Tell all the overpaid protesters in the NFL to put on this uniform.
Then they might understand why we stand.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps what motivated Trump was one dictator was one too many and he decided to do what a president should do. ie. allow/encourage Congress to craft legislation that addresses the mess they have avoided for over 30 years and Obama made worse. If , in six months, they cannot get their act together Trump will then have to do something.
As I previously wrote about kicking the can down the field, eventually you run out of turf. This is the mess we find ourselves in vis a vis N Korea and will eventually face with Iran etc. Appeasement seldom works and most particularly when challenged by a bully who has proven his own people's lives are worthless.
Congress complains about how former presidents have usurped their authority but Congress never tells you how they abdicated their authority because they were afraid to act yet they continue to draw their salaries.
Where are the bold statesmen who founded our nation and stood on principles and took the heat while they debated and were castigated? (See 1 below.)
I am constantly reminded I am wrong in whatever I say and/or write by several liberal friends and memo readers. If I am always wrong then this would suggest they are always right. The problem with this hypothesis is that I cannot remember when that proved so and they are unable to point to something they were right about so we remain at a verbal standstill.
The latest comment by one is that he was glad my finger is not on the red button because N Korea is not going to start a war. I suggested that if he happened to be wrong (hoe could that be?) and they do attack then what do I do with my finger? I guess I could give "Fat Boy" the finger.
Russia and China may be adversaries but their leaders are not irrational as "Fat Boy" nor are they as bellicose and exploding bombs and sending rockets all over.
If "Fat Boy" only had regular weaponry I would be less concerned about his threats and would not be thinking of a pre-emptive strike that would send his nation back to the dark ages nor would I be concerned about how China would respond but as President I would have sworn to defend our nation and that does not allow me the luxury of accepting the first blow. This is not a boxing match.
But then, whatever Trump does he will be deemed wrong because that is the posture liberals and Democrats have assumed. The fact that the immigration problems, N Korea, Iran , the deficit, were not of Trump's making means nothing. In fact, some even remind me Obama is no longer president and castigate me for still referring to him, as if his failed actions/policies have no lingering consequences.
I remind them, all presidents must cope with the mistakes of their predecessors. This too makes little impact. Oh well. liberals live in their own cocoons just as conservatives live in theirs. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The hostility towards De Vos has become the normal way to attack those whose ideas do not fit one's own prejudices and/or threatens their power.
Powerful forces do not like having their authority challenged. Particularly when their own concepts have proven wrong and failing.
Unions once served a valid purpose but far too many now are simply run by those who want to preserve their positions, political influence and income stream and have little to do with those they profess they exist to serve.
Our education system was generally serving our youth until Carter decided we needed a Department of Education and, as usually happens when the government gets involved, everything went down hill.
Any system can benefit from change but the change must be appropriate and unions no longer seem to have answers or care about solutions that empirically prove they work. They simply want to retain power and control.
Furthermore, we no longer teach our children basics. We have allowed politically correctness advocates to take over what courses are taught and everything has gone to hell. We serve mush, educationally speaking, to children that have a thirst for solid knowledge and challenges.(See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Israel bashers continue to lie in order to gain leverage and influence. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Dreamer Debacle
Cynical politics by both parties puts thousands of young adults in jeopardy.
President Trump is taking flak from all sides for ending his predecessor’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, thus putting some 800,000 young immigrants—so-called Dreamers—in legal limbo. Though the President and Barack Obama share responsibility for instigating the crisis, Mr. Trump and Congress now have an obligation to fix it and spare these productive young adults from harm they don’t deserve.
***
Mr. Trump was at his worst during the campaign when he assailed DACA as an “unconstitutional executive amnesty,” though to his credit he later evinced a change of heart toward these immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The White House continued DACA despite legal misgivings. But in June, 10 GOP state Attorneys General presented an ultimatum: Kill DACA or we’ll sue.
They could make this threat because President Obama unilaterally issued the policy in June 2012 putatively because Congress failed to reform immigration, but the end-run was timed to galvanize his base before the election. He also knew that Dreamers have widespread public sympathy, including among Republicans who otherwise support strict immigration enforcement. He figured Republicans would harm themselves politically by opposing the compassionate policy and that a GOP successor couldn’t roll it back without a public backlash.
This was Mr. Obama at his most cynical, and it takes gall for him to scold Mr. Trump as he did Tuesday for making a “political decision” about “a moral question” and “basic decency.” Mr. Obama’s “political decision” to act as his own legislature teed up this moral crisis and created the legal jeopardy.
DACA allows undocumented immigrants under age 36 to apply for legal status and work permits, which can be renewed every two years. Applicants cannot have a serious criminal conviction. They must attend school, have a job, or serve in the military.
As America’s problems go, these young adults shouldn’t even be on the list. And it shows the Republican Party at its worst that the state AGs and Attorney General Jeff Sessions want to make this an urgent priority, rather than let Congress take it up when it has a less crowded schedule. They are pandering to the restrictionist right that is a minority even within the GOP.
But as a legal matter, they are right that Mr. Obama’s DACA diktat presents legal problems. The Constitution gives Congress the power to write immigration law, and issuing work permits confers a right that is the purview of the legislative branch.
The GOP AGs led by Texas’s Ken Paxton threatened to amend their lawsuit against the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which Mr. Obama issued in November 2014. That sweeping order granted legal protections to four million or so undocumented immigrants and stretched far beyond any reasonable definition of prosecutorial discretion.
In 2015 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed DAPA, holding that the order usurped congressional authority. The Supreme Court left the injunction in place last year. Mr. Sessions is probably right that DACA “is vulnerable to the same legal and constitutional challenges that the courts recognized with respect to the DAPA program.”
But DACA presents distinct humanitarian and economic concerns—as well as a government promise that carries a moral if not legal obligation. Unlike DAPA, which was never implemented, some 800,000 Dreamers have used DACA to reorder their lives.
The Obama Administration invited Dreamers out of the shadows and asked them to submit personal identification and records that could now allow the feds to track them down. These young immigrants have committed no crime and trusted the federal government to protect them. A study last year by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center found that 87% of DACA beneficiaries are employed.
They would no longer be able to work legally once their DACA permits expire. And if they forge work documents, they would become a deportation priority. Dreamers could be forced to return to a country where they have no family and may not even speak the language. Is deporting these people really how Republicans want to define themselves?
***
The White House seems to understand the terrible political optics, which is why it has tossed the issue to Congress. It plans what it calls “an orderly wind-down of DACA” rather than wait for a potentially disruptive court injunction. Current Dreamers whose permits expire over the next six months will be allowed to apply for renewals by Oct. 5, though no new applications will be accepted.
This gives Congress at least some time to enact the current Dreamer legalization process in a statute that is the proper legal path under the Constitution’s separation of powers. Mr. Trump signaled his willingness to sign such a bill on Tuesday when he tweeted, “Congress, get ready to do your job—DACA!” We hope he means it.
This will be a test of the sincerity of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Some Republicans like Iowa Rep. Steve King will oppose any DACA legalization as “amnesty,” and will want to load up a bill with poison pills that moderates and Democrats can’t abide. Many Democrats may also be more than happy to block legislation and use the Dreamers as a cudgel against Republicans next year.
An obvious bipartisan solution would trade authorizing DACA in return for additional border enforcement. But Republicans should also be prepared to send Mr. Trump a clean authorization to make good on the government’s moral obligation to these young people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley discussed U.S. policy toward Iran at the American Enterprise Institute on Sept. 5:
2)
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley discussed U.S. policy toward Iran at the American Enterprise Institute on Sept. 5:
- "Many observers...think, 'Well, as long as Iran is meeting the limits on enriched uranium and centrifuges, then it's complying with the deal.' That's not true....Next month, President Trump will once again be called upon to declare whether he finds Iran in compliance with the terms of the deal. It should be noted that this requirement to assess compliance does not come from the deal itself. It was created by Congress in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act....If the President chooses not to certify Iranian compliance, that does not mean the United States is withdrawing from the JCPOA."
- "The truth is, the Iran deal has so many flaws that it's tempting to leave it. But the deal was constructed in a way that makes leaving it less attractive. It gave Iran what it wanted up-front, in exchange for temporary promises to deliver what we want. That's not good."
- "The deal [President Obama] struck wasn't supposed to be just about nuclear weapons. It was meant to be an opening with Iran; a welcoming back into the community of nations....We were promised an 'end' to the Iranian nuclear program. What emerged was not an end, but a pause....We were promised 'anytime, anywhere' inspections....Iranian leaders...have stated publicly that they will refuse to allow IAEA inspections of their military sites."
- "Why did we need to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place? The answer has everything to do with the nature of the regime, and the IRGC's determination to threaten Iran's neighbors and advance its revolution."
- "When the nuclear agreement was signed, the Obama Administration took Iran's non-nuclear activity - the missile development, the arms smuggling, the terrorism, the support for murderous regimes - and rolled it up into one UN Security Council resolution - 2231....Every six months, the UN Secretary General reports to the Security Council on the Iranian regime's compliance with this so-called 'non-nuclear' resolution."
- "Each report is filled with devastating evidence of Iranian violations. Proven arms smuggling. Violations of travel bans. Ongoing support for terrorism. Stoking of regional conflicts....[And] ample evidence of ballistic missile technology and launches....They are clearly acting in defiance of UN Resolution 2231."
- "We must consider not just the Iranian regime's technical violations of the JCPOA, but also its violations of Resolution 2231 and its long history of aggression. We must consider the regime's repeated, demonstrated hostility toward the United States. We must consider its history of deception about its nuclear program. And we must consider the day when the terms of the JCPOA sunset. That's a day when Iran's military may very well already have the missile technology to send a nuclear warhead to the United States."
- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Teachers Union’s Public Enemy No. 1
Betsy DeVos is Trump’s stylistic opposite, but she stirs more antagonism than any other cabinet member.
Earlier in the day Mrs. DeVos had been at Holy Comforter Episcopal, a parochial school that serves pupils from prekindergarten through eighth grade. “They started STEM programs before STEM became the cool thing to do,” she says, “and it was just great to visit a variety of the classrooms and see some of the fun things that they’re doing to get kids interested.”
Earlier in the day Mrs. DeVos had been at Holy Comforter Episcopal, a parochial school that serves pupils from prekindergarten through eighth grade. “They started STEM programs before STEM became the cool thing to do,” she says, “and it was just great to visit a variety of the classrooms and see some of the fun things that they’re doing to get kids interested.”
Local officials in this heavily Democratic area were less enthusiastic. “It’s obvious that the secretary and our federal government have very little respect for our traditional public-school system,” Rocky Hanna, Leon County’s superintendent of schools, groused to the Tallahassee Democrat. “And it’s insulting that she’s going to visit the capital of the state of Florida, to visit a charter school, a private school and a voucher school.” (A correction on the newspaper’s website noted that she did not visit the voucher school, Bethel Christian Academy, but rather attended a “private roundtable event” at the church center that houses it.)
Mrs. DeVos, 59, stirs more passionate antagonism than any other member of President Trump’s cabinet—and that was true even before she took office. Two Republicans dissented from her February confirmation and no Democrat supported it, resulting in a 50-50 vote. She is the only cabinet secretary in U.S. history whose appointment required a vice-presidential tiebreaker.
Since then Mrs. DeVos has hit the road and visited 27 schools. Her first call, three days after she was sworn in, was Jefferson Middle School Academy in Washington, less than a mile from the Education Department’s headquarters. She was met by protesters, who blocked the entrance and shouted: “Go Back! Shame, shame!” When I ask about that incident, she plays it down: “There were just a few people that really didn’t want to see me enter the school. I don’t think they had anything to do with that school. But we, fortunately, found another way to get in, and I was greeted very warmly by all of the teachers.”
The hostility toward Mrs. DeVos is curious, because in many ways she is Mr. Trump’s stylistic opposite. Whereas the president is a bellicose, brash outer-borough New Yorker, the secretary is a pleasant, staid Midwesterner, a native of Holland, Mich. While Mr. Trump gleefully defies the strictures of political correctness, Mrs. DeVos approaches them with caution.
That becomes clear when I ask my most provocative question, about an Obama administration Title IX policy now being reconsidered. In 2011 the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights construed Title IX, which bars sex discrimination, as mandating that colleges and universities take a series of actions meant to prevent and punish “the sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence.” That prompted campus administrators to set up disciplinary tribunals that lack basic due-process protections for the accused.
Candice Jackson, Mrs. DeVos’s acting head of the Office of Civil Rights, told the New York Times in July that “the accusations—90% of them—fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.’ ” I tell the secretary this is consistent with my own reporting on the subject. Was Ms. Jackson right?
“Well, she has apologized for those remarks,” says Mrs. DeVos, looking somewhat pained. “They were made in a flippant manner, and she has acknowledged that.” The secretary adds that “sexual assault has to be taken seriously” and is “not something to be dismissed.” That’s indisputable, but Mrs. DeVos carefully avoids stating a view on whether Ms. Jackson’s assertion was factually accurate.
Understandably, Mrs. DeVos also doesn’t tip her hand as to what direction the review of the Obama policy may be taking. “I actually give credit to the last administration for raising this issue and trying to address it on campuses,” she says. But as to the current policy, “it’s clear that for many people, it’s not working, and for many institutions, it’s not working.”
She has met with advocates on both sides, including sexual-assault survivors and wrongfully accused students; the latter meeting prompted another protest, outside her office. “It’s important to listen to all perspectives, and to hear from those who, as I heard that day, have never felt that they’ve had a voice in this discussion,” she says. “We’re listening and we’re considering what future options might be.” Stay tuned.
Mrs. DeVos had a rhetorical stumble of her own in February, when she praised historically black colleges and universities as “real pioneers when it comes to school choice.” She now says: “I should have been very clear about decrying the horrors and ravages of racism. I also should have been clear that when I said pioneers of choice, it was because it was the only choice that black students had at that time.” Yet there is a contemporary parallel: “There are millions of kids today that are stuck in schools that are not doing justice for them, and I think we need to do something totally different and allow them the freedom to have choices like I did for my kids.”
Unlike Mr. Trump, Mrs. DeVos does not relish the culture wars, and her instinct is for conciliation rather than confrontation. But don’t mistake that quality for a lack of determination. On the cause she most cares about, school choice and innovation, she leaves no doubt where she stands: “The reality is, for many students today, they have no choice in the K-12 system, and I am an advocate for giving those students more choices—and I’ve been an advocate for them for 30 years.”
In 2000 she and her husband, Dick, led a ballot initiative to allow vouchers in Michigan. It failed, with 69% of voters opposed, as did similar school-choice measures in other states. In part that was because of opposition from suburban parents, who, as Mrs. DeVos puts it, already “had the economic means to make those choices” by living in areas with better schools. Since then, however, “times have continued to change and move more in favor of giving parents and students more choices, because we’ve seen consistently that too many kids are not being served in the schools to which they’ve been assigned.”
She notes that Illinois, one of “the bluest of blue states,” is “on the brink of adding to the number of states—bringing it to 26—that will have some form of a private choice program.” Two days after our interview Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed a bill establishing a tax-credit scholarship program for poor students—a concession he exacted from the Democratic Legislature as the price for bailing out Chicago’s public schools.
Mrs. DeVos sees choice as a means to the end of promoting educational innovation—including within traditional public schools. “Instead of focusing on systems and buildings, we should be focused on individual students,” she says. That means encouraging young people “to pursue their curiosity and their interests, and being OK with wherever that takes them—not trying to conform them into a path that everybody has to take.”
What stands in the way? “I think a real robust defense of the status quo is the biggest impediment,” Mrs. DeVos says. She doesn’t mention teachers unions until I raise the subject, whereupon she observes: “I think that they have done a good job in continuing to advocate for their members, but I think it’s a focus more around the needs of adults” rather than students.
Many of the adults are frustrated, too. Recently I met a veteran middle-school teacher who said his creativity in the classroom has been increasingly constrained by federal and state mandates on curriculum and testing. Another teacher I know, who wants to start a charter, complains that “it is getting harder and harder to work for the idiots in traditional schools.”
That sounds familiar to Mrs. DeVos. “I do hear sentiments from many teachers like that,” she says, “and particularly from many teachers that are really effective and creative themselves. I’ve also heard from many teachers who have stopped teaching because they feel like they can’t really be free to do their best, because they’re either subtly or not subtly criticized by peers who might not be as effective as they are—or by administrators who don’t want to see them sort of excelling and upsetting the apple cart within whatever system they’re in.”
She continues: “I talked to a bunch of teachers that had left teaching that had been Teachers of the Year in their states or their counties or whatever. I recall one of the teachers said he just felt so beaten down after being told repeatedly to have his class keep it down—that they were having too much fun, and the kids were too engaged. Well, what kind of a message is that?”
Mrs. DeVos is unfailingly polite, even toward her antagonists. In April, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, invited the secretary to join her on a visit to the public school district in rural Van Wert, Ohio. “It was clear that the school is strongly supported by the community,” Mrs. DeVos recalls. “But my suspicion is that if you polled every single parent in that school, a few of them would probably say if they had a choice to do something different, they probably would for their child.” Still, she believes she and Ms. Weingarten “can find some common ground on some of the things that we are both advocating for.”
Ms. Weingarten is not so agreeable. At a union conference in July she gave a speech with the portentous title “Our David vs. Goliath Battle to Resist Injustice and Reclaim Promise of Public Education.” The talk noted that Van Wert “went overwhelmingly Republican” in the 2016 election. (Mr. Trump took 76% of the county’s vote.) “Does that mean that the people of Van Wert agree with everything Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos are trying to do, like end public schools as we know them in favor of vouchers and privatization and making education a commodity?” Ms. Weingarten asked. “Not in the least. The people of Van Wert are proud of their public schools.”
She went on: “Unfortunately, just like climate change deniers deny the facts, Betsy DeVos is a public school denier, denying the good in our public schools and their foundational place in our democracy.” She answered Mrs. DeVos’s clumsy remark about black colleges with a calculated show of racial demagoguery: “The ‘real pioneers’ of private school choice were the white politicians who resisted school integration.”
Mrs. DeVos’s opponents show no indication of repaying her civility in kind. Perhaps that is a backhanded acknowledgment that they regard her as a formidable foe.
Mr. Taranto is the Journal’s editorial features editor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Netanyahu: Israel’s cooperation with Arab states has never been greater
By HERB KEINON
|
Netanyahu said the cooperation today with countries in the Arab world is actually greater than it was when Jerusalem signed agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Israel is enjoying a greater level of cooperation today with the Arab world than it has ever had in its history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a pre-Rosh Hashana toast in the Foreign Ministry on Wednesday.
Netanyahu said the cooperation today with countries in the Arab world is actually greater than it was when Jerusalem signed agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
In practice, he said, there is cooperation in “different ways” and “at different levels,” though it is not public. And even though it is not public, “it is much larger than any other period in Israel's history. It's a huge change.”
Netanyahu, who also serves as the country's foreign minister, advanced the annual toast because he will be traveling to Latin America and New York next week, and returning just prior to the beginning of Rosh Hashana on September 20.
Netanyahu, who was particularly sanguine about Israel's standing in the world, said that Israel today is “in a different place” than before. He said that the alliance with the United States is “stronger than ever” and that – in addition – there are strong ties with Europe, with openings being made in eastern Europe.
“There are great breakthroughs on all the continents; our return to Africa and the expansion of our technical assistance there is leading to a great deal of interest on the continent,” he said. He added that important breakthroughs were made this past year in Asia as well – China, India and Japan – as well as with the Muslim countries there, especially Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which he visited in December.
Netanyahu also praised a “great change” with Russia, which he said was of great importance in terms of connecting economic and cultural interests, and also – referring to the situation in Syria – because of the strategic importance of coordinating with Moscow.
Referring to his upcoming trip to Argentina, Colombia and Mexico, before going to the UN General Assembly in New York, Netanyahu said that Latin America was a “huge market in a large bloc of important countries.”
This breakthrough, he said, was made possible because a basic assumption – that the world will open to Israel only if there is an agreement with the Palestinians – has proven false. Such an agreement, which Netanyahu said Israel wants, will help Israel's standing in the world, “but the world opens without it.”
He said this is happening because Israel is developing two strengths, which are leading to a third. It is cultivating its economic-technological power, which enables it to nurture unique military-intelligence capabilities, and that combination leads to diplomatic strength.
“The whole world is changing,” he said. “This does not mean that it is changing in international forums, at the UN, or UNESCO. But what we have here is a tremendous change that is happening despite, unfortunately, the Palestinians still not having changed their conditions for a diplomatic arrangement that are unacceptable to a large part of the public.”
Netanyahu said the cooperation today with countries in the Arab world is actually greater than it was when Jerusalem signed agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
In practice, he said, there is cooperation in “different ways” and “at different levels,” though it is not public. And even though it is not public, “it is much larger than any other period in Israel's history. It's a huge change.”
Netanyahu, who also serves as the country's foreign minister, advanced the annual toast because he will be traveling to Latin America and New York next week, and returning just prior to the beginning of Rosh Hashana on September 20.
Netanyahu, who was particularly sanguine about Israel's standing in the world, said that Israel today is “in a different place” than before. He said that the alliance with the United States is “stronger than ever” and that – in addition – there are strong ties with Europe, with openings being made in eastern Europe.
“There are great breakthroughs on all the continents; our return to Africa and the expansion of our technical assistance there is leading to a great deal of interest on the continent,” he said. He added that important breakthroughs were made this past year in Asia as well – China, India and Japan – as well as with the Muslim countries there, especially Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which he visited in December.
Netanyahu also praised a “great change” with Russia, which he said was of great importance in terms of connecting economic and cultural interests, and also – referring to the situation in Syria – because of the strategic importance of coordinating with Moscow.
Referring to his upcoming trip to Argentina, Colombia and Mexico, before going to the UN General Assembly in New York, Netanyahu said that Latin America was a “huge market in a large bloc of important countries.”
This breakthrough, he said, was made possible because a basic assumption – that the world will open to Israel only if there is an agreement with the Palestinians – has proven false. Such an agreement, which Netanyahu said Israel wants, will help Israel's standing in the world, “but the world opens without it.”
He said this is happening because Israel is developing two strengths, which are leading to a third. It is cultivating its economic-technological power, which enables it to nurture unique military-intelligence capabilities, and that combination leads to diplomatic strength.
“The whole world is changing,” he said. “This does not mean that it is changing in international forums, at the UN, or UNESCO. But what we have here is a tremendous change that is happening despite, unfortunately, the Palestinians still not having changed their conditions for a diplomatic arrangement that are unacceptable to a large part of the public.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment