+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Prentice urges Republicans to step up to the plate, act like adults and do something acceptable.
In one's desire to lose weight it is recommended you start by giving up carbohydrates. In other words, most everything white should be avoided. That means most breads.
However, when it comes to politics, part of a loaf is better than none and there are some Republicans who have not learned this and are about to damage the entire party by not being able to reach a compromise and an accommodation with respect to the health care bill.
That said, the health care bill the Senate Committee presented, and which I have not read, I understand, is not a repeal of Obamacare, does not get the government out of healthcare and, in fact, throws more money at subsidization.
(I did hear a Senator, who served on the health care committee, state the bill he helped draft was only a few hundred pages whereas, he pointed out Obamacare ran into several thousand pages. Since the Republican's Bill did not eliminate Obamacare and embraced virtually all of its provisions, factually you have to add the pages in the new bill to the pages in the old bill.)
Politicians believe money, not their's but other's, is the solution to everything and every problem. Just pay for something and that will make the "boo boo" go away. No. Actually, if you want more of something just spend money on it etc. Money is the equivalent of political fertilizer.(See 1 below.)
Another political use for money is to buy what you cannot get through by way of a congressional vote, like Obama did with respect to The Iran Deal. He shipped Iran tons of cash, denied it was ransom and released some of the worst terrorists in captivity. Then he denied it was ransom and did what he could to cover up the entire pay-off.
Appears the Paris Climate Agreement involves bribery as well. (See 1a below.)
+++++++++++++
Any proposal that requires Israel to depend upon foreign forces should be dead on arrival because it is bad for Israel, does not recognize that Israel's survival is connected with the fact that when you fight for your own you are more effective and passionate. The Allen plan is anathema to Israel's best interests and survival.. (See 2 and 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++
What goes around often comes around. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Has the time come?
Trump simply should pose to China would they tolerate N Korea if their nuclear progress was aimed at their destruction? (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++
Today the mass media's new attack on Trump relates to his statement 'he hoped there were no taped recordings of his conversation with Comey.' Trump never said he had a tape, he made a tape etc. but the mass media are involved in creating another cause celeb-re by claiming Trump said something he did not.
The mass media continue to be totally disreputable because of their hatred of Trump and he continues to play them like a fiddle and they continue to fall for his entrapment. (See 5 below.)
Finally, Trump must have seen the cartoon I posted several memos ago showing a wall that encompassed sun panels so that it would confound/conflict the greens.
You've got to hand it to him, he knows how to go after the anti-Trump extremists by lassoing them with their own nonsense .
++++++++++++++++++++
California Hollywooder's worse/more dangerous than Russia but they are legal? You decide. (See 6 below.)
+++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++
1) For the GOP, Step Up or Become an Irrelevant Majority
Where are the adults? No, this is not about the Democrats. We know they have devolved into churlish toddlers, and few adults remain there. I’ve ranted enough about them lately, this is not about them. It’s time this question is asked of those who should be on our side.
It’s the GOP Congress and leadership that needs to be asked this question. Immediately, constantly, and harshly.
There were posters held up for all to see in close proximity by Trump supporters at one of his rallies during the nomination process. They read:
Do you know who your voters are?” “Do you know what we want?” “Do you ever listen to us?”
For those in the GOP who do not know to whom those questions were directed, let me give you a hint: These were being asked directly to the leadership of the GOP. Trump heard them, he answered those questions to the GOP base clearly, he ran on those issues, and he won overwhelmingly against every faction and candidate of the GOP.
The golden boy of the establishment spent well over a hundred million dollars in his quest for the nomination. He received three delegates, and polled well under 10% of Republican voters when he finally dropped out. He was such an embarrassment, I doubt anyone can remember who he endorsed. The establishment tried hard to find a replacement, but failed miserably. This GOP establishment has no idea how to answer the questions on those placards. They have no idea who their base is, and frankly have no idea what the American people on the center right stand for.
Fortunately for them, Trump did. Fortunately for them, he had enough coattails, and generated enough excitement to help them keep the majority in the House, and the Senate. For one bright moment after election day, House Speaker Paul Ryan admitted publicly that without Trump’s campaign, he would not have been Speaker again. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Please note that the few Republican senators that lost close races were the ones who never got behind Trump.
O.K., so the table has been set now.
GOP, what the hell do you think you’re doing? Instead of being leaders of a great, nation-stirring agenda, you’re sitting on your hands doing little of consequence, acting as if you lost the election, and doing nothing to stand against the most insane, nasty and inane narratives against your president that have been seen in generations.
GOP, where are the adults? It’s time for you to step forward. Immediately. If you have been sleeping and not seeing just how badly you are doing, please wake up.
There are some reasons the GOP has become an irrelevant majority. They are as follows:
- Big dollar donors who want big favors that go against their voters’ wishes. Follow the money. And yes, that’s number one for a reason.
- Many of the GOP representatives have become enamored with Washington, its power, its glamour, its “charm,” and their place within the circle of intrigue. They have forgotten why they won, and what they promised. These are the ones who go back and forth into the swamp, not realizing how dirty they have become.
- Then there are the swamp creatures. Those who have lost their way, and who have become permanent fixtures of a ruling city totally out of touch with their country. They have fooled their constituents for a long time. These are the worst category.
- There are also those Stockholm Syndrome Republicans who want to be spoken of nicely by the media, and by their “friends” across the aisle. Of all categories, I would hope James Hodgkinson might have changed your mind on this subject.
- Last but not least, we have the confused ones. Easily swayed by the siren song of the media, incapable of seeing how double-minded they themselves are, perhaps they should rethink why they came to Congress. Let me give you a hint: Number 1 above is not a very good reason.
If the shoe fits, perhaps some rethinking should go on. Soon.
Now, I am certain there are good GOP Representatives, Senators, and leaders. They don’t fall easily into one of the categories above, they really have a good reason to be there, they have solid conservative principles, and possibly are really decent people. I know you’re there. But would you do us all a favor, and start acting like you are? Show us some leadership. Act like the adults in the room. Immediately, constantly, and loudly. If you don’t, you will not only stay irrelevant, you’re going to lose your power, you’re going to lose your elected position, and you won’t be remembered well. You have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help the country go forward, and you’re about to lose it.
Why? Because you’re not remembering the placards those voters held up. Here they are again: “Do you know who your voters are?” “Do you know what we want?” “Do you ever listen to us?”
Here’s what your voters want, coincidentally it’s the agenda you ran on, and the agenda that once enacted will make you part of a great historical turn for our country.
First, come to the aid of your president. Now.
I called my congressman and explained to his young aide in Washington why the freshman congressman needed to step to the front. I explained rationally and nicely why he needed to vocally defend Trump, come against the monstrous lies the Democrat/media complex has propagated, and pass the Trump agenda. I got a form letter back, tutting and clucking “certain claims have been made against the new administration which deserve to be taken seriously in order to promote a transparent and accountable government, blah, blah, blah.” Quite honestly it was sickening. The man should know better.
This whole stupid narrative that Trump did something wrong is just that. And the congressman’s voters know, and won’t forget. And they are sick of hearing these stupid things and not defending the man they elected president. Suggestion: Be a profile of courage, stand up against this nonsense. The voters will remember whichever way you go. Yes, they will.
Once the solid defense of Trump starts, uniting a majority of your colleagues to stop encouraging the democrat/media congress with this anti-Trump nonsense should be a first priority. Then, start actually fulfilling promises made to the electorate. It’s called getting rid of Obamacare, enacting tax reform (cuts), empowering the economy, cutting regulation, rebuilding the military, defunding leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood, and the list goes on and on. Make America Great Again was not just a slogan to the voters.
So little has been done, so much more should have been. The voters would rather remember the GOP as a party that when much was required, stepped up to the plate and got it done. In spite of the Democrat/media complex.
A quick reminder. I doubt there is even one percent of the GOP voters who ever want to hear about another part of the “Russia” investigation. It’s all been a massive pile of horse manure, and those voters know it. Like those voters, act like grown-ups and stop this nonsense. No more time on useless investigations. Then don’t go on vacation until you vote in the agenda you promised.
The GOP has a lot of real voter anger lining up against it. And no, it’s not the Democrat voters who live on deranged toddler-like anger I am talking about. It’s the slow, even burn of a base that has been denied what it has worked for and voted for way too long. They will not be denied because of GOP fecklessness.
If the adults do not stand up, that anger will fall on the GOP. By primarying those who are faithless, like Eric Cantor; or even worse, simply not showing up as happened in 2006.
Adults, be warned. Step to the front.
1a)Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid
- The Washington Times -
India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.
1a)Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid
- The Washington Times -
India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.
When President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord last week, his critics — including former President Barack Obama — said he was turning his back on the future and joining only Syria and Nicaragua in refusing to take part.
But for many that remain in the accord, the demands for cash are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement, at its core, is as much about redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate change.
Supporters of the deal routinely point out that 193 countries have signed on. Although that is technically true, the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding — or, in many cases, both.
“Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact. “There’s a stark difference between agreeing to sign on to Paris and agreeing to do something, to undertake pain. In essence, they rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers. But for them to promise to do anything beyond take our money and impose the agenda, too, would really cost us.”
Unlike much of the developing world, major countries such as the U.S., Russia and China did not make their commitments beholden to international financial support. The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions at least 26 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels; Russia made a similar commitment.
China said it will hit peak emissions by 2030 and then begin reductions. The European Union is aiming for a 40 percent cut by 2030 versus 1990 levels.
Other developed countries, such as Canada and Japan, also did not make their promises contingent on financial help.
But for the vast majority of the countries, their promises aren’t feasible without a major influx of money.
At least $420 billion has been formally requested under countries’ submissions to the Paris agreement, according to Carbon Brief, a U.K.-based group that tracks international climate change and maintains a comprehensive database of all information related to the Paris deal.
That figure, however, is far lower than what will ultimately be required. Many countries do not specify exactly how much money it will take to meet their emissions reduction targets.
Yemen, for example, said it could increase its 1 percent pledge to 14 percent with financial help, but the country — the poorest in the Muslim world — didn’t indicate how much cash it needs.
Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance.
When the Obama administration finalized the agreement in December 2015, it committed $3 billion to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, which is meant to help countries meet their targets. Only $1 billion of that has been paid out, and the Trump administration won’t sign off on any further payments.
In fact, the president specifically cited that fund and its reliance on U.S. cash as key reasons for pulling out of the deal.
“So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime,” Mr. Trump said in his Rose Garden address last week. “America is $20 trillion in debt. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us. So think of that.”
Some analysts say the Green Climate Fund would work against efforts to make the U.S. economy greener by funneling money from technological research to developing nations.
“These very real expenses will consume money that could be used by the private sector to fund innovative new technologies that are economically sound and can power our society with little pollution,” Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute, said last week after Mr. Trump announced America’s withdrawal.
It’s unclear whether the agreement can survive without U.S. financial support. The president has said he is willing to re-enter the deal if he can secure terms more favorable for the U.S., though he seemed unwilling to put the country on the hook for significant payouts to developing countries.
Still, supporters of the Paris accord as it is currently structured argue that it offers economic opportunities to the U.S. by promoting jobs in clean energy.
“So, because of this decision, American leadership in those sectors is now going to be put at risk,” former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, a key architect of the deal, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “We could lose some of our ability to be able to grow those jobs and in fact lose out on the largest market of the future. The biggest market in the world in the future is going to be trillions of dollars spent in the sector of energy.”
++++++++++++++++++
2)
| Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen: General John Allen’s Plan Is Dangerous |
By Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen BESA Center Perspectives No. 504, June 21, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Trump White House is currently reexamining the Allen Plan, an Obama-era proposal that calls for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders with no IDF presence whatsoever. This plan is dangerous. If it is implemented, Israel will have to rely on foreign forces for its security, a situation that has not worked in the past. More than that, it is antithetical to the Israeli ethos of self-defense and self-preservation in the Jewish homeland. Col. Kris Bauman’s appointment as Israel adviser to the US National Security Council is a noteworthy event. He assisted Gen. John Allen in formulating recommendations for security arrangements for Israel in the context of a permanent settlement, to which then-Secretary of State John Kerry aspired. This set of recommendations came to be known as the Allen Plan. Gen. Allen’s vision was detailed in a comprehensive document prepared at a US research institute by two Israelis and two Americans: Gen. (res.) Gadi Shamni and Nimrod Novik, along with Ilan Goldenberg and Col. Kris Bauman. The plan envisages a Palestinian state with full sovereignty inside the 1967 borders, its capital in east Jerusalem, with minor modifications for settlement blocs. The plan is based on complete acceptance of the Palestinian demand for full sovereignty. This means no IDF soldiers anywhere in their state, which would extend from the Jordan River to the 1967 line. In lieu of Israel’s demands regarding defensible borders, which include an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley to ensure the Palestinian state’s demilitarization, the plan proposes a varied and complex security solution. One element would be a US military force that would operate in the Jordan Valley. As the document’s Executive Summary states, The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that well-thought-through security measures in the context of the two-state solution can provide Israelis and Palestinians with a degree of security equal or greater to that provided today by Israel’s deployment into the West Bank… The basic problem is the notion that Israel will rely for its security on foreign forces. Not only is it difficult to ensure that such forces would fulfill their duty successfully, but it is uncertain whether or not they would stay in place – particularly after they have suffered casualties like those they have suffered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade. Recall that during the waiting period before the Six-Day War, the security guarantee given by President Eisenhower to Ben-Gurion after the 1956 Sinai Campaign evaporated. When he demanded that Israel withdraw unconditionally from the Sinai Peninsula, Eisenhower promised that if the Straits of Tiran were ever again closed to Israeli shipping, the US would intervene. Yet when Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban came to Washington in May 1967, President Johnson candidly explained to him that Eisenhower’s promise – however estimable – was no longer a practical proposition. With his army bogged down in Vietnam, Johnson apparently could not have gained the nation’s or Congress’s support for an intervention in the Straits of Tiran even if he had wanted to. The main concern is that the existence of the Greater Tel Aviv area – indeed, the daily routine of the State of Israel – will come to be dependent on the goodwill of foreign forces. That is the heart of the matter. Do we want Israel to be no more than a haven for persecuted Jews where they can subsist under foreign protection? Or do we want Israel to be a place of freedom, a homeland, in which we alone are responsible for our own security and sovereignty? The authors of the Allen document emphasize that Israel’s security would continue to be based on the IDF’s power. But it is hard to imagine under what circumstances Israel would attain the international legitimacy to pursue an offensive deep within the Palestinian state, should the need arise. Regarding the conditions that could justify an IDF operation in Palestinian territory, the document says: The Palestinians will never agree to an Israeli right of re-entry, but there could be a side agreement between Israel and the United States on the conditions under which the United States would support unilateral Israeli action. Ultimately, Israel is a sovereign state that enjoys the right of self-defense. Thus, it can unilaterally violate the sovereignty of another state, but with the attendant risks that would have to be weighed by Israeli leadership. Should the IDF evacuate the territories completely, as envisaged by this plan, the Palestinians would certainly employ their carefully honed tactical and strategic talent for nonaccountability and ambiguity. They would take care to ensure that the Palestinian state cannot be defined as a hostile entity against which a “just war” can be declared. Whether deliberately or not, they would be able to let “rogue,” non-state forces do their work for them, and avoid taking responsibility. What then? There is also good reason to doubt whether conditions for demilitarization can be maintained. In an era of global arms proliferation, and of forms of smuggling that elude surveillance (as in the flow of weapons to Hamas in Gaza and to Hezbollah in Lebanon), along with increasingly sophisticated local arms manufacture, there is no way to guarantee real demilitarization without a constant effort to keep the territory fully isolated and to operate within it. We must also take into account the possibility that war could erupt in more than one arena at at a time. If war were to break out with the state of Palestine in the West Bank, it could happen simultaneously in Lebanon, Gaza, and so on. The IDF would be unable to concentrate its efforts in the West Bank arena – which, because of its geographic proximity to Israel’s population centers, could inflict a heavy blow. Under the new conditions of war, which are fundamentally different from those that prevailed in June 1967, reconquering the territory would be incomparably more difficult. And what of the document’s validity under changing conditions? The security solution the document proposes must be weighed in terms of the time dimension, and in circumstantial contexts that are subject to change. If a solution is responsible and workable, what time span is envisaged? Who knows under what evolving circumstances the solution will be required to provide protection to a state of Israel that has been trimmed down to the coastal plain? Is there not also a need for responsible risk management regarding contingencies that are still beyond the horizon? We must ask to what extent we ourselves, with the excessive emphasis we have placed on security concerns in recent decades as a key criterion by which to assess any prospective solution, have laid the groundwork for Gen. Allen’s plan. His security document is, after all, intended expressly to offer a technical solution to all the familiar security issues. It would leave the Israeli leadership without the faintest possibility of invoking a security pretext to ward off the “peace solution.” In describing Kerry’s efforts, Thomas Friedman asserted (The New York Times, February 17, 2013) that in light of Gen. Allen’s solution for Israel’s security concerns, the Israeli government had reached a juncture where it would have to choose between peace and ideology. Perhaps we have forgotten that protecting the national existence, in terms of how the IDF defines national security, does not pertain solely to ensuring the physical existence of the citizens of the country but also to safeguarding national interests. A national interest – such as the sovereignty of the people of Israel in their capital, Jerusalem – can go far beyond the technical contents of a plan for security arrangements, however worthy. Security is only a means, not an end in itself. From a practical, professional standpoint, Gen. Allen’s plan leaves much to be desired. But on a deeper level, it completely ignores the possibility that the people of Israel, in renewing their life in their homeland, are motivated by something much greater than the need for a technical solution to security concerns. This article was first published in Israel Hayom on June 8, 2017. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served in the IDF for forty-two years. He commanded troops in battles with Egypt and Syria. He was formerly a corps commander and commander of the IDF Military Colleges. 2a) The world must finally awaken to the UN refugee agency's failures in the Palestinian territories
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, Asaf Romirowsky, Alexander Joffe
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke from the Government of Israel's longstanding policy and stated that UNRWA, the internationally funded UN body dedicated to providing health, education, welfare and legal services to Palestinian “refugees,” should be shut down. This dramatic shift is long overdue in a region where refugee populations have grown enormously but where Palestinians continue to receive overdue attention.
Netanyahu's statement, made to U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley during her visit to Israel last week, came shortly after the discovery of yet another terror tunnel underneath a UNRWA-run school in Gaza.
He followed up with a statement to his cabinet that “the existence of UNRWA — and unfortunately its work from time to time — perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem rather than solve it. Therefore, the time has come to dismantle UNRWA and merge its components with the [UN] High Commissioner for Refugees.” Though Israeli politicians have argued for changing policy toward UNRWA, Netanyahu appears to have finally done so.
For decades, Israeli officials have claimed that without UNRWA providing for the needs of the Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Israel would be held responsible. This is a burden Israel preferred not to bear, despite UNRWA's well-documented cooptation by terrorist elements from Hamas and other groups.
The position produced a perversity in which Israel itself reinforced the very organization whose role includes perpetuating a core tenet in the Palestinian national narrative, the absolute centrality of refugees to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the demand that Israel accept repatriation of their descendants through a “right of return.” It does so through its educational curricula for Palestinians and in representations in international forums.
Understanding the way that UNRWA helps perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem reveals an entrenched and dysfunctional bureaucracy, accustomed to almost 70 years of international welfare-including over $370 million from the US in 2016. It also sheds light on the subversive dynamic between UNRWA and the Palestinian leadership; the existence of UNRWA allows the Palestinian Authority to continue shirking core responsibilities towards its citizens.
At its root, UNRWA effectively argues that — regardless of the reality — all Palestinians are refugees and victims of an Israeli “occupation.” The organization has financial and political interests in maintaining this fiction: As long as the Palestinians are refugees, UNRWA is in business. Success is measured by the contributions it receives and prerogatives it assumes.
As a case in point, UNRWA released a statement marking the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War stating, “The occupation remains a key obstacle to the realization of a just and lasting solution for the seven-decade-long plight of Palestine refugees, and it continues to be one of the most salient aspects of a historical injustice that has cast a shadow over their lives since 1948.”
Israel's historic position and ongoing U.S. funding have created a situation that has promoted Palestinian rejectionism, and which does not advance the cause of peace, or U.S. interests in the Middle East. UNRWA learned long ago to wave the bloody shirt, proclaim its formal neutrality and act as unofficial Palestinian spokesman.
But with hundreds of thousands of real refugees flooding over the Middle East and Europe, UNRWA's claims, along with those of Palestinian refugees kept in camps by Arab states, ring more and more hollow.
If the State of Israel has finally begun to see UNRWA as part of the problem rather than a permanent band-aid, there may be a real chance to remove one problem that has long ensured that conflict will never end.
Romirowsky is the executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. Joffe is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow of the Middle East Forum.
3) Democrats didn’t expect their attacks on Trump would come back to bite them
From the moment Donald Trump won the election, Democrats and their allies in the media were doing everything they could to undermine him and stall his agenda.
They rejoiced over the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate President Trump.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment