43 Democrats Vote Against Resolution Condemning Pro-Genocidal Phrase

From Townhall.com (Apr. 18):

On Tuesday afternoon, the House overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan fashion a resolution from Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-NY) condemning the pro-genocidal phrase of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." The vote was not unanimous, though, as 44 members voted against the resolution, and one voted "present." Nine members did not vote.

From the House floor, D'Esposito called out those who would chant or spray such a phrase for what they are. "When anti-Semitic activists masquerading as merely pro-Palestinian spray paint this slogan on the site of the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympians, we know, and they know, exactly what they are communicating."

He also made clear that "this slogan communicates one thing and one thing only. It is not human rights, it is certainly not peace, it is the violent destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people that live within it!"

The "no" votes came from the usual suspects, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (KY), as well as all of the Squad members, plus other Democrats. Rep. Madeline Dean (D-PA) was the one member who voted "present."

When people say "from the river to the sea," they are calling for the genocide of the Jewish State of Israel. Late last October, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), appeared in a digital ad accusing President Joe Biden of genocide for what support he had dared to show Israel at that point following the October 7 attack from Hamas against our ally in the Middle East. The ad contained chants of "from the river to the sea" from pro-Hamas agitators in Dearborn, where Tlaib's district is located. She also shared it from her personal X account a few days later. In part for her pathetic defense of the phrase, Tlaib was censured by the House in early November of last year.

Not surprisingly, Tlaib also voted against the resolution on Tuesday. She has had a record against supporting Israel, even when it comes to the condemnation of the rape that Israeli women endured at the hands of Hamas. She was the only member to vote "present" when it comes to voting for such a bipartisan resolution in February.

In addition to Massie and Tlaib, the other votes against the resolution on Tuesday included Democratic Reps. Becca Balint (VT), Don Beyer (VA), Suzanne Bonamici (OR), Jamaal Bowman (NY), Cori Bush (MO), André Carson (IN), Greg Casar (TX), Judy Chu (CA), Yvette Clarke (NY), Danny Davis (IL), Mark DeSaulnier (CA), Debbie Dingell (MI), Veronica Escobar (TX), Valerine Foushee (NC), Maxwell Frost (FL), Chuy García (IL), Sylvia Garcia (TX), Robert Garcia (CA), Al Green (TX), Jared Huffman (CA), Jonathan Jackson (IL), Sara Jacobs (CA), Pramila Jayapal (WA), Hank Johnson (GA), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Summer Lee (PA), Jim McGovern (MA), Gwen Moore (WI), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Chellie Pingree (ME), Mark Pocan (WI), Katie Porter (CA), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Delia Ramirez (IL), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Jill Tokuda (HI), Lauren Underwood (IL), Nyida Velázquez (NY), Maxine Waters (CA), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ).

In a post, D'Esposito noted that the 44 who voted against his resolution "should be ashamed for promoting hate."

It's also worth highlighting Dean's "present" vote, though. Her post, sent from her official account over X, claimed the resolution was a waste of time. She also specifically blamed Republicans.

"Since the fall, I've been firm that 'From the River to the Sea' has no place in discussing long-term peace for Israel and Palestine," she claimed, despite rejecting an opportunity that would give her the chance to prove that. "But Republicans prefer games over bills to support our allies & humanitarian aid," she went on to claim. "We must be purposeful with our words — and also with our time."

This resolution was also a bipartisan one, though, having been co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer (NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (FL), as the New York Post noted. 

The statement she included, from when the resolution was introduced last November, recognizing how the phrase "evokes fear for many, especially in the Jewish community," makes her refusal to vote for it even more significant. Her phrasing was curious in other ways, though. "While the phrase dates back to the 1960s and originally described freedom for Palestine, the phrase has now been co-opted by terrorist groups like Hamas to mean complete and total destruction of the Jewish state," she mentioned, which is a funny way of acknowledging that it means to wipe Israel off of the map.

It also came just a day after Dean refused to join 22 of her fellow Democrats who voted to censure Tlaib for defending "from the river to the sea" as "an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate." [source]

All those Dems that voted against the resolution are showing their true anti-Semitic feelings.

Biden’s agency bosses say Americans have ‘too much freedom’

From MSN.com:

The ‘swamp’ thinks you have it too good.

In an unusual look at federal agency managers, most believe Americans have too much freedom, and they back President Joe Biden's efforts to impose new regulations.

The bosses of federal agencies were asked in a new Napolitan Institute survey about the “individual freedom” Americans have, and 51% said they have “somewhat” to “far too much freedom.”

But just 16% of voters agreed and 57% believe the government has too much control over their lives.

Democratic “swamp” managers felt the country has too much freedom at the highest levels in the survey, at 68%. Among Republican federal agency chiefs, just 33% agreed.

But the partisan bureaucrats were more in agreement when it came to choosing who is best at deciding if new regulations are needed, found the polling outfit headed by Scott Rasmussen.

Said the analysis shared with Secrets on Friday, “Fifty-four percent (54%) of government managers say that if, after carefully researching an important issue, they determine that a regulation is needed, yet voters overwhelmingly oppose it, they should follow their research and issue the regulation anyway. This includes 49% of Republican government managers and 60% of Democrats,” it said.

Unlike Democrats and Republicans in America, and even on Capitol Hill, partisans that work in the swamp generally think like the other, according to Napolitan’s latest poll of America’s 1% elitists.

“On many topics, there is a disturbing level of bi-partisan agreement among federal government managers. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Republican government managers and 48% of Democrats believe the federal government should be allowed to censor speech that is posted on social media platforms. Forty-three percent (43%) of ‘Elites’ and just 16% of voters share this view. Seventy-four percent of Republican government managers and 79% of Democrats favor banning private ownership of guns. This view is shared by 77% of ‘Elites,’ but just 36% of voters,” said the analysis.

In his polling of elites, Rasmussen has found a stunning gap with Middle Americans, which could be a danger sign considering the outsize effect of elites, especially in the media.

Rasmussen said, “The ‘Elite’ 1% wield a tremendous amount of institutional power but are wildly out of touch with the nation they want to rule. Over the years they have built institutions and mechanisms of regulatory power that are immune to the checks and balances of elections. Worse still, these same ‘Elites’ own, operate, and control a large majority of media outlets, blocking out the true voice of the American people and broadcasting their own out of touch viewpoints.” [source]

Well, of course they would say that. Makes sense. Now, if the elites were asked if they have too much freedom they would say no, definitely not. Some elites might say they don't have enough.

Leibniz: A Remarkable Thinker Guided by God’s Authority

From Breakpoint.org (Nov. 14, 2022):

Today, November 14, marks the 306th anniversary of the death of Gottfried von Leibniz, a German polymath, committed Lutheran, and one of the most wide-ranging intellects in all of history.

Leibniz was a child prodigy. At 13, he composed 300 hexameters of Latin verse in one morning for an event at school. In 1661, at 14, he enrolled in the University of Leipzig, completing a bachelor’s and master’s degree by 17. The following year, he earned a bachelor of law degree, and a doctorate in philosophy the year after that. When, that same year, the university turned him down for a doctorate in law, likely because of his youth, he left Leipzig for the University of Altdorf, presented his dissertation, and was granted a license to practice law. This was before he turned twenty.

Despite a busy legal and diplomatic career, Leibniz remained active in scholarly pursuits. Like many intellectuals of his time, Leibniz was engaged with Enlightenment thought and active in a variety of fields. As a thinker, he stands out for not only grasping the depths of contemporary philosophy but also contributing to them, all while remaining dependent on the authority of Scripture and the Church.

Leibniz is best remembered as one of the discoverers of calculus, along with Isaac Newton. The two developed this mathematical field independently. Though Newton more often receives the greater credit for his famous work, Principia Mathematica, it’s Leibniz’s notations that their successors have often found to be most precise.

Leibniz anticipated Einstein by arguing that space, time, and motion were relative. In fact, Einstein referred to himself as a Leibnizian and argued that Leibniz’s views would have won out over Newton’s had the technology of the day been more advanced.

Speaking of technology, Leibniz dreamed up a primitive computer that used marbles, punch cards, and binary numbers to make advanced calculations. He further described a machine that could, theoretically, do integral and differential calculus. In all these ways, he anticipated modern computers and even helped lay the foundation for their development.

Leibniz is also well known for his work in philosophy, particularly in relation to theology. He argued that since both reason and faith are gifts of God, the two fields, if properly understood, could not be contradictory.

Leibniz also argued for what came to be called “Optimism,” the idea that any flaw of our world must also exist in others. Quite unfairly, the French philosopher Voltaire misrepresented this idea in his famous book, Candide, as though it meant that everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds. This is just close enough to Leibniz’s argument to sound plausible while at the same time being totally misleading about his philosophy.

Close to Leibniz’s heart was the reconciliation of Lutherans and Catholics. He had been born just two years before the end of the Thirty Years’ War, which was fought between Catholics and Protestants, primarily in Germany. Though a devout Lutheran, he held a deep appreciation of Catholic thought, and partly due to work toward reconciliation, he won the respect of high-level Catholics. He was even offered the prestigious position of curator of the Vatican library. To take it, Leibniz would have had to convert to Catholicism, and he didn’t want to “send a message” that Catholicism was better.

Leibniz’s work is so far reaching it is impossible to fully summarize in a brief commentary. In addition to his work in philosophy and theology, politics, law, history, and philology, he laid the foundation for modern analytic and linguistic philosophy and logic. He also anticipated developments in probability theory, computer science, geology, biology and medicine, linguistics, and psychology. The various elements within what was an incredible range of work were integrated together by his Christian faith, anchored in his belief in the Trinitarian Christian God. [source]

Interesting. Leibniz is definitely a polymath. His primitive computer is interesting.