We hear it daily. Sometimes from the media, sometimes from our work, sometimes from our friends and family. It makes it no less cringing who or where it comes from. One of the more popularized comes on the heels of a statement made by Trump regarding his stance of future immigration of Muslims into the US.
Netanyahu responded to Trump’s statement with the most ridiculous, hypocritical statement of all; “Israel respects all religions.” He said this to raise his own ethical commitment while denouncing Trump’s, and shooting a few Palestinians. Maybe the key in this absurd statement is ‘respect’. What does it mean to respect someone? According to Webster it is – ‘deep admiration and high esteem…honor, high regard, reverence.’ I fail to hear anything remotely likening to reverence in Netanyahu’s vision of Muslims.
Trump made the inflammatory, not-politically-correct statement that if elected he would close the US borders to entry/immigration by Muslims – for a while – until the threat of ISIS could be truly eradicated – as opposed to Obama’s historically infamous, ‘they are contained’. And surprise a firestorm erupted and the media went wild with more publicity!
Netanyahu take note: Israel is divided culturally as follows; 75% Jewish, 18% Muslim and 4% Christian – the balance is ‘other’. Of the 75% Jewish, 67% say they are non-religious, secular or atheist. The northern region of Israel has the highest concentration of Arabs, and assimilation is filled with tension and conflict. It is hardly a bedrock of ‘respect’. I think it would be prudent for Netanyahu to remain disassociated. In his attempt to use the comparison of Jewish people being disqualified from admittance is not only hypocritical it is eerily pathological.
Israel vehemently decries fear of Iran despite the fact that Iran has never instigated war. Israel is taking in exactly zero, as in -0-, Syrian refugees. Why? Because they are potentially terrorist. Hmmm.
Is Trump’s suggestion even legal?
The rhetoric is that his suggestion is unconstitutional and inflammatory and inciting hate. First, and most importantly, the Constitution applies to US citizens. “We the people of the United States…” It does not apply to peoples from other countries. Constitutional rights are a benefit granted citizens of the US. Anyone who is not a citizen is not abridged of these rights because they have yet to apply.
“Insure domestic tranquility” – meaning we are guaranteed a peaceful and harmonious existence through the protection of our police force.
“Provide for the common defense” – meaning that if a threat is perceived, we have the right to act accordingly to protect ourselves and our nation from a hostile takeover.
When politicians don’t even know the verbiage or language of the Constitution that they are called to uphold, when they have no knowledge of it’s purpose, its mission, and its authority, they, not Trump should be called to the plate. Whether you are for or against Trump, make sure you do not add to the mistakes of mis-speech!
That being said:
Trump has again threatened to convert his stance to that of Independent. Why? What would this accomplish?
By aligning with the Republican Party, (Trump was a Democrat just a few years ago), he created a following. Converting mid-stream to Independent and taking that following away from the Republican Party creates a wider division and the opportunity for the Democrats to garner a higher percentage of the votes. In other words, the Democrats would take a win by default as opposed to actual election by a majority of the citizens. Hillary could be elected despite her corruption, fraud and illegalities. Or Sanders could be elected in a sweep of Communism disguised as Socialism.
This would be the Soros decoy tactic assuring a liberal win with a much smaller point margin. In 1968, Nixon barely beat out Humphrey after Independent candidate, Wallace took 13.5% of the votes. In 1980, John Anderson, a Republican, jumped ship to run as an Independent taking just 6.6% of the votes. Reagan won by a landslide against Carter whose record was abysmal. And in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt lost as a Republican and created a new party, The Progressive Party, giving the election to Democrat, Woodrow Wilson in a very contentious campaign of mudslinging.
The last time a third party candidate actually won was in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln, whose political affiliation also wavered from Whig to Republican to National Union, with a mere 39% of the votes. It is worth noting that the Republican Party in his era was actually what our Democrat Party is today. The Whig Party merged into the Republican Party in 1856 due to their shared ideology of ‘liberalism’ and supremacy of Congress. In 1864 the Republicans created a new party, The War Democrats, and Whig Republicans countered with their new name, National Unionists. Lincoln was actually not terribly popular, but won based on a dispersion of the votes.
The most noteworthy effect a third party candidacy has historically created is division. Dividing the vote so as to allow the party that is strongest to become weakened.
Trump? Is that the Soros agenda?
“Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain