A More Balanced View of Trump. Russell Mead Brings Balanced Perspective vis a vis N Korea Discussion. Other Matters.

One response to yesterday's essay.

"Dick

Very strategically written and so important with the content of the message.

Difficult to believe that these people would want to bring down the government.

Breaks one’s heart. F------"

And another:


Wow, Dick, you knocked it out of the park with that well written essay
And great advice for Trump to just allow Comey to hang his own “deplorable”self!
Have a great day, B------"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe a reversal of PC'ism is in the air.  I pray that it is. It has been one of the most destructive forces to ravage our nation. Hell is paved with good intentions.

The End Of Prayer Shaming - YouTube

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pocahontas sticks her foot in it once again. (See 1 below.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iran throws the gauntlet down to Trump forgetting that Bolton and Pompeo are new advisors.  It will be more  interesting to see Macon's influence.  (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This from a legal member in my family and also a fellow memo reader;

The premise in the below touches on a fascinating big picture constitutional question about the extent of checks and balances needed on the executive branch. To the extent the Fathers sought to prevent the Executive from having King-like powers, is Trump's solicitor general altering that course by way of his arguments in the below? 

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/558656/"

And from the same cousin: "We met Ben Gurion's son, Alon, on one of our trips to Israel. He shared some grand stories about his dad and also about his own time living in the US (including as manager of the Waldorf Astoria in NY). 

Once our chat turned to the Sonnenborn photo, Alon's chest swelled and he spoke about his dad's deep appreciation for the group. It gave me a big smile. The below reminds me of all that, plus our time together in B'ham walking through the Firm's room where THE photo was displayed. Thank you for always sharing. 

Big hug, J-----"

Finally:

From one of my for daughters: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/260325/in-britain-and-poland-anti-semitisms-ugly-history-repeats-itself?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=eca8c0413e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-eca8c0413e-206529549

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If it weren't Trump the hate Trump crowd would not be interested in trashing the president's constitutional authority. (See 3  below.)

McGurn brings balance. (See 3a below.)

Finally, Russell Mead lays out the intractable problems Trump faces negotiating with N Korea.  

Getting "Fat Boy" to give up nuclear weapons is about as long a shot as Trump could have other than Iran doing the same and Russia departing Syria. At least Trump will have two clear eyed advisors at his side and is no fool himself.

That he has created an environment where the prospects of a talk between our two countries is likely is a positive.  Whether something positive will come out of it is another matter but once again Trump has proven toughness rather than dreaminess is more likely to shake roots. (See 3b below.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1)Elizabeth Warren's Gaza problem

By Stephen M. Flatow 

Why does Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren keep putting her foot in her mouth over Gaza?

The state's senior senator responded to the Gaza violence last week with this statement: "I am deeply concerned about the deaths and injuries in Gaza. As additional protests are planned for the coming days, the Israel Defense Forces should exercise restraint and respect the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest."

I don't know who is advising the Democratic senator when it comes to Gaza, but it's remarkable how many misstatements are packed into that little two-sentence comment.

Let's start with her "concern about the deaths and injuries."

The Gazans who have been killed were military-age men. Many of them are documented members of the Hamas terrorist organization. And even the ones who were not known to be official Hamas members were engaging in very Hamas-like behavior-by throwing firebombs and rocks at the Israelis on the other side of the fence, and burning tires as a smokescreen in the attempt to reach the border fence to infiltrate Israel.

Some of the Gazans who were injured were likewise throwing firebombs and rocks. More recently, they flew lit kites to burn nearby Israeli fields and forests. Some of them were injured from tear gas or gunfire because they chose to venture into a live-fire battle zone-a battle that Hamas has initiated, organized and sponsored.

I'm disappointed that the senator did not express any "concern" about a terrorist regime busing thousands of women and children to a site where some of them will inevitably be hurt.

Sen. Warren went on to defend "the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest."

A line like that would have worked in, say, the 1940s, when most Americans didn't have television sets. But who's kidding who? Anybody with eyes has seen the video footage of Palestinian mobs rushing towards the Gaza fence, hurling Molotov cocktails and rocks, and using sling shots and even catapults. No reasonable person can call them "peaceful protesters."

And what exactly are they "protesting"? The Gazans have openly proclaimed that they want to tear down the border fence so that they can overrun Israel, which they call "Occupied Palestine." They are not "protesting" some Israeli policy. They are "protesting" Israel's very existence. Shouldn't that elicit some "concern" from the senator?

Warren also took Israel's soldiers to task. She demanded that they "exercise restraint" in the face of mobs trying to murder them. If mobs of firebomb-throwing foreigners were trying to storm across one of America's borders, I doubt she would lecture our border guards to "exercise restraint." There's no justification for her giving such advice to America's ally.

The irony, of course, is that Israeli soldiers do exercise restraint, often risking their own lives to avoid harming enemy civilians. Yet despite taking such risks, they find themselves excoriated by Israel's relentless critics.

Four years ago, another comment by Sen. Warren about Gaza caused a stir. She was speaking at Tufts University outside Boston. At the time, Hamas was firing thousands of rockets into Israel, and the Israelis were striking back. A woman named Eva Moseley, who claimed to be "a Holocaust refugee," rose during the question period and said she was "extremely concerned that Jews don't do to another people [in Gaza] what was done to them." In other words, Israel was carrying out a Holocaust in Gaza! Moseley asked the senator if it was "fair" to raise that question.

"I think that's fair," replied Warren.

But Ms. Moseley was not merely raising a question. She is a virulent opponent of Zionism. She has, among other things, signed an online petition calling Zionism "colonialism" and accusing Israel of "racism and genocide." Her question to Sen. Warren was a way of making a point.

Remember how former Gov. Howard Dean said the notion that President George W. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks was "an interesting theory"? Remember how Donald Trump said he was "just pointing out" a National Enquirer report claiming that Sen. Ted Cruz's father was connected to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Those are rhetorical devices people use to make a point when they don't want to take responsibility for their point. It's "just a question" or "an interesting theory." They're just mentioning what somebody else said; they themselves didn't say it. But, of course, they did.

Sen. Warren could have slapped down that Gaza-Holocaust analogy. She didn't. She called it a "fair" question. She could have told the truth last week about Gaza. She didn't. She chose to falsely call the rioters "peaceful protesters."

A United States senator should be more careful with her words.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

Iran warns Trump to remain in nuclear deal or 'face severe consequences'

By REUTERS—Javad Zarif  "I am telling those in the White House that if they do not live up to their commitments, the Iranian government will firmly react," Rouhani said.

LONDON - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned US President Donald Trump on Tuesday to stay in the nuclear deal Tehran signed with world powers in 2015, or face "severe consequences," as other signatories stepped up efforts to save the agreement. Trump has said that unless European allies fix what he has called "terrible flaws" in the deal by May 12, he will restore US economic sanctions on Iran, which would be a severe blow to the pact. The other powers that signed the deal - Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France - have all said they want to preserve the agreement that curbed Iran's nuclear program in return for lifting most sanctions. "I am telling those in the White House that if they do not live up to their commitments, the Iranian government will firmly react," Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state television. "If anyone betrays the deal, they should know that they would face severe consequences," he told a cheering crowd of thousands gathered in the city of Tabriz. "Iran is prepared for all possible situations," he added. French President Emmanuel Macron is in Washington, trying to convince Trump not to tear up the accord. “For nuclear, what do you have as a better option? I don’t see it,” Macron told Fox News on Sunday. “What is your plan B? I don’t have any Plan B for nuclear against Iran.” Advocates of the agreement hope that Macron, whom Trump has come to admire and respect, may be able to convince the US president to stick with the accord. These talks may be Macron’s final chance. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday he had agreed with his Chinese counterpart that Moscow and Beijing would try to block any US attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. Iran has warned that it will ramp up its nuclear program if the deal collapses. The European signatories of Iran's nuclear deal with major powers should convince US President Donald Trump not to exit the accord as there is no "plan B" for the agreement, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif Tweeted on Monday. "It is either all or nothing. European leaders should encourage Trump not just to stay in the nuclear deal, but more important to begin implementing his part of the bargain in good faith," Zarif wrote on his Twitter account. President Macron is correct in saying there's no "Plan B" on JCPOA. It's either all or nothing. European leaders should encourage President Trump not just to stay in the nuclear deal, but more importantly to begin implementing his part of the bargain in good faith. Trump administration officials say the president is approaching Iran policy holistically and that he refuses to separate out Iran’s nuclear ambitions from its regional designs. But Macron has said the nuclear deal is a technical document that accomplishes the limited goal of capping Tehran’s enrichment work and provides insight into the bowels of the program, which are scattered across Iran. ++++++++++++++++++ 3) Trump at the Supreme Court His travel ban may be unnecessary but it is clearly constitutional.  The Editorial Board Alexander Hamilton wrote that “energy in the executive” is “essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks,” which is why the Constitution grants the President broad authority over national security. The question for the Supreme Court on Wednesday in Trump v. Hawaii is whether judges can usurp this core executive power. President Trump has issued three orders suspending admission into the U.S. from certain countries to protect national security. The first two were enjoined by lower courts. Hawaii is now challenging the latest version that Mr. Trump issued last September, which limited admissions from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia). We’ve disagreed with the need for the sweeping travel restrictions. The post 9/11 screening process for the most part has been effective in keeping out foreigners with jihadist links and sympathies. Most immigrants who have committed terrorist acts in the U.S. were radicalized after admission. *** But limiting admissions is a President’s prerogative under the Constitution that Congress has reinforced with the Immigration and Nationality Act. The law says that “whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” The law also authorizes the President to adopt “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” related to entry of foreign nationals “subject to such limitations and exceptions as [he] may prescribe.” These grants by Congress of executive discretion were intended to allow the President to balance foreign policy and national security considerations While Mr. Trump’s first order was haphazardly applied, his September order was based on a multi-faceted review by the State and Homeland Security departments that tailored travel restrictions based on countries’ level of terrorism risk, information sharing and national-security cooperation. Exceptions were made for some non-immigrant visas from Chad, Libya and Yemen because they provide valuable counter-terrorism assistance. The order also allows case-by-case waivers for foreign nationals who can demonstrate that they don’t pose a threat to national security and that their admission would be in the national interest. The State Department has issued more than 430 applicant waivers since December. Hawaii cites a clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act that says “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” But this provision merely bars the State Department from discriminating among visa-eligible applicants—i.e., restricting H-1B visas to Indians. Mr. Trump’s order limits admissions by making foreigners from the eight countries ineligible for visas. This distinction is crucial. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan invoked the law to suspend admissions from Iran (1979) and Cuba (1986). Until the Hawaii challenge, a court had never gainsaid the President’s authority to deny admissions to broad classes of foreigners. Hawaii also argues that Mr. Trump’s national security justifications are mere pretext for excluding Muslims. The state thus claims that the order violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another. Hawaii cites Mr. Trump’s campaign statements calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, but candidates don’t make law. If judges can inspect every campaign comment by a President to decipher legal intent, we are in a new and dangerous era of judicial power. If the voters elect anyone who is politically incorrect, judges will have ultimate sway over his decisions. The order itself makes no mention of religion. Christians and Jews from the eight countries would be treated the same as Muslims, and many majority-Muslim countries aren’t on the list. Six of the eight countries were tagged by Congress and the Obama Administration as a national security “country or area of concern” in the visa-waiver program, which allows nationals of certain countries temporary admission without a visa. *** In the landmark case Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court held that when Congress has delegated conditional authority over immigration to the President, judges cannot second guess the executive’s exercise of this power “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.” As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the judiciary is ill-suited to make national security judgments since “information can be difficult to obtain and the impact of certain conduct difficult to assess.” The Chief added for the 6-3 majority: “When it comes to collecting evidence and drawing factual inferences in this area, ‘the lack of competence on the part of the courts is marked, and respect for the Government’s conclusions is appropriate.’” The lower courts ignored or misread these precedents in such a cavalier and political fashion that the Supreme Court needs to step in for the sake of the judiciary. As a stunning headline in Monday’s Washington Post put it, “A supreme quandary: Look at law, not Trump.” A quandary? Isn’t that the Court’s duty? Lower-court judges ignored the law to punish a President they loathe, but down that path is lawlessness and politicization of the judiciary. Even if his travel ban is bad policy, the Justices need to make clear that Mr. Trump is acting well within his constitutional authority. 3a) The Elitists’ Trump Excuse His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.  By William McGurn Let us stipulate that Donald Trump is unique. From his allusion to his privates during a GOP debate to the public berating of his attorney general to the nicknames he uses to disparage opponents, Mr. Trump tramples on the expected norms for a president. Some detect in Mr. Trump’s brand of vituperation an assault on the values and virtues that democracy requires to thrive. In this line of thinking, Mr. Trump is morally unfit for the Oval Office. Some speak even more darkly. In her new book, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the world today has become a “petri dish” for fascism, calls Mr. Trump “the least democratic president of modern history” and notes that Mussolini, too, promised to “drain the swamp.” There is, however, a flip side to Mr. Trump’s speech and behavior. It has to do with the willingness of those who know better (or ought to know better) to look the other way so long as Mr. Trump is the target. So which is more damaging to the American body politic—the schoolyard taunts and threats of Mr. Trump, or the anti-Trump opportunism of “polite” society? The election and its aftermath have been an education in how the smart set responds when the American people refuse the judgment of their self-styled betters. In its most honest form, it is the “Resist!” movement. In the more genteel version, it turns out to mean not just opposing Mr. Trump’s policies, which people can reasonably do, but throwing fairness and principle to the wind so long as it might help bring down the 45th president. Consider: • In the thick of the 2016 election, the New York Times ran a front-page article in which it advertised that the particular dangers posed by Mr. Trump’s candidacy meant that the long-held norm of journalism—objectivity—might have to give way to a more oppositional approach. • Good liberals once found the idea of spying on American citizens without just cause unconscionable. But when the target is a former Trump campaign associate, it becomes OK to get a warrant based on an unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. • James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, revised procedures to make it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of Americans in intelligence reports and share the information among themselves, making leaks all but inevitable. The illegal leak of Mike Flynn’s name in connection with a phone conversation with Russia’s ambassador was one result. But again, it doesn’t matter because he was a Trump transition official. • When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful. She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. But it’s all for a good cause, right? • In the middle of a #MeToo moment ostensibly all about more respect for women, the president’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has been derided as everything from a “summer whore” to “a slightly chunky soccer mom.” Though the columnist who wrote the latter has since apologized, the accomplished Mrs. Sanders must wonder what happened to “when they go low, we go high?” • The pardon power enjoyed by the president is among the most unfettered in the Constitution. But because the president is Mr. Trump, and the pardon for controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has opted for lawlessness: appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the pardon’s legitimacy, in clear violation of the separation of powers. Meanwhile, week after week, the same people who accuse Mr. Trump of lacking depth and nuance toss off allusions to Hilter, Stalin and a parade of murderous dictators. Channeling Mrs. Clinton, they insist that anyone who would chose Mr. Trump over her—or God forbid, agree to serve in a Trump administration—isn’t just wrong but forever morally tainted. The people aren’t stupid. The 63 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump—some as an unappealing but better alternative to Mrs. Clinton, but many with gusto—recognize that what is going on here is a concerted effort to overturn the results of a legitimate presidential election. Is it really unreasonable to ask whether this might be as much of a threat to American democracy as anything Mr. Trump has said or done? To point to the double standard isn’t in any way to justify Mr. Trump’s more boorish displays. It is, however, to say that the standard ought to work both ways: Whatever the president’s sins, they are no excuse for not asking whether the double standards of his critics in polite society might be just as corrupting to American democracy—and why it is that Donald Trump’s “betters” are so often so much worse. 3b) Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un’s Low-Stakes Summit If the leaders meet, they’re likelier to re-frame the standoff than to resolve it. By Walter Russell Mead The news from Korea is dramatic, but not quite historic. In the run-up to his proposed summit with Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un has floated a repackaged version of virtually every concession North Korea has ever proposed, from suspending its nuclear and missile tests to accepting the continuing presence of U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula following a peace treaty between Seoul and Pyongyang. Given that Messrs. Trump and Kim are two of the most unpredictable leaders in modern times, the frenzied pace of North Korean diplomacy has raised hopes for a breakthrough in the summit. But Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump are more likely to reframe the longstanding U.S.-North Korea standoff than to end it. The first thing to understand is that North Korea’s nuclear weapons are not going away. Pyongyang is willing to sit at a table where their removal is discussed, and perhaps even to sign pieces of paper stating that their removal is a goal. But talking is one thing; disarming is something else. The North Korean leadership follows the news. It knows what happened to Ukraine, to Saddam Hussein and to Moammar Gadhafi without nuclear arms. No piece of paper offers a country the serene peace of mind that it gets from a few atom bombs in the missile silos. But there’s something else. Nuclear weapons aren’t only the centerpiece of North Korean security policy. They are the centerpiece of its political and economic strategy as well. The Kim dynasty hasn’t chosen the Chinese or Vietnamese path for prosperity based on international integration. Instead they cling to the idea of “juche,” or self-reliance, and have one of the least open, least dynamic economies in the world. The reason is fear. Compared with China, where many companies have a market value greater than North Korea’s total gross domestic product, North Korea is a minnow swimming next to a whale. And there are other whales in the sea. If North Korea opened up for trade and investment, Chinese, South Korean and Japanese investors and traders would swallow it whole. The Kims would rather be the absolute rulers of a poor country than the former rulers of a middle-income one. North Korea spends an estimated 22% of its GDP on the military; that expenditure makes the country poorer but keeps the regime in control. Those nukes give the Kims clout and they bring in cash. Kim Jong Un can provoke an international crisis by test- launching a missile; few other leaders of small and poor countries have that ability. China, Japan, South Korea and even the U.S. have been willing to make economic and political concessions to keep Pyongyang sweet. North Korea won’t trade all that away for a treaty. That the U.S. is negotiating with North Korea rather than bombing it surely seems to the Kims like proof that their nuclear strategy has worked. But if Mr. Kim doesn’t want to give up his nukes, the U.S. doesn’t want war. Besides the 28,500 troops, there are more than 200,000 American civilians in South Korea on any given day. The first day of hostilities in a new Korean War could see tens of thousands of U.S. civilian casualties with more to come. The total cost of such a war in treasure and in blood is both incalculable and unacceptable. This is the basic standoff that has shaped U.S.-North Korea diplomacy since the 1990s. But something has changed. The world has been living with North Korean nuclear weapons for a long time; what is new and destabilizing is the prospect of North Korean missiles that could deliver nuclear bombs to the U.S. mainland. That worries Americans; it also worries leaders of other Asian countries, who wonder whether America would protect them from North Korea when U.S. cities are within range. On the North Korean side, meanwhile, the bargaining table looks attractive not only because the latest sanctions have been biting but because it hopes a stronger alignment with South Korea might ultimately drive a wedge between Seoul and its American and Japanese friends. What Mr. Kim seems to be signaling is not a willingness to settle all outstanding differences between his hermit kingdom and the U.S.; that would require concessions neither side is willing to make. Rather, he is signaling a willingness to help Mr. Trump if Mr. Trump will help him. North Korea would accept denuclearization as a goal and suspend nuclear testing; the U.S. would agree to lift some sanctions and support negotiations about peace. The key will be the missile program; if Mr. Kim agrees to freeze it in place, Trump can claim a win, peace talks can proceed, and everyone can make pious speeches about denuclearization. Critics will say this is more about can-kicking than peace-making and they won’t be wrong, but sometimes kicking is all you can do. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++