Friday, August 16, 2019

Ben Shapiro: Israel made a 'big mistake' barring Omar and Tlaib from visiting

https://www.foxnews.com/media/israel-omar-tlaib-ben-shapiro-trump

Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro claimed Thursday that Israel made an error in judgment by barring Rep. Ilhan Omar D-Minn., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., from visiting the Jewish state and said the Israeli government played right into the lawmakers' hands.

"Is this a smart move by Israel? No. It is a very not smart move by Israel," Shapiro said on his eponymous radio program Thursday.

"If Omar and Tlaib had just gone to Israel and then they had done their little propaganda tour about how Israel is evil and shouldn't exist -- then their ten fans would cheer and everybody else would sigh and roll their eyes," Shapiro said. "This is actually giving Omar and Tlaib what they want in terms of PR so they can falsely claim that Israel doesn't tolerate dissent."

12 comments :

  1. Kalonymus AnonymusAugust 16, 2019 at 5:44 PM

    Clinton in Power was pressuring Israel into dangerous concessions. Now, the left wingers think they are still in Power. They are just communists like Bernie Sanders.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes -- and this is why the Israeli government originally agreed to the visit.

    However, once Trump got involved, Israel would have had to deal with the consequences of crossing him -- and that would have been far more costly than the fallout from not letting them in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When the President invites them to leave America, complaints. When the Prime Minister tells them to stay in America, complaints.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think there was a "right" move in this. The squad was out for blood and no matter what Israel's response was, they were going to twist it to fit their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “Ben Shapiro: Israel made a 'big mistake'”
    No. Irwin Haut et al made a big mistake claiming I abandoned Susan. See
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-file-an-enemy-of-the-court-brief-11565911608
    amicus brief, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand
    Reading SCOTUS 18-280 gives me ideas for my SCOTUS 18-9390. Allow me my letter today:
    1.I request permission to submit these papers concerning my motion 649 7/15/2019.
    I'm attaching an affidavit of service proving I mailed by UPS a true copy to Susan.

    2.I claim Judge Prus is a hostile judge and that the 1995 Rigler Order of Separation is a forgery. Hostile means unfriendly; antagonistic. “a hostile audience”
    synonyms: antagonistic, aggressive, confrontational, belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious, militant, truculent, combative, warlike.

    3.I claim that the issue of violation of ERISA makes my case of immense relevance to American citizens. I quote from Appendix C in my SCOTUS 18-9390
    US Federal Judge Sand March 6, 2009 BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a resident of Israel, brings this complaint as part of his ongoing efforts to overturn a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) issued by the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, to enforce his child support obligations. Plaintiff and his ex-wife were divorced by foreign decree on February 17, 1993. On October 17, 1997, a QDRO was issued in the matrimonial action by the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, establishing child support payments. Aranoff v. Aranoff 682 NY.S. 2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). The QDRO directed plaintiff's pension fund to pay his ex-wife 55\% of the benefits payable under his annuity contracts. Id. Plaintiff appealed the order contending that it was invalid and in violation of ERISA. On December 14, 1998, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the order. Id. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's subsequent motion to appeal on July 8, 1999. Aranoff v. Aranoff, 93 N.Y.2d 1000 (N.Y. 1999). Plaintiff then sought relief in this Court by filing an action against defendant. See Aranoff v. TIAA-CREF, No. 01 Civ. 2543 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2001). By order dated March 26, 2001, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, former Chief Judge of this Court, dismissed plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that both the Rooker-Feldstein doctrine and the domestic
    relations exception to federal jurisdiction barred the Court from reviewing the state court's QDRO.

    4.I'm a retired professor, living happily in Israel with my wife, also retired. Our 3 daughters hold dual citizenship: USA and Israel. We live on our pensions and on Israel and America social security. I appeal to COA NYS not to give me the brush aside but to grant my motion 649, a motion for reargument. SCOTUS 18-280 shows that opposition claims case is moot, a possible good reason to justify brushing off a petition. There is no good reason to brush aside my petition motion 649. Many are following my case.
    I quote the Bible, Book of Job 31:13-15: Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants, man or maid, When they made a complaint against me? What then should I do when God arises; When He calls me to account, what should I answer Him? Did not He who made me in my mother's belly make him? Did not One form us both in the womb?
    Both SCOTUS 18-280 and my SCOTUS 18-9390 are set for October 1, 2019 ruling, interesting, yes, my friends? I support Trump and Netanyahu.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't call them squad, but rather squid.

    "Squid distract attacking predators by ejecting a cloud of ink, giving themselves an opportunity to escape."
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid

    The squid just want to get covered by the press (by much "ink").

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's a plan: Gerald Aranoff returns to the U.S. He waits for a seat to open up on the SCOTUS. The President appoints him and the Senate confirms his SCOTUS appointment. Geral Aranoff then accepts the motion to hear his case. He rules in his own favor, and then resigns immediately following the outcry that he should have recused himself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kalonymus AnonymusAugust 18, 2019 at 1:53 PM

    the rashaa, tlaim, yemach shmam, is now refusing the visa granted by Israel. Everyone is laughing at her for her hypocrisy and dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hope all that fence-sitting isn't giving Ben a pain in his tuchus

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joseph Orlow “Here's a plan: Gerald Aranoff returns to the U.S.”
    No. Allow me to talk of SCOTUS 18-280:
    “Jan 22 2019 Petition GRANTED.
    Aug 13 2019 Amicus brief of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
    Amicus Neal Goldfarb is an attorney who has an interest and expertise in linguistics and in applying the lessons of linguistics to legal interpretation. He has written extensively about the latter topic, in journal articles, amicus briefs, and blog posts at AWnLinguistics. He is currently a Dean’s Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University Law Center, but he files this in his personal capacity.”
    The issue is if US citizens in NYS having a gun license, can walk around outside their home with their licensed guns? Israeli citizens can walk around outside their homes in Israel with their licensed guns.
    My view. Rights of USA citizens with a NYS gun license get the brush aside. Bravo SCOTUS granted the petition on Jan. 22, 2019.
    In my case I’ve been getting the brush aside from Irwin Haut et al. Why? I’m a white male religious Zionist defending husband rights against a popular feminist angry/rebellious wife. I’m expecting SCOTUS October 1, 2019: Petition GRANTED. Why? 1) My evidence of forgery, of the 1995 Rigler Order of Separation they refuse to send me a copy of. 2) My evidence of violations of ERISA in TIAA paying Susan since early 1994 55% of my pension.
    When SCOTUS grants my petition 18-9390, then the brush aside is over and legal debates will first start. Joseph Orlow, I need a cancellation of the $25,000 fines against me for me to even visit America. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Allow me to show here my movie review I just wrote:
    Yes I thoroughly enjoyed Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019). I saw the film last night with my daughter. I live in Israel, a PhD economist, a Trump and Netanyahu supporter. This is my take on the film. The evil in the film is the evil terrorism coming out of the mullahs from Iran. At the beginning a terrorist attack with many dying: terrible. The girl, a superwoman, and man in black after her, a black superman: hardly a scratch. We pray for a full recovery of Nahum who evil terrorist car rammed him last Friday and cracked his skull in Gush Etzion. The film shows battle scenes with explosions. Near the end we see 4 drone attacks and helicopters and weapons doing tremendous damage to a factory. Looks like today’s news item: “The Houthis said in a statement Saturday that they had targeted Shaybah with 10 drones.” How to fight the evil mullahs in Iran? Hobbs and Shaw show in the movie that it’s possible to beat the evil by the good humans working together. They put aside their own rivalries to defeat the evil mullahs from Iran. Happy ending.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.