If a Palestinian man beats his wife is Israel responsible?

I must caution you that viewing these videos may enrage you. I gave much thought to whether I should post this at all. It was a close call. But I believe women are more deeply respected by understanding. (Importantly, the videos do not portray any actual violence against women – only “instruction.”)

And, according to the United Nations, the answer to the question posed in the title is “yes.” I am definitely not a fan of the United Nations.

I cannot find the YouTube equivalent of the video below. However, you can watch it by clicking the first video displayed on the URL. It describes “the correct way” for a Palestinian man to “hit his wife properly.” Again, I caution that this second video will likely enrage you – I don’t believe in “safe spaces” but be warned. I am reminded of the old… well let’s call it a joke… “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=588&fld_id=588&doc_id=21371

There are many such videos of clerics describing this atrocious behavior on YouTube. The selected portions shown above are not the worst by far.

And thanks to PCoop for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Birthright citizenship.

This topic has received much attention in the recent past. The political focus on immigration has been intense. I have uncertain feelings about this issue, but information is always useful. I hope to provide some that is accurate.

This issue is enshrined in our beloved Constitution. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

However, many Americans are distraught by wealthy foreigners who fly to the United States to birth their offspring in order that their child will be a US citizen (so-called “birth tourism”). They also very much dislike the practice of illegally crossing borders and giving birth (so-called “anchor babies” that serve, as US citizens by birthright, to ensure that their “illegal” parents and siblings can reside in the United States).

Here are two parameters to include in your thinking.

First, citizenship by birth is not as “instantaneous as you might think. If one illegally crosses the border and has a child they are NOT ENTITLED to stay in the country indefinitely. That isn’t the way it works.

The mere birth of a child in the United States does not guarantee the child nor their parents the right to live in our nation, at least not until the child reaches the age of majority (21 years old in the USA for purposes of “citizenship”). The US government can remove the family from our borders. Their “native-born child” does not yet have lawful status in our country. When the child becomes an adult, they are able to return. However, they can be deported now.

Second, it is true that having a so-called “anchor baby” can help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation, but only 4,000 unauthorized immigrants can receive such status per year, and the alien has to have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years.

Once a child born under these circumstances reaches 21 years of age they can return to the US and eventually sponsor their parents to legally immigrate. Further to this point, with regard to education, unless the child can show legal guardianship or custody by a U.S. citizen giving them permission to reside here, they will not be able to study here, either.

Whether the government under Barack Obama followed these dictates is unknown to me. However, from the legal perspective so-called “anchor babies” are not quite the boon described by those opposed to this aspect of the 14th Amendment.

However, it is also true that fewer and fewer nations provide citizenship under such circumstances. This is the latest information I could obtain:

The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

  • Australia (2007)
  • New Zealand (2005)
  • Ireland (2005)
  • France (1993)
  • India (1987)
  • Malta (1989)
  • UK (1983)
  • Portugal (1981)

Canada stopped granting illegal aliens citizenship for their babies in 2009.

The number of developed nations granting birthright citizenship is quite short. We look reasonably lonely on that list. Even the Pope doesn’t grant “birthright citizenship.” Also, I can’t fathom how Andorra and the Faroe Islands ended up on the list.

DEVELOPED NATIONS*
Birthright Citizenship

YES NO
Canada Andorra
United States Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Holy See
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom

In any event, you can use this information to draw your own conclusions about “Tourism Babies” and “Anchor Babies.”

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Politics in cartoon form.

The left-wing media had some trouble coming to grips with a left-wing radical that owned an assault rifle and handgun – and targeted Republican congressmen in a terrorist attack. All of those sacred cows dead in one moment.

As well, the Democrat Party is still not able to look in a mirror and take stock of their “agenda.” What agenda is that, ask you? Exactly, answer I!

The slurs from the left aimed at the right are simply that – slurs. Do they actually believe the assertions they use to divide the nation by “identities?” This cartoon says it all.

Ya gotta’ love this!

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Odds and Ends.

Item 1:

To the surprise of every Democrat in the USA, Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. The emails that were hacked from the Democrat National Committee didn’t help her at all! For the record, I do not condone hacking and the release of private records, but you will note that the DNC (or Clinton) never DENIED the validity of what the emails revealed!

Now we learn from Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, that assistance from his department was offered to the Democrat National Committee to combat Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election, but was rejected.

“I pressed my staff to know whether DHS was sufficiently proactive, and on the scene helping the DNC identify the intruders and patch vulnerabilities. The answer, to the best of my recollection, was not reassuring. The FBI and the DNC had been in contact with each other months before about the intrusion, and the DNC did not feel it needed DHS’s assistance at that time,” Johnson said.

Item 2:

I don’t want to bore you to death with recaps of the Georgia 6th District election, but if you want to have an inkling as to why the Dems are losing these elections, listen to the candidate in the Georgia 6th District.

The Democrat Party is looking for their “strategy” to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2018. However, if they do so it won’t be to enact “free college for all,” or “to reestablish Obamacare,” or to provide “universal basic income,” or to guarantee “pie in the sky when you die.” No. None of these. They want the House to begin impeachment proceedings because they can’t come to grips with the 2016 loss of Hillary Clinton.

Despite the fact that the Georgia 6th District was the most expensive House race in history. Despite the fact that the money was mostly from out-of-state. What did Democrat Ossoff say? He called for campaign finance reform. He said , “The role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money which is one of the reasons that we need campaign finance reform…

If you are looking for the definition of chutzpah, you just found it!

Item 3:

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and close advisor, has been called (by Allahpundit) the world’s most powerful man. However, Congressman Elijah Cummings has asked why Kushner still has a security clearance. Cummings bases his “question” on media reports that Kushner is plotting with the Russians to take over the world… or something to that effect. Cummings wants to know why Kushner still has a security clearance despite reports he failed to disclose meetings with Russian businessmen (over a SEVEN YEAR PERIOD – do you remember every meeting from seven years ago?).

Cummings forgot to include Hillary Clinton in his query. As it turns out, the State Department has opened a formal inquiry into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while she was the nation’s top diplomat (reported by Fox News). Despite being under investigation, Clinton and her staffers still have security clearances to access sensitive government information.

Wait! What? You got that, didn’t you? Hillary Clinton still has top secret security clearance. I thought she was a private citizen giving speeches for vast amounts of money.

Roy Filly

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Postscript to yesterday’s post.

Yesterday I posted an analysis by Michael Barone about the future implications of the Georgia 6th District Special Election. Barone points out:

  • Democrat Jon Ossoff won 48.1 percent in the special election’s first round on April 18
  • The Ossoff campaign spent $30 million (the most expensive House race ever)
  • The race had a huge turnout (260,000 which was more than the 210,000 who voted in the 2014 midterm)
  • Ossoff won exactly 48.1 percent again

Ergo, Ossoff did not move the needle after a $30 million Democrat Party investment. That, in and of itself, must be very disheartening to the Democrat Party. But the next statistic, pointed out by Christine Rouselle, must be devastating!

You will recall that it was only last November that the Georgia 6th District seat stood for election. I am not going to try to argue that an election wherein a president is being chosen is “the same” as a special election. However, the Democrat Party had a candidate. His name was Rodney Stooksbury.

Stooksbury knew he had no chance to win against Tom Price (who was the former Georgia 6th representative subsequently chosen and confirmed as President Trump’s new Secretary of Health and Human Services). Being an intelligent Democrat he spent zero dollars in his effort to unseat Price.

Here is the kicker. Stooksbury spent ZERO dollars. Ossoff spent $30 million. Stooksbury received 124,917 votes. Ossoff received 124,893. votes. Yes. You read that that correctly. Ossoff got 24 FEWER votes for his $30 million!

Ouch!!!

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do these “special” elections tell us anything?

Politics is both fickle and local. So, despite the “whipped-cur” facies of the Dems and the victory lap by the President (fun for us Republicans at the moment) can we draw any conclusions from the Georgia 6th district election?

I am loath to try to forecast the future in the midst of so much turmoil bequeathed to us by Barack Obama. The world is a powder keg. The Democrat Party has gone “total obstruction” and having some success. We have a “Special Counsel” investigating God knows what – but he’ll find something in that cesspool we call our Nation’s Capital. And, let us not forget the Republican congressmen and senators who disagree about every plan offered by the Republican leadership. I am especially loathe to rely on pundits who have been wrong so frequently that one must wonder how these morons ever became “pundits.”

There is, however, one pundit that still strikes me as sane and calculating. He is Michael Barone and he recently penned an interesting analysis.

[Source: The Outlook After the Special Elections, by Michael Barone]

This is an edited version of the Barone analysis:

  • Democrat Jon Ossoff won 48.1 percent in the special election’s first round on April 18
  • The Ossoff campaign spent $30 million (the most expensive House race ever)
  • The race had a huge turnout (260,000 which was more than the 210,000 who voted in the 2014 midterm)
  • Ossoff won exactly 48.1 percent again

One does not need to be a mathematician to realize that these numbers indicate that the Democrat Party, while logically targeting this college educated district (59 percent of adults, sixth-highest in the country), could not muster a majority.

Let’s take stock for the Democrat Party – the “Plan”:

  • Georgia’s 6th District is a traditionally Republican district – these are districts that the Democrats need to wrench from the Republicans to regain control of the House
  • This district was repelled by Donald Trump. Mitt Romney carried it 61 to 37 percent in 2012; Trump won it by only a 48.3-46.8 percent margin last year.
  • As well, Democrats were able to hold Handel to a Trumpish rather than the traditionally expected margin in such a district.
  • However, there aren’t that many other Republican-held districts with a high percentage of  college-educated voters – the districts that the Democrats plan to target; Republicans hold only six of the 23 districts with college graduate majorities)
  • Of the Republican-held districts where 40 percent or more of the voters are college graduates, only 14 were carried by Hillary Clinton last year

What are the Democrat targets for 2018:

  • Obviously the 14 districts carried by Clinton last year
  • There are four more that Trump carried by less than 5 percent
  • If the democrats “run the table” that would be 18 regained seats
  • Republican incumbents won 15 of these 18 seats by double-digit margins in 2016 despite the fact that these district either didn’t vote for Trump or did so by minimalistic margins
  • They need a 24-seat gain to retake the majority

[Directly from the Barone article] In off-year congressional elections, the dynamics are different. Incumbents enter with an edge and often without serious opposition. You can’t cast a protest vote without risking a change in party control, a risk that seems likely to be palpable in 2018.

As I have previously posted, the Democrat Party has one goal in regaining the majority in the House of Representatives. The House is where impeachment proceedings begin. Do you think that will be their campaign slogan?

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Lucky Trump gets the Fed Dump.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the left wants Trump to fail. He wants “more” and “better” jobs for Americans. He wants the economy to “grow at 3 plus percent.” That helps everyone from the poorest to the richest American.

But the roadblocks are constantly in the news. The latest is the Federal Reserve.

[Source: After Raising Rates Once During The Obama Years, The Fed Promises Constant Rate Hikes During The Trump Era, by Michael Snyder]

During Obama’s presidency, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates exactly one time – and near the end of his tenure. Indeed, they kept interest rates near zero. They actually considered negative interest rates, as some European nations and the Japanese actually adopted.

Historically, the U.S. economy has always slowed down whenever interest rates have been raised significantly. So what is the Federal Reserve’s current plan now that Trump is president? They have decided it would be the perfect time to start raising interest rates. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) unanimously voted to raise rates by a quarter point.  Stocks immediately started falling, and by the end of the session it was their worst day since October 11th. In addition to this most recent rate hike the Fed also announced that it is anticipating that rates will be raised three more times each year through the end of 2019… Let’s see, that takes us through the 2018 election cycle.

The Federal Reserve could have raised rates throughout 2016. Everyone thought they would. Why did they hold off, ask you? Because, answer I, they didn’t want to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning. The FOMC predicts the fed funds rate will be 1.4% at the end of 2017, 2.1% at the end of 2018 and 2.9% at the end of 2019, up from forecasts of 1.1%, 1.9% and 2.6%, respectively.

The Federal Reserve is supposed to be an “independent agency.” But somehow Donald Trump is going to have to fight against an economic drag with which Barack Obama did not have to contend.

As John Tamny writes, “In a recent opinion piece on the Federal Reserve for the Wall Street Journal, authors R. Glenn Hubbard, Hal Scott and John Thornton argued that the ‘Fed must above all maintain its political independence in conducting monetary policy.’ What the authors missed is that the Fed has never been non-political or independent, nor was it intended to be autonomous. The Fed is not an independent body free of political coercion, but rather an institution whose actions have long been dictated by the president and politicians in power. More important, since Congress is empowered through the Constitution ‘To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,’ it’s folly for general defenders of central bank independence to presume that this applies to our own Federal Reserve.”

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Dems don’t know what the “frack” is happening.

Why does the Democrat Party hate the greatest economic boom in decades? Here is an example from a progressive action group:

Fracking is a type of drilling that injects millions of gallons of hydraulic fluids — a mixture of chemicals, water and sand — into a well to create pressure that cracks open rock underground, releasing natural gas or oil. This process can deplete and contaminate local water…

The above is one of, if not THE most common claim of the anti-fracking left. As I have recently posted these drilling advances have made it possible to recover oil and gas not previously accessible. Recoverable US oil and gas resources are now valued at $50 trillion (more than twice our GDP and national debt). This is our nation’s treasure. The left wing wants it left in the ground.

[Source: Study Finds Fracking Doesn’t Harm Drinking Water in Texas, by Fred Lucas]

Contamination of ground water isn’t the only grouse, cavil or quibble from the left. They also believe it creates an earthquake hazard. However, yet another new study concludes that there is no effect on drinking water or earthquakes and is in line with multiple other studies of hydraulic fracturing.

The new Texas report was undertaken by the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (Austin – not a bastion of conservative thought) in a three-year study. They concluded that “direct migration of contaminants from targeted injection zones is highly unlikely to lead to contamination of potential drinking water aquifers.”

Christine Ehlig-Economides, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston who is chairwoman of the task force, states that “In Texas and pretty much everywhere, hydraulic fracturing has not been proven to have an adverse impact on drinking water.” 

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Taxation and behavior.

If it were totally up to me, I would raise the cigarette tax so high the revenues from it would go to zero.

Michael Bloomberg (As New York Mayor) (I guess Bloomberg understands the Laffer Curve)

The government believes in taxation to alter the behavior of its citizens. Tax law is used to affect individual behavior in many different ways. The latest craze is the taxation of “sugary” beverages. However, cigarette taxation has been with us for many generations. The nation’s first federal cigarette tax was enacted in 1864 as a Civil War revenue measure. The nation’s first state-level cigarette excise tax was enacted in Iowa in 1921.

‘Sin tax’ is defined as a tax on a product that can be harmful to a person, such as cigarettes or sugary drinks. On the other hand, from an economist’s perspective, it’s not enough for something to have negative consequences to justify taxing it. Things like rock climbing and cave diving have potentially markedly negative health consequences. Driving has lots of negative health consequences. The fundamental problem is that there is ample evidence in behavioral economics that document the tendency for people to under weigh distant consequences and over weigh the upfront benefits or costs of doing something.

Why do Democrats favor “progressive” taxation instead of “flat” taxation. They believe it to be fair to poorer Americans. However, their desire to “know what is best for Americans” trumps (no pun intended) their desire for “fairness to poorer Americans.” Cigarette taxes, as it turns out, are highly regressive.

There is a lot of data “on the effectiveness of high excise taxes on behavior.” But that data does not “oppose” the following.

[Principle source: Smoke ‘Em Even If You Can’t Afford ‘Em, by Ethan Epstein]

The professional classes and the more affluent of our citizens long ago gave up the devil’s weed. A Washington Post article that ran last week backed up this observation (again, the Washington Post is hardly a conservative perspective). The nation’s adult smoking rate has fallen to a mere 15 percent. However, 40 percent of those with only a high school equivalent education still smoke. These individuals are among the country’s poorest demographic. Thus, cigarette taxes are highly regressive.

A pack of cigarettes in cities like Chicago and New York now tops $12. Paradoxically, the poorest Americans continue to smoke, while the rich, who can presumably afford the high taxes, have quit the habit. That suggests that demand for cigarettes is quite inelastic among the addicted – addicts will buy cigarettes despite the price. It also shows us that Americans who can afford cigarettes do not smoke for reasons quite distinct from the taxes imposed on cigarettes.

High cigarette taxes are probably healthy for state coffers, but they don’t appear to be making the poorest people in the country any healthier.

The notion of taxing for morality is beyond the proper objectives of taxation. It is a use of force to control citizens. How is it that “progressives” can square this with their “principles?”

Roy Filly

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Climate Change” hypocrisy.

Our President was roundly bashed by world “leaders” when ho dropped out the Paris Climate Accord.

[Source: Climate change hypocrites, by Stephen Moore

Let’s check the record:

  • Sanctimonious “leaders” of Asian and European nations pledged to move full speed ahead on clean energy without the United States.
  • Europeans backed the Kyoto Protocol in 2005. (We rejected it.)
  • None of the Europeans met (or even came close to meeting) their promised goals.
  • Saintly Germany is moving away from “clean energy sources.” Their policies are hurting their competitiveness and their citizens – very high electricity prices.
  • The US (despite not being a signatory to Kyoto) is the world leader in environmental stewardship, and our energy use, as a share of the economy, continues to shrink.
  • China continues to be the world’s largest polluter (and not just CO2) despite claims to be moving toward wind and solar power (China “cancelled” 103 coal power plants), but Chinese energy companies have been starting two coal power projects a week according to a new Greenpeace analysis.
  • The lame-stream media loves the story that Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, resigned as a Trump consultant out of protest to the Paris Climate Accord exit. Of course they fail to report that Musk’s companies have a multibillion dollar stake in global warming and have received $5 billion in government subsidies.

Because of advances in drilling, recoverable US oil and gas resources are now valued at $50 trillion (more than twice our GDP and national debt). This is our nation’s treasure. Do you want the Chinese or the Europeans telling us to keep it “in the ground?”

As a brief aside, many, including myself, are highly skeptical of global warming. For those of you in the “skeptics” camp this little news note will give you a chuckle. A global warming research study in Canada had to be cancelled because of “unprecedented” summer ice. (And thanks to HP for sending this last tidbit to me.)

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment