The United Nations Security Council is considering a draft resolution nullifying any move by any nation to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The resolution does not mention the United States or President Trump, but let’s be honest. This is all about the United States and President Trump after he kept his promise and recognized Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the nation of Israel.

I’ll get into the philosophical problems with this move and what it says about the corrupt, ineffective organization itself, but let’s briefly point out how ludicrous this move would be logistically. To pass a resolution requires all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council to agree. Any of them can veto it. The United States is one of five permanent members of the Security Council. I don’t think U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley will need to seek guidance from the White House about whether or not to exercise our veto on the resolution.

In other words, this is 100% symbolic. It’s meant only to get the U.S. on record saying we are against a resolution that attacks our week-old decision. More importantly, it gets the other fourteen nations on record saying they oppose President Trump’s actions, though a press release would have been just as effective.

I’d love to see another member of the Security Council veto it for effect, but that’s almost certainly not going to happen.

Now, let’s talk about the philosophical implications of this move. The United Nations is, in essence, saying that one sovereign nation (the United States) does not have the right to recognize another sovereign nation’s (Israel’s) chosen capital. The only justifiable instance where the United Nations is right to condemn the actions of a sovereign nation is when they are either committing crimes against another sovereign nation, such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, or when a nation is committing atrocities against its own people, such as what is happening in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims.

What the United Nations Security Council is considering doing is an affront to any freedom-loving American or Israeli. It’s actually an affront to any freedom-loving member of the human race, but a majority of countries have been indoctrinated into anti-Israel rhetoric. The push to make a nation the size of New Jersey give away land to people who want to kill them is absurd. To say Israel cannot have Jerusalem as its capital or that the United States can’t agree with them is equally absurd.

When the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reactions around the world were pretty much what everyone expected. Anti-Israel activists were up in arms from San Francisco to the EU. Muslim countries protested. Violence broke out in Israel. Mild objections came from some of our allies, including Saudi Arabia.

One of the most important reactions came from the Palestinians themselves who declared they would not negotiate for peace if the United States was involved. Surely the Trump administration knew this was likely, but they’ve been working on a peace agreement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told European leaders he liked this weekend. Why work on a peace deal if one party isn’t going to acknowledge it? To answer this, we look back a couple of months to Mohammed bin Salman and Jared Kushner.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia met after an unannounced trip by President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law in October. It was widely reported their two days of face-to-face meetings were about an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This made little sense at the time because Saudi Arabia has been in favor of such an agreement for a long time. There’s no need to send Kushner for intense meetings unless they had more to discuss. Some (including I) have speculated that one topic of discussion was the “corruption purge” that happened days after Kushner left the Kingdom. It makes sense to coordinate stories ahead of a controversial move to eliminate any opposition to the next King of Saudi Arabia. Could they have also discussed Saudi Arabia’s role in a peace agreement?

There is no evidence of this that’s not circumstantial, but it’s easy to connect the dots once we look at it all as a whole. Saudi Arabia may be the perfect proxy for a Trump peace agreement to be presented to the Palestinians and Israelis. Netanyahu has already been told some of the details and seems potentially open to concessions in the agreement, a good sign if peace is to move forward. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will not work with the United States, but will likely work with the Saudis as a proxy.

All of this means the Saudis may end up being the key to Middle East peace. Even if it’s the Trump administration that creates the plan and sells it to the Israelis, it’s the Saudis who may actually end up brokering the deal. Keep an eye on this in the coming months. Chances are strong this will move quickly once it’s officially rolling.

Jerusalem Capital of Israel Trump

Sir Humphrey Well I’m sure it’s a question of us maintaining our relationship the Arabs.  The power of Islam.  [lowering his tone]  Oil Supplies.

PM James Hacker:  Humphrey I’m talking about what’s right and wrong.

Sir Humphrey:  Well don’t let the foreign office hear you.

Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986

Don Corleone: And if by chance an honest man like yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you.

The Godfather 1972

One might think Donald Trump’s propensity to keep promises that he made to the voters who he considers his customers, enough of a reason for his decision to finally recognize the reality of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when all of his predecessors failed to do so.  But even ignoring that character trait of Trumps to see things as they are there are two factors that make this the most opportune time for the US to make this move.

Fracking

Since the 1970’s the Arab nations have held their control over oil prices over our head as a club to restrain us from serious opposition.  Their ability to increase energy prices and hurt the US economy has been a factor for presidents from Nixon to Clinton to consider.  Only a massive attack like 9/11 was enough to override those considerations and act.

However the Fracking booms has changed the equation.

With the US now able to supply it’s oil need to the point that we are a net exporter combined the ability of US Frackers who have become more and more efficient, to add to production if prices start to increase suddenly trumps any attempt by Arab nations to push us around on the basis of oil, and that’s not even considering Trump’s actions to enable pipelines and drilling within the country.

Put simply the Arabs ability to mess with our energy supply is now a thing of the past and without the Obama administration trying to regulate Fracking away it’s unlike to return in our lifetimes.

Iran:  

Fracking takes away the ability of the Arabs to muscle us but the rise of Iran and the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program (ironically aided by the Obama administration)  has suddenly given states like Saudi Arabia , Jordan and others completely dependent on the US (and Israel) to keep Iran in check.

As none of them are willing or even able to hold off Iran on their own the US and Israel can name their price for that protection.

So while Palestinians will the Jerusalem decision as a justification to commit terrorism and murder Jews (as opposed to all the other reasons they have used for such terror for years) the reality those same Arab nations, while giving lip service to these Palestinian moves will quietly refrain from any concrete or meaningful action because they know that American and Israeli power is the only thing keeping them from becoming vassal states of Iran.

And with countries from both Africa and Europe already following suit the genie is out of the bottle for good.

And that doesn’t even count the possibility that Trump might be willing to cut the purse strings that keep the corrupt Palestinian authority in power.  Or his willingness to call Arab empty threats and bluffs.

Trump understand negotiating from strength and while he has that strength and leverage he’s going to use it.

That’s what a leader does.

LAYOFF UPDATE:  So far we have reached 20% of my goal since yesterday’s layoff.  (full story here) if you want to help us reach that goal please consider hitting DaTipJar here




You can also help out by buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer and recommending it to your friends. Using scripture as it’s basis it explains why the Hail Mary is a prayer our protestant brothers should embrace rather than reject.

Every 1,000 paperback copies sold at $6.99 can replace a couple of week’s pay.    And of course it would make an excellent Gift for the person of faith on your Christmas list.

Finally the math of my now former job is pretty simple. $440 a week comes to $1892 a month over the course of a year. (440 x 4.3) If you divide that by 20 that comes out to 94.6 meaning if I can get 95 new subscribers by the end of this month. I can permanently replace my warehouse job and do this full time.

So far our fundraiser has picked up no new subscribers will you be the first and break the ice?


Choose a Subscription level


Update 2:  Now at over 110% of our goal!  Thanks so much also corrected a spellcheck error that Steve MacDonald of Granite Grok noticed “Fracking” not “Franking (which is the practice of members of congress sending mail via the gov to voters in their district).

A few days ago amid reports that there was cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia the kingdom felt compelled to make the following statement

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Moday denied any ties between the kingdom and Israel.

“There are no relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel,” Jubeir told Egypt’s CBC television, according to a translation by the Ynet news website.

The Irony of Saudi Arabia, the keeper of the most sacred site in Islam’s, need to continue to openly declare Israel unsuitable for open contact and the Arab world’s embrace of such an attitude is best illustrated by telling the story of two Mosques.

In 705 AD the Al Aqsa Mosque was built in the City of Jerusalem at the site of the Temple Mount which was the location of the Temple of Solomon the holiest site in Judaism. Other than for a 200 year stretch during the 11th & 12th centuries it has continued to function as a Mosque. Even after Israel conquered Jerusalem during the six day war, the Jewish state, rather than demolishing the Mosque and rebuilding the sacred temple not only allowed the Mosque to continue to function as a place of worship for Islam but has left its administration to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf an Islamic religious trust. Furthermore they have severely punished attempts by both Christian and Jewish fanatics to demolish or destroy the Mosque and to this day Muslims continue to worship there.

Four hundred years after the building of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jersualem the Great Mosque of al-Nuri was built in the city of Mosul. It was famous for its leaning minaret. The World Monuments fund, an international non-profit dedicated to the preservation of historic architecture, describes the minaret:

Known by locals as al-Hadba’, or the hunchback, because of its pronounced tilt, the minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri was a prominent landmark of the old city of Mosul. Built under the Seljuk ruler Nur al-Din, it was part of a religious complex that included a mosque and a madrassa and was named after its patron. The minaret, built in 1172, was 45 meters tall, decorated with ornamental brickwork along its cylindrical shaft and square base. Five times a day a muezzin would ascend the spiral stairway and sing the call to prayer from the balcony. By the time the famous Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta visited the city in the fourteenth century, the minaret was already listing noticeably and had been given its nickname, which remained ever since. In the 1940s, as part of a renovation campaign sponsored by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities, the mosque and the madrassa were dismantled and rebuilt according to a new plan. But the minaret remained as one of the few original elements of the medieval complex, a landmark of Mosul, towering over the low cityscape. So iconic was the minaret that since 2003 its figure has adorned the Iraqi 10,000-dinar banknote.

In fact it’s significance was such that its preservation was an international cause:

In 2012, UNESCO and the Governorate of Nineveh agreed to collaborate on a project to study and conserve the al-Hadba’ Minaret. The launch of a project that would have resulted in the stabilization of the minaret was announced in 2014,

It was as Austin Bay’s piece on the defeat of ISIS in Mosul a symbol of Islam in the city

For eight centuries, the building symbolized Mosul, which is why, in June 2014, ISIS senior commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed the ISIS caliphate from a Grand Mosque balcony. Speaking freely in the great house of worship demonstrated Al-Baghdadi’s control of Mosul. As an internet propaganda tool, video of his declaration confirmed he was a caliph, the religious-political ruler of an expanding militant Islamist territorial state.

I say “was” because on June 21st one of the final acts of the Islamic state occupation was the deliberate destruction and demolition of this landmark Mosque.

On Wednesday night, with the terrorist group on the cusp of losing control of Mosul and with it its claim to a caliphate straddling the border of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters packed the building with explosives and took it down.

Now mind you, the Mosque wasn’t taken down by indirect fire or reduced while being defended by fighters using it as a fortress or even accidentally blasted away by aired bombing. It was deliberately targeted and destroyed by supposedly devout Muslims Austin Bay again:

In retrospect, the mosque’s obliteration was indisputable evidence of terrorists’ political nihilism. ISIS leaders really worship power and if they cannot seize power and hold it, then they will destroy Muslim shrines and cities as well as murder human beings en masse.

Now granted that the Islamic state is an enemy of the Saudis and few if any arab governments support it but the obvious question is this.

If Israel is, as Arab governments, BDS campaigners and leftists all over the west claim, the great foe and oppressor Islamic people in general and “Palestinians” in particularly, how is it that they treat an Islamic holy site and those who worship there with more care and reverence than devout Muslims?

While we’ve been distracted by other things real signifcant news keeps happening

For example my reaction to this is Wow!

Saudi Arabia’s all-powerful crown prince has opened up a new front in his attempts to change the Middle East by intervening in Palestinian politics and demanding backing for President Trump’s vision for peace with Israel.

Now some might say that in a year where we’ve seen the 1st anniversary of Donald Trump election and Italy failed to make the world cup  just about anything is possible, but I never in my life thought I’d see a story like that.

Of course it remains to be seen if Abbas would dare to obey the Saudi’s in this, after all the Saudi crown prince has a huge security apparatus to keep him protected from those who would want him dead over peace with Israel while Abbas’ guard and people might be a little less inclined to risk their necks to play along.

After all with yet another generation of palestinians being taught in UN funded schools how wonderful it is to kill yourself to murder jews any suggestion of taking a peace deal might be hazardous to his health, what good is all that money skimmed from aid money if you’re not alive to spend it?

Of course it’s worth noting this point on the whole subject that people are missing:  A “deal” is not the same as peace.  Until people decide that jews are not fair game for target practice for bombs or knifes or cars a “deal” will mean nothing.

Chicago Police camera

George Washington McLintock: Now Katherine, are you going to believe what you see, or what I tell you?

McLintock! 1963

Two years ago I wrote about an interesting incident in Jerusalem.  It seems that the “Palestinians” were objecting to treatment they claimed they were receiving when visiting the Temple/Mount area and a solution was suggested by King Abdullah of Jordan to solve the problem, Cameras.  That way if Israel was violating the rights of Muslims visiting the 3rd holiest site in Islam they would be caught.

To his credit then secretary of state John Kerry supported the idea and after some pushback from the cabinet Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu got them to go along with the plan.  However Palestinians who had been claiming oppression loudly objected claiming it was a “Trap”.  As I wrote at the time:

I don’t see how it can be a trap. After all the Palestinians have insisted that they haven’t been inciting anybody or smuggling weapons or doing anything nasty, if they’re telling the truth how could film backing them up be a trap? That would be like a police office arguing that dash cameras and body cams were all about framing him for something he hasn’t done.

You’d think they were trying to hide what’s actually going on or something?   Or as Bibi put it:

it would show where the provocations are really coming from.

And as I tweeted at the time:

Well it’s two years later and with the move to make sure police are wearing bodycams to catch them if they try to plant evidence or bully harass and murder innocent suspects (particularly if they are black) now the accepted norm, I thought we have the answer to that question. However said answer is apparently not a question of police claiming body cams are a “trap”, it’s the liberal civil rights black lives matter crowd doing so:

“Unrestricted footage review places civil rights at risk and undermines the goals of transparency and accountability,” said Vanita Gupta, former head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and current head of the Leadership Conference, in the report’s introduction.

Yes you are reading that right. You are hearing a former Obama “civil rights” official saying that camera footage of what actually happens at an arrest undermines “transparency and accountability”

You see if a police officer makes out his report after seeing his video, it’s less likely that he will state an inaccuracy that a defense lawyer can exploit and that’s bad. After all we can’t have police giving accurate reports that puts a criminal in danger of actually going to jail.

You’d think transparency and accountability in law enforcement was supposed to be about truth and facts but apparently if those recorded videotaped facts either fail to impeach the trustworthiness of an officer or help lead to the conviction of a criminal then they aren’t welcome by those on the left who demanded them.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this but then again these days left has lost its capacity to surprise me anymore.

By John Ruberry

Occupy Chicago activists with Palestinian flag in 2012

Even in Illinois this story was barely noticed, but the dropping of a socialist running mate by an Illinois gubernatorial candidate betrays a deep rift within the Democratic Party that deserves a close look.

Late last month State Sen. Daniel Biss, a candidate for governor, announced Chicago alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa as his running mate. Just as on the presidential stage, ticket balancing is a goal for Illinois gubernatorial hopefuls and lately white candidates have been picking minorities as their running mates. Incumbent governor Bruce Rauner’s lieutenant governor is an Hispanic. Biss of course chose that strategy too.

But his ticket was perhaps too balanced. Or was it too unbalanced? Six days later Biss dropped his running mate.

Not only is Ramirez-Rosa an Hispanic but he’s also openly gay. So he’s a two-fer, which covers a pair core Democratic constituencies. That is almost certainly why this 28-year-old with scant experience was selected, not because he’s qualified to serve as governor. C’mon now, 28 years old? Illinois is burdened with declining population, $14 billion in unpaid bills, and one of the worst-funded public pension systems among the 50 states. And at one time Biss thought Ramirez-Rosa was good enough to be a heartbeat away from being in charge of fixing this debacle?

But Biss clearly didn’t dig very deep into the background of Ramirez-Rosa. Biss is Jewish but his running mate for that brief time is a supporter of BDS, that is, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. Biss’ mother grew up in the Jewish state. When a Jewish Illinois Democratic congressman retracted his endorsement of Biss over the BDS controversy, the chain reaction began.

Ramirez-Rosa was elected to Chicago’s City Council–that inept legislative body that sees a member graduate to a federal penitentiary every 18 months or so–two years ago. Earlier this year he joined the Democratic Socialists of America. It’s more socialist than Democrat.

Just as in 2004, when since-disgraced John Edwards claimed there were “two Americas,” there are two Democratic parties, the old guard, which is still trying to recreate the Franklin D. Roosevelt coalition, and the new wing, which is channeling the spirit of five-time Socialist Party candidate for president, Eugene V. Debs. Or to put a contemporary label on these factions, it’s Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders.

Last month the DSA, which is not formally a political party, held its biennial convention in Chicago. Two things of note occurred. The Democratic Socialists voted nearly unanimously to support the BDS movement. Yes, Sanders is Jewish, but like most leftist Jews he’s secular. Secondly, as Salon noted, an online kerfuffle broke out during the DSA shindig when old guard Democrats complained that the socialists were “hijacking the party.” Perhaps they are. And even though the champion of the hijackers is a septuagenarian, energy and youth is with the socialists’ side, not the stalwarts.

Young against old. Gee, I wonder who is going to win?

Blogger at the border

By 2020, the Democratic Party, which was founded by Andrew Jackson, may be America’s socialist party. With it will come the anti-Israeli and yes, anti-Semitic baggage of the far-left. Except the far-left could be the center-left by then.

As for Jewish Democrats, especially those who support Israel, they will wonder what the heck happened to their party. Actually, it’s occurring now. Early this year in a poll Pew discovered Democrats’ loyalties are almost evenly split in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

Perhaps Biss was too hasty in dumping Ramirez-Rosa.  A pro-Israel Democrat paired with a BDS Democrat? Now that’s a balanced ticket!

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

by baldilocks

Gaddafi and Hussein are dead.

It’s said that North Korea’s Kim Jong Un doesn’t want to give up his nukes because of what happened to Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.

After the US invaded Iraq, which resulted in the deposition and execution of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi gave up his country’s nukes, only to be abandoned by the succeeding US administration – which resulted in Qaddafi’s deposition and execution. If the reports about Kim’s reasoning are true, it’s cogent piece of reasoning.

I’m Old Enough To Remember WhenTM Gaddafi publicly gave up his clandestine nuclear program and Syria’s Bashar Assad promised to pull his troops out of Lebanon, both saying, in effect: “I am not Saddam Hussein.”

As we know, the premise for the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), refused to give them up, and refused to allow UN inspection of those weapons. Following the invasion, however, no WMD materials were found in Iraq and the “Bush Lied” meme was born.

(Aside: for years that was the cudgel that Democrats – some of whom had access to the same domestic and foreign intelligence reports that George W. Bush’s intel advisers did and many of whom voted for intervention in Iraq — used to criticize Bush. These Democrat critics included former Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, along with current Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, all of whom voted “yea” for the Iraq Resolution.)

Bashar Assad

In the intervening years, various sources in-the-know have reported that Hussein sent his WMD materials to Syria. If this is true, then it was little skin off Assad’s nose to promise to pull back his troops; he had other many other plans brewing, thanks to Hussein, and at least one other source.

Then, in 2007, the Israelis bombed Syria, targeting what they said was a nuclear reactor under construction.

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today.

The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel’s decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.

Sources familiar with the video say it also shows that the Syrian reactor core’s design is the same as that of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, including a virtually identical configuration and number of holes for fuel rods. It shows “remarkable resemblances inside and out to Yongbyon,” a U.S. intelligence official said. A nuclear weapons specialist called the video “very, very damning.”

Emphasis mine.

The Syrian government expressed outrage about getting bombed by the “Zionist Entity,” of course, and even used the “Bush Lied” rhetoric, but did little else about it. In 2011, the IAEA concurred with Israel’s claim about the facility.

It turns out that the nuclear connections between Syria and North Korea go back to about 1997. If you’re going read at least one of the links, read this one.

So maybe it’s true that Kim doesn’t want to end up like Gaddafi or Hussein — or even Assad — and is using the only leverage he has to stay in power.

This business will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it.

There is also an Iran connection – naturally – and the Syrian Civil war, and the Russian involvement … but this post is long enough. I just wanted to point to the items, incidents, and connections that nearly every public commentator seems to have forgotten and/or discounted.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

A while back we postulated DaTechGuy’s theory (law) of Media Outrage which states:

The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.

However looking at the theory (law) as it stands it seems to be missing a few things.  First of all the theory (law) while supported by the current evidence, only covers words, and not so much actions or beliefs. nor does it convey the progression of certain things from acceptable to unacceptable.

So I’d like to propose a corollary to this theory  or DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Democrat/Media Outrage.

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

As we noted in our first post in March, the test of any such theory or law requires evident to show it is true.  Namely can we see a progression on the media/left positions based on support for the Democrat party?

As a matter of fact we can!

We can see this progression in many ways for example take the confederacy:

When Democrats’ national position depended on unwavering support from “the Solid South,” we got lots of pro-Southern propaganda: the Lost Cause, Gone With The Wind, Disneyfied Uncle Remus, etc. As a vital Democrat constituency group, southerners, even practical neo-Confederates, were absolved of all sins as long as they stayed in line.

A great example of this was cited by Dinesh D’Sousa

In fact as late as 2003  Howard Dean was saying things like this:

“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” the former Vermont governor said in an interview published Saturday in the Des Moines Register. “We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

This is actually no surprise because despite the MSM narratives to the contrary Democrats still held the majority of the State House of Representatives of the old confederacy.  But as the Democrats went farther left by 2008 and became a secular party they continued to lose states south of the Mason Dixon line until today of the bible belt and border states only Delaware (which they first took in 2009) and Maryland which they’ve continually held for almost 100 years remain in their hands and the worm suddenly turned.  As Glenn Reynolds put it

Now the South isn’t “solid” anymore — or, more accurate, it’s becoming pretty solidly Republican — so rather than receiving cultural dispensations, it now gets targeted for cultural warfare.

Or consider Christianity.  As long as the Democrat Party had a large contingent of religious voters then the Bill Clintons, Hillary Clintons, Al Gores and even Barack Obama’s didn’t attack or demonize those who had followed the same teachings of Christianity that have been taught for thousands of years.  In fact back in the Clinton years the Democrats insisted that anyone claiming that the Democrats were pushing for Gay Marriage were alarmists.

But once it became clear in 2012 that it was the Gay lobby and the money and votes they need would be more critical Christianity was something to be ditched and Gay Marriage and Transgenderism was to be embraced.  When it became clear that even the Christian black vote would not turn on Obama suddenly anyone who didn’t follow the Gay Marriage/Transgender agenda were bigots and haters.

And then there is Islam.  During the 90’s and up until 2008 it was not controversial for American president and members of congress to support the wars against radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan and to condemn acts of Islamic Terror.

But once supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood started opening their wallets, particularly in big cities, to build mosques, and fund university programs, and Democrats figured out that even they can’t vote the dead if their aborted and the ghastly Tom Hagen math takes over:

 In 20 years the children of Muslims now being raised on the tenets of Sharia law in America will be old enough to vote and Democrats going to make sure they get those votes when the time come, not now but 10-20 years from now. 

This is how suddenly Orando goes from a terror attack by a Gay hating muslim to something to be blamed on the GOP and the NRA.

It’s also how an American president (Obama) and secretary of state (Kerry) become willing to throw Israel under the bus to keep Islam and Bernie Bros happy.

the truth is the Bernie Sanders democrats are anti Israel and have spent the entire Obama administration courting a growing segment of the population that is pro dead jews and growing a base, particularly on campus that hates Israel openly and hates Jews clandestinely.

It’s also incidentally why the ACLU, found itself under attack for upholding one of the few nonpartisan principles they had retained, namely free speech.  Once their defense of free speech was inconvenient to the left the attacks began and the ACLU evolved, very quickly.  Why?

But a new generation of ACLU members and donors, who surged to the group after the election of President Donald Trump, know the group primarily as a champion of causes typically aligned with the left, like pressing for greater immigrant and LGBT rights, and reducing criminal penalties.

Since the election, the ACLU’s membership has nearly quadrupled to 1.6 million and the group has received $83 million in online donations, said Stacy Sullivan, an ACLU spokeswoman.

In November, the ACLU solicited donations on its home page with a picture of the then president-elect and the words, “We’ll see you in court.”

And as the corollary notes, the farther you get from the the left’s positions, the less tolerated your positions become.

So if you are a group or individual or even a business and wonder how the left will react at any given time, my advice is to simply apply DaTechGuy’s Laws of Democrat/Media Outrage and you can see what’s coming every single time.


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



What would Americans do if other countries and the United Nations told us our actual capital was Los Angeles? We can say it’s Washington DC all we want, but shouldn’t we just accept it if the international community decides they want Los Angeles to be the capital? Of course not.

This idea seems to be lost on those who refuse to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now, President Trump can be counted as one of those people who, despite very clear campaign promises, has decided to do what every U.S. President has done for years. He’s proactively not moving the U.S. Embassy there.

It’s important to note that this is an active decision. If he had done nothing, it would have been on the State Department to make the move immediately or lose funding. Instead, the President waived a law requiring the move. This doesn’t jibe with a simple campaign promise.

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem,” he told an extremely excited crowd.

As Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, and others in his administration would note, any such move would do damage to America’s relationship with Muslim nations in the Middle East. They claim East Jerusalem as theirs, often claiming that it’s part of their religious history. What they won’t tell you is that it isn’t mentioned in the Quran. Not once. They also aren’t interested in the fact that it was claimed as the Jewish capital over a millennium-and-a-half before Islam was even established.

None of that’s important when feathers might be ruffled, right?

The notion that this is a temporary move is ridiculous. There’s never going to be a good time to keep this campaign promise. Never.

Some might throw up a silly argument that we don’t need to mess with international affairs, that Trump’s “America First” pledge supersedes all other promises. They might even say we can’t afford it (though we can somehow afford everything under the sun in the spending agreement DC just passed), but that’s even sillier. Trump could say, “We’re going to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Israel’s going to pay for it.”

They would. In a heartbeat.

The list of broken promises is already piling up almost as quickly as President Obama’s did when he took office in 2009. The difference is that President Trump is passing on some of the easiest. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a layup. Whether it’s his advisers, some backroom deals he made with Muslim countries, or influence from “the orb” that’s making him backtrack, this is not what we were promised when we put him in the White House.