Hillary Clinton rattles a mean saber

Balloon Juice called it beating the Likud war drums, another appropriate description of America's former top diplomat publicly slobbering for a pre-emptive strike on some brown people in the eastern Mediterranean.

Palestinian and human rights advocates were aghast over remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on Monday, saying that her speech represented "everything that is bad" with U.S. imperialism and policy in the Middle East.

During the address, Clinton vowed to take the U.S.-Israel relationship to "the next level"—a level which seemingly includes more war and imperialism, few, if any, rights for Palestinians, and definitely no economic boycotts of Israel.

She even used hawk talk against the BDS initiative, exhorting the young draft-eligible warriors in the crowd to arm themselves and run to the front.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at an annual conference held by AIPAC and praised students at colleges and universities who are on “the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS.”

The part of the speech on BDS was specifically directed at young people attending the pro-Israel lobby group’s conference, and it received roaring applause.

During her speech, Clinton declared, “Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate, and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”

Just your standard neoconservative talking points.  Credit her for swinging the terrible, swift sword of  'anti-Semitism' as swiftly and strongly as she uses 'sexism' and 'misogyny' (and her supporters use "Berniebros").  The best defense is a good offense, after all.

Politicians like Clinton and groups like AIPAC use a State Department definition of anti-Semitism. Palestine Legal argues this definition “erroneously includes criticism of Israel as a nation state in the definition.” This departs from the “conventional understanding of anti-Semitism as hate and ethno-religious bias against Jewish people.” It redefines anti-Semitism to include “demonizing Israel,” “applying a double standard to Israel,” and “delegitimizing Israel.”

Words matter, you see.  Did you ever think that Hillary Clinton could get to the right of Donald Trump on foreign policy American hegemony continuous war in the Middle East?

Last month, Trump suggested he was “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that he could negotiate with both parties.

“I think making a deal would be in Israel’s interests,” the brash billionaire said on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “I don’t know one Jewish person that doesn’t want to have a deal, a good deal, a proper deal, but a really good deal. But I would say it’s probably one of the toughest deals. Me being a dealmaker, it’s probably one of the toughest deals in the world to make, because there’s just so many — there’s just so many decades of hatred between the two sides.”

Clinton seized on Trump’s reluctance to take a stand.

“America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival,” she said. “We can’t be neutral when rockets rain down on residential neighborhoods, when civilians are stabbed in the street, when suicide bombers target the innocent. Some things aren’t negotiable. And anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president."

More "Let's Make a Deal" from Donald.  Sounds kind of pussified to me.  At least we know, between the two front-runners, who's got the bigger fingers.  

Maybe the Nobel Committee could award her a pre-emptive Peace Prize, like they did for Obama.  That worked out pretty well.  Not so much for American soldiers or Afghani wedding parties or Syrian children, but Lockheed Martin, et.al. sure turned a tidy profit.  There will always be Republicans who believe Clinton is not more pro-Israel than Trump, however, and Sheldon Adelson is helping with that (hat tip for this link to No More Mister).

In the meantime, tough-talking theocrats like Ted Cruz are sufficiently blocked from their own pandering to the Jewish lobby.  No matter how much he'd actually like to carpet-bomb some country or turn the desert into glass, Cruz and his devout Christian-soldier ilk are only in the fight to see if the prophecies in their favorite book can come true: their Savior floating down from the sky with a thousand angels on white horseback in tow, and them floating up to meet Him.

This Easter season, it's not rebirth being celebrated.  It's death.

Texas Green Party state convention scheduled for April 9, 10

The pastoral Grey Forest community in Bexar County will host the state's Green Party delegates, candidates, and conventioneers in early spring.

The GPTX state nominating convention will take place April 9. Voting delegates were elected at the county nominating conventions on March 19, where the party also voted to grant the Green Party nomination to candidates who will appear on the general election ballot in November. This process is similar to the major parties' primary elections, except it is done 'caucus-style'.

Delegates will also consider any resolutions brought up from the counties.

The GPTX state meeting occurs the following day -- Sunday, April 10th -- when delegates elect party officers and conduct other party business. There will be three At-Large SEC positions filled in addition to Co-Chair, Treasurer, & Secretary. If you are interested in running for one of the party officer positions, please inform the state co-chairs at the contact below so that you can be listed in the agenda packet. Nominations will be accepted at the meeting. Party-building and candidate support workshops will also be held.

Delegates from the counties to the GPTX state convention and meeting are kindly requested to RSVP for planning purposes as breakfast and lunch will be provided. There is no charge to attend the state convention, but donations to offset the costs are requested.

WHEN: April 9, beginning at 8 a.m. and April 10, 2016

WHERE:

Grey Forest Clubhouse
18249 Sherwood Trail
Grey Forest, TX 78023

Google map and directions

CONTACT: valkyrie at calicodmp dot com

Harris County's Greens approved the following candidates for the November ballot:

• Joshua Darr, US House District 2
• Thomas Kleven, US House District 18
• James Partsch-Galvan, US House District 29
• Joseph McElligott, Texas House District 127
• Brian M. Harrison, Texas House District 147
• Laura Palmer, State Board of Education District 6
• Natalie Upchurch, Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

A full list of Green Party statewide filings can be found here.  (George Reiter, the US House candidate for District 9, and Deb Shafto, the Texas Senate District 6 nominee, withdrew from their respective races without a candidate selected to replace them.  In doing so, they cited conflicts with their positions on Houston Pacifica affiliate KPFT's local station board.  If they were to run for public office, that board's by-laws would require that they resign their posts.)

The GPUS will hold its presidential nominating convention this August at the University of Houston's main campus.  Registration -- including meals and lodging -- is open for that event.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes we could be in Cuba with President Obama right now -- instead of looking over these busted NCAA brackets -- in bringing you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff looked at the legislative and judicial primary runoffs for Harris County.

When Libby Shaw at Daily Kos learned some of the drinking water supplies in the state exceeded the federal standard for arsenic, she asked how will small government -- government-loathing lawmakers -- react? What will they do? Nothing, of course. Pretend the problem does not exist. No Worries Texas. We Can Shoot the Arsenic Out of the Water.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is disgusted to see Greg Abbott leading the charge against legal voters in Texas, but, he is not the only one. The wrongly-named American Civil Rights Union wants to disenfranchise voters, too.

Socratic Gadfly, with new news about it, updates a major blog piece from last fall about the First Amendment, politicization of academics, academic freedom, and fired professor Melissa Click.

Hillary Clinton admitted to Chris Matthews that she sold her vote to invade Iraq for $20 billion, to George W. Bush. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs is glad that's finally cleared up.

Guest columnist Judge Brian Holman writes a guest column in the Lewisville Texan Journal about that city court system's improving indigent defense.

Bluedaze posted details of the "100% renewable" Denton town hall this week, and Texas Vox announced the upcoming public hearing calling for better city management in Austin.

Neil at All People Have Value said that people in the Houston area should stop doing dumb things that cause wildfires. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Dos Centavos advanced H-Town's Cesar Chavez parade.

===================

Juanita Jean contemplates the sheer awesomeness of a Trump/Carson ticket, Election Law Blog has Ted Cruz's "Voter Fraud Joke of the Day", and Trail Blazers helps shoot down the rumor that Rick Perry will be drafted for president at a brokered GOP convention this summer.

Prairie Weather commented on the media narrative about the presumptive winners in our nation's presidential nomination process, but doesn't specify the actual losers.

Grits for Breakfast wants to know why the Texas Rangers seem incapable of rooting out local corruption when they are called upon to investigate it.

Ty Clevenger complains about the State Bar of Texas' refusal to take action against Ken Paxton, and The Houston Press realized that state Sen. Donna Campbell of San Antonio apparently doesn't understand the (almost worthless) medical cannabis bill she voted for in the last legislative session.

Lone Star Ma focuses on the 9th of the United Nations' new sustainable development goals: "Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation." And Houston Strategies took note of the recent Atlantic piece that pointed out the inconvenient truth about income inequality and affordable housing in "liberal" cities.

Dan Solomon talks to Wendy Davis about Dawn Porter’s abortion law documentary Trapped, among other things.

The Makeshift Academic reminds us that Merrick Garland has a lot of company in the confirmation process.

Pages of Victory paraphrases one of Charles Dickens' most famous sentences in compiling a list of his own.

Kate Braun of The Rag Blog observed the convergence of pagan and non-pagan spring rituals: the vernal equinox and Palm Sunday.

And congratulations go to Somervell County Salon on her blog's eleventh anniversary.

Sunday Funnies

Three-dimensional chess not necessary

When checkers is too tough for your opponents.

My favorite of all was LDS Bishop Hatch saying this ...

GOP Sen. Hatch last week: Obama "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that" https://t.co/pKzQ80UKQt

— Sudeep Reddy (@Reddy) March 16, 2016

... and then Jake Tapper elbowed the Utahn in the teeth with this:

CNN's Jake Tapper challenges Sen. Orrin Hatch: "You must be thrilled Obama followed your suggestion" on SCOTUS nom. https://t.co/eK5RnbUPfV

— Media Matters (@mmfa) March 16, 2016

Even when you consider the mean IQ of these Republickin pigs running the Senate, Judge Garland is still a sacrificial lamb to the politics of the extremists.

Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit will most likely not become Justice Merrick Garland of the Supreme Court, at least not while President Barack Obama remains in office. He seems unlikely to get even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a vote either by that panel or the whole Senate. 

And it may be partly because it’s hard to imagine an Obama nominee more likely to win confirmation, if the Republicans allowed a vote.

He wouldn't have been my choice, but as when Antonin Scalia asked for Elena Kagan in 2009 (he got Sonia Sotomayor that year and Kagan in 2010) the opinion of the current SCOTUS judges as to who might be worthy to join them is apparently given serious consideration.

So respected is Garland as a judge that Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing (in 2005), answered a question about one of his majority opinions by noting that Judge Garland had dissented and, said Roberts, "Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area."

Yeah, but still no, and that's a win-win.

(T)he pitched political battle over Garland’s fate could turn in unexpected ways, and will shape – and be shaped by – the 2016 race: Not just Donald Trump’s unprecedented presidential bid but the fight to control the Senate, in which a platoon of Senate Republicans are facing stiff challenges. 

[...] 

Garland’s nomination would need 14 Republicans to disrupt an inevitable filibuster, and five to be confirmed. Even if (SML Mitch) McConnell had not drawn that early line in the sand, that would not have been easy, but it would not have been impossible, and surely would have carried shorter odds than if Obama had chosen a nominee closer to the base of the Democratic party. Put differently, there would be comparatively little political danger to the GOP in considering, and rejecting a liberal firebrand, even one plucked from the ranks of women or minorities.

So who do you want picking your next Supreme Court justice (if it can't be Bernie Sanders, that is)? Trump with a Democratic Senate, or Clinton with a Democratic Senate?

For the Republican base, the issue is even more stark: it’s not just a question of how Garland would vote, it’s their refusal to countenance handing Obama any sort of victory. Polls conducted before Garland’s nomination found nearly seven in ten Republicans saying Obama shouldn’t even try to fill the seat. 

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus captured the two notions – the court’s potential shift, anger at Obama – on Twitter. “We won’t stand by while Obama attempts to install a liberal majority on #SCOTUS to undermine our Constitution & protect his lawless actions,” he said.

Overlook the misuse of the definition of the word 'lawless' here; this is the expiring establishment GOP making one last symbolic stand for their rebel base.  There's a little more back-and-forth at the link about whether McConnell will fold, whether the Republican senators on the verge of being swept out of office in a blue wave will convince him to at least hold a hearing, even if it's to turn down the best nominee suited to their philosophy they will ever get.  

Obama's already standing at the finish line while they are lacing up their shoes.

“We have forced them into a telescoping series of untenable positions, where even agreeing to meet with the guy is a cave in the view of their base,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide. 

“It’s a win-win situation. Either we get the confirmation, and change the balance of the court for a generation, or they have to fight to November defending the most extreme, untenable position of no-votes, and we’ll annihilate them on that,” the aide said. “And then President Clinton nominates” Scalia’s successor. 

So, the aide said, “I don’t care if McConnell caves or not.”

Checkmate, Mr. Turtle.  Care for a game of checkers?  You can be black this time ...

The hearse is waiting outside

There's room for another casket.  The one already in the back is ... little.

Clinton’s victories in Ohio, Florida, Illinois and North Carolina put her firmly on course to defeat her primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As the results were announced on Tuesday evening, she took the stage before a boisterous crowd of supporters here and seemed to pivot towards the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, who also won in Florida.

“We are moving closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination and winning this election in November!” Clinton declared.

No polling versus reality shockers to be had on this night.

It looked as if Sanders might prove the Clinton campaign’s bullish prediction wrong after he won a stunning upset in Michigan on March 8, but Clinton’s victories on Tuesday helped her stop Sanders’ momentum and establish a seemingly unbeatable lead.

Though Clinton was expected to win the primaries in North Carolina and Florida on Tuesday, polls showed her potentially losing in Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Illinois. Even if Sanders had won all of the states that were in play on Tuesday, he would still have faced an uphill battle. However, by taking Ohio and Illinois, Clinton definitively pulled ahead.

Elsewhere, the mood was more that of a wake.

Sanders took the stage shortly after Clinton’s appearance in Florida and addressed more than 7,000 of his cheering supporters in a convention center in Phoenix with his usual stump speech. The 74-year-old senator mentioned raising the minimum wage, getting money out of politics, fixing free trade deals and reforming the criminal justice system, among other typical stump-speech issues.

What Sanders didn’t mention were the five states that voted in the Democratic primaries Tuesday night, and what the results meant for his viability as a candidate. This was in contrast to Sanders’ election night appearance on Super Tuesday, when he explicitly downplayed his mixed showing and reassured his supporters he would take the fight to “every” state. In contrast with most election night gatherings, there were no TVs showing primary results in Phoenix, so Sanders’ supporters were not shown Clinton’s wins racking up in the background as the evening progressed. Arizona’s Democrats vote next Tuesday, and Sanders is expected to do well in the state.

Thanks again, corporate media.

No major cable network carried his speech, which coincided with Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s remarks and later, as Sanders continued speaking, with Donald Trump’s victory speech.

So we wait a bit longer for Team Sanders to wake up and smell the coffee, bust a move, and instruct his support network which way to go.  If you know any Sanders people, you already know that they're considering all options.  Since so many of them aren't Democrats -- like Sanders himself, allegedly -- we should expect to see wholesale defections among the blue ranks as Clinton turns her battleship to the right and steams ahead for the fall.  And there ought to be plenty of Republicans for them to recruit.

That's the only interesting storyline left to unfold (as far as I'm concerned): post-Sanders, how do the Democrats plan, go, and do in the general.  They may have been gifted with another Goldwater ... or perhaps will deliver us the nation's worst nightmare.  There's a bitter pill the #NeverTrumps have to swallow.  Will they?

Some Democrats say it's just like 2008 and  Hillary's PUMAs: everybody will get over their upset and fall in line, get onboard.  Eventually.  By November.

I'll just be glad to get to blogging about some things beside the presidentials every day after the past two months.

Against Bernie Sanders

(Open Source Dem, aka J. R. Behrman, infrequent poster here, former SD-13 committee chair, former presiding judge of the Harris County EVBB, former chair of the Texas Democratic Party's Progressive Populist Caucus -- among other honoraria -- posted this to his Facebook page after sending it to me.  I offered him my deepest condolences on the loss of his wife last week.)

I oppose the nomination of Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont. 

That is a surprise to some who fancy me a "left-wing" member of the Democratic Party. After all, I supported George McGovern back in the day. I supported Howard Dean there for a while. Moreover, I did not just support Barack Obama in 2008, I fought the pro-Clinton state party establishment tooth and nail through the highly contested primary and convention process. 

No, Belinda and I are so conservative we come around from the other side to a sort of traditional liberalism. 

Moreover, I have grave reservations about Secretary Clinton and her "permanent campaign" entourage, not least their reprise of the "inevitable" campaign. It is not doing her any good now, and it will be a burden for her when she challenges whoever or, dare I say, whatever the GOP comes up with. 

So why my change now? 

First, it will take not a "village" but an entire national party to defeat the GOP at all echelons of government today in 50 gerrymandered states and dozens of rotten Congressional Districts. 

Sanders is an independent and has kept his distance from the Democratic Party -- unlike, say, Howard Dean. Our nominee must first take the reins of the Democratic Party. 

Second, Hillary Clinton has been an altogether loyal and constructive contributor to the administration of President Obama. 

Sure, Sanders' socialism is somewhat attractive to me, as far as it goes. Labels do not scare me. But, President Obama is not a socialist (or a Muslim). He has pretty much exhausted the limits of what can be done in just one of the nine echelons of our dysfunctional government and politics. These accomplishments do not deserve Sanders' conceited dismissal. 

No, his socialism is almost a museum piece and does not even begin to provide a robust intellectual foundation for future governments. As Paul Glastris at Washington Monthly says, Sanders is "intellectually consistent but not intellectually honest." 

Even venerable socialist governments and even the formidable Green parties in Europe or charismatic leaders like Yanis Varoufakis are struggling to dump obsolete or delusional intellectual frameworksto govern their own parties, and to fix a broken socialist international. 

Finally, Bernie Sanders is simply a novelty. Sure, he is charming and attractive to political junkies who are disillusioned with and critical of our party and government. 

(Yes, that could be said of me.) 

But I stand with those like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, who expect to see more actual progress from a Clinton administration than a Sanders crusade. 

In any event, here is what I would like to do: 

Build a strong party 

Sanders would need and Clinton will need a new kind of political party to actually govern. This is where the most radical of new ideas can flourish, because a political party is "lightweight" -- a good thing in engineering -- even "flimsy". It is easily transformed almost overnight. No negotiations or "deals" with the crazy-right are necessary or even possible. 

Not a lousy claque 

A political party is not, actually, an extension of government, though you would not know that here in one-party Texas with its kludge of cornpone state and county parties. No, my party should be a check on government and an instrument of the people. In our case, that is a party rooted in republican principle and built on democratic aspirations. 

Make it work 

This means that the Sanders and Clinton supporters will have to have a voice in party affairs, will have to cultivate party loyalty, and will have to stop political exit on the left that is manifest as despair and apathy. Otherwise, right-wing extremism will just keep growing and poisoning everything. 

Right here, right now! 

There is actually no better place to start that transformation than Harris and eight surrounding counties in Texas. It will take strategy, planning, and finance. That is where I hope to play a role. 

But not for a while. 

The wheels are off my life right now, following Belinda's death. I will sign in at the desultory Senate District Convention, but not attend the silly state convention. 

After the national election, it will be time to consider robust reconstruction of the post-Reconstruction Texas Democratic Party. It is now just an antique facility for bi-partisan concession-tending that is no longer viable at any echelon of government or politics.