Displaying posts published in

June 2017

French Legislative Elections: Part 3, Conclusion :Nidra Poller

The third and final cycle of the French elections has concluded with a smiley.Error! Filename not specified. President Emmanuel Macron did indeed obtain the parliamentary majority he needed and now stands alone in majestic elevation. The Socialist party is ground to dust; the Front National’s pretention to be The Opposition amounts to 6 deputies, not even enough to form a parliamentary Group; FN Mayfly ally Nicolas Dupont-Aignan narrowly won re-election as deputy but his party Debout la France is flat out; Lider Maximo Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Insoumise is already bellowing promises to take the struggle to the street while sitting pretty in the Assemblée; the Greens are nowhere to be seen; Bayrou’s MoDem reaped the harvest of his devotion to candidate Macron before getting pushed aside (more below) ; and Les Républicains, having lost more than they should have and less than predicted, are further weakened by an internal split but remain the only credible Opposition…as things now stand.

Having won the presidency with the lowest score of the 5th République, Emmanuel Macron will govern with a majority of allegiance grasped by the skin of its teeth with an abstention of 57.36%. Still, the smiley Error! Filename not specified. punctuates every word and every phase of the new presidency. Some of this can be chalked up to the utter relief of deliverance from François Hollande whose absence shines upon us. After five years of a “normal president” who did a poor imitation of the Scandinavian model, we now have a slim trim elegant youthful très français head of state upgraded, in the first month of the presidency, from Bonaparte to Jupiter. What do the citizens want? Told that they were tired of the same old politicians from the same old Right and Left alternating power and getting nowhere fast, they chose, lo and behold, a new face without a party, just a movement, a Right Left and Center hybrid en marche on the go. Reminded that voters always give the newly elected president a legislative majority they managed by omission or commission to do just that. Leaving the predicted landslide to slide on its own, voters sat on their convictions and let it happen, though many key races were quite close. Le peuple de la droite, the Right wing nation, supposedly furious at being deprived of its rightful victory was diminished by individual lassitude and undermined by a split in the elected LR (Les Républicains) deputies into two distinct parliamentary groups, the “Constructives” and the others. The former are somehow committed to constructive cooperation with the ruling party, leaving the latter holding the Opposition bag. All of this is subject to change when the government starts passing measures.

Washed clean of their sins

Readers will remember that the LR candidate François Fillon, who started out with a huge lead over the other presidential candidates, was reduced to tatters by an indelible scandal. Accused of paying his wife Penelope a real salary for a fictitious job as his parliamentary assistant, he was further humiliated for accepting the gift of two very expensive bespoke suits from an old friend. This was the beginning of the current rift between elements that remained loyal to Fillon to the bitter end and those that argued for his replacement by Alain Juppé, the rival he had defeated hands down in the LR Primaries. It is not just a question of personalities: Fillon represents conservative values-free enterprise, frugal government spending, increased national sovereignty, and tough security-while Juppé the soft & lite Centrist leans toward compromise on all these issues. Many of his disciples hopped onto the Macron bandwagon. It didn’t earn them cabinet posts but they maintain their Macron-friendly stance. Is it true that the charming young François Baroin did not put any starch into the legislative campaign? If so, it would be a reflection of the consensus that François Fillon was not only tainted but also too tough & mean. He scared citizens by telling them their welfare state was going bankrupt, he frightened them by promising to reduce the obese civil service, and he scared them by saying we have to fight Islamic totalitarianism.

Erdogan Seizes 50 Syriac Churches and Monasteries, Declares Them Turkish State Property By Patrick Poole

The Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) has seized control of at least 50 Syriac churches, monasteries, and cemeteries in Mardin province, report media sources from Turkey:

The Turkish-Armenian daily Agos reports:

After Mardin became a Metropolitan Municipality, its villages were officially turned into neighbourhoods as per the law and attached to the provincial administration. Following the legislative amendment introduced in late 2012, the Governorate of Mardin established a liquidation committee. The Liquidation Committee started to redistribute in the city, the property of institutions whose legal entity had expired. The transfer and liquidation procedures are still ongoing.

In 2016, the Transfer, Liquidation and Redistribution Committee of Mardin Governorate transferred to primarily the Treasury as well as other relevant public institutions numerous churches, monasteries, cemeteries and other assets of the Syriac community in the districts of Mardin.

The Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation appealed to the decision yet the liquidation committee rejected their appeal last May. The churches, monasteries and cemeteries whose ownerships were given to the Treasury were then transferred to the Diyanet.

Inquiries of the Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation revealed that dozens of churches and monasteries had been transferred to the Treasury first and then allocated to the Diyanet. And the cemeteries have been transferred to the Metropolitan Municipality of Mardin. The maintenance of some of the churches and monasteries are currently being provided by the Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation and they are opened to worship on certain days. Similarly, the cemeteries are still actively used by the Syriac community who visits them and performs burial procedures. The Syriacs have appealed to the Court for the cancellation of the decision.

“We started to file lawsuits and in the meantime our enquiries continued” said Kuryakos Ergün, the Chairman of Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation. Ergün said they would appeal to the court for the cancellation of nearly 30 title deed registries.

Included in the seizure is the 1600-year-old Mor Gabriel Monastery:

Foundation of Mor Gabriel Monastery, filed a court case at the Civil Court of First Instance in Mardin against the registration of title deed records in the name of Treasury.

In the petition filed to the court it has been noted that the properties subject to the court case had been, since ancient times, under the possession and ownership of the Foundation and the significance of Mor Gabriel Monastery has been underlined; “Its history dates back to the 4th century AD. The Monastery is one of the oldest monasteries in the world which is still active and is one of the most ancient religious centers of Syriacs and the entire world with its history of more than 1600 years.

Midyat Syriac Deyrulumur Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation had been established on the basis of the imperial order of Sultan Abdülmecid Han during the Ottoman Empire in “1267 Islamic calendar (1851/1852 Gregorian calendar) and its status was redefined, became a legal entity, on the basis of the Foundations Law of 13.06.1935 with no 2762.

The Foundation had been recognised as “a religious community foundation” on the basis of a Regulation issued in 2002 by the Directorate General of Foundation and was included in the List of Religious Community Foundations drafted same year. Foundations that I’m not included in this list are in not recognised as religious community foundations.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Mattis in Germany: Russia Must Know ‘What We Will Not Tolerate’ By Bridget Johnson

In Germany today to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan, Defense Secretary James Mattis said Russia needs to understand what the United States “will not tolerate” when it comes to engagement with Washington.

Mattis spoke at the Marshall Center in Garmisch-Partenkirchen of his “surprise of being assigned to this job” and of his “deep respect” for Germany and “this country’s troops for their professionalism, for their courage and for their sacrifices on shared battlefields against Afghanistan and against ISIS or any other agents of terror and all the world …your ethical performance is a model for all others and we in the United States Department of Defense are grateful for our strong alliance with the German military.”

He declared the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article V security guarantee to be “ironclad.”

“Western values, respect for a rules based order and for national sovereignty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the dignity of the human person — these are values worth defending,” he said.

Mattis wrapped up his remarks, which largely focused on the history and results of the Marshall Plan, “with a message to the nation choosing to challenge this secure and peaceful order.”

“The United States seeks to engage with Russia and so does the NATO alliance but Russia must know both what we stand for and equally, what we will not tolerate. We stand for freedom and we will never surrender the freedom of our people or the values of our alliance that we hold dear,” he said.

“I mentioned a moment ago that discouraged people are in need of inspiration and there are millions of people like that who live today in Russia. Their leader making mischief beyond Russian borders will not restore their fortunes or rekindle their hope. And while we will meet with any aggression with what Danish Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said was determination, deterrence and purpose, we will also watch for a Russia that honors its people enough to abide by international law and so wins for them peace the we all offer.”

Northwestern to Add ‘Social Justice Education’ to Fraternity, Sorority Life By Tom Knighton

Northwestern is hiring a new “assistant director of Fraternity and Sorority Life.” Greek organizations are a key aspect of the college experience for millions of students, and the organizations are deeply involved in the college itself. Sounds normal.

But Northwestern University has decided that Greek Life, just like the rest of the campus, needs to be a training ground for Leftism. From Campus Reform:

The new “ Assistant Director, Fraternity and Sorority Life” will be responsible not only for advising fraternity and sororities, responding to emergency situations, and ensuring adherence to university policies, but also for assisting in the coordination of “social justice education” programming.

Minimum qualifications for the position include at least three years of experience working with fraternities and sororities, understanding of the educational environment at “highly selective institutions like Northwestern,” and “demonstrated experience” in the field of “social justice.”

While the new assistant director should also ideally hold a Master’s Degree from an accredited college or university, according to the listing, Northwestern will also consider applicants with an “appropriate combination” of work and educational experience.

[…]

Those skills will likely come into play when the new assistant director begins to “assist in the coordination of thematic programmatic/educational initiatives,” which can include leadership/community development, harm reduction/risk management, or social justice education.

Northwestern wants someone to lead the indoctrination of fraternity and sorority members into social justice zealotry. They can try to present this any way they want, but it’s nothing but a case of indoctrination of a politically charged ideology. Students simply shouldn’t find themselves being indoctrinated into a radical ideology that ultimately boils down to blaming straight white males for all the ills of the world.

At least Northwestern is a private university, which means they’re not blowing taxpayer dollars directly. Of course, they do receive plenty of taxpayer money in the form of federal student loans and grants.

I look forward to the day that parents and students recognize social justice nonsense for what it is, and understand how this movement is exploiting the campus environment to spread its noxious ideology.

I am a Muslim, and I support Trump’s travel restrictions By Mudar Zahran

The mainstream media and many others have been grilling President Trump since he signed the Executive Order temporally halting the population of seven predominantly Muslim states from entering the USA. As a result, he has been called everything from “racist” to “Islamophobic.”

As a Jordanian Muslim who also holds a British citizenship, I am not offended by the President’s actions, nor am I convinced that the Executive Orders in question were specifically written to target Muslims, for the following reasons:

First, the Executive Order singled out seven specific countries out of 56 Muslim states.

Second, the President did not pick these countries randomly, because six of the seven states have one thing in common: they are failed states, and they do not have a unified and recognized state system for processing of nationalities, passports, and state documents. In other words, the country’s citizens can receive any number of passports they like, complete with fake or multiple names. That means a terrorist can simply make up a name, obtain a passport and visa, and head to the U.S.

Third, there are numerous examples of terrorists using nefarious means to reach America’s shores – from the ISIS Passport Printing Press to clearly identified individuals. Take terrorist Anawr al-Awlaki, a dual national of both the U.S. and Yemen. It’s documented that in the early 90s, he was issued a passport using a different name, thus helping him establish a whole new, secret identity. He then used that identity to enter the U.S. on a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students. After obtaining a college degree at taxpayers’ money as a “foreign student”, he went back to Yemen and actively supported, promoted, and financed terrorist acts against America.

Fourth, the President knows these facts, and this is a sign that he is listening to his advisors and is absorbing intelligence information accurately and quickly.

Next, its quite clear that the President did what his patriotic duty and position require him to do: protect Americans from harm

With that said, if the President did want to ban a specific group of people, what would it look like, especially in a Middle Eastern country?

Enough already: Move the embassy to Jerusalem By Bruce Portnoy

On June 5, 2017, the United States Senate approved Resolution 176, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reminded us that “there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for 3 millennia.” This legislative initiative was preceded by the Jerusalem Embassy Act (Public Law 104-45), on November 8, 1995, which indicated that “Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel” and that the American Embassy, currently in Tel Aviv, at the will of the president of the United States, may be relocated to Jerusalem.

President Trump has followed the path of his predecessor presidents: he has chosen not to honor the intent of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, nor his campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, for fear of alienating already hostile Middle Eastern nations and populations, so as to float his personal peace plan.

Lest we forget, only fifty years ago, war was forced upon our loyal Middle Eastern ally, Israel, by her neighboring nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq). Their clearly stated aim was to drive Israel’s young and old, helpless and able-bodied, Christian, Muslim and Jew, into the sea, and then to take for themselves all that the people of Israel had labored to build in their relatively tiny state.

At the time, every nation of means turned her back on the mixed multitude of Israelis being threatened. The United Nations security force was asked to withdraw from the Sinai and did so without protest. The United States, fearing the Soviet response, hid under the covers.

Without the help of her friends, the odds of Israel’s survival was minimal at best. Yet when push came to shove and with everything to lose, Jews and other people of conscience came from abroad to take a stand with their threatened brethren. Together, they helped thwart a massacre. Within hours, Israel’s pre-emptive air strike neutralized Egypt’s jets, while her ground forces overcame the might of more numerous opposition armies, in just six days, before a cease-and-desist action was organized.

Jerusalem became a unified city, reaffirmed as Israel’s eternal capital. All faiths were subsequently guaranteed perpetual, unobstructed, and protected access to their holy sites.

Yet, every six months, since November 5, 1995, a presidential waiver to delay the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem was utilized, sidestepping the original intent of Public Law 104-45, on the grounds of unidentified national security issues.

Meanwhile, the United States has not become a more respected nation abroad, except with Israel. The Middle East is clearly less stable. The Palestinians have repeatedly capitalized on America’s failure to act responsibly towards her friend, Israel, by expanding their self-serving demands. Furthermore, they have not chosen to put aside their perpetual hatred of Israel and Jews so as to concentrate on building the infrastructure necessary to support a separate state for their children.

Unrealistically, American presidents stubbornly adhere to a vague dream of peace that the Palestinian leadership does not apparently share, and a succession of American presidents has seen fit to diplomatically punish an ally, Israel, by denying her the same diplomatic status any other nation’s capital currently enjoys: hosting the embassy of the United States.

With the current administration’s willingness to employ cruise missiles as necessary, I am not so sure that the feared Palestinian repercussions will become a reality should the American Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Israel stands alone in the Middle East, as a proud nation with shared American values, and without fear for being so. This status alone should be rewarded with the embassy move.

Israel Leans Closer to Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Upsets U.S. Groups Prime Minister Netanyahu suspends plan to let Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism help administer the Western Wall shrine By Rory Jones see note please

I am not orthodox and I totally support Netanyahu on this issue. Given culture trends if the sacred Wall is “secularized” they would host pagan picnics and chants. And the ultra liberal Union of Reform Judaism doesn’t like it? Too bad. Their support for Israel stops at the so called West Bank, and their US national policies are a disgrace…..rsk

JERUSALEM—Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shifted closer to his ultraorthodox coalition partners on a controversial religious issue, sparking fresh tension with more liberal American Jewish groups that accuse the leader of putting his political survival before their interests.

Mr. Netanyahu earlier this week suspended a previously agreed plan to allow Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism to help administer the religion’s Western Wall shrine. Members of his government also proposed a bill in parliament that would allow only Israel’s ultraorthodox-dominated Jewish authority, known as the Chief Rabbinate, to administer and determine who can convert to the religion.

The moves have rekindled longstanding strains between Israel’s rabbinate and the Reform and Conservative movements in the U.S. that take a more progressive approach to interpreting Judaism’s laws and want equal standing in administering the faith and its holy shrines. Some American Jewish groups are now threatening to cut donations and investment to Israel that could amount to billions of dollars.

“If you cause Jews in the diaspora, particularly Jews of the United States to feel alienated…it has a strategic impact that should be of great concern to all the leaders of Israel,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism in North America, in a broadcast Wednesday on Israel’s Army Radio.

His group, which represents roughly 2 million American Jews, ​ canceled a planned Thursday meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in protest over the Israeli government’s position on the religious conversion bill and the Western Wall.

The shrine is one of Judaism’s holiest sites and the last of the four walls that abutted the Temple Mount compound in Jerusalem’s Old City, where an ancient Jewish temple once stood. The Temple Mount, known as Haram al Sharif to Muslims, is now the location of the Al Aqsa mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites.

Trump, South Korean President to Focus on North Korea at First Meeting The two leaders differ on how to address the North Korea issue; military alliance and trade deal are also on the table By Jonathan Cheng in Seoul and Carol E. Lee in Washington

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and U.S. President Donald Trump are set to meet in Washington on Thursday for the first time, a highly anticipated summit that will serve as an early test of the new leaders’ relationship following several differences over key policies.

The discussions between Messrs. Trump and Moon, who will have dinner Thursday night at the White House and meet again on Friday, come amid growing urgency about confronting the threat from North Korea. The two leaders have suggested dramatically different approaches to the issue.

Mr. Moon, South Korea’s first left-leaning president in nearly a decade, has called for closer ties with North Korea, primarily through economic cooperation, while the Trump administration has called for tougher sanctions, military pressure and diplomatic isolation.

White House officials said North Korea is likely to dominate the talks between Messrs. Trump and Moon. They played down differences in the two leaders’ approaches and said Mr. Trump will stress to Mr. Moon the need to coordinate their policies.

Mr. Trump’s policy is to apply pressure on North Korea “to change their calculus to have substantive talks with us once they show they are willing to reduce the threat,” a senior White House official said. The official said Mr. Trump sees nothing “problematic” with Mr. Moon’s positions.

The U.S. administration is seeking to ramp up sanctions on North Korea and apply new diplomatic pressure to Pyongyang, though the White House official said no new sanctions are imminent.

“The State Department has been talking to our friends and partners throughout the world really to address North Korea’s trade, to address many of their illegal activities sometimes conducted under the guise of diplomatic missions to raise capital, hard currency for their weapons programs,” the official said. “I think there’s plenty more pressure that could be brought to bear on North Korea in the form of U.N. Security Council resolutions and also unilateral sanctions by the United States.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The Republicaid Party? Some GOP Senators are shrinking from entitlement reform.

With the Senate health-care bill delayed for now, the conservative and more centrist GOP wings need to bridge a philosophical gap to succeed. The outcome of this debate will define what the Republican Party stands for—and whether the problems of America’s entitlement state can ever be solved.

The biggest policy divide concerns the future of Medicaid, and here the problem is the moderates who are acting like liberals. Despite their campaign rhetoric, some Senators now want to ratify ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion as an unrepealable and unreformable welfare program.
***

Most of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance coverage gains have come from opening Medicaid eligibility beyond its original goal of helping the poor and disabled to include prime-age, able-bodied adults. The federal-state program has become the world’s single largest insurer by enrollment, covering more people than Medicare or the British National Health Service. Total spending grew 18% in 2015 and 17% in 2016 in the 29 states that expanded, and the nearby chart shows the growth of overall federal Medicaid spending under current law and without reform.

The Senate bill attempts to arrest this unsustainable surge by moving to per capita spending caps from an open-ended entitlement. When states spend more now, they generate an automatic payment from the feds. The goal is to contain costs and give Governors the incentive and flexibility to manage their programs.

Meanwhile, four long years from now, the bill would start to phase-down the state payment formula for old and new Medicaid beneficiaries to equal rates. Governors ought to prioritize the most urgent needs.

This would be the largest entitlement reform ever while still protecting the most vulnerable. The bill is carefully designed to avoid overreach and would save taxpayers $772 billion compared with what Medicaid would otherwise spend under current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This does not “cut” spending; it merely slows the rate of increase.

This has nonetheless made some Senators nervous, like West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Ohio’s Rob Portman. The growth rate for the block grants would be set at the rate of medical inflation for most beneficiaries at the start and then fall to the consumer price index in 2026, which is more ambitious than the House bill. Some Senators would like to see more generous growth rates, while others favor waiting six or seven years, rather than four, to start the phase-down of the expansion.

Obama’s Health-Care Audacity The ex-president takes a break from vacation to lecture Republicans.By Karl Rove

President Obama has been busy since leaving office. In February he was photographed kite surfing with billionaire Richard Branson in the British Virgin Islands. March brought a visit to Hawaii, followed by four weeks in French Polynesia and yachting with David Geffen, Oprah, Tom Hanks and Bruce Springsteen.

May included biking and golfing at a pal’s luxury hotel in Tuscany, before speeches in Berlin and Scotland, the latter providing the chance to play 12 holes at St. Andrews. Now the Obamas are in Indonesia for a nostalgic return to what was briefly his childhood home. But before jetting off on Friday, the former president, that champion of the poor and dispossessed, waded into the health-care debate with a lengthy Facebook post.

It was a trite, tone-deaf, partisan and condescending attack on the Senate Republicans’ health-care proposal. The comments show that the former president, still prickly and defensive, doesn’t understand how flawed ObamaCare really is.

Mr. Obama sold the Affordable Care Act with well-formulated falsehoods. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” he said repeatedly, and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” The law would “cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” It would “bend the cost curve” for health care, he said, without adding “one dime to the deficit.” None of this was true, and Mr. Obama must have known that.

So did he address these failings in his Facebook post? Of course not. The former president changed his talking points for ObamaCare. “Women can’t be charged more for their insurance,” he bragged—but the GOP proposal doesn’t alter that policy. “Young people can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26,” he said—but Republicans would leave that in place, too. “Contraceptive care and preventive care are now free,” Mr. Obama added—except taxpayers actually pay for them with levies on, among other things, hospital stays, medical devices and insurance policies. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama shoved his broken promises down the memory hole.

Mr. Obama did repeat the left’s canards that the GOP proposal “would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid.” He piously added: “That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analysis,” starting with “the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”

The CBO, however, did not issue its report on the Senate legislation until four days after Mr. Obama posted on Facebook. And when the CBO report did come out, it didn’t back up his indictment. For example, the CBO concluded: “By 2026, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals in most of the country under this legislation would be about 20 percent lower than under current law.”

One could scour the CBO’s report in vain for anything to justify saying the bill would “roll back protections” or “ruin Medicaid.” Under the Senate plan, Medicaid outlays would continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate.

Wielding the left’s favorite new club, Mr. Obama also claimed that “23 million Americans would lose insurance” if the GOP bill passes. But how can that be, since only 10 million people get coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges? Further, how many of those people want insurance in the first place? The CBO says that “in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” CONTINUE AT SITE