+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This will make you take a knee. Too corny and patriotic, not PC enough: https://www.youtube.com/embed/
Since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s “take-a-knee” protest in 2016, some NFL players have taken to kneeling, sitting, or staying in the locker room during the national anthem. They certainly have that right, but are they right? Joy Villa, #1 Billboard recording artist, explains why every American should stand for the anthem and the flag: if for no other reason, because they’re free not to.
And:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ OwSaSl_PGk
+++++++++++++++
I discussed the below with my son ,while he was here over Thanksgiving, and he made a few alterations which I have included.
|
During the '60's we concluded personal satisfaction should be
pursued at all cost and anything went. Relativism and PC'ism supplanted
black and white, ethics, religious dictums and other norms.
Brigette Bardot removed her bra, nudity became acceptable, bikinis
got smaller and movies began to be rated for their sexual and adult
content. Authority was dissed. Hip hop became the craze while
debauchery and vulgarity became the new standard. George Carlin and Lenny Bruce
replaced Jack Benny and Red Skelton. Art became de-constructed and
Picasso and Pollack paintings established new trends and styles.
Advertising emphasized allure, crude language exploded on the screens and on
TV. And, as some of my memo readers suggest, 50 years later we are paying for
the decline in our national character, morals and anti-authority attitude.
During this same period, women were liberated but also had to
work to support their broken, fatherless families. Female health issues began
to track those of males and female heart attacks have become common place. The
glass ceiling was broken but mainly for those women with an education and in
pursuit of a professional life.
While a significant change in our mores was occurring, amazing
advances in technology were also bringing untold benefits and challenges.
Our ability to communicate and receive information lessened the power
of newspapers. Control of the media by public corporations
transformed hard news into soft entertainment. Medical advances and
medicines extended life spans and an aging population brought about demands
that were unheard of in previous decades.
America became a service society as factories and manufacturing
jobs vacated our shores, impacting the security, income and living standard of
the middle class.
Meanwhile, America's position as the number one nation began
being challenged. I have likened this to a college student who now must share
his dorm room.
Currently we are witnessing an episode of charges of sexual
abuse on the part of men pertaining to alleged and acknowledged events which
occurred, some as many as decades ago. Women now feel empowered enough to
come forth and, I submit, the relationship between men and women will be
altered but this has been happening anyway as we become a more sexually neutral
society. This is why progressives are pushing for anyone to consider what sex
they wish to be, what bathroom they wish to use, how they wish to be addressed.
Is this an extension of individual authoritarianism?
Take this a step further and one can posit this is what
sanctuary cities and states are doing by defying the president and federal
laws. Should the issue be brought before The Supreme Court and they rule
against Trump, then the president's ability to defend our nation and to
withhold federal funding from those entities that wish to defy federal laws
will have been severely altered. The consequence will be an even further
fractured Republic.
My son is of the opinion that all of this is moving us towards a
city/state system of governance; the very system our founding father's
prescribed. The two party system has become dysfunctional, the federal
government no longer meets the expectations of the citizenry and many
“Manhattan project-esque” roles only the government could fulfill in the past
are achievable with a smart phone today. The very institutions upon which
our Republic rests are being challenged in unimaginable ways one would never
have believed only a few decades ago.
Perhaps in time, the federal government will shrink and return
to providing that for which it was originally intended: national defense,
interstate commerce, a common currency and a federal judiciary capable of
resolving national disputes. Bitcoin might replace one of those roles someday.
The more government is called upon to solve knotty problems and
fails, the more likely cities and states will begin to take over previous
federal functions. Many U.S. cities have more access to capital and
larger economies than most foreign countries, so why not?
Obviously, I am bewildered by the trends I have presented above
but I do believe the foundation for radical change is being laid unless the
federal government reverses course. I have little faith that it can
because the larger it gets the more inefficient it becomes and the more indebt
the less resources are available.
Again, my son points out the federal government has failed to
protect our borders for decades. The illegal immigration problem is not
of recent vintage but as more and more "illegals" began to be
treated as citizens, when it came to extending benefits and the more their
children were born here, the ability of the government to manage the problem it
allowed/ignored reached a level that even Congress, to date, has been unwilling
to address.
The State of Colorado first, and now many others, have chosen to
become a haven for marijuana against federal laws but what can the government
do? Another instance where city/states disregard federalism.
The recent issue of sexism is a manifestation of a variety
of unresolved conflicts that were once deemed to have come under the dictates
of an expanded government and now that many of the complaints are directed at
those in Congress, which had the gall to set up an illegal slush fund to keep
them quiet, another brick has been removed from the “faith foundation” upon
which government rests.
I have written often about those who benefit from chaos and who
are using every tawdry episode and failure to carry out their long term goal -
the end of America as we know it. The belief Socialism, is a system better than
Capitalism, is another derelict idea which is gaining currency because those
who embrace this nonsense know nothing of its history of tragic results.
Meanwhile, ironically speaking, America's tax laws allow Soros to protect his billions so he can continue to attack/destroy our Republic.
Meanwhile, ironically speaking, America's tax laws allow Soros to protect his billions so he can continue to attack/destroy our Republic.
Since I have no answers to the many issues I/we have raised I will leave it to my memo readers to ponder and come up with theirs. (See 1 and 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump should listen. (See 2 below.)
Seems he does when it comes to The PLO. Now, can our State Department? (See 2a below.)
And
Let's hear it for John Bolton and Wilkie is dead.. (See 2b below.)
+++
Words are meaningless unless backed by a strong desire and capability. Then they must be taken seriously. Israel has to decide.
When looked at objectively, Iran has a poor air force, their planes no match to Israel's IAF. nor their pilots. They have no real army. Technology does , to some extent, offset these facts. Smart missiles are more intelligent and capable than those who press buttons and this can give a destructive edge to nations that are no match on a human equivalent basis.
Our adversaries learned Obama was an empty suit. Will Trump turn out to be another Obama? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The more you flaunt it, the more someone is going to want it. Then when the cost is less the demand expands.Thus, when sex became a cheapened commodity and lewdness and nudity became common place it morphed into a male entitlement.
Peggy Noonan hits the nail on the head and leaves her readers with three thoughts (See 4 below.)
++++++
Finally some facts and humor that are revealing about what who we are, where we are and what we have become. (See 5, 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1)
Washington Post reporter caught plotting liberal agenda with billionaire George Soros
By Brian Flood
Allegedly unbiased Washington Post reporter Janell Ross spoke at a top-secret meeting of liberal movers and shakers last week, where Democratic donors including billionaire George Soros outlined the future of their progressive agenda.
A Post spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that Ross took part of the California event “without notifying her superiors that she would be attending.”
The Democracy Alliance, which hosted the event, bills itself as “the largest network of donors dedicated to building the progressive movement in the United States” on the group’s official website. The liberal group also claims to “play a leading role in fostering the infrastructure necessary to advance a progressive agenda” in the United States.
The group intended to keep “the identities of its members and guests confidential,” according to the Beacon, but the paper obtained a “detailed conference agenda that lists both events and featured guests.” Once the Beacon revealed the attendees, the group reportedly beefed up security and asked participants to keep details off social media.
One of the surprising guests was Ross, who used to pass as a somewhat impartial reporter for the prestigious Post. While the paper’s slogan is, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” she apparently wanted to keep her bosses in the dark about attending the liberal planning session and hanging out with prominent Democratic donors such as Soros.
According to the agenda published by the Beacon, Ross’ panel aimed to help the liberal attendees get “the economic narrative right" and was immediately followed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaking about on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor called it a “classic example” of journalism “openly coordinating with the alt-left” to take down conservatives.
“Someone should introduce reporter Janell Ross and her boss Marty Baron to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. It appears they haven't read it, or any other text on journalistic ethics. Funny, the movie ‘Spotlight’ portrays Baron as a big advocate of legitimate journalism,” Gainor told Fox News. “Can't wait for the sequel that shows the Post for what it really is, the research and reporting arm of the left.”
While it’s surprising that a reporter from the Post would appear at such a partisan event, a quick glance at Ross’ archive page on the paper’s website reveals her agenda. One headline lumps President Trump into the same category as O.J. Simpson, while others touch on issues of race and gender discrimination. She covered the 2016 presidential election closely, but the majority of her stories appear to be anti-Trump in retrospect.
Members of the secretive liberal group who attended the shady presentation each promised to donate at least $20,000 to advance its left-wing agenda. The session was part of a three-day conference at the luxurious La Costa Resort located in Carlsbad, Calif., last week, where the group plotted their 2018 "resistance" and game plan, according to the Beacon. Soros was introduced by a video message from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, according to the paper.
"We’ve only now learned about her participation in this event," a Washington Post spokesperson told the Beacon when asked about Ross’ involvement, adding that she has been "reminded" that the paper "discourages" participation in events that may be "perceived as partisan."
Ross did not comment when reached by the Beacon.
The Washington Post did not respond to questions from Fox News on whether or not Ross will be disciplined for attending the event. Ross did not respond to our request for comment either.
The Democracy Alliance did not respond to a question about who funded Ross’ trip to the ritzy resort where the event was held.
1a) George Soros’s $18 Billion Tax Shelter
The wealthy have tucked billions into private nonprofits—where the IRS can’t touch it.
By Stephen Moore
True tax reform is predicated on the principle that all income should be taxed at a low rate once, and only once. But much of the wealth that Mr. Soros spent years moving into his Open Society Foundations will never be taxed. A gift of billions of dollars of appreciated stock escapes any capital gains tax, and the estate tax as well. So Mr. Soros can donate appreciated stock that Open Society Foundations can liquidate without the government ever taking a cut.
There’s more. When a person donates untaxed, appreciated assets to a private foundation, he may also deduct up to 20% of its market value on his personal return, carrying forward this deduction for five years. This double write-off may be the sweetest deal in the tax code.
The donors also can retain control of the money within the private foundation for years or even decades before it is disbursed. Since the foundation can employ family members at six-figure salaries for life to “administer” it, the umbilical cord to the donor never has to be cut.
I don’t question these billionaires’ right to do with their money as they wish. I’m simply arguing that Congress shouldn’t let the rich and politically powerful use private foundations to escape taxation. This loophole is one reason for an anomaly in our otherwise progressive tax code: The top 1% of earners pay an effective tax rate of 23%, but the top 0.001% pay only 18%.
Mr. Buffett has sanctimoniously denounced the fact that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. His suggestion is that Congress raise taxes on capital gains. But even if the tax rates were lifted, say, to 50%, Mr. Buffett still wouldn’t have to pay it on the tens of billions of dollars he puts into private foundations, and he would still be able to deduct a fifth of that contribution on future tax returns.
This tax favoritism might be defensible to promote genuine philanthropic activities. Many billionaires, such as the Gateses and David Koch, have heroically donated to fight cancer and malaria or provide relief to hurricane and earthquake victims.
But others, including Mr. Soros and Michael Bloomberg, have turned private foundations into massive de facto lobbying operations for bigger government and liberal causes like higher minimum wages, gun control, universal health care, and a carbon tax. Mr. Soros’s $18 billion gift alone is the equivalent of maybe 100 Heritage Foundations. This kind of weaponized philanthropy has the potential to undermine the American free enterprise system.
Yes, billions go to groups on the right, too, from Mr. Koch and others. But regardless of ideology, why shouldn’t tax be collected before the money is given away? What message does it send that the Republican tax-reform bills retain this trillion-dollar loophole for the super rich, at the same time as the House plan eliminates the adoption credit for middle-class families who want to help children?
One simple solution would be for Congress to apply the capital-gains tax to assets of more than $1 million before they are transferred to a charity. This could even finance cutting the capital-gains rate to 15% for everyone.
Alternatively (or perhaps in addition) Congress could cap deductions for any given household to $250,000 a year. Under this kind of plan, Mr. Soros would be able to write off only a tiny fraction of his multi-billion dollar gift.
This isn’t an argument against charity. But selfless and effective giving is not motivated by tax breaks. Two-thirds of Americans don’t itemize their deductions, yet millions give until it hurts. In the 1980s, individual donations to charities surged, even as the top tax rate—and thus the maximum value of the write-off—fell from 70% to 28%.
The question is whether a tax code that encourages dynastic family foundations is good for America. If Congress stopped letting billionaires pour money tax free into the foundation-industrial complex, it would go a long way toward lowering rates and making the tax code fairer for everyone. This would help the economy grow faster, which is the best way to help those in need.
Mr. Moore is an economic consultant with FreedomWorks and a founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. He was a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign.
2) An unlikely bedfellow delivers a wake-up call
It’s difficult for Americans to sympathize with the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Though a longstanding ally of the U.S., the oil-rich theocracy has helped foment extremism around world by funding fundamentalist mosques and madrassas. That 15 of the 19 hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudis and not Iranians is something that can’t be forgotten.
But the moment may have arrived when Riyadh may be providing some common sense advice Washington should heed. By taking steps to highlight the need for the West and its Arab allies to start addressing Iran’s successful drive for regional autonomy, the Saudis are trying to alert a Trump administration that is hostile to Iran, but asleep at the wheel when it comes to developments in Syria and Lebanon because of its infatuation with Russia, that it’s time for a wake-up call.
The confrontation stems from the Saudis’ decision to intervene in Lebanon, whose Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned during a visit with his Saudi patrons. This may have been the result of Saudi pressure or a genuine desire to rid Lebanon of the Hezbollah terrorist movement that dominates the country. Either way, the Saudis have a point.
Thanks to President Barack Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq, Iran’s allies now control that country. The success of Iranian, Hezbollah and Russia forces in winning the Syrian Civil War for the Bashar al-Assad regime has ensured the survival of Tehran’s ally in Damascus and given it a seemingly permanent military presence there. That gives Iran what is, for all intents and purposes, a land bridge to Lebanon, where its Hezbollah auxiliaries operate with impunity and control the government. Emboldened by wealth from the nuclear deal it struck with Obama and strengthened by the acquiescence of the Russians—who stepped into the vacuum Obama left when he failed to make good on his “red line” chemical weapons threat to Assad—Iran is now on the brink of becoming the dominant power in the region.
The Saudis aren’t the only ones worried. Iran’s presence in Syria and its renewed alliance with Hamas in Gaza give it the potential to launch a three-front war on Israel. That’s why the Saudis are desperately trying to push the Americans, with Israel’s tacit support, to take a tougher stance toward Russia in Syria and Lebanon before it is too late to do anything to restrain the Iranians.
Sorting out this foreign policy Rubik’s Cube would be a difficult task for any president, but it is especially hard for an administration with a secretary of state who isn’t trusted by the White House and is also distracted by the need to deal with North Korea’s provocations. But though Washington would prefer to ignore the alarm about Iran the Saudis are sounding, it’s high time President Donald Trump start thinking about the inherent contradiction between his justified hostility to Tehran and his apparent crush on Vladimir Putin’s regime.
The confrontation may be part of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s purge of potential rivals, as he has begun to take the reins of power in Riyadh. Some, like former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, argue the Saudis are trying to drag Israel into doing their dirty work through an unnecessary war with Iran and its proxies. The fear is that Iran could distract the U.S. from a dubious “outside-in” strategy, in which Riyadh will bribe or pressure the Palestinian Authority into finally making peace with Israel even though there is little reason to think such a plan could succeed.
But both the Saudis and the Israelis understand the U.S. must stop outsourcing Syrian policy to the Russians—the one example of Trump following rather than rejecting one of Obama’s failed policies. The result is a disaster, as the Israelis learned when the U.S. recently signed off on a cease-fire that could put Iranian and Hezbollah forces close to the border with the Jewish state.
The Saudis may be strange bedfellows. Yet what’s going on is not Riyadh manipulating Israel, but a case of the two countries having a common interest as well as a mutual foe. Both understand that if the U.S. sits back and allows Iran to consolidate its gains, there’s no telling what will happen next.
Americans have good reason to be skeptical of Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis are right to alert Trump to the need to get over his foolish notions about Russia and recommit the U.S. to holding the line against Iran. If Trump fails to listen to them, the price paid by the U.S. and its allies could be higher than he thinks.
2a) An administration that finally has the cojones to hold the PLO accountable
i
By Caroline B. Glick
Is the PLO’s long vacation from accountability coming to an end? How about the State Department’s? In 1987 the US State Department placed the PLO on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The PLO was removed from the list in 1994, following the initiation of its peace process with Israel in 1993.
As part of the Clinton administration’s efforts to conclude a long-term peace deal between the PLO and Israel, in 1994 then president Bill Clinton signed an executive order waiving enforcement of laws that barred the PLO and its front groups from operating in the US. His move enabled the PLO to open a mission in Washington.
In 2010, then president Barack Obama upgraded the mission’s status to the level of “Delegation General.” The move was seen as a signal that the Obama administration supported moves by the PLO to initiate recognition of the “State of Palestine” by European governments and international bodies.
Whereas Obama’s PLO upgrade was legally dubious, the PLO’s campaign to get recognized as a state breached both of its agreements with Israel and the terms under which the US recognized it and permitted it to operate missions on US soil.
The operation of the PLO’s missions in the US was contingent on periodic certification by the secretary of state that the PLO was not engaged in terrorism, including incitement of terrorism, was not encouraging the boycott of Israel and was not seeking to bypass its bilateral negotiations with Israel in order to achieve either diplomatic recognition or statehood. Under Obama, the State Department refused to acknowledge the PLO’s breach of all the conditions of US recognition.
Angry at the administration’s facilitation of PLO breaches, in 2015 Congress mandated stricter and more precise conditions for continued operation of the PLO’s mission in Washington. Starting in 2016, the PLO was explicitly banned from advocating the prosecution of Israelis by the International Criminal Court. In 2015 the PLO joined the ICC with the explicit purpose of advocating the prosecution of Israelis. And in conformance with this purpose, in his speech before the UN General Assembly in September 2017, PLO/PA chief Mahmoud Abbas called for the ICC to prosecute Israelis for building communities in Judea and Samaria.
Given his experience with US administrations since Clinton, Abbas had every reason to believe that he would suffer no repercussions for his statement. No US administration had ever called the PLO/PA to account for its open breach of the terms of US recognition. So it isn’t surprising that Abbas and his advisers were utterly shocked when on Friday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sent a letter to the PLO mission in Washington informing PLO envoy Husam Zomlot that he could not renew certification of PLO compliance with US law in light of Abbas’s statement in September.
As part of the Clinton administration’s efforts to conclude a long-term peace deal between the PLO and Israel, in 1994 then president Bill Clinton signed an executive order waiving enforcement of laws that barred the PLO and its front groups from operating in the US. His move enabled the PLO to open a mission in Washington.
In 2010, then president Barack Obama upgraded the mission’s status to the level of “Delegation General.” The move was seen as a signal that the Obama administration supported moves by the PLO to initiate recognition of the “State of Palestine” by European governments and international bodies.
Whereas Obama’s PLO upgrade was legally dubious, the PLO’s campaign to get recognized as a state breached both of its agreements with Israel and the terms under which the US recognized it and permitted it to operate missions on US soil.
The operation of the PLO’s missions in the US was contingent on periodic certification by the secretary of state that the PLO was not engaged in terrorism, including incitement of terrorism, was not encouraging the boycott of Israel and was not seeking to bypass its bilateral negotiations with Israel in order to achieve either diplomatic recognition or statehood. Under Obama, the State Department refused to acknowledge the PLO’s breach of all the conditions of US recognition.
Angry at the administration’s facilitation of PLO breaches, in 2015 Congress mandated stricter and more precise conditions for continued operation of the PLO’s mission in Washington. Starting in 2016, the PLO was explicitly banned from advocating the prosecution of Israelis by the International Criminal Court. In 2015 the PLO joined the ICC with the explicit purpose of advocating the prosecution of Israelis. And in conformance with this purpose, in his speech before the UN General Assembly in September 2017, PLO/PA chief Mahmoud Abbas called for the ICC to prosecute Israelis for building communities in Judea and Samaria.
Given his experience with US administrations since Clinton, Abbas had every reason to believe that he would suffer no repercussions for his statement. No US administration had ever called the PLO/PA to account for its open breach of the terms of US recognition. So it isn’t surprising that Abbas and his advisers were utterly shocked when on Friday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sent a letter to the PLO mission in Washington informing PLO envoy Husam Zomlot that he could not renew certification of PLO compliance with US law in light of Abbas’s statement in September.
The only way for the mission to remain in place is if President Donald Trump certifies within 90 days that the PLO is engaged in “direct, meaningful negotiations with Israel.”
One of the primary functions of the PLO mission in Washington is to promote and fund the boycott movement against Israel – in contravention of the terms of its operation and the terms of its agreements with Israel.
In written testimony to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa in February, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies revealed that the mission is “said to be actively promoting campus BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] activity in the US.”
“PLO operatives in Washington, DC,” Schanzer said, “are reportedly involved in coordinating the activities of Palestinian students in the US who receive funds from the PLO to engage in BDS activism. This, of course, suggests that the BDS movement is not a grassroots activist movement, but rather one that is heavily influenced by PLO-sponsored persons.”
In April 2016, Schanzer informed Congress that the PLO consulate in Chicago is a major funder of the BDS campus group Students for Justice in Palestine. The chairman of the US Coalition to Boycott Israel, which among other things funds BDS, is Ghassan Barakat, an official at the PLO’s Chicago consulate. His colleague, Senan Shaqdeh, is a member of the coalition. Shaqdeh also claims to be the founder of Students for Justice in Palestine, the antisemitic BDS group that operates on campuses throughout the US.
As Schanzer noted, in 2014 Shaqdeh traveled to Ramallah to meet with Abbas and PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah.
Aside from the fact that the US has refused to hold the PLO accountable for its actions for a quarter century, the PLO has another good reason to be shocked by Tillerson’s letter: the US consulate in Jerusalem operates as almost a mirror to the PLO mission in Washington.
The US consulate in Jerusalem has the same status as an embassy. Like the US ambassador in Tel Aviv, the US consul general in Jerusalem reports directly to the State Department. He is not accredited to Israel. His area of operations includes Jerusalem and its environs within and beyond the 1949 armistice lines, including Beit Shemesh, Mevasseret Zion, Judea and Samaria.
Israeli citizens who live within the consulate’s area of operations are not permitted to receive consular and visa services from the embassy in Tel Aviv. Among the hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews that are required to receive US consular services from the consulate rather than the embassy are tens of thousands of Jewish dual nationals.
And yet, as Yisrael Medad has exhaustively documented, the Jerusalem consulate maintains an effective boycott of both these dual nationals and Israeli nationals who live in its area of operation. All of the consulate’s activities for US citizens are directed specifically and openly toward “Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and the West Bank.”
Consul General Donald Blome similarly directs all of his efforts toward reaching out to the Palestinians, ignoring as a regular practice the millions of Jews who live in his area of responsibility.
The consulate also openly rejects the notion that Israel and Jews have ties to its area of operations. For instance, Blome went on a hike around Judea and Samaria in July where he effectively erased the Jewish heritage sites in the areas. The consulate echoed UNESCO’s Jew-free version of the history of the land of Israel in a press release that celebrated his walk along the “Masar Ibrahim Al-Khalil” trail in celebration of “the connection of the people with the land.” Jews were not mentioned in the press release. And the historical name of the route he took is “Abraham’s path.”
Scholarships to study in the US and jobs listed on the website are open to “Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and the West Bank.”
In other words, while the PLO missions are pushing the BDS agenda in the US, the US consulate in Jerusalem is implementing it on the ground in Israel.
2b)
The Hague Aims for U.S. Soldiers
A ‘war crimes’ inquiry in Afghanistan shows the danger of the International Criminal Court.
By John Bolton
Located in The Hague (alongside such dinosaurs as the International Court of Justice, which decides state-versus-state disputes), the ICC constitutes a direct assault on the concept of national sovereignty, especially that of constitutional, representative governments like the United States. The Trump administration should not respond to Ms. Bensouda in any way that acknowledges the ICC’s legitimacy. Even merely contesting its jurisdiction risks drawing the U.S. deeper into the quicksand.
The left will try to intimidate the White House by insisting that any resistance to the ICC aligns the U.S. with human-rights violators. But the administration’s real alignment should be with the U.S. Constitution, not the global elite. It would not be “pragmatic” to accept the ICC; it would be toxic to democratic sovereignty.
The U.S. is not party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC’s authority. Bill Clinton signed it in 2000, when he was a lame duck. But fearing certain rejection, he did not submit it to the Senate. The Bush administration formally “unsigned” in 2002 before the Rome Statute entered into force. That same year, Congress passed supportive legislation protecting U.S. servicemembers from the ICC, a law that was decried by hysterical opponents as the “Hague Invasion Act.” The U.S. then entered into more than 100 bilateral agreements committing other nations not to deliver Americans into the ICC’s custody.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later weakened America’s opposition to the ICC. Barack Obama manifestly longed to join but nonetheless did not re-sign the Rome Statute. Thus the U.S. has never acknowledged the ICC’s jurisdiction, and it should not start now. America’s long-term security depends on refusing to recognize an iota of legitimacy in this brazen effort to subordinate democratic nations to the unaccountable melding of executive and judicial authority in the ICC.
Proponents of global governance have always wanted to turn the U.S. into just another pliant “member” of the United Nations General Assembly or the ICC. They know that America’s exceptionalism and commitment to its Constitution were among their biggest obstacles, but they hoped to cajole Washington into joining one day. The new Afghanistan investigation demonstrates why that vision needs to be confronted now and conclusively defeated.
The U.S. has done more than any other nation to instill in its civilian-controlled military a respect for human rights and the laws of war. When American servicemembers violate their doctrine and training—which can happen in any human institution—the U.S. is perfectly capable of applying our own laws to their conduct. These laws and procedures do not need to be second-guessed by international courts, especially ones that violate basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, like trial by jury.
Moreover, the Rome Statute’s real targets always have been not merely individual soldiers accused of war crimes, but their commanders and political leaders—all the way to the commander in chief of the global hegemon (as they resentfully see it). The White House should not facilitate these efforts to constrain and inhibit its ability to defend Americans.
The ICC prosecutor is an internationalized version of America’s “independent counsel,” a role originally established in the wake of Watergate and later allowed to lapse (but now revived under Justice Department regulations in the form of a “special counsel”). Similarly, the ICC’s prosecutors are dangerously free of accountability and effective supervision. They are not the superhero “Justice League International.”
The ICC fits into no coherent representative government structure, which does not exist internationally. It also fails a critical constitutional test—the separation of powers—in that the executive not only prosecutes but determines guilt or innocence. Decoupling executive and judicial powers is no mere constitutional nicety; it is a critical mechanism for restraining excesses.
The ICC always had dramatically different possible paths. First, it could become yet another embarrassing irrelevancy like the International Court of Justice or the U.N. Human Rights Council. That has been its lot so far. To date, the ICC has been feckless and often in disarray, acquiring the justifiable reputation from its caseload that it was a project by Europeans to prosecute miscreants in their former African colonies. Burundi recently withdrew from the ICC, and others have come close.
Second, the ICC could go rogue—which is what the potential prosecution of Americans represents. Pursuing Washington, it seems, finally became too hard for the ICC to resist (having already investigated Israel, which is once again the canary in the mineshaft).
Under the idea of “complementarity,” the ICC could defer to countries that possess responsible law-enforcement mechanisms, which the U.S. assuredly does. There are plenty of real criminal states in the world to keep the ICC busy, if it had the wit to focus on them. That it doesn’t speaks volumes.
America should welcome the opportunity, as in Churchill’s line about Bolshevism, to strangle the ICC in its cradle. At most, the White House should reply to Ms. Bensouda with a terse note: “Dear Madame Prosecutor: You are dead to us. Sincerely, the United States.” Other countries wanted the ICC; let them live with it.
Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Iran army chief vows next war will see 'eradication' of Israel
By EYTAN HALON
|
Jafari said that Iran and other groups will come to the aid of Hezbollah should they be attacked by Israel. Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the chief commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), issued new threats against Israel on Thursday, vowing that any future conflict will be the Jewish state's last.
"It is a proven claim that today we say any new war will lead to the eradication of the Zionist regime," said Jafari at a Tehran press conference, according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency.
Jafari also told reporters that Lebanon is Israel's primary target today and that "resistance" experienced by Israel in previous conflicts with Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas was minor in comparison to their current capabilities.
"They have seen a part of the resistance front's power during the 33-day and 22-day wars and today that the great resistance front has been formed, this word has been proven," said Jafari, referring to the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009.
Jafari added that Iran and other groups will come to the aid of Hezbollah should they be attacked by Israel.
"The fate of the resistance front is interwoven and they all stand united and if Israel attacks a part of it, the other component of the front will help it," he said.
Reiterating remarks made on Wednesday, the IRGC chief rejected demands that Hezbollah be disarmed.
"This issue is not negotiable and the entire Lebanese nation, except a number of little puppet groups, support Hezbollah's weapon."
On Wednesday, Jafari said that "Hezbollah must be armed to fight against the enemy of the Lebanese nation which is Israel. Naturally they should have the best weapons to protect Lebanon's security. This issue is non-negotiable."
Jafari's comments follow an Arab League meeting in Cairo on Sunday, called by Saudi Arabia, during which Arab foreign ministers condemned both Iran and Hezbollah for their role in spreading violence in the region.
In a joint declaration, opposed only by Lebanon and Iraq, the umbrella organization accused Hezbollah of "supporting terrorism and extremist groups in Arab countries with advanced weapons and ballistic missiles."
Arab League Secretary General Ahmed Aboul Gheit said that "Iranian threats have gone beyond all limits and pushed the region into a dangerous abyss."
The role of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the wider Middle East has been at the forefront of regional politics since Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri's sudden resignation on November 4 sparked a sharp rise in tensions between Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran.
Hariri subsequently shelved his resignation after returning to Lebanon on Wednesday in favor of dialogue, as per Hezbollah-allied Lebanese President Michel Aoun's request.
"It is a proven claim that today we say any new war will lead to the eradication of the Zionist regime," said Jafari at a Tehran press conference, according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency.
Jafari also told reporters that Lebanon is Israel's primary target today and that "resistance" experienced by Israel in previous conflicts with Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas was minor in comparison to their current capabilities.
"They have seen a part of the resistance front's power during the 33-day and 22-day wars and today that the great resistance front has been formed, this word has been proven," said Jafari, referring to the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009.
Jafari added that Iran and other groups will come to the aid of Hezbollah should they be attacked by Israel.
"The fate of the resistance front is interwoven and they all stand united and if Israel attacks a part of it, the other component of the front will help it," he said.
Reiterating remarks made on Wednesday, the IRGC chief rejected demands that Hezbollah be disarmed.
"This issue is not negotiable and the entire Lebanese nation, except a number of little puppet groups, support Hezbollah's weapon."
On Wednesday, Jafari said that "Hezbollah must be armed to fight against the enemy of the Lebanese nation which is Israel. Naturally they should have the best weapons to protect Lebanon's security. This issue is non-negotiable."
Jafari's comments follow an Arab League meeting in Cairo on Sunday, called by Saudi Arabia, during which Arab foreign ministers condemned both Iran and Hezbollah for their role in spreading violence in the region.
In a joint declaration, opposed only by Lebanon and Iraq, the umbrella organization accused Hezbollah of "supporting terrorism and extremist groups in Arab countries with advanced weapons and ballistic missiles."
Arab League Secretary General Ahmed Aboul Gheit said that "Iranian threats have gone beyond all limits and pushed the region into a dangerous abyss."
The role of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the wider Middle East has been at the forefront of regional politics since Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri's sudden resignation on November 4 sparked a sharp rise in tensions between Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran.
Hariri subsequently shelved his resignation after returning to Lebanon on Wednesday in favor of dialogue, as per Hezbollah-allied Lebanese President Michel Aoun's request.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)The Sexual-Harassment Racket Is Over
4)The Sexual-Harassment Racket Is Over
For a quarter century we had been stuck in He Said/She Said. Now predators are on notice.
By Peggy Noonan
This Thanksgiving I find myself thankful for something that is roiling our country. I am glad at what has happened with the recent, much-discussed and continuing sexual-harassment revelations and responses. To repeat the obvious, it is a watershed event, which is something you can lose sight of when you’re in the middle of it. To repeat the obvious again, journalists broke the back of the scandal when they broke the code on how to report it. For a quarter century we had been stuck in the He Said/She Said. Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas gave their testimonies, each offered witnesses, and the fair minded did their best with the evidence at hand while sorting through all the swirling political agendas. In the end I believed Mr. Thomas. But nobody knows, or rather only two people do.
What happened during the past two years, and very much in the past few months, is that reporters and news organizations committed serious resources to unearthing numbers and patterns. Deep reporting found not one or two victims of an abuser but, in one case, that of Bill Cosby, at least 35. So that was the numbers. The testimony of the women who went on the record, named and unnamed, revealed patterns: the open bathrobe, the running shower, the “Let’s change our meeting from the restaurant to my room/your apartment/my guesthouse.” Once you, as a fair-minded reader, saw the numbers and patterns, and once you saw them in a lengthy, judicious, careful narrative, you knew who was telling the truth. You knew what was true. Knowing was appalling and sometimes shocking, but it also came as a kind of relief.
Once predators, who are almost always repeat offenders, understood the new way of reporting such stories, they understood something else: They weren’t going to get away with it anymore. They’d never known that. And they were going to pay a price, probably in their careers. They’d never known that, either.
Why did this happen now? It was going to happen at some point: Sexual harassment is fairly endemic. Quinnipiac University released a poll this week showing 60% of American women voters say they’ve experienced it. Maybe the difference now is that the Clintons are gone—more on that in a moment. And maybe there’s something in this: Sexual harassment, at least judging by the testimony of recent accusers, has gotten weirder, stranger, more brutish. The political director of a network news organization invites you to his office, trains his eyes on you and masturbates as you tell him about your ambitions? The Hollywood producer hires an army of foreign goons to spy on you and shut you up? It has gotten weird out there. These stories were going to blow up at some point.
Sexual harassment is not over because sin is not over. “The devil has been busy!” a journalist friend said this week as another story broke. But as a racket it will never be the same.
Some great journalism, some great writing and thinking, has come of this moment. Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker pieces have been credible and gutsy on all levels. Masha Gessen’s piece in the same magazine last week warned of moral panic, of a blurring of the lines between different behaviors and a confusion as to the boundaries between normal, messy human actions and heinous ones. Rebecca Traister of New York magazine has argued that it is a mistake to focus now on the question of punishments, that maybe the helpful thing is to focus on what’s going on in our society that predators think they can get away with this.
Caitlin Flanagan in the Atlantic wrote the most important political piece in “ Bill Clinton : A Reckoning.” What is striking about this moment, she argued, is not the number of women who’ve come forward with serious allegations. “What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed.” Most didn’t have police reports or witnesses, and many were speaking of things that had happened years ago. “We have finally come to some kind of national consensus about the workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the sexual predation of a boss is clear.”
What had impeded the ability of victims to be believed in the past? The Bill Clinton experience. He was “very credibly” accused, as Ms. Flanagan wrote, of sex crimes at different points throughout the 1990s— Juanita Broaddrick said he violently raped her; Paula Jones said he exposed himself to her; Kathleen Willey said she went to him for advice and that he groped and assaulted her. These women “had far more credible evidence” than many recent accusers. “But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced.” He was rescued instead by “a surprising force: machine feminism.”
That movement had by the ’90s devolved into a “partisan operation.” Gloria Steinem in March 1998 wrote a famous New York Times op-ed that, in Ms. Flanagan’s words, “slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed” the victims and “urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused.” This revealed contemporary feminism as “a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.” Ms. Steinem characterized the assaults as “passes,” writing: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment.”
Ms. Steinem operated with the same logic as the skeeviest apologist for Roy Moore : Don’t credit any charges. Gotta stick with our team.
Ms. Flanagan: “The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein : Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms.”
The article called for a Democratic Party “reckoning” on the way it protected Bill Clinton.
It was a great piece.
I close with three thoughts.
The first springs from an observation Tucker Carlson made on his show about 10 days ago. He marveled, briefly, at this oddity: Most of the accused were famous media personalities, influential journalists, entertainers. He noted that all these people one way or another make their living in front of a camera.
It stayed with me. What is it about men and modern fame that makes them think they can take whatever they want when they want it, and they’ll always get away with it, even as word, each year, spreads. Watch out for that guy.
Second, if the harassment is, as it seems to me, weirder and more over the top now than, say, 40 years ago, why might that be?
Third, a hard and deep question put quickly: An aging Catholic priest suggested to a friend that all this was inevitable. “Contraception degenerates men,” he said, as does abortion. Once you separate sex from its seriousness, once you separate it from its life-changing, life-giving potential, men will come to see it as just another want, a desire like any other. Once they think that, then they’ll see sexual violations as less serious, less charged, less full of weight. They’ll be more able to rationalize. It’s only petty theft, a pack of chewing gum on the counter, and I took it.
In time this will seem true not only to men, but to women.
This is part of the reason I’m thankful for what I’m seeing. I experience it, even if most women don’t, or don’t consciously, as a form of saying no, this is important. It is serious.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country
'InGod We Trust!' (All others pay cash!!)
++++++++++++++
5a) Watch "A Millennial job interview" on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/239050403?
++++++++++++++++++++++
5b)
Subject: A Romantic Dinner....
A man and a woman were having a quiet, romantic dinner in a fine restaurant. They were gazing lovingly at each other and holding hands.
The waitress, taking another order at a table a few steps away, suddenly noticed the woman slowly sliding down her chair, under the table and under the table cloth but the man stared straight ahead.
The waitress watched as the woman slid all the way down her chair and totally out of sight under the tablecloth.. Still, the man stared straight ahead.
The waitress, thinking this behavior a bit risqué and worried that it might offend other diners, went over to the table and, tactfully, began by saying to the man: "Pardon me sir, but I think your wife just slid under the table."
The man calmly looked up at her and said: "No, unfortunately she just walked in."
++++
5c)
TIPS FROM THE REDNECK BOOK OF MANNERS
1.
Never take a beer to a job interview.
2.
Always identify people in your yard before shooting at them.
3.
It's considered poor taste to take a cooler to church.
4.
If you have to vacuum the bed, it is time to change the sheets.
5.
Even if you're certain that you are included in the will, it is still
considered tacky to drive a U-Haul to the funeral home.
DINING OUT
1.
If drinking directly from the bottle, always hold it with your fingers covering the label.
2.
Avoid throwing bones and food scraps on the floor as the
restaurant may not have dogs.
ENTERTAINING IN YOUR HOME
1.
A centerpiece for the table should never be anything prepared
by a taxidermist.
2.
Do not allow the dog to eat at the table no matter how good
his manners are.
PERSONAL HYGIENE
1.
While ears need to be cleaned regularly, this is a job that
should be done in private using one's OWN truck keys.
2.
Proper use of toiletries can forestall bathing for several days.
However, if you live alone, deodorant is a waste of good money.
3.
Dirt and grease under the fingernails is a social no-no, as they
tend to detract from a woman's jewelry and alter the taste of
finger foods.
DATING (OUTSIDE THE FAMILY)
1.
Always offer to bait your date's hook, especially on the
first date.
2.
Be aggressive. Let her know you're interested: 'I've been
wanting to go out with you since I read that stuff on the
restroom wall two years ago'.
3.
Establish with her parents what time she is expected back.
Some will say 10:00 PM; others might say 'Monday.' If the
latter is the answer, it is the man's responsibility to get her
to school on time.
4.
Always have a positive comment about your date's appearance,
such as, 'Ya'll sure don't sweat much for a fat gal.'
WEDDINGS
1.
Livestock usually is a poor choice for a wedding gift.
2.
Kissing the bride for more than 5 seconds may get you shot..
3.
For the groom, at least, rent a tux. A leisure suit with a
cummerbund and a clean bowling shirt can create too sporty
an appearance.
4.
Though uncomfortable, say 'yes' to socks and shoes for this
special occasion.
5.
It is not appropriate to tell the groom how good his wife is
in the sack.
DRIVING ETIQUETTE
1.
Dim your headlights for approaching vehicles, even if the
gun is loaded, and the deer is in sight.
2.
When approaching a four-way stop, the vehicle with the
largest tires always has the right of way.
3.
Never tow another car using panty hose and duct tape.
4.
When sending your wife/girlfriend down the road with a
gas can, it is impolite to ask her to bring back beer.
5.
Never relieve yourself from a moving vehicle, especially
when driving.
6.
Do not lay rubber while traveling in a funeral procession.
=======
5d)
"WHAT HAPPENED TO ME?"
I used to think I was just a regular person,
But I was born white, which now, whether
I like it or not, makes me a racist.
I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which
By today's standards, makes me a fascist.
I am heterosexual, which now makes me a
homophobe.
I am mostly non-union, which makes me a traitor To the working class and an ally of big business.
I was christened by my parents (who were married, In a church and remained married until they died),
Which now labels me as an infidel.
I am older than 60 and retired, which makes me useless.
I think and I reason, therefore I doubt much
That the main stream media tells me, which
Must make me a reactionary.
I am proud of my heritage which makes me a
xenophobe.
I value my safety and that of my family and
I appreciate the police and the legal system,
Which makes me a right-wing extremist.
I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair
Compensation according to each individual's
Merits, which today makes me an anti-socialist.
I (and most of the people I know), acquired
A fair education without student loan debts
And little or no debt at graduation, which
Makes me some kind of odd underachiever.
I believe in the defense and protection of
The homeland for and by all citizens and
I honour those who served in the Armed Forces,
Which now makes me a right wing-militant.
Please help me come to terms with the
New me… because I'm just not sure who
The hell I am anymore!
I would like to thank all my friends for sticking
With me through these seemingly abrupt,
New found changes in my life and my thinking.
I just can't imagine or understand what's happened
To me so quickly!
Funny …it’s all just taken place over the last 7 or 8
years!
As if all this nonsense wasn't enough to deal with ...
And now
.... I'm not sure which toilet to go into..............
++++++++++++++++
5) In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country
'InGod We Trust!' (All others pay cash!!)
++++++++++++++
5a) Watch "A Millennial job interview" on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/239050403?
++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
5a) Watch "A Millennial job interview" on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/239050403?
++++++++++++++++++++++
5b)
++++
5c)
cummerbund and a clean bowling shirt can create too sportyan appearance.
5d)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment