Day: December 7, 2017

Why Trump is Right on Jerusalem


In April of this year, when Russia declared its recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the announcement was met with deafening silence by the Arab world. Why, then, the roars of protestations at the same simple acknowledgment by the United States?

Threats by Turkey and other countries in the Arab League to sever diplomatic relations with the U.S. over the issue prove once again that in our time the world has made the Middle East safe for hypocrisy.

Is there any reason to believe that acquiescing to Arab demands will lead to peace?  Not if you look at the facts over the past half-century – during which time the Palestinians have stated with remarkable consistency that they will never recognize Israel as a sovereign state, much less Jerusalem as its capital.

If we are looking toward our own best interests, there are good diplomatic and constitutional reasons to countenance Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. First and foremost is historical reality and common sense. As law professor Eugene Kontorovich, an expert on international law and policy, pointed out last month in testimony before Congress, “One of the main reasons for the failure to reach a peace deal is the unspoken assumption that protracted and repeated Palestinian rejectionism costs them nothing diplomatically, while creating constraints for Israel.

Every country in the world has had the right to designate the capital of its choice, with Israel the lone exception. Congress recognized this anomaly over two decades ago, when it passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995. (The vote was 93-5 in the Senate and 374-37 in the House.) The Act noted that. “Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and most of its ministries and cultural institutions” – and that since the reunification of the

city in 1967, religious freedom has been guaranteed to every faith.

But the law was never implemented – because Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all came to view it as a congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy, and consistently exercised a built-in presidential-waiver clause based on their perception of national-security interests.

It’s now eminently clear that all three of the past pre-Trump administrations missed the forest of Middle East reality for the trees of diplomatic denial and intransigence.

The root of the State Department’s long-standing heavy-handed reluctance to offend Arab populations in the region is a willful ignorance of history and reality. In 1948, President Harry Truman ignored State’s strong objections and enabled the US to become one of the first countries to recognize Israel. Even though Israel won all of Jerusalem in the 1967 war, even though no Israeli government nor popular referendum would ever allow another city to be designated its capital, even though the Arab-Palestinian peace process countenances no other place for that purpose – in the view of the State  Department, Jerusalem remains no-man’s land.

Though some of President Donald Trump’s closest advisors have likewise urged him to hold off, there has long been bipartisan support for the move. Elliott Abrams, a former Middle East adviser to Bush, said recently that Trump should follow through on his promise because, even if east Jerusalem were eventually ceded to the Palestinians as the capital of their own state, no conceivable settlement would deny west Jerusalem to Israel.    “There is simply no reason not

to put a US Embassy there.”

Moscow’s surprising recognition of Jerusalem was largely ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of chaos.  On the other hand, the Palestinians have found that their threats of dire consequences have worked in the past – in effect allowing U.S. foreign policy to be taken hostage.

Two years ago ,in a challenge to the State Department’s policy not to put “Jerusalem, Israel” on U.S. passports for American citizens born there, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, which includes the power to determine what a passport says. “Recognition is a matter on which the nation must speak with one voice,” said the Court. “That voice is the president’s.”

Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore. His most recent book is Defending Truth: The Quest for Honesty about Jews and Israel.

In April of this year, when Russia declared its recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the announcement was met with deafening silence by the Arab world. Why, then, the roars of protestations at the same simple acknowledgment by the United States?

Threats by Turkey and other countries in the Arab League to sever diplomatic relations with the U.S. over the issue prove once again that in our time the world has made the Middle East safe for hypocrisy.

Is there any reason to believe that acquiescing to Arab demands will lead to peace?  Not if you look at the facts over the past half-century – during which time the Palestinians have stated with remarkable consistency that they will never recognize Israel as a sovereign state, much less Jerusalem as its capital.

If we are looking toward our own best interests, there are good diplomatic and constitutional reasons to countenance Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. First and foremost is historical reality and common sense. As law professor Eugene Kontorovich, an expert on international law and policy, pointed out last month in testimony before Congress, “One of the main reasons for the failure to reach a peace deal is the unspoken assumption that protracted and repeated Palestinian rejectionism costs them nothing diplomatically, while creating constraints for Israel.

Every country in the world has had the right to designate the capital of its choice, with Israel the lone exception. Congress recognized this anomaly over two decades ago, when it passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995. (The vote was 93-5 in the Senate and 374-37 in the House.) The Act noted that. “Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and most of its ministries and cultural institutions” – and that since the reunification of the

city in 1967, religious freedom has been guaranteed to every faith.

But the law was never implemented – because Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all came to view it as a congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy, and consistently exercised a built-in presidential-waiver clause based on their perception of national-security interests.

It’s now eminently clear that all three of the past pre-Trump administrations missed the forest of Middle East reality for the trees of diplomatic denial and intransigence.

The root of the State Department’s long-standing heavy-handed reluctance to offend Arab populations in the region is a willful ignorance of history and reality. In 1948, President Harry Truman ignored State’s strong objections and enabled the US to become one of the first countries to recognize Israel. Even though Israel won all of Jerusalem in the 1967 war, even though no Israeli government nor popular referendum would ever allow another city to be designated its capital, even though the Arab-Palestinian peace process countenances no other place for that purpose – in the view of the State  Department, Jerusalem remains no-man’s land.

Though some of President Donald Trump’s closest advisors have likewise urged him to hold off, there has long been bipartisan support for the move. Elliott Abrams, a former Middle East adviser to Bush, said recently that Trump should follow through on his promise because, even if east Jerusalem were eventually ceded to the Palestinians as the capital of their own state, no conceivable settlement would deny west Jerusalem to Israel.    “There is simply no reason not

to put a US Embassy there.”

Moscow’s surprising recognition of Jerusalem was largely ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of chaos.  On the other hand, the Palestinians have found that their threats of dire consequences have worked in the past – in effect allowing U.S. foreign policy to be taken hostage.

Two years ago ,in a challenge to the State Department’s policy not to put “Jerusalem, Israel” on U.S. passports for American citizens born there, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, which includes the power to determine what a passport says. “Recognition is a matter on which the nation must speak with one voice,” said the Court. “That voice is the president’s.”

Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore. His most recent book is Defending Truth: The Quest for Honesty about Jews and Israel.



Source link

A Down Payment for Peace


It’s starting to sound like a plan.

Since the beginning of the Oslo “peace process,” it has been assumed that Israel has more to give than the Palestinians. After all, the story went, Israel is wealthy, recognized, democratic, and stable. The Palestinians are refugees with nothing. Right? So Israel was told not to build houses for Jews in areas that might become a Palestinian state — lest the Palestinians end up with a country that has Jews in it. Israel has, further, been pressed to “make life better” for the Palestinians in terms of jobs, electricity, water, medical care, and agriculture. The Arab states and the EU — as well as the U.S. — provide funds for, well, for everything including Palestinian leaders’ mansions and bank accounts. The deeper others waded into the “process” over the past two-plus decades, the more the Palestinians could be excused for believing that they didn’t have to do anything, but could wait for people to squeeze more out of Israel on their behalf under threat of a) discontinuing the process and/or b) more violence.

After all, they reasoned, what did they have to lose?

The Trump administration, however, appears to have concluded that the process might work differently if the Palestinians thought they did have something to lose. And by the moaning and shrieking emanating from Ramallah, if that is the plan it may be a good one.

The President started with a clear statement to Palestinian strongman Mahmoud Abbas about not teaching hatred, and then castigating him when he discovered that Abbas’s reassurances were lies. Congress added in the Taylor Force Act, which the President has said he would sign. The bill cuts funds to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as long as the PA is funding salaries for terrorists. Then the administration publicly considered closing the Palestinian mission in Washington because the PA was not meeting its Oslo obligation to negotiate issues directly with Israel and had, instead, made overtures in the International Criminal Court.

And now it appears the administration has failed to sign the waiver that keeps the American embassy in Tel Aviv, rather than moving it to Jerusalem as the law demands. (This one is tricky — the waiver was not signed six months after the previous waiver. Whether the signature has to be precisely six months to the day or has wiggle room is the subject of some discussion.) At the same time, the administration seems ready to declare its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, putting Israel on the same footing as 192 other countries in the world who determine their own seats of government.

Reuters reports that President Trump has spoken with both King Abdullah II of Jordan and Palestinian strongman Mahmoud Abbas about his decision to move the embassy.

What the Palestinians have to lose, then, is American acquiescence to a process by which the Palestinians continue gain something for nothing, and in which they believe violence is always their trump card (so to speak). Indeed, Mahmoud Habash, an advisor to Abbas, said that if President Trump were to recognize Jerusalem, it would amount to a “complete destruction of the peace process.” Habash said that “the world will pay the price” for any change in Jerusalem’s status.

Threatening the American administration doesn’t seem like a game-winner. Threatening to destroy the nonexistent “peace process” is spurious.

The Palestinians — and most of the Arab world, save for Egypt and Jordan — have declined every opportunity and every demand for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” This is the promise of UN Resolution 242 to Israel after the Arabs had tried in 1967 to reverse the establishment of the State of Israel.

Anwar Sadat and King Hussein offered Israel the terms of UN Resolution 242 and negotiated the terms of peace treaties that served their interests as well as Israel’s. Today, most of the Arab states today are fairly certain Israel is here to stay, but have done no better than put forward an “Arab Peace Plan” that fails Res. 242 entirely. (The so-called “Arab Peace Plan” didn’t come close — requiring that Israel retreat to insecure and unrecognized armistice lines before the Arabs considered recognition of Israel’s legitimacy.) 

The U.S. can clearly state the way forward for the Palestinians — they have to make a down payment on peace with Israel. A clear and demonstrable commitment to UN Resolution 242 — to the legitimacy and permanence of Israel in the region — is the price of continued American support. If that is too big a leap, let the Palestinians urge the Arab states to go first so they have support for their move.

If the Palestinians and the Arab states can’t get there, they will have sabotaged themselves and their people (again) far more than Israel or the United States. Israel will continue to be what it is — wealthy, recognized, democratic, and stable. It will continue to create alliances and relationships that benefit its people and its friends. It will continue to make progress in education, technology, security, the arts and the sciences, and it will continue to share those capabilities around the world.

And the United States will stand with its friend and ally, Israel. 

It’s starting to sound like a plan.

Since the beginning of the Oslo “peace process,” it has been assumed that Israel has more to give than the Palestinians. After all, the story went, Israel is wealthy, recognized, democratic, and stable. The Palestinians are refugees with nothing. Right? So Israel was told not to build houses for Jews in areas that might become a Palestinian state — lest the Palestinians end up with a country that has Jews in it. Israel has, further, been pressed to “make life better” for the Palestinians in terms of jobs, electricity, water, medical care, and agriculture. The Arab states and the EU — as well as the U.S. — provide funds for, well, for everything including Palestinian leaders’ mansions and bank accounts. The deeper others waded into the “process” over the past two-plus decades, the more the Palestinians could be excused for believing that they didn’t have to do anything, but could wait for people to squeeze more out of Israel on their behalf under threat of a) discontinuing the process and/or b) more violence.

After all, they reasoned, what did they have to lose?

The Trump administration, however, appears to have concluded that the process might work differently if the Palestinians thought they did have something to lose. And by the moaning and shrieking emanating from Ramallah, if that is the plan it may be a good one.

The President started with a clear statement to Palestinian strongman Mahmoud Abbas about not teaching hatred, and then castigating him when he discovered that Abbas’s reassurances were lies. Congress added in the Taylor Force Act, which the President has said he would sign. The bill cuts funds to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as long as the PA is funding salaries for terrorists. Then the administration publicly considered closing the Palestinian mission in Washington because the PA was not meeting its Oslo obligation to negotiate issues directly with Israel and had, instead, made overtures in the International Criminal Court.

And now it appears the administration has failed to sign the waiver that keeps the American embassy in Tel Aviv, rather than moving it to Jerusalem as the law demands. (This one is tricky — the waiver was not signed six months after the previous waiver. Whether the signature has to be precisely six months to the day or has wiggle room is the subject of some discussion.) At the same time, the administration seems ready to declare its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, putting Israel on the same footing as 192 other countries in the world who determine their own seats of government.

Reuters reports that President Trump has spoken with both King Abdullah II of Jordan and Palestinian strongman Mahmoud Abbas about his decision to move the embassy.

What the Palestinians have to lose, then, is American acquiescence to a process by which the Palestinians continue gain something for nothing, and in which they believe violence is always their trump card (so to speak). Indeed, Mahmoud Habash, an advisor to Abbas, said that if President Trump were to recognize Jerusalem, it would amount to a “complete destruction of the peace process.” Habash said that “the world will pay the price” for any change in Jerusalem’s status.

Threatening the American administration doesn’t seem like a game-winner. Threatening to destroy the nonexistent “peace process” is spurious.

The Palestinians — and most of the Arab world, save for Egypt and Jordan — have declined every opportunity and every demand for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” This is the promise of UN Resolution 242 to Israel after the Arabs had tried in 1967 to reverse the establishment of the State of Israel.

Anwar Sadat and King Hussein offered Israel the terms of UN Resolution 242 and negotiated the terms of peace treaties that served their interests as well as Israel’s. Today, most of the Arab states today are fairly certain Israel is here to stay, but have done no better than put forward an “Arab Peace Plan” that fails Res. 242 entirely. (The so-called “Arab Peace Plan” didn’t come close — requiring that Israel retreat to insecure and unrecognized armistice lines before the Arabs considered recognition of Israel’s legitimacy.) 

The U.S. can clearly state the way forward for the Palestinians — they have to make a down payment on peace with Israel. A clear and demonstrable commitment to UN Resolution 242 — to the legitimacy and permanence of Israel in the region — is the price of continued American support. If that is too big a leap, let the Palestinians urge the Arab states to go first so they have support for their move.

If the Palestinians and the Arab states can’t get there, they will have sabotaged themselves and their people (again) far more than Israel or the United States. Israel will continue to be what it is — wealthy, recognized, democratic, and stable. It will continue to create alliances and relationships that benefit its people and its friends. It will continue to make progress in education, technology, security, the arts and the sciences, and it will continue to share those capabilities around the world.

And the United States will stand with its friend and ally, Israel. 



Source link

Chatting Sexual Harassment with Lib Relatives


After spending the last four months moving from Florida and settling into our new home in West Virginia, Mary and I are on the road again. We are flying to campaign for Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama senate race. Moore’s democrat opponent, Doug Jones, is a horrible deceitful man. Jones supports slaughtering babies even up to the point of birth. Jones supports Planned Parenthood trafficking baby body parts for profit. America-loving Alabamians, you must get out and vote against Doug Jones. Jones is an anti-American and Trump-resistance operative disguised as a good guy. 

We drove three hours to Baltimore the day before our flight to fly out of BWI. This gave me an opportunity to visit and chat with several relatives. Most of my black relatives believe Trump is racist. They reject truth/facts, clinging to their emotion-driven loyalty to Democrats. 

Sexual harassment is a hot topic. I wanted to get my liberal Democrat relatives’ thoughts regarding sexual harassment. Each of them believes that sexual harassers should be punished. They also believe much of what is now labeled “sexual harassment” is simply men being men and women being women in the workplace. In a word, “biology.”

A Trump-hating black female relative said she fears that labeling everything sexual harassment will create an extremely threatening atmosphere in the workplace. A woman accusing a man of sexual harassment is like dropping a nuclear bomb on his head. It is impossible for a man to defend himself without a majority thinking he is guilty. My female relative believes fear of sexual harassment allegations will impact men hiring women.

This same relative is a retired Baltimore city police officer. She said being a rare female black officer had its challenges. She witnessed female cops being sexually harassed. My relative said she instructed fellow cops on how to treat her. She won their respect. She has lifelong friendships and fond memories of her career in law enforcement.

Folks, we instinctively recognize sexual jerks. Mary and I attended a great church in which members greeted each other with a hug. Mary stopped allowing a member to hug her because she felt he was a sleaze. I would hate to see that church abandon it’s warm greeting because of a jerk or two. 

Leftists always launch bogus narratives. If we dare disagree or submit facts proving their narrative untrue, Leftists attack, calling us intolerant, haters, racist, sexist, and homophobic. For example. Leftists say women “never” lie about sexual harassment. If anyone dares to say that a woman should have proof before destroying a man’s life, Leftists launch a shock and awe campaign to brand that person a supporter of sexual assault. That person shuts up, runs, and hides.

The investigation video of a woman accusing a cop of sexual assault was posted on YouTube. The beautiful sophisticated young woman gave an extremely compelling tearful account of the officer ordering her out of her car and fondling her private parts. The cop’s dash-cam confirmed that he gave her a traffic ticket without her leaving her car. After showing the cop’s accuser the dash-cam video, the investigator asked why she tried to destroy the officer’s life. She replied, “He stopped me unfairly.” 

A relative recalled his ugly divorce. He said, “I fought her in court as the mother of our kids (not disclosing her adultery). She fought me like I was Mike Tyson.” She lied, accusing him of abusing their kids. Despite any evidence of abuse, my relative was screwed; the judge ruled against him.

This was interesting. My liberal Democrat relatives thought 20-year-old sexual harassment allegations were laughable, not to be taken seriously. Therefore, the 38-year-old allegations against Judge Moore did not impact my relatives’ opinion of him. They hate Moore solely because he is a Republican. 

Surprisingly, my Democrat relatives disobeyed political correctness; verbalizing thoughts that would cause Leftists to high-tech lynch a conservative. A Democrat male relative brought up the mixed messages women send in their dress and behavior that we males are not supposed to notice. He said during praise and worship in church, he has seen women twerking in stiletto high heels. It is pretty challenging for guy to keep his mind on God when a woman is flip flopping her derriere in the next pew.

My Democrat male relative’s comment about women sending mixed messages is valid. Psychologists are sounding the alarm about sexualizing little girls’ bodies and fashions. Radio talk show host Glen Beck said he was shocked and frustrated by how hard it was to find tops for his daughter that did not expose her bellybutton. 

A relative has coached kids football for 30 years. He said he has watched cheerleaders’ dance routines become progressively raunchier; twerking and so on, with female parents cheering the little girls on. “Git it girl! That girl is gonna be something when she grows up!” He dared mention to a female parent that he thought the cheerleader routines were getting too sexy. The parent accused him of being a dirty old man. This shut him up.

When Mary and I ran an arts center, we allowed local Hispanic dance groups to practice there. On numerous occasions, we were shocked by the sexy dance moves the kids were taught. The more the girls well executed the sexy dance moves, the more female parents excitedly cheered them on. Mary and I were cautioned to keep our mouths shut; told that it was a Hispanic “cultural thing” that we did not understand.

My 89-year-old dad shared with me that back in his dad’s day, it was exciting to see a woman’s ankle when she stepped up onto the streetcar. Today many women dress leaving little to the imagination. Male relatives educated me about a new street term, “camel’s hoof”. I feel a little embarrassed just mentioning it. The term refers to what young guys say they see when women wear skin tight pants.

A relative said he believes oversexual exposure has a numbing effect on men. Has oversexual exposure sparked more people needing deviancy to become aroused?

The consensus of my liberal democrat relatives was that women cannot have it both ways. Women cannot flaunt their sexuality and become outraged when men notice. Again, my relatives said “real” sexual harassers should be punished.

My wife said a woman has the right to walk down the street nude and men do not have a right to touch her. I said, “I agree. As a black man, I have a right to attend a KKK rally and yell, ‘Where are the white women?’ My behavior would be unwise.”

Like ambulance chasers, suddenly TV lawyers are soliciting sexual harassment cases. All I am asking is that we not allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who exploit the issue of sexual harassment. Let’s deal with every allegation fairly and honestly. 

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.

Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

http://LloydMarcus.com

After spending the last four months moving from Florida and settling into our new home in West Virginia, Mary and I are on the road again. We are flying to campaign for Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama senate race. Moore’s democrat opponent, Doug Jones, is a horrible deceitful man. Jones supports slaughtering babies even up to the point of birth. Jones supports Planned Parenthood trafficking baby body parts for profit. America-loving Alabamians, you must get out and vote against Doug Jones. Jones is an anti-American and Trump-resistance operative disguised as a good guy. 

We drove three hours to Baltimore the day before our flight to fly out of BWI. This gave me an opportunity to visit and chat with several relatives. Most of my black relatives believe Trump is racist. They reject truth/facts, clinging to their emotion-driven loyalty to Democrats. 

Sexual harassment is a hot topic. I wanted to get my liberal Democrat relatives’ thoughts regarding sexual harassment. Each of them believes that sexual harassers should be punished. They also believe much of what is now labeled “sexual harassment” is simply men being men and women being women in the workplace. In a word, “biology.”

A Trump-hating black female relative said she fears that labeling everything sexual harassment will create an extremely threatening atmosphere in the workplace. A woman accusing a man of sexual harassment is like dropping a nuclear bomb on his head. It is impossible for a man to defend himself without a majority thinking he is guilty. My female relative believes fear of sexual harassment allegations will impact men hiring women.

This same relative is a retired Baltimore city police officer. She said being a rare female black officer had its challenges. She witnessed female cops being sexually harassed. My relative said she instructed fellow cops on how to treat her. She won their respect. She has lifelong friendships and fond memories of her career in law enforcement.

Folks, we instinctively recognize sexual jerks. Mary and I attended a great church in which members greeted each other with a hug. Mary stopped allowing a member to hug her because she felt he was a sleaze. I would hate to see that church abandon it’s warm greeting because of a jerk or two. 

Leftists always launch bogus narratives. If we dare disagree or submit facts proving their narrative untrue, Leftists attack, calling us intolerant, haters, racist, sexist, and homophobic. For example. Leftists say women “never” lie about sexual harassment. If anyone dares to say that a woman should have proof before destroying a man’s life, Leftists launch a shock and awe campaign to brand that person a supporter of sexual assault. That person shuts up, runs, and hides.

The investigation video of a woman accusing a cop of sexual assault was posted on YouTube. The beautiful sophisticated young woman gave an extremely compelling tearful account of the officer ordering her out of her car and fondling her private parts. The cop’s dash-cam confirmed that he gave her a traffic ticket without her leaving her car. After showing the cop’s accuser the dash-cam video, the investigator asked why she tried to destroy the officer’s life. She replied, “He stopped me unfairly.” 

A relative recalled his ugly divorce. He said, “I fought her in court as the mother of our kids (not disclosing her adultery). She fought me like I was Mike Tyson.” She lied, accusing him of abusing their kids. Despite any evidence of abuse, my relative was screwed; the judge ruled against him.

This was interesting. My liberal Democrat relatives thought 20-year-old sexual harassment allegations were laughable, not to be taken seriously. Therefore, the 38-year-old allegations against Judge Moore did not impact my relatives’ opinion of him. They hate Moore solely because he is a Republican. 

Surprisingly, my Democrat relatives disobeyed political correctness; verbalizing thoughts that would cause Leftists to high-tech lynch a conservative. A Democrat male relative brought up the mixed messages women send in their dress and behavior that we males are not supposed to notice. He said during praise and worship in church, he has seen women twerking in stiletto high heels. It is pretty challenging for guy to keep his mind on God when a woman is flip flopping her derriere in the next pew.

My Democrat male relative’s comment about women sending mixed messages is valid. Psychologists are sounding the alarm about sexualizing little girls’ bodies and fashions. Radio talk show host Glen Beck said he was shocked and frustrated by how hard it was to find tops for his daughter that did not expose her bellybutton. 

A relative has coached kids football for 30 years. He said he has watched cheerleaders’ dance routines become progressively raunchier; twerking and so on, with female parents cheering the little girls on. “Git it girl! That girl is gonna be something when she grows up!” He dared mention to a female parent that he thought the cheerleader routines were getting too sexy. The parent accused him of being a dirty old man. This shut him up.

When Mary and I ran an arts center, we allowed local Hispanic dance groups to practice there. On numerous occasions, we were shocked by the sexy dance moves the kids were taught. The more the girls well executed the sexy dance moves, the more female parents excitedly cheered them on. Mary and I were cautioned to keep our mouths shut; told that it was a Hispanic “cultural thing” that we did not understand.

My 89-year-old dad shared with me that back in his dad’s day, it was exciting to see a woman’s ankle when she stepped up onto the streetcar. Today many women dress leaving little to the imagination. Male relatives educated me about a new street term, “camel’s hoof”. I feel a little embarrassed just mentioning it. The term refers to what young guys say they see when women wear skin tight pants.

A relative said he believes oversexual exposure has a numbing effect on men. Has oversexual exposure sparked more people needing deviancy to become aroused?

The consensus of my liberal democrat relatives was that women cannot have it both ways. Women cannot flaunt their sexuality and become outraged when men notice. Again, my relatives said “real” sexual harassers should be punished.

My wife said a woman has the right to walk down the street nude and men do not have a right to touch her. I said, “I agree. As a black man, I have a right to attend a KKK rally and yell, ‘Where are the white women?’ My behavior would be unwise.”

Like ambulance chasers, suddenly TV lawyers are soliciting sexual harassment cases. All I am asking is that we not allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who exploit the issue of sexual harassment. Let’s deal with every allegation fairly and honestly. 

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.

Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

It's Time for Congress to Pass the 'John McCain Rule'


A year after the election and the Democrats, the media, establishment Republicans are still apoplectic over the inauguration of President Donald Trump. 

It’s obvious they hate him.  When did the media stop looking at Donald Trump as an entertainment figure and begin to loathe him?  True, bat-guano, off-the-charts loathing.  The answer, of course, is when Donald Trump challenged President Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Even today, few things get a liberal Democrat or the media more riled up than questioning President Obama’s qualifications to be president.  It’s almost (but not quite) the same level of hate and disgust as they reserve for climate deniers whom they want to strip their citizenship, stuff in a boxcar, and shuffle them to a gulag.  Conservatives and Republicans have learned to just “not go there.”  No good could ever come from even a rational discussion.

Isn’t the liberal hysteria a case of: They doth protest too much, methinks.  What is the source of their hatred that they would do something like hiring a third party to generate a phony document in order to get back at and unseat the president?

Outside the myth-making and propaganda-making apparatus that is the media, President Obama’s story has rarely been told—without spin.  Why is there even a question—isn’t it “settled science” since a birth certificate was produced?  Wasn’t it all about the birth certificate?  No.

Born in America (Hawaii) of a foreign father (a British subject before Kenya gained their independence) and an American mother, any lawyer in the (now defunct) Immigration & Naturalization Service would have said of the infant, “Per the U.S. Constitution, Little Barack is an American citizen.”  Also, per the father’s country’s constitution, Little Barack is also a British subject or Kenyan citizen—pick one.  That is how constitutions and laws work.

The media were very careful in what they reported.  They purposely hid some facts from the public that would have been upset the political balance because the candidate Obama was a Democrat.  Had the candidate Obama been a Republican, the Democrats and the media would have moved to disqualify him and they would have started with his peculiar birth. 

As a Democrat, no immigration attorney was ever called to the networks to tell the rest of the story of the birth of Barack Obama.  However, had he been a Republican, the networks would have immigration attorneys lined up around Times Square just to make the most salient of points: If the U.S. Constitution confers American citizenship to a child born of an American mother, doesn’t being born to a foreign father also make him a citizen of his father’s country?  The answer is yes.  That is a condition called Dual Nationality.  A dual national is not a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  A Republican Barack Obama would have been ruthlessly disqualified on national television. 

There’s another character in this story who intersects the Cartesian coordinates of Presidents Trump and Obama: Senator John McCain.  Senator McCain won the Republican nomination, Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination for President.  If anyone was paying attention, the 2008 race for the Presidency was marred by questions regarding the qualifications of the two nominees.  The Democrats and the media insisted that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen by virtue of being born to an American mother on American soil.  Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state.  

The House of Representatives passed a resolution essentially declaring John McCain, a person born abroad of American parents, was, as stipulated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, a natural born citizen.  Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

In the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain—a person born abroad of American parents—and Senator Obama—a person born of one American parent and one alien parent—had unresolved constitutional eligibility issues.  The issue could only be adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court.  If one of the candidates “with standing” had sued the other candidate to resolve the issue of what does it mean by natural born citizen as articulated in the U.S. Constitution, it would have been interesting politics. 

The money would have been on McCain to win any lawsuit outright.  Courts have devised the “but for” rule.  With McCain, “but for” the fact his parents were stationed overseas on official duties he would have been born in the United States and consequently, a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the United States. 

The Founders specifically wanted to avoid any issue of “split allegiance,” that is a person born of one American parent and one foreign parent, someone who may not have some allegiance to America but may have had a greater allegiance to another country. 

Donald Trump created a firestorm with, “He was a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”  Also, “I supported McCain for president.  He lost and let us down….  I’ve never liked him as much after that.”  No one has ever received an adequate explanation why the pre-president Donald Trump had issues with John McCain. 

I submit Donald Trump cannot and will not forgive John McCain for not taking the obvious constitutionally ineligible Barack Obama to court.  That he was a coward, that he was afraid of being called a racist.  Barack Obama forced John McCain’s hand—either sue me to disqualify me or let it ride and let the voters decide.  When it was time to show leadership in the face of a candidate who played the blood sport of politics, by not taking Barack Obama to court, John McCain simply capitulated and violated his oath of defending the U.S. Constitution. 

Donald Trump will likely never forgive John McCain when the country needed him the most.  John McCain continues to thrust his finger in the air to President Trump.  Donald Trump will likely never forgive Barack Obama for wrecking America.  MAGA, and all that. 

The Left clearly cannot forgive Donald Trump for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  Dozens of articles were published in American Thinker regarding the veracity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  The consensus was that BHO’s birth certificate was a forgery.  Counterfeit.

As time went on, candidate Trump got a little smarter on the whole “birther” thing, threatening to sue Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be President.  Both men had a parent of another country at the time of their birth.  Candidate Trump isn’t afraid of taking anyone to court.

The manufactured “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump is simply a little “payback” for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  The Left will never give up, they will crawl over broken glass and will not rest until they unseat President Trump. 

It’s time to have the Congress pass a law that defines the “natural born citizen” clause in the U.S. Constitution as a person born in America of American parents.  Also, a person born abroad of American parents (but for…) qualifies as natural born.  We could call it the John McCain Rule.

A year after the election and the Democrats, the media, establishment Republicans are still apoplectic over the inauguration of President Donald Trump. 

It’s obvious they hate him.  When did the media stop looking at Donald Trump as an entertainment figure and begin to loathe him?  True, bat-guano, off-the-charts loathing.  The answer, of course, is when Donald Trump challenged President Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Even today, few things get a liberal Democrat or the media more riled up than questioning President Obama’s qualifications to be president.  It’s almost (but not quite) the same level of hate and disgust as they reserve for climate deniers whom they want to strip their citizenship, stuff in a boxcar, and shuffle them to a gulag.  Conservatives and Republicans have learned to just “not go there.”  No good could ever come from even a rational discussion.

Isn’t the liberal hysteria a case of: They doth protest too much, methinks.  What is the source of their hatred that they would do something like hiring a third party to generate a phony document in order to get back at and unseat the president?

Outside the myth-making and propaganda-making apparatus that is the media, President Obama’s story has rarely been told—without spin.  Why is there even a question—isn’t it “settled science” since a birth certificate was produced?  Wasn’t it all about the birth certificate?  No.

Born in America (Hawaii) of a foreign father (a British subject before Kenya gained their independence) and an American mother, any lawyer in the (now defunct) Immigration & Naturalization Service would have said of the infant, “Per the U.S. Constitution, Little Barack is an American citizen.”  Also, per the father’s country’s constitution, Little Barack is also a British subject or Kenyan citizen—pick one.  That is how constitutions and laws work.

The media were very careful in what they reported.  They purposely hid some facts from the public that would have been upset the political balance because the candidate Obama was a Democrat.  Had the candidate Obama been a Republican, the Democrats and the media would have moved to disqualify him and they would have started with his peculiar birth. 

As a Democrat, no immigration attorney was ever called to the networks to tell the rest of the story of the birth of Barack Obama.  However, had he been a Republican, the networks would have immigration attorneys lined up around Times Square just to make the most salient of points: If the U.S. Constitution confers American citizenship to a child born of an American mother, doesn’t being born to a foreign father also make him a citizen of his father’s country?  The answer is yes.  That is a condition called Dual Nationality.  A dual national is not a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  A Republican Barack Obama would have been ruthlessly disqualified on national television. 

There’s another character in this story who intersects the Cartesian coordinates of Presidents Trump and Obama: Senator John McCain.  Senator McCain won the Republican nomination, Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination for President.  If anyone was paying attention, the 2008 race for the Presidency was marred by questions regarding the qualifications of the two nominees.  The Democrats and the media insisted that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen by virtue of being born to an American mother on American soil.  Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state.  

The House of Representatives passed a resolution essentially declaring John McCain, a person born abroad of American parents, was, as stipulated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, a natural born citizen.  Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

In the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain—a person born abroad of American parents—and Senator Obama—a person born of one American parent and one alien parent—had unresolved constitutional eligibility issues.  The issue could only be adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court.  If one of the candidates “with standing” had sued the other candidate to resolve the issue of what does it mean by natural born citizen as articulated in the U.S. Constitution, it would have been interesting politics. 

The money would have been on McCain to win any lawsuit outright.  Courts have devised the “but for” rule.  With McCain, “but for” the fact his parents were stationed overseas on official duties he would have been born in the United States and consequently, a natural born citizen and eligible to become president of the United States. 

The Founders specifically wanted to avoid any issue of “split allegiance,” that is a person born of one American parent and one foreign parent, someone who may not have some allegiance to America but may have had a greater allegiance to another country. 

Donald Trump created a firestorm with, “He was a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”  Also, “I supported McCain for president.  He lost and let us down….  I’ve never liked him as much after that.”  No one has ever received an adequate explanation why the pre-president Donald Trump had issues with John McCain. 

I submit Donald Trump cannot and will not forgive John McCain for not taking the obvious constitutionally ineligible Barack Obama to court.  That he was a coward, that he was afraid of being called a racist.  Barack Obama forced John McCain’s hand—either sue me to disqualify me or let it ride and let the voters decide.  When it was time to show leadership in the face of a candidate who played the blood sport of politics, by not taking Barack Obama to court, John McCain simply capitulated and violated his oath of defending the U.S. Constitution. 

Donald Trump will likely never forgive John McCain when the country needed him the most.  John McCain continues to thrust his finger in the air to President Trump.  Donald Trump will likely never forgive Barack Obama for wrecking America.  MAGA, and all that. 

The Left clearly cannot forgive Donald Trump for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  Dozens of articles were published in American Thinker regarding the veracity of President Obama’s birth certificate.  The consensus was that BHO’s birth certificate was a forgery.  Counterfeit.

As time went on, candidate Trump got a little smarter on the whole “birther” thing, threatening to sue Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be President.  Both men had a parent of another country at the time of their birth.  Candidate Trump isn’t afraid of taking anyone to court.

The manufactured “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump is simply a little “payback” for questioning President Obama’s legitimacy.  The Left will never give up, they will crawl over broken glass and will not rest until they unseat President Trump. 

It’s time to have the Congress pass a law that defines the “natural born citizen” clause in the U.S. Constitution as a person born in America of American parents.  Also, a person born abroad of American parents (but for…) qualifies as natural born.  We could call it the John McCain Rule.



Source link

Unless Changed, the Tax Bill Should Die


Since the financial crisis of 2008, the federal government has been borrowing and spending money like there’s no tomorrow. In November, I reported about the new rollover regime we just entered, in which the feds will be refinancing the debt run up during the Obama era. It didn’t occur to me at the time, but the $8.388T debt the feds will be rolling over in the four years that started on Oct. 1, 2017 is more than the debt incurred during the eight years of Obama, which was $8.096T, (that’s the Public Debt from Jan. 20, 2009 to Jan. 20, 2017). So, we must redeem the Obama era debt in half the time it took to run it up!

A single $1T deficit in fiscal 2009 during the crisis might be acceptable, even warranted, but four trillion-dollar deficits in a row are unforgiveable. Those four deficits were so large that despite lower deficits in his second term, they gave Obama an average deficit of more than $1T a year for his eight years. The Public Debt, which is the real debt, went from $6.3T to $14.4T while Obama was in office. What did we get for all that debt and all that spending?

For years after the financial crisis the federal government and the Federal Reserve took extraordinary actions. What money the feds didn’t borrow, the Fed created, “out of thin air” as they say, through QE, “quantitative easing.” The Fed is now poised for a drawdown of its $4.5T balance sheet, and has already changed ZIRP, its “zero interest-rate policy,” slowly raising its funds rate. Now, add to all this the new tax bills under consideration that will cut revenue and raise deficits and we have uncertainty. Markets don’t like uncertainty.

Having looked at the House and Senate tax bills, there’s not much to like in them. It would be better to have no new tax legislation than this. And I write that having advocated tax reform for years. But there’s no real reform in these tax bills, and they raise the deficit at the worst time, (see above). As a Republican voter, I hate to write those lines, it pains me, but in their major legislative efforts this year the GOP Congress has been disappointing. They need to fix that soon.

The tax bill needs to be revenue-neutral; the feds need to be taking in at least as much money in the first year of its implementation as in the previous year. One reason for this is that Congress doesn’t seem to be able to cut spending. Also, in certain areas, like Defense, Congress needs to spend more than it has been. For example, there’s been a lot of news lately about our military readiness; some airplanes must be cannibalized to keep other planes operational.

One unacceptable change in both the House and Senate bills is the elimination of the AMT, the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was instituted to ensure that earners with hefty incomes pay at least some income tax; it was a check against the excesses of Congress in their creation of exemptions, write-offs, and preferences like the “carried interest” loophole. Guess we’re headed back to the good ole days when some high-income earners paid no income tax.

One of the more daft things about fiscal legislation is the 10-year projections that lawmakers make. They need to stop that. Congress cannot bind a future Congress. If Dems get control of everything again, they’ll be able to dash the GOP’s tax law to smithereens, and they’ll end the legislative filibuster to do it. Dems will undo the GOP’s handiwork, and taxes in America will continue to be “a disgrace to the human race.”

What Republicans should be doing is forging a tax law that is so efficient, so sane, so just, so simple, and so popular that Democrats would be afraid to tinker with it. But that’s not what the GOP Congress is doing; they’re just rejiggering the same rickety mess, looking for “pay-fors” to offset rate cuts. There’s very little creativity in these tax bills, and at a time when creativity is sorely needed.

The big disappointment with the two tax reform bills is that the more important reform is being held hostage to the less important one. That is, corporate income tax reform has been yoked to personal income tax reform. Republicans are even selling their bill as a “middle-class tax cut,” when most middle-income Americans already have very low effective rates. They’re even telling personal income taxpayers that they’ll be able to file their taxes on a postcard, (presumably so others can see what their incomes are).

Since Congress isn’t likely to come up with sensible personal income tax reform before the end of the year, they should focus on just the corporate income tax, which is the tax that economists think is the bigger drag on the economy.

Some Republican members of Congress are saying that the GOP must pass tax reform or they’re toast in next year’s midterm elections. If they pass anything like the two bills before us, the opposite may actually be the case. In “The GOP’s Tax Plan: Paving the Way to a Democratic Majority” at The Corner, Andrew Stuttaford writes: “Even if we forget about their impact on the deficit (and we shouldn’t), the Republican tax plans have been characterized by extraordinarily sloppy thinking.” He then details proposed changes to formerly untouchable tax expenditures that the GOP had best rethink.

Republicans members of Congress need to pull back from the brink. What they ought to do in the waning hours of 2017 is repeal not only ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which the Senate bill proposes, but the employer mandate as well. And that needs to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. They should then tell Americans that those repeals are actually tax cuts, which would be true. And then GOP members should set the corporate income tax rate to 30 percent. That also needs to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

Although modest, the above changes would give GOP members of Congress a measure of credibility — they will have delivered some tax relief and partially made good on their promise to repeal Obamacare. That credibility would allow congressional Republicans to then proclaim that they intend to make additional changes to the tax system in 2018, which might be made retroactive to Jan. 1. Among the changes should be real simplification, especially for business, so that the cost of compliance can be cut.

Considering their historic victories last November, congressional Republicans seem intent on giving a bright new meaning to “screw the pooch.” However, there’s still enough time in what remains of 2017 for them to redeem themselves and demonstrate that they do have the “right stuff” after all.

Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 

Since the financial crisis of 2008, the federal government has been borrowing and spending money like there’s no tomorrow. In November, I reported about the new rollover regime we just entered, in which the feds will be refinancing the debt run up during the Obama era. It didn’t occur to me at the time, but the $8.388T debt the feds will be rolling over in the four years that started on Oct. 1, 2017 is more than the debt incurred during the eight years of Obama, which was $8.096T, (that’s the Public Debt from Jan. 20, 2009 to Jan. 20, 2017). So, we must redeem the Obama era debt in half the time it took to run it up!

A single $1T deficit in fiscal 2009 during the crisis might be acceptable, even warranted, but four trillion-dollar deficits in a row are unforgiveable. Those four deficits were so large that despite lower deficits in his second term, they gave Obama an average deficit of more than $1T a year for his eight years. The Public Debt, which is the real debt, went from $6.3T to $14.4T while Obama was in office. What did we get for all that debt and all that spending?

For years after the financial crisis the federal government and the Federal Reserve took extraordinary actions. What money the feds didn’t borrow, the Fed created, “out of thin air” as they say, through QE, “quantitative easing.” The Fed is now poised for a drawdown of its $4.5T balance sheet, and has already changed ZIRP, its “zero interest-rate policy,” slowly raising its funds rate. Now, add to all this the new tax bills under consideration that will cut revenue and raise deficits and we have uncertainty. Markets don’t like uncertainty.

Having looked at the House and Senate tax bills, there’s not much to like in them. It would be better to have no new tax legislation than this. And I write that having advocated tax reform for years. But there’s no real reform in these tax bills, and they raise the deficit at the worst time, (see above). As a Republican voter, I hate to write those lines, it pains me, but in their major legislative efforts this year the GOP Congress has been disappointing. They need to fix that soon.

The tax bill needs to be revenue-neutral; the feds need to be taking in at least as much money in the first year of its implementation as in the previous year. One reason for this is that Congress doesn’t seem to be able to cut spending. Also, in certain areas, like Defense, Congress needs to spend more than it has been. For example, there’s been a lot of news lately about our military readiness; some airplanes must be cannibalized to keep other planes operational.

One unacceptable change in both the House and Senate bills is the elimination of the AMT, the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was instituted to ensure that earners with hefty incomes pay at least some income tax; it was a check against the excesses of Congress in their creation of exemptions, write-offs, and preferences like the “carried interest” loophole. Guess we’re headed back to the good ole days when some high-income earners paid no income tax.

One of the more daft things about fiscal legislation is the 10-year projections that lawmakers make. They need to stop that. Congress cannot bind a future Congress. If Dems get control of everything again, they’ll be able to dash the GOP’s tax law to smithereens, and they’ll end the legislative filibuster to do it. Dems will undo the GOP’s handiwork, and taxes in America will continue to be “a disgrace to the human race.”

What Republicans should be doing is forging a tax law that is so efficient, so sane, so just, so simple, and so popular that Democrats would be afraid to tinker with it. But that’s not what the GOP Congress is doing; they’re just rejiggering the same rickety mess, looking for “pay-fors” to offset rate cuts. There’s very little creativity in these tax bills, and at a time when creativity is sorely needed.

The big disappointment with the two tax reform bills is that the more important reform is being held hostage to the less important one. That is, corporate income tax reform has been yoked to personal income tax reform. Republicans are even selling their bill as a “middle-class tax cut,” when most middle-income Americans already have very low effective rates. They’re even telling personal income taxpayers that they’ll be able to file their taxes on a postcard, (presumably so others can see what their incomes are).

Since Congress isn’t likely to come up with sensible personal income tax reform before the end of the year, they should focus on just the corporate income tax, which is the tax that economists think is the bigger drag on the economy.

Some Republican members of Congress are saying that the GOP must pass tax reform or they’re toast in next year’s midterm elections. If they pass anything like the two bills before us, the opposite may actually be the case. In “The GOP’s Tax Plan: Paving the Way to a Democratic Majority” at The Corner, Andrew Stuttaford writes: “Even if we forget about their impact on the deficit (and we shouldn’t), the Republican tax plans have been characterized by extraordinarily sloppy thinking.” He then details proposed changes to formerly untouchable tax expenditures that the GOP had best rethink.

Republicans members of Congress need to pull back from the brink. What they ought to do in the waning hours of 2017 is repeal not only ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which the Senate bill proposes, but the employer mandate as well. And that needs to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. They should then tell Americans that those repeals are actually tax cuts, which would be true. And then GOP members should set the corporate income tax rate to 30 percent. That also needs to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

Although modest, the above changes would give GOP members of Congress a measure of credibility — they will have delivered some tax relief and partially made good on their promise to repeal Obamacare. That credibility would allow congressional Republicans to then proclaim that they intend to make additional changes to the tax system in 2018, which might be made retroactive to Jan. 1. Among the changes should be real simplification, especially for business, so that the cost of compliance can be cut.

Considering their historic victories last November, congressional Republicans seem intent on giving a bright new meaning to “screw the pooch.” However, there’s still enough time in what remains of 2017 for them to redeem themselves and demonstrate that they do have the “right stuff” after all.

Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 



Source link