In this final episode of the Conservative Conscience for 2016, Daniel lays bare the truth about the so-called Palestinian cause. The entire historical, legal, and geographical case for why there is no such thing as a distinct Arab “Palestinian” entity entitled to any land west of the Jordan River is recounted in this long episode.
It is incontrovertibly clear from a legal and historical standpoint that Israel has just as much of a right to exist in its so-called post-1967 borders as it does in its pre-’67 borders. It is also patently obvious that from a geographical, moral, and security standpoint that anyone advocating a two state solution is implicitly denying Israel’s right to exist in any capacity. Israel has already surrendered 94% of the land it acquired in a defensive war against its existence – The Sinai Peninsula and Gaza. Anyone promoting an Arab Muslim state in the remaining 6% that would gut the heart of the tiny Jewish state – especially in light of the fact that Muslims control a land mass 640 times greater than Israel – is either woefully ignorant or supports something much more sinister.
It's time to get the facts straight: there already is an Arab Palestinian state – Jordan. The two-state solution was carved out in 1922 in the last legally recognized agreement delineating boundaries of nation states. Arabs got 77% of the Mandate for Palestine, which was all the land east of the Jordan River, while Jews got the land to the west of the river. History doesn’t lie.
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people." [PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977.
"The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan." [King Hussein, December 1981 interview with A - Nahar Al – Arabi]
“What you call Jordan is actually Palestine.” [Yassir Arafat, 1974 interview with New Republic]
Starting things off on this episode of the Conservative Conscience, Daniel gives a rundown of examples showing the establishing winning more control in the nascent Trump administration. What was once a promise to drain the swamp is looking more and more like an exercise in making the worst elements of the swamp great again. While it’s important to fight for a few key conservative victories that are within reach, we must also voice our concerns early and often about harmful policies and personnel. We can’t afford to wait six years to pushback against “our own party” like we did during the Bush years.
Next, we move onto our latest update on judicial tyranny. There is no way to sugar-coat this. The federal courts pose an imminent threat to our republic. It’s worse than ever. The courts are destroying our culture, inclinable rights, Constitution, and system of government. They have already redefined marriage and now are redefining human sexuality. This is broadly consequential and is not just about bathrooms. And judicial tyranny is not going to change simply with the election of Trump – unless we get the administration to engage in battle with the courts. Simply appointing a few conservative judges, most of whom will uphold existing anti-constitutional “precedent” anyway, is like spitting in the wind.
In this episode, Daniel gives a background on Marbury v. Madison and shows how judicial review is very different from judicial supremacy or judicial exclusivity. All branches of government have a say in constitutional interpretation because, as John Marshall observed, they all swear an oath to uphold the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution, not the courts.
Using the latest cases surrounding transgenderism, Daniel demonstrates how the other branches of government can cut the legs out from under bad court decisions by using their legitimate powers to counter the court’s abuse of its power. Unless the Trump Justice Department, Congress, and the states begin pushing back against the courts, they will nullify every common sense policy we enact on a federal and state level beginning in January, thereby rendering the election moot.
“Judicial supremacy/exclusivity + one directional stare decisis + unelected life tenures + living and breathing Constitution = an equation of tyranny King George himself never envisioned.”
“The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” ~ James Madison, Federalist #49
Are we going to wait six years to hold Republicans accountable like we did during the Bush years? Are we going to lose our intellectual honesty and back everything a Republican administration does just because the Democrats are also hypocrites? Didn’t we swear to ourselves we wouldn’t repeat the mistakes of the Bush years?
In this episode of the Conservative Conscience, Daniel reveals that he is getting bad vibes about many aspects of the transition. So many Bush “globalists” are being brought on board and the Reince Priebus establishment faction appears to be winning over Trump on many key decisions.
Consequently, now more than ever we must not get sucked into defending bad policies and choices just because Democrats did the same or worse. It’s time to pull this administration back towards the grassroots rebellion at every opportunity we get so we can have an administration that stands on its own veracity.
You will never find Democrat administrations with a single major player who harbors conservative views on a single issue. Yet, somehow we take it as a given that in a Republican administration the most powerful cabinet pick, Secretary of State, could be given to someone who is pro-common core, anti-sanctions, pro carbon tax, anti-energy independence, and a leader in the homosexual agenda. Now we hear that John Bolton might not be picked for Deputy Sec. of State, while liberals such as Elliot Abrams and Richard Haass are being considered instead. This is part of a pattern of choosing the path to least resistance. Kris Kobach was passed over as DHS Secretary and likely as Deputy as well for the same reason.
Finally, we show how Democrats never surrender their principles even when they lose power. Why do we surrender ours when we win? John Kasich won’t even fight for a pro-life bill because he refuses to stand up to the legal profession, yet liberals have no problem thwarting federal immigration law.
“When you lack an ideological rudder, you will choose the path to least resistance every day of the week. When you surround yourself with people who likewise lack a burning passion for conservatism, they will accentuate that reluctance to fight in every situation.”
Trump has made his decision on the big cabinet post — secretary of State — and it’s ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson.
There is no way to sugar-coat this: Tillerson is a disastrous pick. Those who share the mentality of transnational corporate leaders like Tillerson are pre-conditioned to supporting the foreign policy establishment mindset on critical issues so as not to upset the applecart and what’s good for business.
While much of his issue portfolio is a blank slate, what we know about him and his past comments are disturbing. These concerns go beyond his ties to Russia, which in fact, should not even be the primary focus of his confirmation hearings. The real concern cuts to the core of what conservatives are looking for in any department head, especially the State Department.
Trump should have appointed a secretary of State who regards the current State Department with as much disdain as Scott Pruitt regards the EPA. The problem we have at the State Department is not a management crisis. We have a moral and intellectual problem with the State Department that has persisted for decades. It stems from a deep-rooted culture of moral relativism and an “America-last” mindset. As such, we needed a man with a strong ideological rudder who understands the issues, is on the right side of them, and willing to bust up the entire State Department structure and the global foreign policy apparatus.
Both sides of this debate are too consumed with Russia — pro and con. Some of the new pro-Russia “conservatives” are praising Tillerson just because he’s close to Putin. Opponents, such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are voicing concerns solely because of his ties to Russia. However, there are many other foreign policy issues that are important.
For example, is a man with his background really the type of person to oppose refugees, a Palestinian State, cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Where does he stand on political Islam? Where does he stand on the Iran deal and reinstating sanctions? Does he support backing “Syrian rebels” in the Syrian civil war, helping Iran in Iraq, or our current involvement in Libya? What would he do about the 15-year disaster in Afghanistan?
To be fair, these are all questions that must be answered by any nominee, but traditionally we’ve had some sense of direction from the nominee before the Senate confirmation hearings, which don’t take place until the administration is already up and running.
And although we know nothing about where Tillerson stands on these issues, he is absolutely not the type of person who would fight the inveterate players and insufferable mentality within the system that stands opposed to America’s interests. That is why people like James Baker, Condi Rice, Bob Corker, and Robert Gates — the embodiment of the problem with foreign policy — are enthusiastically supporting him.
In that respect, nominees for secretary of State are much like Supreme Court picks. Given the one-directional gravitational pull and inertia towards liberalism within the legal profession, unless someone has absolutely demonstrated a record as a solid originalist willing to buck the system, he will wind up being a David Souter. There is no middle ground. Likewise, with foreign policy, if someone has not demonstrably opposed the Baker/Condi views on open borders, Palestinians, and political Islam, he will be part of the problem.
The most important quality in politics is a strong and fierce ideological conviction to fight the moral relativism in global affairs. Other qualities are important but useless if someone is lacking that ideological rudder to row upstream in this environment. Even someone who is inherently neutral on these issues will wind up downstream in the cesspool of the global foreign policy establishment, much less someone with the connections, mindset, and “pragmatism” of a major transnational CEO.
Tillerson’s past comments in support of Common Core, a carbon tax, the homosexual agenda at the Boy Scouts, and TPP are not mere distractions to his foreign policy views, as some might suggest.
First, we must remember that the State Department has been used as a conduit to support social liberalism for years. But more foundationally, they reveal an establishment mindset that would preclude him from bucking the trend on issues that are clearly within the scope of secretary of State, such as refugees, Syria, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Tillerson is likely the first nominee for secretary of State ever who has absolutely no political — much less foreign — policy experience. Some supporters laud this fact as a symbol of an “outsiders’” administration. However, these people don’t understand what it means to be a true outsider or insider. There is no greater outsider than one who worked in the system, understands the issues and the politics, and swam upstream to fight the ideology of the political establishment. Conversely, there is no greater insider than someone who never officially worked in the field but subscribes to and is connected to the very essence of the system.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having no official diplomatic experience, if he understands the issues and policies, and most importantly, subscribe to the right ideology and is willing to fight the global elites to change course on the critical issues.
I’d take a guy like Andy McCarthy as secretary of State any day of the week, even though he never worked in the State Department. But Tillerson is not exactly an Andy McCarthy.
As Mark Levin asked last week, if this is just about making deals across the world why not appoint the CEO of 7-Eleven? Indeed, we’ve come a long way from the days of John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph as Secretaries of State.
Unless conservatives get positive answers on some of these critical questions, they should not vote to confirm Tillerson. We don’t need another Bob Corker, albeit with closer ties to Putin.
It’s exactly one month into the world of President-elect Donald Trump. In this episode of the Conservative Conscience, Daniel assesses the first month of policies, statements, and cabinet picks and tries to glean a sense of direction from the nascent administration. There appears to be a lot of promise as it relates to military, national security, terrorism, and immigration. On the other hand, there are challenges ahead for fiscal conservatism, with the notable exception of regulatory reform.
The task for conservatives is to come forward with an aggressive positive agenda that speaks to the strengths of Trump and channels some of the misdirection into good constitutional policies. As it relates to the bad economic policies, conservatives will have to stop him from doing further damage.
The key is to focus Trump on national security and the border and distract him from his other big government ideas. Take a page out of Madison:
“The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.” [James Madison, Federalist #45]
In middle of a national debate over Islamic refugees, a Somali refugee committed a terror attack in Columbus, Ohio, last week, thereby proving the veracity of those who are concerned by the current resettlement program. Meanwhile, the daughter of a top EU-official was brutally raped and murdered in Germany by an Afghani refugee. Yet, political leaders from both parties are awfully silent on the refugee issue. Even Trump has failed to mention it beyond a quick Facebook post.
In order to get the facts right on refugee resettlement, Daniel invited Leo Hohmann of WND to discuss his new book, Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and the Resettlement Jihad, with the Conservative Conscience audience. Scheduled for release next month, this book chronicles all of the new information on refugee resettlement and how it is transforming some of our small communities, subverting our culture, and endangering our security. This is about more than just preventing the next terror attack, but slowing the growth of a subversive culture that will undermine our way of life – similar to what is happening in Europe today. If you want to be armed with the facts on the refugee issue, Leo Hohmann is the go-to man.
On Refugee Contractors: “As far back as 2000, David M. Robinson, a former acting director of the refugee bureau in the State Department, described the insidious power of the contractors as follows: The agencies form a single body [that] wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year and at the same time provides overseas processing for admissions under contract to the State department. In fact, the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget. If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned.” [Chapter 8 of Stolen Sovereignty]