Alan Dershowitz: Ten congressional Democrats want lenient treatment for young terrorists who murder Israelis

Palestinian terrorist leaders often use teenagers to commit acts of terror because they know the Israeli legal system treats children more leniently than adults. Now 10 Democrats belonging to the Congressional Progressive Caucus are trying to give terrorist leaders yet another reason for using young people to murder even more innocent civilians.

Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., introduced legislation Nov. 14 – co-sponsored by nine other Democrats – calling on the State Department to “prevent United States tax dollars from supporting the Israeli military’s ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children.”

In a news release about the proposed legislation, McCollum said: “This legislation highlights Israel’s system of military detention of Palestinian children and ensures that no American assistance to Israel supports human rights violations …. Peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children. Congress must not turn a blind eye the unjust and ongoing mistreatment of Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation.”
It is well established that recruiting and using young Palestinians to wage terror on Israeli civilians is part of the modus operandi of Palestinian terrorist leaders. For decades, members of the radical Palestinian political and religious leadership have been stirring up young people to wage war against the Jews and the Jewish State.
This was seen in the gruesome intifada that began in 2000, in which Palestinian teenagers committed dozens of attacks against Jewish Israelis on buses, in cafes and at nightclubs.

The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minor’s transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.

More recently – in what has become known as the “lone-wolf” intifada – children as young as 13 have stabbed Israelis with scissors, screwdrivers and knives.
Legislation proposed by the 10 Democrats is titled the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. The bill does not explicitly define at what age a person moves from childhood to adulthood.
While noting that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are held and prosecuted by Israeli military courts, the bill fails to acknowledge that some of the most barbaric terrorist attacks against Jewish Israelis have been committed by Palestinian teens.
Consider the terrorist attack that took place over this past summer in Halamish, about an hour outside Jerusalem. A Palestinian in his late teens – from a nearby village controlled by the Palestinian Authority – chose a Jewish house at random and fatally stabbed three members of a family as they ate their Sabbath dinner.
The Palestinian “child” murderer also wounded several other family members, while one mother hid her young children in an upstairs room until the terrorist left.
The triple-murder is reminiscent of a similar attack that occurred only six years earlier when two Palestinian teens armed with knives broke into the Fogel family home in Itamar as they slept on Friday night. The “children” butchered the mother, father and three of their children – including a 3-month-old baby as she slept in her crib.
As a result of such deadly terrorist attacks by Palestinian teenagers, Israel has had to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. In August 2016, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a bill allowing imprisonment of terrorists as young as 12.
The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minor’s transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.
In introducing the bill, Knesset Member Anat Berko said: “This law was born of necessity. We have been experiencing a wave of terror for quite some time. A society is allowed to protect itself. To those who are murdered with a knife in the heart it does not matter if the child is 12 or 15. We’ve witnessed numerous cases where 11-year-old children were suicide bombers. Perhaps this law will also do something to protect these children from being used to slaughter people.”
In a desperate effort to justify her proposed legislation, Rep. McCollum argued that “peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children.”
McCollum’s hypocrisy in this context is palpable. She claims to be an advocate for “the rights of children.” Yet she refuses to acknowledge or condemn Palestinians who perpetrate acts of child abuse by recruiting children to commit terrorist attacks on Jews.
McCollum expressed no outrage when Palestinian leaders were caught posting material on social media inciting and encouraging young Palestinians to stab Israelis.
And the Minnesota member of Congress failed to protest when Hamas set up training camps – under the mantra “Vanguards of Liberation” – aimed at training children as young as 15 to use weapons against Israel. Nor did she speak up when children in Gaza were crushed to death when the terror tunnels they were recruited by the Hamas leadership to build collapsed on their bodies. 
So I ask: What do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would the Democrats protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not.
No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists.
Israel has a right – according to international law – to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, including those committed by young Palestinians. It actually has an obligation to do so.
If Israel is punished for trying to protect its citizens from teen terrorists, this would incentivize terrorist leaders to keep using children in pursuit of their goal of wiping the Israel off the map.
But rather than condemning the abhorrent and unlawful use of children as terrorist pawns, the 10 congressional Democrats chose to single out Israel for punishment.
People of good faith on both sides of the aisle should call out this double standard for what it really is: an attack on Jewish victims of teenage terrorism and the Jewish State.
For Shame on this group of biased anti-Israel Democrats, which includes the following members of Congress: Mark Pocan of Wisconsin; Earl Blumenauer of Oregon: André Carson of Indiana: John Conyers of Michigan; Danny K. Davis of Illinois; Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon;  Raul Grijalva and Luis V. Gutiérrez  of Arizona; and Chellie Pingree of Maine. They give a bad name to the Democratic Party, to the Progressive Caucus and to Congress.  

California hands out millions of dollars in tax credits to filmmakers. Can the rest of us get some too?

In this Oct. 8, 2016 file photo, director Quentin Tarantino poses for photographers at the opening ceremony of the 8th Lumiere Festival, in Lyon, central France.

I think Quentin Tarantino is a fine filmmaker. From “Reservoir Dogs” to “Jackie Brown” to “Inglourious Basterds,” he delivers. ”Pulp Fiction” may just be the greatest movie of its era.

But, as a resident of California, I’ve got a problem. Not with him personally, but with the financing of his latest film.

He recently had to drop his longstanding business relationship with Harvey Weinstein (for obvious reasons) and shop his ninth feature, a story related to the Charles Manson murders, to the major studios.
Sony got the project. But, in addition, his film will receive an $18 million production tax credit from the California Film Commission, for which it will be shot in-state.
Tarantino’s project is only one of several films getting a big break. They’re all part of a tax credit program created by the California Legislature that, over the years, will offer hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits.
The Film Commission justifies its actions by claiming California needs the program to compete for projects.
Really? Then how does the state justify hitting up its taxpayers for so much? We residents do even more business in the state than film companies, but we’re not getting any breaks.
Quite the opposite. California has the highest income tax rate in the nation. The state’s top rate is 13.3 percent. Some dismiss it, saying that’s just for millionaires, but if you make just $43,000 the rate is 8 percent, and if you make $54,000 it’s 9.3 percent.
California also has a huge gasoline tax and the highest state-level sales tax in the nation. Overall, Californians shoulder one of the largest tax burdens in our country. And while we’re at it, the state also ranks high in the burden it places on businesses.
So I have to ask: If Golden State leaders believe giving a tax break to filmmakers is good for the local economy, why don’t they want to give a break in general to all residents? Sauce for the goose and all that.
My guess is that Tarantino was going to film in-state anyway. The Manson murders took place here, and when he’s got a story set in California, he shoots here.
But even if he might have gone elsewhere for a better deal, guess what? It’s not that hard for an individual citizen to pack up and leave a state if another one offers a better deal. That goes double for businesses.
On top of which, high taxes can discourage people from moving here, and from locating their business here. (The numbers seem to bear this out. In recent years, the rate of population growth has been cut to less than half of what it was.)
So if the state wants to make it easier on Tarantino, can’t they also try to take it easier on me, and tens of millions of my fellow Californians?
In effect, my tax money is going to subsidize Tarantino’s film. I’ll be the first in line to buy a ticket when it opens, but don’t make me an unwilling investor. Not unless I get to own a piece of it.

George HW Bush now longest-living president

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush arrives on the field to do the coin toss ahead of the start of Super Bowl LI, in Houston, Feb. 5, 2017.  (Reuters)

Former President George H.W. Bush reached another milestone Saturday when he became the longest-living commander-in-chief in U.S. history.

Bush, who was born June 12, 1924, reached the age of 93 years and 166 days, meaning he has now lived longer than the previous record holder, former President Gerald R. Ford, who died in December 2006 at the age of 93 years and 165 days, the Washington Times reported.

But Jimmy Carter is a close No. 2 behind Bush among living former presidents. Carter was born Oct. 1, 1924, only four months after Bush, and ranks at No. 4 overall -- at age 93 years and 55 days as of Saturday.
Remarkably, founding father John Adams – the nation’s second president – ranks No. 5 on the list, having lived to age 90 years, 247 days, according to political writer Gabe Fleisher.
Unlike his high-ranking counterparts from the 20^th and 21^st centuries, Adams, who lived mostly in the 18^th century, lacked access to many modern medical advances.
After Bush and Carter, the other living presidents have a long way to go before attempting to set a new mark for longevity. Here are their ages and birth dates:
Donald Trump: 71 (June 14, 1946)
George W. Bush: 71 (July 6, 1946)
Bill Clinton: 71 (Aug. 19, 1946)
Barack Obama: 56 (Aug. 4, 1961)

Democrats' 'DREAMer' demands threaten spending bill, gov shutdown in coming weeks

A showdown could loom in December.

Not over tax reform, but over funding the government.

The federal government is funded through December 8. Republicans control the House and Senate. But historically, the GOP has failed on its own to provide the necessary votes to avert a government shutdown.
The party required a bailout from Democrats as recently as Sept. 2015 to help make up the vote deficit and pass those spending bills. Republicans sometimes balk for a variety of reasons. They don’t like stopgap appropriations packages. They’re disgusted by the process. They demand more for defense. What about entitlement spending? Where’s the plan to reduce the national debt?
As an aside, the answer to the final question wasn’t really addressed in the recent budget framework approved by the House and Senate to muscle through tax reform. And deficits are forecast to balloon by at least $1.5 trillion in the Republican tax bill.
But back to government funding …
When Republicans find themselves short in these government funding crises, they turn to Democrats. But Democratic votes could prove even more valuable in this December’s scenario.
It all has to do with DACA and DREAMers.
DACA is the abbreviation for an Obama administration-era program “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Democrats and some Republicans often refer to undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. as minors as DREAMers. That’s derived from the bipartisan DREAM Act, short for “The Development, Relief, Education for Minors” bill.
A coalition of liberal Democrats is now flexing its muscles on the upcoming government spending bill. Many Democrats insist that congressional leaders attach the DREAM Act to the spending package, or else.
“If there’s no clean DREAM Act in the budget, we’re not voting for it,” threatened Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y. 
Rep. Pramila Jayapal recently challenged House Republicans to pass the spending bill on their own.
“But if … you need our votes, include a clean DREAM Act,” the Washington Democrat said.
“Republicans are the majority until it comes to governance,” argued Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. “Oh. You don’t have 218 votes? We’re happy to help keep the government open.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., head to the White House Tuesday afternoon to discuss “end-of-year legislative issues,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters.
Pelosi favors attaching a DACA fix to the spending package. Schumer also believes that’s a possible legislative path for DACA.
“We believe we’ll get it in the omnibus (spending) bill because both Republicans and Democrats want it,” Schumer said. “If DACA is in the bill, (President Trump) won’t veto it.”
Is there a risk of a government shutdown if Democrats insist on shoving DACA into the spending measure despite possible presidential objections?
“It won’t come to that,” Schumer replied.
Tell that to those on the right -- and maybe even those in the White House.
“DACA will not be in the government funding bill,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Including DACA in the spending plan could be the only way for Republicans to obtain necessary Democratic votes to avoid a government shutdown.
And Schumer appears correct:  There are Republicans who want to advance a DACA solution. A group of moderate House Republicans held a press conference last week calling for just that. But immigration politics are dicey for the right.
Latching the DACA plan to the spending bill poses tremendous risk for Republicans. Ryan and McConnell are sure to draw the ire of the hard right and lawmakers who fret about border security, a border wall or “amnesty.”
“He won’t be speaker for long if he does that,” a conservative House Republican predicted about Ryan if he allows a DACA provision in the spending legislation.
Ryan’s wants to cleave DACA from the spending bill. When asked if he would consider a DACA attachment in the spending legislation, he replied, “I don’t.”
The speaker also said the DACA fix should be considered “on its own merits.” And he questioned whether Congress had to address the issue by the end of the year.
“We have until, I believe, March,” Ryan said. “So I don’t think we need to have artificial deadlines within the one we already have.”
It could be time to horse trade. Democrats hold many of the cards in this poker game. But the administration has cards to play, too.
Trump may not like the idea of an immediate DACA fix. But how about a DACA deal in exchange for extra money for a border wall.
“As the president explained in his letter to the House and Senate leadership, the administration’s reform priorities ‘must be included as a part of any legislation addressing the status of DACA recipients,’ ” said a White House official to Fox.
“These reforms have been identified by our nation’s law enforcement professionals as a vital safeguard for the American people to both prevent new illegal immigration (border wall, legal loopholes) and to end chain migration.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has said since summer he wants a DACA fix soon. But Hoyer demurred when asked whether Democrats would demand a DACA link to the spending bill in exchange for Democratic votes.
“I don’t want to get there,” he said.
Why should Democrats cede their demands on DACA just to help keep the government open in a bill without an arrangement for DREAMers? Hoyer has said for years that when it comes to funding the government, Democrats will always do “the right thing.” But Hoyer also believes it’s incumbent for Democrats and the rest of Congress to do “the right thing” for DREAMers.
“We do the right thing,” he said. “It is unacceptable, because we do the right thing, to be held hostage to bad policies because ‘you Democrats will do the right thing and while we do, we Republicans, will do the wrong thing. We will shut down the government as they have.’ We are not going to be held hostage by doing the right thing, either.”
The latest wrinkle is that Trump and congressional leaders may try to load up the spending package with hurricane relief for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Congress has already forked over $52 billion in disaster relief. The administration submitted its third disaster spending request to Congress late last week: $44 billion. But the plan includes offsets to counteract the new spending.
Just a few weeks ago, some lawmakers thought the key to courting Democratic votes for the government spending legislation was to add on disaster relief.
“You mean to tell me they (Democrats) won’t vote for the spending? All of the disaster aid and Puerto Rico?” Meadows asked rhetorically.
But members of both parties excoriated the hurricane plan.
The OMB request "is very disappointing. Not only is it completely inadequate, it shows OMB’s complete lack of understanding of the fundamental needs of Texans,” groused Texas GOP Rep. John Culberson, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and potentially a vulnerable GOPer next election cycle. “Our community is still trying to recover, and this request is a nightmare for those who are trying to rebuild their lives.”
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said, “The administration’s third disaster supplemental request is an insult. This request’s stinginess is both contemptable and ineffectual.”
So all eyes are trained on the big White House meeting Tuesday afternoon with the president and top Congressional leaders.
Congressional Republicans are racing to complete tax reform. But one thing is for certain: The GOP faces disaster if they fail to fund the government.
Democrats again hold many of the cards. And Trump and congressional Republicans may have to cede a lot of ground on DACA and disaster relief if they don’t want a government shutdown tussle to sideline their tax reform efforts in December.

Pro Gun Cartoons

'Ghost gun' kits targeted by anti-gun group

A gun control group on Friday asked two web hosting companies to shut down websites selling devices that are used to make untraceable homemade firearms -- also known as ghost guns.

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence asked that Shopify and DreamHost -- hosts of GhostGunner.net and GhostGuns.com -- disable the websites for violating the hosting companies’ terms of service.

The sites sell kits that help create homemade semi-automatic weapons and can be purchased legally for a few hundred dollars without the kind of background check required for traditional gun purchases.
But Cody Wilson, who runs GhostGunner.net, said the products he sells on his website are legal and in compliance with federal regulations. He said although there is no legal requirement that he conduct background checks, he tries to take precautions to make sure the weapons aren’t used nefariously.
“This is an attempt to apply pressure to deplatform a legal, American business selling legal products to law-abiding customers,” he said.

"This is an attempt to apply pressure to deplatform a legal, American business selling legal products to law-abiding customers."

- Cody Wilson, operator of GhostGunner.net

The Giffords Law Center was founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who made headlines in January 2011 when she survived an assassination attempt in Tuscon, Ariz.
Attorneys for the gun control group said that homemade weapons are increasingly being used in crimes and asked each of the companies to “invoke its policies to help stem the tide of this illegal, deadly behavior.”
They argue that Shopify and DreamHost should use their ability to terminate the websites, arguing that the two sites sell “the sort of products that have already caused scores of senseless deaths — and are likely to cause many more, unless taken off the market.”
Authorities say that the gunman who killed his wife and four others earlier this month in Northern California built two semi-automatic rifles at his home despite having been barred from owning guns.
Representatives for GhostGuns.com, Shopify and DreamHost did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

Trump says he passed on being TIME's 'Person of the Year'

In a tweet on Friday, President Trump claimed he “took a pass” on being TIME Magazine’s 2017 “Person of the Year” after the publication reportedly called and said they’d “probably” offer him the spot.

“Time Magazine called to say that I was PROBABLY going to be named “Man (Person) of the Year,” like last year, but I would have to agree to an interview and a major photoshoot,” Trump said in the tweet. “I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!”

But in a tweet from TIME Friday night, the company said, "The President is incorrect about how we choose Person of the Year," and that the recipient will not be announced until Dec. 6.
Trump was awarded the title last year after he won the 2016 presidential election.
The magazine’s managing editor, Nancy Gibbs, said last year that the choice of Trump was “straightforward.”
In 2015, Trump made the short-list for the award but it was instead offered to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At the time, Trump said in a tweet that he had predicted he wouldn’t win and referred to Merkel as the “person who is ruining Germany.”
TRUMP DENOUNCES ATTACK IN EGYPT, CALLS AGAIN FOR TRAVEL BAN
TIME recently defined its “Person of the Year” as “a person (or people) who has had the most influence over the news in the last 12 months.”
While the magazine’s editors make the final choice, they reportedly take into consideration the opinions of their readers and let them vote, TIME said.
According to their posted results as of Friday night, Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was leading the pack, followed by Trump, “The Dreamers” and “#MeToo.”

Earliest Trump mention in Panama Papers dates to 1990s: Report

A reference to a Trump Corporation condo purchase and sale in the 1990s appears in the Panama Papers, a report says.  (Reuters)

A reference to a mysterious condominium purchase and sale in the 1990s is the earliest mention of Donald Trump in the notorious Panama Papers, according to a report published Friday.

A Panamanian company called Process Consultants Inc., which was owned through bearer shares, purchased a residential unit in the Trump Palace skyscraper in New York City in 1991, investigative journalist Jake Bernstein reported, citing the documents.

Bernstein is the author of "Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite."
Bearer shares, which provide a convenient means to transfer property anonymously, have been tightly regulated in recent years because they are frequently used in money-laundering and other illicit ventures.
The directors of Process Consultants (which is sometimes spelled “Process Consultans” in the documents) were employed by Mossack Fonseca, the once-obscure law firm whose clients were exposed by the massive Panama Papers leak.
But these directors were in reality “nominee directors,” Bernstein wrote, meaning that they were not the real decision-makers. Companies sometimes name nominee directors to obfuscate who is really running operations.
Jürgen Mossack, founder of the firm, was one of the nominee directors of Process Consultants, Bernstein reported.
In 1994, Process Consultants sold the apartment for $355,000 to a woman from Hong Kong, using the Trump Corporation as its broker.
While there is no indication that the sale was illegal, the quick turnaround on the condo and the secretive nature of Process Consultants spurred some concern that money laundering may have been involved, the New York Daily News reported.
Trump's name pops up elsewhere in the Panama Papers, but Bernstein’s find marks the president's earliest known appearance.
The 2016 leak of the Panama Papers, a trove of nearly 12 million financial documents tracing Mossack Fonseca's efforts to help politicians and celebrities shield their money from taxes, led to the removal of Pakistan and Iceland’s prime ministers and numerous high-level investigations around the world.
Early in November, Trump's Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, was revealed in the so-called “Paradise Papers” to have conducted large business deals with Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law.