.

 

.

A dose of discernment needed to 'drain the swamp'

 by Erik Rush

{wnd.com} ~ As many readers will concur, in general, American voters are not particularly discerning. Studies have been done detailing how questionable candidates have been elected to office simply because they’re glib, charismatic, or physically attractive. If a candidate looks good and sounds good, most voters will defer to that candidate, no matter how fundamentally insubstantial he or she may be.

Obviously, this has been a recipe for disaster, not just in individual cases, but as a long-term practice.

Exceptions to the widespread superficial assessment of political candidates have been instances in which significant numbers of voters have suffered due to the policies of a particular elected official or political party. Usually, this suffering has been economic in nature, but not always. In these cases, voters have tended to gravitate toward the candidate who promises to ameliorate that suffering. We witnessed this in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump.

When President Trump discussed “draining the swamp” of Beltway establishment hacks, his supporters cheered, but few realize how enormous an undertaking this actually is. It is one that cannot be accomplished by one president alone, no matter how sincere or dedicated that president may be toward accomplishing it.

Voters themselves have the potential to gain much more ground in this area, but they will have to employ discernment to do so.

When I speak of discernment, I am not referring to the spiritual gift of discernment discussed within the church. In practical terms, discernment is not some esoteric ability that some possess and some do not. I am speaking about employing the process of coming to logical, useful conclusions based on an aggregate of information some of which may be obscure to some degree. This, of course, involves a measure of critical thinking.

That’s the rub, because critical thinking has been discouraged among the populace, whether through the social engineering bent that’s been adopted by our educational institutions, media, or our political leaders themselves.

As I have indicated with increasing frequency, it has become quite clear that the majority of our Republican lawmakers – even many who claim to be conservatives – are nothing but big-government progressives. In general, congressional Republicans have taken on the role of playing the impotent foil to leftist Democrats who are railroading us toward a hard-line socialist state.

Why have Republican lawmakers taken on this role? Because the Washington establishment naturally fears that if a significant number of voters came to an understanding of the myth of our two-party system as it currently functions and the actual dynamic of Beltway politics, they might storm Washington, drag lawmakers out to the National Mall and burn them in a pile with the intention of starting over with a Congress that is not beholden to special interests or socialist ideology.

One potential instance of discernment among voters could be a very simple and fundamental one: the realization that progressivism isn’t “progressive” at all. In fact, it is actually retrogressive. Modern democracies and republics were, for the most part, instituted based upon the novel Enlightenment idea that populations could govern themselves, rather than being ruled by monarchs and oligarchs as they’d been for centuries. Progressivism takes all of that back in advancing a paradigm of government wherein populations are once again ruled by oligarchs. In America, progressives have overcome the hurdle of the party system by insinuating their operatives into both parties, yet maintaining the illusion that voters have a choice between competing ideologies.

Here’s another: Every so often, we read about a prominent political couple wherein one member is purportedly a staunch conservative and the other is a fire-breathing liberal. This is highly dubious considering the disparity of core beliefs between the two, something akin to a Baptist or Catholic marrying a practicing Satanist. Such marriages would necessitate the parties being so monumentally shallow that their stated core beliefs meant very little to them, or that the arrangements are simply political theater. Here, the “conservative” is an abject poser, and both parties’ political allegiances are rooted in progressivism.

Take House Speaker Paul Ryan, for example. He’s sold himself as a conservative, but Ryan’s actions, from the time he became speaker until the present, have indicated an individual who is either an ideological progressive, or someone who has become wholly corrupted by the establishment and simply seeks to maintain his place in the sun.

Ryan is married to Janna Ryan, a far-left liberal lawyer and trust fund baby who comes from a traditionally Democratic family. Janna Ryan could arguably be characterized as a left-wing activist. A K Street corporate lobbyist before marrying Ryan, she is described in numerous publications as “a liberal, left-wing progressive, anti-constitutional, big-government George Soros supporter who voted for Barack Hussein liar-nObama twice.” Her interests reportedly include women’s rights and social justice. This has not been widely discussed in the press, other than through the superficial media lens; the Ryans are just another power couple with divergent political beliefs who’ve somehow managed to make their marriage work.

How sweet.

Well, that might play with the undiscerning, but given Ryan’s deportment to date, it ought to raise a whole lot of questions among those seeking discernment concerning this speaker. These “mixed marriages” are but one of many tell-tale clues that such individuals may not be accurately or faithfully representing their political alignment.

This being the case, how might voters become more discerning?

That one is quite simple: If voters come to the realization that meticulously scrutinizing their prospective elected officials is an imperative, many will opt to engage their brains, dig a little deeper and take the steps necessary to really learn about political candidates and officeholders.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/a-dose-of-discernment-needed-to-drain-the-swamp/

What do you think of when you see a little American flag in front of a grave marker? Let me tell you a story about one little flag. As a fighter pilot on my 93rd mission over North Vietnam, my F-105 was hit by an air-to-air missile and my Electronic Warfare Officer Harold Johnson and I, were forced to eject. After unsuccessful rescue attempts, we were captured by enemy forces and imprisoned in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" for the next six years.

One day in our sixth year of imprisonment, a young Navy pilot named Mike Campbell found a piece of cloth in a gutter. After we collected some other small rags, he worked secretly at night to piece them together into a flag. He made red from ground-up roof tiles and blue from tiny amounts of ink, then used rice glue to paste the colors onto the rags. Using thread from his blanket and a homemade bamboo needle, he sewed the pieces together, adding white fragments for stars.

One morning he whispered from the back of our cell, "Hey gang, look here," and proudly held up that tattered American flag, waving it as if in a breeze. We all snapped to attention and saluted — with tears in our eyes.

A week later, the guards were searching our cells and found Mike's flag. That night they pulled him out of the cell and, for his simple gesture of patriotism, they tortured him. At daylight they pushed what was left of Mike back through the cell door.

Today, whenever I see our flag, I think of Mike and the morning he first waved that tattered emblem of our great nation. It was then, thousands of miles from home, imprisoned by a brutal enemy, that he courageously demonstrated the liberty it represents, and that is what I see in every American flag.

.

by William Booth
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ As Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas prepares for his first meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House today, the Arab leader and his advisers are expressing a kind of optimism not heard in years.

The Palestinians are saying they think Trump might be the one - with the right mix of bombast and unpredictability - to restart peace negotiations with Israel with the aim of securing Palestinian borders, a capital and a state.

It is an unusual moment because hope is not in abundant supply in the Middle East these days.

Most Israelis and Palestinians tell pollsters that they have low expectations for any change.

Similarly, former U.S. peace negotiators in Washington and their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem say conditions are not right for a renewal of talks.

"There's incredibly low expectations" for the Trump-Abbas meeting, said David Makovsky, a former negotiator and scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"There's no context for a grand deal," he said. Makovsky said neither Trump's base nor the Jewish American community seems to be pushing for new talks.

But Abbas and his aides insist that movement is possible and say Trump just might be able to make headway.

Nine months of peace talks under then-Secretary of State John hanoi-Kerry broke down amid bitter recriminations by Israelis and Palestinians in April 2014.

Since then, there was a year-long spike in violence by lone-wolf-style Palestinian terrorists armed with knives and family cars, leading to tough countermeasures by Israeli security forces.

Abbas told Japanese reporters last month that he is prepared to hold a trilateral meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington "under the patronage of President Trump."

In an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Trump said: "I want to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians. There is no reason there's not peace between Israel and the Palestinians - none whatsoever."

Some administration officials have pressed for a regionwide push to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, a grand bargain that would give the Palestinians a clear road to statehood in exchange for the moderate Arab states' public recognition of Israel.

Netanyahu often says he is prepared to meet Abbas anywhere, anytime, without preconditions - before listing his preconditions: that Abbas must recognize not only Israel, which Abbas has done, but Israel as "the Jewish state." Abbas has been reluctant to do so, in part because more than 20 percent of the Israeli population consists of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

Today, Israel and its congressional supporters are urging Trump to push Abbas to stop social welfare payments that the Palestinian Authority makes to the families of Palestinian prisoners and assailants, either wounded or killed by Israeli forces during terrorist attacks.

This would be hard for Abbas because prisoners and "martyrs" are almost unassailable in Palestinian society. The issue has become even thornier since one of Abbas's main rivals, Marwan Barghouti, and hundreds of other prisoners began a hunger strike more than two weeks ago. Barghouti was convicted by an Israeli court of five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization.

Abbas is also hemmed in by the Islamist militant movement Hamas, which has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007.

If Trump asks Abbas if he speaks for the Palestinians in Gaza, his answer might be a muddle.

Abbas has been fighting with rival Hamas over payments to government workers in Gaza, security arrangements, taxes and who should pay to keep the lights on in the economically crippled enclave.

This week, Hamas issued a policy document, a kind of addendum of its hard-line anti-Jewish founding charter. The new document states for the first time an apparent acceptance of an interim Palestinian state along pre-1967 borders, without recognizing Israel. Some see a softening of Hamas positions, to stay relevant. Israel called it propaganda from a terrorist organization.

Trump sent former real estate attorney-turned-Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, to Jerusalem and Ramallah in March to explore the possibilities. Greenblatt got good marks from both sides. Trump also named his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as his point man for making peace in the Middle East.

In March, Trump met with Netanyahu at the White House, where administration officials pushed for constraint on the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, on land the Palestinians want for a future state. Those talks ended with no firm agreement. There are about 400,000 Jewish settlers living the West Bank on land they say was promised to them by history and G0D.

By the end of the liar-nObama administration, Palestinian leaders had moved away from seeing Washington as the key to a peace deal, emphasizing instead their campaign to "internationalize" the Palestinian quest for statehood, through U.N. resolutions and a symbolic gathering of world diplomats in Paris.

Trump has spoken with Abbas on the telephone. The meeting today will be their first face-to-face.

Abbas, 82, is not known for his oratory or sparkle, in public or private. He is often guarded and does not hold news conferences or tweet. He is unpopular among his own people, who question his legitimacy. Palestinian elections are years overdue.

But Abbas and his circle want to hear what Trump has to say. "We are glad that now the U.S. administration listens about us from us, and not from third parties," Abbas told the Japanese daily.

Jibril Rajoub, a top Palestinian official and a leader of the dominant Fatah political party, told The Washington Post on Monday: "We are very optimistic. I was in the States recently, and I was told this conflict is a priority issue for President Trump and he is serious to engage and have the ultimate deal."

Rajoub added: "From our side we will cooperate with President Trump. We believe that he is not in the pocket of anyone, except the American people." Trump's "America first" policy extends to national security, "which means settling the core of the conflict in the Middle East," he said.

The new chief representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Husam Zomlot, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz last week: "When you have a president who from Day One commits himself to peace, and invests time and effort in reaching a solution, that's the definition of a historic opportunity."

"President Trump has the political capital, the relationships with all the parties involved, and the will to actually achieve this goal," Zomlot said.

Since taking office, Trump has met with Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, Jordan's King Abdullah II, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Israel's Netanyahu. Dennis Ross, a longtime U.S. peace negotiator, said at a panel Monday in Washington that after 30 years, "I can safely say that we are at a low ebb."

He said, "There's complete disbelief on both sides in an ultimate deal."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/05/02/sebastian-gorka-is-not-a-nazi-n2321228?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=