June 9, 2015, - 3:11 pm

VIDEO: Supreme Court Sides w/ Obama State Dept in Dissing Israel; Schlussel & Taxin

By Debbie Schlussel

videoisraeliflag

Yesterday, after news broke of the Supreme Court decision dissing Israel and refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, host Adam Taxin and I discussed the decision. I’ve written about the case on this site before and all the background info you need is here. Watch the video . . .







The sound isn’t that great on my end, so next time, I’ll use a different phone.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS decision negates a law passed by Congress requiring the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on documents such as birth and death certificates. It’s believed that there are at least 100,000 Americans with passports identifying Israel as their birthplace, 50,000 of them with Jerusalem listed as the city of birth. So, 50,000 Americans are now “stateless” regarding their birthplace which is and always has been the eternal Jewish capital.

The Bush Administration fought against the Plaintiffs in it, the Zivotofsky family (whose son was born in Jerusalem, ISRAEL, which the State Department refused to put on his passport). But the Obama Administration picked up the fight with even more gusto, as I note in the video.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Tags:


33 Responses

Precisely the reason not to support Jeb Bush – there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he’d be less hostile to Israel than either his father or brother. You won’t see a John Bolton as Secretary of State.

The State Department needs a complete purge from top down, but I doubt that they’ll get it, particularly if Bush or Christie or Gramm or Perry is the GOP nominee.

Infidel on June 9, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    Infidel,

    John Bolton CONDEMNED Israeli settlements as an “obstacle to peace” when he served as Dubya’s UN ambassador.

    Scott on June 9, 2015 at 11:44 pm

and the muslim obamboozle has the gall to say he’s the “most jewish” president we’ve ever had. it’s blasphemy.

kirche61 on June 9, 2015 at 3:57 pm

Of course opposition to Jerusalem being Israel’s capital has been a bipartisan affair running for 12 administrations.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to change in the future – it won’t as long as I’m alive and possibly a lot longer.

NormanF on June 9, 2015 at 4:16 pm

In the past, Ms. Schlussel has pointed out and explained that no matter who’s in charge of the US Presidency, they’ve been “Arabists” by being funneled in with tons of money from Islamic and Arab pressure groups in this country, and to her own credit, DS has displayed empirical-data to back up what she’s saying, instead of passing around “anecdotal” fallacious conspiracy-theories (I for one whenever Debbie posted the information in any of her writings, I check it out for myself to “fact-check”, whereas DS is being 100% honest with us and the public). So I’m really non too stunned by such decisions of our government refusing to recognized Jerusalem as the main capital of Israel!

Sean R. on June 9, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Good thing Obola put the “wise Latina” in there.

DS_ROCKS! on June 9, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    Obambi has made wonderful nominations to the Supreme Court – and supported by the RINOS in congress. The not so “Wise” Latina and the repulsive JINO who bragged to congress about going to Chinese restaurants on Christmas Day. These two activists – and they are activists – are about as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, as I am. The state run media quickly quashed the fact(s) that while serving on a lower court, Sotomayor’s chief justice spent most of his waking hours admonishing this affirmative action hire for sloppy work and correcting her erroneous writings. Obambi certainly scraped the bottom of the barrel for these two. How far we have fallen.

    Victoryman on June 10, 2015 at 8:04 am

The SCOTUS is merely carrying out a US foreign policy position dictated by CIA and the US Department of State that has been in place for decades, and any legal arguments that purport to support such presidential authority (trumping Congressional authority) in the Zivotofsky case are just so much mental masturbation. What CIA, the State Department, and most presidents are really saying with their US passport policy is that they want Israel to give up Jerusalem and much of its land to create yet another Islamic nation, because at least 49 Muslim nations is not enough according to them.

As for the question of the capital of Israel? I queried Siri on my iPhone to determine the definitive answer. Siri said the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. I would always trust Siri over whatever the US Government has to say about anything.

Ralph Adamo on June 9, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    The Israel government is as much to blame as our government for its refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. For fear of of offending Washington as well as”world opinion” Israel has never really proclaimed its rights as a sovreign nation.

    Jerry G on June 11, 2015 at 10:53 am

So much for the rule of law.

In the mid 30s the Supreme Court didn’t mind disagreeing with the President’s policies, at least until FDR threatened them.

Little Al on June 9, 2015 at 6:40 pm

Just sad

Mochizuki Koga on June 9, 2015 at 6:45 pm

When president after president does the same thing–and congress after congress does not pressure him to make a change–then the issue cannot, logically, derive from the composition of the congress or the person of the president. Yes, CIA and State have influence. But these units, too, have been unchanging in attitude despite changes in staff.

No, the key issue is that Israel allows the US to treat Tel Aviv as the capital, for all its elite huffing and puffing. Since Israeli elites have also allowed the Bnei Amalek (Muslims) to remain in Eretz Israel and have played footsie with them for decades now, the events related to the Muslims have created long-term damage to Israel’s reputation. As Machiavelli said, if you have something to do that will look bad, do it quickly–the opposite of Israel’s behavior.

Since the US can appease the Muslims via this issue with no repercussions from Israel, our politicians and bureaucrats react rationally.

skzion on June 9, 2015 at 7:17 pm

Oh yes, and the US can appease the Euros & most every other state and bureaucracy.

skzion on June 9, 2015 at 7:18 pm

Yes, skzion, I agree with your comments.

Little Al on June 9, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    I’ll second that too, skzion. Israel must also be assertive on Jerusalem, instead of taking a de jure (Jerusalem) vs. de facto (Tel Aviv) stance on the capital.

    Ralph Adamo on June 10, 2015 at 1:24 am

Israel accepts embassies in Tel Aviv as though it had no choice.

It could tell the world, you will have to open your embassies in our capital or bid relations with us good-bye.

Israel is just too chicken to insist on its sovereignty.

The world can tell Israel as skzion pointed out, to go pound sand because it faces no real repercussions from doing so.

And if Israel itself is fine with the way the situation is, why should should others risk offending the Arab/Muslim World for no real tangible gain?

To be sure it may be rooted in anti-Semitism but other countries’ behavior on Jerusalem is also an entirely rational decision.

NormanF on June 9, 2015 at 8:39 pm

Good interview, Debbie. I too am surprised by the Thomas vote. And even pleasantly surprised by Roberts’ vote. Sadly, neither party has the intestinal fortitude to do what not just makes common sense, but is right regarding the acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Sanford Horn on June 9, 2015 at 10:23 pm

This is a very clear and concise description of the case, with good and relevant, supportive arguments.

Esser Agaroth on June 10, 2015 at 1:00 am

Good job articulating this Debbie.

MomInMinnesota on June 10, 2015 at 7:55 am

Perhaps I am missing something, and I don’t claim to be the “smartest apple in the orchard”, but I think the Supreme Court got this one right. The Supreme Court did nothing with respect to the policy of not recognizing Jerusalem as being part of Israel and of being Israel’s capital. The only thing the Supreme Court did was dictate who gets to make the policy. I believe that with the exception of funding the President should have absolute and exclusive authority over foreign policy. If Congress wants to challenge the policy they should do so through funding (Although I don’t know how they could do it in a way that makes sense).

For the reasoning I gave above the problem is not the Supreme Court’s decision. The problem is the insane policy itself. For that the blame goes entirely to all Presidential administrations since at least 1967 (Not just Obama and Bush), despite several Presidents who when they were campaigning vowed to do things like move the American embassy to Jerusalem and then reneged on that vow.

I find it interesting that no one is mentioning how this whole thing started. President Bush (The younger) as President actually signed the bill passed by Congress into law that required making Jerusalem part of Israel on passports. However before he signed it he made a signing statement to the effect that this law is not to be enforced.

All Presidents since at least Reagan have made signing statements (I don’t know how far back the signing statement thing goes). A signing statement is where the President writes a paragraph or two on the first page of the bill effectively changing what Congress passed.

This lawsuit was the first ever that survived challenges based on standing in the courts to determine the constitutionality of Presidential signing statements. It was the constitutionality of signing statements the Zivotofsky family was challenging in this lawsuit. At some point signing statements stopped being the focus of the lawsuit and instead the lawsuit turned into one based on who had the authority to make foreign policy.

I_AM_ME on June 10, 2015 at 8:25 am

    IAM–You say:
    “I think the Supreme Court got this one right… The only thing the Supreme Court did was dictate who gets to make the policy. I believe that with the exception of funding the President should have absolute and exclusive authority over foreign policy.”

    That’s a tautology. Because you believe “the President should have absolute and exclusive authority over foreign policy,” of course, you also believe that “the Supreme Court got this one right.”

    That’s the equivalent of arguing that because you believe that the color green is equivalent to the color orange, that you believe that the Supreme Court’s decision that the colors green and orange are interchangeable was correct.

    But you miss the real issue. Your belief that “the President should have absolute and exclusive authority over foreign policy” is completely contrary to the US Constitution. Justice Scalia, in fact, made specific reference to that very idea where he said that such a position is far closer to George III than to George Washington, if you understand what Scalia was saying.

    In point of fact, the President should ONLY have powers authorized by the Constitution and NO MORE, unless otherwise amended by Congress–not the Supreme Court. Article II of the Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties with other countries (with consent of the Senate), appoint ambassadors to other countries (with consent of the Senate),
    and receive ambassadors from other countries.

    Did you see anything in there about giving the President absolute power over foreign policy? Me neither.

    And take note that even here that the Senate is a PARTNER in the process. the Senate can debate treaties that the president or his representative have crafted, and it must okay them with a two-thirds vote before they take effect. Also, the Senate must also approve the Secretary of State and any ambassadors the president nominates.

    Furthermore, the fact is that Congress controls the purse strings, and therefore has a lot of say in foreign policy. That’s why Congress has a Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Committee on Foreign Relations. Congress also, of course, has the power to declare war, probably the most important foreign policy of all, granted under Article I of the Constitution.

    So, the reality of the Constitution is that foreign policy is a partnership, with the Congress frequently having the final say. Consequently, for the Supreme Court to say that a Presidential preference trumps a law passed by Congress on a foreign policy matter like allowing a US citizen born in Jerusalem to have himself identified on his US Passport as being born in “Jerusalem, Israel” has no precedent and is contrary to the spirit and law of the Constitution.

    Scalia’s conclusion here is correct: What the Supreme Court has done is to make the law of the land closer to that favored by British monarch George III than to that favored by George Washington. In short, it’s an Un-American decision. But that should be no surprise, given that the Supreme Court is loaded up with leftists. And we all know (or should know) that leftists hate America (and Israel).

    Ralph Adamo on June 10, 2015 at 8:25 pm

      Ralph Adamo – You might be correct about what is in the constitution and the constitution does not give the president absolute authority over foreign policy. However you analogies are nuts, especially the color one.

      That having been said if the constitution does not give total authority (except for funding) to the President then that was a mistake by the founding fathers. We would all be better off if the President did have absolute authority, assuming he excersized it correctly. If he does not, there is no guarantee that Congress would either.

      However all of the above is not even relevant to my point which you seem to have missed (Contrary to your assertion, I did not miss any point). My point was that the Supreme Court did not address the policy itself, they only addressed who gets to make the policy (Even if they got that wrong as you seem to believe).

      I_AM_ME on June 11, 2015 at 9:00 am

        IAM: You say “We would all be better off if the President did have absolute authority, assuming he excersized [sic] it correctly.”

        First off, it seems you don’t understand tautologies given your comment about my green/orange analogy. I can’t take the time to educate you about logical reasoning, but the bottom line of my comment was that you’ve accepted the same false premise that SCOTUS did, so, of course, you’d agree with them. (I hope we can at least agree that concluding that orange is interchangeable with green is a false premise–but maybe not; you never know these days.)

        Second, you are essentially saying that you favor a benevolent dictatorship. On that point, I must inform you that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship–at least in human hands. So, apparently, you favor George III over George Washington.

        “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Those are the famous and wise words of Lord Acton. Learn them.

        The beauty of the American system is its checks and balances. Dictatorships–whether the real thing or your imaginary “benevolent” form–are about as Un-American as you can get.

        Ralph Adamo on June 11, 2015 at 9:44 am

          Ralph Adamo – Unfortunately for you I know what a tautology is and I understood your failed attempt all to well. But I digress …

          When it comes to foreign policy I do not favor a _benevolent_ dictatorship. I do, however, favor a dictatorship.

          I_AM_ME on June 11, 2015 at 2:28 pm

Is it correct / factual that ISRAEL was reconstituted by European / U.S.powers after WW II? Is it Historically factual that Jerusalem was the Capital of Israel? Is it factually correct that Jerusalem is, per Israel’s Government, its capital?

Point: My Globe designates Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital.

Question: Is Israel’s geographic location at the eastern-end coast of the MEDITERRANEAN infused with natural resources so abundant or strategically critical that Islamic Nations MUST HAVE IT or is it wanted so the Caliphate can be raised from the heap of dead states?

Has this situation existed for thousands of years? Does anyone think it will ever be amicably resolved by Israel’s neighbors?

Ayn Rand advised that in any war between the savage and the civilized man, the civilized man is to be supported. Israel is the CIVILIZED MAN!

SOLUTION: Israel buys the entire Baja Peninsula as its new home. Mexico sets the price. Israel’s hater countries pay Mexico for the purchase on Israel’s behalf. U.S., UN, IMF oversee that the deal is done properly. If not, Israel gets the Baja by default and the IMF debits the hater countries accounts and credits Mexico.

Israelis move lock, stock, and barrel – including all artifacts, structures, libraries, technical research, etc to the new “ISRAEL OF THE CALIFORNIA BAJA”…a sovereign nation.

If something as drastic as this does not occur, well, the nuclear s**t will hit the fan and millions will die.

ISRAEL! G*D GOES WITH YOU WHEREVER YOU GO. LET HIM JUDGE THE HATERS AND METE OUT JUSTICE AND PUNISHMENT TO THE HATERS.

Dennis

ps: I have suggested this idea for a number of years. If it cannot be resolved peacefully, then let loose the hounds of war and resolve it. This is what, 70 yrs, in post WW II years? If Israel moves, the savages will have lost their raison d’etre and collapse into caveman status.

Dennis on June 10, 2015 at 9:25 am

    So Dennis, you’d have over half the world’s Jews “make yeridah” to Baja? As Jews who live in Israel are forbidden to permanently leave it, they would all have sinned terribly.

    Even if this scenario could ever play out (it couldn’t), the benefit to Islam would be immeasurable. Do you seriously support benefiting Islam to that extent?

    Finally, Ayn Rand would shake her head in disbelief over the corruption of Israel’s Jewish citizens. Imagine the immorality of allowing Muslims to live in Eretz Israel in the first place. Then consider the further immorality of subsidizing the Fakestinians in the various that Israel does.

    skzion on June 10, 2015 at 10:02 am

      Good Morning SK,

      Sorry I wasn’t able to reply yesterday.

      I am not Jewish so, this morning, I researched the word “yeridah” and its meaning of “leaving, departing”.

      You stated “As Jews who live in Israel are forbidden to permanently leave it, they would all have sinned terribly”.
      Also, I found this definition of “Eretz Israel”:

      Eretz Yisrael – (Hebrew) Land of Israel; (modern) Jewish homeland to be established in the general area of Palestine. In Ottoman Turkish times, Eretz Yisrael and Eretz Hakodesh (the Holy Land) were used to designate the area surrounding Jerusalem and including areas from the Litani river in the north to modern Eilat. Under the British mandate, Eretz Yisrael came to designate the area of the Mandate, which was called in Hebrew – Palestina A”Y – Palestine – Eretz Yisrael.

      Source: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Eretz_Yisrael.htm

      So, now I have a better understanding of your position.

      I wonder if Muslims have the same position regarding Mecca? I do recognize that non-Muslims, i.e. infidels, are second rate in Saudi Arabia. A High School buddy became a Civil Engineer, worked in S.A., and was sequestered in a separate compound, and was allowed simply to work there.

      Currently, the oldest Monastery in the Christian World is facing annihilation by ISIS. Should they remain or should they die? If Italy was over-run by ISIS and The Vatican facing destruction, should they remain or depart or die?

      I am not advocating a renunciation of Faith. I am saying that a merciful G*d would, in my perspective, advise those under attack to maintain their Faith and leave the worldly lands / property behind so as to survive and continue practicing their Faith elsewhere – see “FIDDLER ON THE ROOF”.

      Years ago I had email exchanges with GREG CROSBY, a Jew in L.A. who was an artistic guy in the Disney organization, who still contributes Commentaries. He read my comment to him, basically the same as noted re Baja, but disagreed by recommending Israelis relocate to NEVADA. No mention to me about violating any Religious Laws.

      I believe the rational action is for man to survive without violating a core belief, to save his family, and to re-establish in a tolerant society without fanatically trying to change the host country’s culture as so many Muslims / Islam-ists / ISIS-ists are attempting to do in the U.S. and elsewhere.

      SK…I hope Israel does not disappear from the Face of the Earth nor from History.

      Regards & Stay Safe.

      Dennis

      Dennis on June 11, 2015 at 9:10 am

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS NEWS STORY???

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2015/06/09/israel-eu/28777027/

WHAT’S NEXT?

REGISTRATION – YELLOW STAR OF DAVID PATCHES TO WEAR – SCARY!

The EU has lost its collective mind.

Dennis

ps: Our Prez never had one to lose.

Dennis on June 10, 2015 at 9:58 am

is there an unwritten policy where the, uh, conservative Justices take turns voting with the liberals? Has it become like Congress?

Little Al on June 10, 2015 at 10:47 am

Ralph Adamo:

I know what a tautology is, and I understood your failed attempt at one all too well. But I digress …

WHen it comes to foreign policy I do not favor a *_benevolent_* dictatorship. I do however favor a dictatorship.

I_AM_ME on June 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    I_AM_ME, then you join SCOTUS in extra-constitutional opinions. The difference is that SCOTUS, unlike a private citizen, should not issue rulings based on extra-constitutional opinions.

    skzion on June 11, 2015 at 7:21 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field