years later these two little Amendments proved to be anything but minor little legislative additions to the Constitution but rather major changes in the breadth of Government powers and the depth of their effect to be felt years later. These two Amendments may have been the most influential pair of legislative action ever passed and ratified since the Bill of Rights was passed. These Amendments laid the framework by which power became centralized in the Federal Government and provided the funding through direct taxation of the people and stripping the States of choosing their own representatives within the central government thus liberating the Federal Government from any limitations by the States nor could they protest directly the absorption of the powers which had previously been within the control of the individual States and subjugating the States beneath the Federal Government’s heel without recourse.

 

The change in how Senators were to be elected directly by the people simply made the Senators nothing more than super representatives with two permitted per state. Now the United States had entered the point of no return sliding almost completely into democracy and definitively no longer a republic. Benjamin Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, “Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” and Benjamin Franklin answered bluntly and directly to the heart of the query stating, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Never in the history of founding of nations has the situation been so accurately assessed nor has the problem been predicted as how the Governance will be altered eventually unraveling the delicate balance between the individual States and the Federal Government. It is said that one can assess any Governance by a simple measure; just determine which side is the more fearful of the other and should the Government be more fearful of the people than are they of the Government, then you have freedom but if the people are fearful of their government than the government is of them, then you have tyranny. With all the branches which are appointed to make the general rules and stipulations and requirements from the people now directly elected with the exception of the President, the United States is teetering on the edge and about to fall beyond the cusp and into the electing of the President directly ending any vestige of a republic. The direct election of Presidents has been proposed and one of the most dangerous legislative suggestions which recently was rejected for yet another time by the Oklahoma Legislature which would have demanded that the Electoral representatives for the State vote for the winner of the popular vote by the entire nation while ignoring the will and votes of the citizens in their own state. Should that legislative effort win in sufficient states which would provide an electoral victory then all any candidate would need do is campaign in the cities and areas with the greatest concentration of people to assure himself victory in the popular vote and completely ignore the less populated areas such as Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Maine and all of the rural areas in every state. This idea is simply the latest manner to circumvent the Constitution and make the Electoral College an abstract and ancient methodology to be forgotten except by those few who major in ancient manners for electing leaders in city-states and nations; a major just slightly more useful than Indo-Chinese Love Sonnets of the Ming Dynasty.

 

So, as we can see the United States has slowly but inescapably moved towards a total democracy. There have been calls in the last couple of decades as computers have made this possible for the United States government, as a final act, provide everybody over the age of eighteen a voting tablet which is dedicated to one function and only one function, listing the legislative issues and bills currently up for voting and tallying every citizen’s vote. Each citizen of voting age would be permitted to cast their vote on anything plus they could present legislation they desired to see placed before the people and seek a qualifying number within a reasonable time to continue to be eligible to remain on the list of proposed legislation. This number would slowly rise over at most two months and at that predetermined time, if the proposed legislation has attained the highest level of approvals it would qualify as a piece of general interest and the suggestion would be listed as a Bill and then have two weeks for everyone to vote. Should a Bill be passed it wound be passed on to the President much as things work today. Do not expect such to occur soon as it would require career politicians to vote such into law and thus make their chosen profession obsolete.

 

Still, the United States today is much closer to being a democracy than it is to the republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers and once those populists on the extreme left or the Federalists on the extreme right get their way, then even the President will be selected by straight majority voting. All it would probably take is for a popular candidate which one side felt was undeniably the best choice to win the popular vote but lose the election. Then another ridiculous exhibition of populist insanity would boil over and press through some version of directly electing the President and the United States will have completely been transformed into a democracy. Nothing happens in a bubble and everything has its originating source. The movement to a democracy rather than a republic is that with a democracy it is possible and made more likely for government to become a case for mob rule in which the mob would be the more populous states which is those with the most cities, the most megalopolises. When the cities are given the rule, then what happens to the needs of rural America? We are seeing the effect of cities ruling as the most dominant force in government in California where the water allotments were made over the years to favor the cities over the farmers. Now there are stretches of farmlands which are just acre upon acre of brown dusty soil with dead crops which simply were not provided with the necessary irrigation water at the most critical growing part of the season and these crops and lands are now almost worthless. The family farms will cease to exist due to not being able to pay for their last seeds which never had a chance to grow and will be forced fiscally to sell their lands to the mega-farm industry. This all because the people in the city pressed their allotment of water over that of the less populous farmers were able to and the farmers simply lost their last crop and now are finished. This was a sad example of how straight democracies can destroy an entire segment of the population simply by pressing the mob’s desire for green lawns, full swimming pools, green parks and water amusement parks and a myriad of other needs for water in the big city. The farmers had a similar need but lacked the muscle to lobby the government either at the State or Federal levels and thus lost their crops and many will lose their farms. Once the industrial farm corporations gain ownership of enough of the farmlands, then they will have the lobbyists and they will have the clout to get the irrigations water turned back on and limit the lawn watering city dweller to only be permitted to water their precious lawns on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. They may scream bloody murder but at least the farms will return to producing food and not just dusty soil. This entire water battle has and will play out across the United States over time and perhaps teach some of us the values of indirect governance over straight mob rule democracy.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.