Displaying posts published in

December 2017

WINNING: President Trump Symbolically Cuts Red Tape of Government Regulations By Tyler O’Neil

On Thursday, President Donald Trump celebrated his administration’s dedication to cutting government regulations, with a ceremony where he physically cut a huge strand of red tape. Corny, but impressive nonetheless.

“This excessive regulation does not just threaten our economy, it threatens our entire Constitution. And it does nothing, other than delay and cost much more,” President Trump declared. On the campaign trail, Trump had promised that for every new regulation, he would cut two old ones. On Thursday, he announced his administration had overshot that goal — annihilating 22 regulations for every new one.

In a statement that would make every small-government conservative glow with pride, the president declared, “Congress has abandoned much of its responsibility to legislate, and has instead given unelected regulators extraordinary power to control the lives of others.”

Conservatives have long complained of the way Congress really works. Rather than passing regulations directly so that individual congressmen are tied to every piece of government red tape, Congress passes a bill like the Clean Air Act. The act sets out a goal — Americans should have clean air — and sets up an agency to make rules to achieve that goal.

This practice separates the people’s representatives from the results of their lawmaking. If constituents complain, lawmakers can blame the agency, or promise to add yet another law to fix the problem in question. “So many of these enormous regulatory burdens were imposed on our citizens with no vote, no debate, and no accountability,” the president explained. CONTINUE AT SITE

‘Slow, Unexplained Erosion’ at State Dept. Putting U.S. at Risk, Argues Top Senator By Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — The ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee charged Wednesday that there’s been “a slow, unexplained erosion” at the State Department under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that threatens national and global security and the “values that it promotes and the vital role it plays around the world.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) noted that more than 30 key ambassadorships still lack a nominee, dozens of senior-level posts remain vacant, the Foreign Service is “being hollowed out” with a sharp drop in recruits, and the most experienced career officials not tied to any presidential appointment are leaving or being forced out.

“I honor the experienced career officials stepping in to fill vacancies and carry out the Department’s important work, but there are limits to what officials can accomplish in an acting role,” he said. “It is now December… we cannot afford to have a department that remains hamstrung because of rudderless stagnation at the top.”

Morale at the State Department is “devastatingly low,” he noted.

At a House Foreign Affairs hearing last week, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan admitted that “morale hasn’t improved — it’s not something that I’m proud to say.”

“I think one of our greatest failings has been a lack of communication,” Sullivan said. “Communication particularly with our own career professionals, both at state and in the field. And a rededication to do a better job of that.”

Cardin said that Tillerson’s corporate-style redesign of the department “continues to tinker around the edges while the department’s core functions are deliberately hollowed out.”

“Why should we tolerate a massive exodus of diplomatic and development expertise at the State Department and USAID? Our president said recently that we do not need to worry about the fact that many of the senior level positions at the State Department remain unfilled because when it comes to foreign policy his opinion is the only one that matters. Why on earth would he say that?” the senator asked. “For the thousands of FSOs around the world working to advance the ideals of United States, this was a horrible and offensive message.”

He asked if the administration even understands that the State Department and USAID “are every bit as vital and critical an element of our national security as the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, our law enforcement, or the countless others in the federal government who work tirelessly every day to protect our security, extend our prosperity, and promote our values.”

“Diplomacy is an investment we make so we don’t have to go to war. Nickel-and-diming it is not in our national security interest.”

Stressing that U.S. foreign policy leadership is “paying the price and will continue to pay the price if things aren’t turned around quickly,” Cardin called for more transparency from Tillerson including regular briefings to the Foreign Relations Committee, a detailed timeline for Tillerson’s department reorganization, movement to fill senior vacancies and ambassadorships, and a vow that “the promotion of democracy and respect for human rights around the world must remain a central part of the State Department’s overall mission.”

Tillerson argued in May that putting human rights foremost in policy can create “obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.”

Cardin said “improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department is critical to our national security given the countless challenges our nation faces,” and “reforms to information technology, human resources, and procurement systems are long overdue.”

“However, if the department continues down its current path my colleagues and I will be forced to turn to legislative options to address our many concerns,” he vowed. “My goal is to ensure that the employees of the State Department have all the resources and support they require to complete their tasks and ensure the United States remains a global diplomatic leader. And, I will do everything in my power to guarantee this goal is accomplished.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Dictators and U.N. Standards The International Criminal Court decides to pick on Jordan.

The U.S. has never joined the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and the court’s strange attack on Jordan this week explains why. The court said it will refer Jordan to the United Nations Security Council for failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir after years of giving other countries a pass.

Jordan is one of 123 countries that have joined the ICC since it came into force 15 years ago, and the Hashemite Kingdom may now regret it. Parties grant the court jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, and members are obligated to act on its international arrest warrants. Sudan isn’t a party, but the Security Council can ask the court to investigate crimes there. In 2009 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president for his manifest depredations in the country’s Darfur region.

This was mostly grandstanding, since the U.N. has done nothing to enforce its warrant. Bashir was traveling in the Middle East within months of the warrant, and he has flown across Africa in recent years without ICC intervention. No other country has earned a referral from the ICC over Bashir.

Yet suddenly the court has decided to make an example of Jordan, which in March hosted an Arab League summit that Bashir attended. This is a strange way to treat a country that has absorbed and cared for millions of Syrian refugees and punched above its weight in the fight against Islamic State. Jordan has a law that protects visiting heads of state on its soil, and its National Assembly is already crafting a legal challenge to the ICC’s decision.

All of which points to the ICC’s arbitrary power, which answers to no political authority beyond its own legal whim. It can pursue its cases without regard for larger security or political interests, such as Jordan’s crucial role as a moderating force in the region. Bashir is a bad dude, but he has improved his behavior in recent years and cooperated with the U.S. in fighting terrorism. Presidents Obama and Trump both loosened sanctions on Sudan.

Absent Security Council action, the referral will go nowhere. But it presents an opportunity for the U.S. to do a favor for a Middle East ally by vowing to veto any punishment against Jordan. If the ICC can arbitrarily harass Jordan, the U.S. and Israel will surely become targets.

Dow 24000 and the Trump Boom Companies are bringing cash and jobs back to the U.S. To keep that trend going, tax reform is vital. By Maria Bartiromo

I’m not in the habit of giving stock tips or making market calls. I’ve never claimed to be an investment strategist. But after spending years reporting on business and finance, I was convinced on the night of Nov. 8, 2016, that the conventional market wisdom was way off target.

As the night wore on and equity traders began to grasp that Donald Trump would become president, stock markets around the world started selling off. In the U.S., trading in S&P 500 futures would eventually be halted after a 5% decline. After midnight, Paul Krugman of the New York Times opined: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”

I didn’t see it that way. For years I’d been hearing anguished people at companies large and small bemoan the growing federal burden of taxes and regulations. Now the U.S. would have a president who intended to reduce this hardship and prioritize economic growth.

When I sat down around 10:30 on election night for a Fox News panel discussion, Dow futures were down about 700 points. Markets like certainty; it was understandable that some investors were selling. Mr. Trump seemed to present more uncertainty than Hillary Clinton, who was essentially promising a continuation of the Obama administration. Mr. Trump’s talk about ripping up the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, created big unknowns and potentially significant risks.

The election night selloff turned out to be a huge buying opportunity. Companies had been sitting on cash—not investing or hiring. ObamaCare compliance was a nightmare for many business owners. It made them wonder what other big idea from Washington would haunt them in the future. Mrs. Clinton was likely to increase business costs further, while Mr. Trump had vowed to reduce them. Even in the middle of the election-night market panic, the implications for corporate revenue and earnings growth seemed obvious.

The next morning, with the Trump victory confirmed, I told my colleague Martha MacCallum that I would be “buying the stock market with both hands.” Investors began doing the same. U.S. markets have added $6 trillion in value since the election, with investors around the world wanting in on America’s new growth story. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is now forecasting the third straight quarter of U.S. gross domestic product growth around 3%.

It’s not just an American growth story. For the first time in a long time the world is experiencing synchronized growth, which is why Goldman Sachs and Barclays among others have recently predicted 4% global growth in 2018. The entire world benefits when its largest economy is healthy, and the vibrancy overseas is reinforcing the U.S. resurgence.

As the end of the Trump administration’s first year approaches, it’s a good time to review the progress of the businessman elected on a promise to restore American prosperity.

Year One has been nothing short of excellent from an economic standpoint. Corporate earnings have risen and corporate behavior has changed, measured in greater capital investment. Businesspeople tell me that a new approach to regulation is a big factor. During President Obama’s final year in office the Federal Register, which contains new and proposed rules and regulations, ran to 95,894 pages, according to a Competitive Enterprise Institute report. This was the highest level in its history and 19% higher than the previous year’s 80,260 pages. The American Action Forum estimates the last administration burdened the economy with 549 million hours of compliance, averaging nearly five hours of paperwork for every full-time employee. CONTINUE AT SITE

Secrets the FBI Shouldn’t Keep Sen. Ron Johnson demands answers about the bureau’s political biases. Kimberley Strassel

Congress persists in its effort to pry the real story of the 2016 election out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency notoriously reluctant to share secrets. The trick is telling the difference between legitimate secrets and self-serving ones.

The FBI—and the Department of Justice—would rather blur that distinction. In recent congressional appearances, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tossed around the word “classified” like confetti. Neither man answered a single substantive question, citing their obligation to protect the “integrity” of investigations, safeguard “sensitive” information, and show deference to an “independent” and “internal” inspector general reviewing the FBI’s handling of the 2016 election.

True, the FBI has plenty of things it needs to keep secret regarding national security and law enforcement. Let’s even acknowledge the bureau may be rightly concerned about turning some information over to today’s leak-prone Congress. Even so, in the specific case of its 2016 election behavior, the FBI is misusing its secrecy powers to withhold information whose disclosure is in the public interest.

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson exposed two such instances this week, from his perch as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Mr. Johnson received a letter Wednesday from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who graciously and nimbly provided information that the committee had requested last week.

That letter included some notable dates. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team is emphasizing its ejection of FBI agent Peter Strzok immediately upon learning about anti-Trump texts he exchanged with another FBI employee, Lisa Page, before the 2016 election. But when did the FBI learn of the messages? The inspector general’s investigation began in mid-January. The letter explains that the FBI was asked for text messages of certain key employees based on search terms, which turned up “a number of politically-oriented” Strzok-Page texts. The inspector general then demanded all of the duo’s text messages, which the FBI began producing on July 20.

Preparing Our Students to Respond to the Anti-Israel Propaganda on Campus By Alex Grobman, PhD

Did the Jews of the Yishuv Live in Harmony With Their Neighbors Until the Zionist “Invasion”?

The Palestinian Arabs claim that Zionism is the root cause for the failure of the Arabs and Jews to find a solution to their mutual conflict. In a speech to the UN General Assembly on November 13, 1974, Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared the enmity against the Jews originated after they began immigrating to Palestine in 1881. “Before the first large wave of immigrants started arriving,” he asserted, “every segment of the population enjoyed the religious tolerance characteristic of our civilization.”

Arafat alleged that Arabs “were engaged in farming and building, spreading culture throughout the land for thousands of years, setting an example in the practice of freedom of worship, acting as faithful guardians of the holy places of all religions.”

He treasured the “beautiful memories and vivid images of the religious brotherhood that was the hallmark of our Holy City before it succumbed to catastrophe. Our people continued to pursue this enlightened policy until the establishment of the state of Israel and their dispersion.”

Arafat’s idyllic description of life before the Zionist “invasion” is significant because his account has become part of the Arab narrative. Having been indoctrinated from childhood to the notion that Jews stole their land and threaten the sanctity of their holy sites, one can understand how young Palestinian Arabs easily become hostile to a perceived alien occupying force that has thrust itself into the midst of the Islamic world.
Is Arafat’s Description Correct?

To what extent is Arafat’s portrayal of life before 1881 accurate? The answer is unequivocal—it is a total fabrication.

Historian Moshe Ma’oz points out that in the Muslim-Ottoman state, Jews lived in an insecure environment. Viewed as inferior citizens due to the Muslim belief in Islam’s religious superiority, Jews were regarded as “state protégés” (dhimmis) who were “inferior before the law of the state and its institutions.” They could not testify in Muslim courts, bear arms, build synagogues higher than mosques, and were forced to pay a special poll tax (jizya) for protection and as a sign of their subservient status.

While paying the jizya, the dhimmi was subjected to a very demeaning process designed to belittle and humiliate the individual, explains historian Bernard Lewis.

Historian Arie Morgenstern notes that in 1834 when Arab farm workers revolted against the regime of Muhammad Ali, Jews were attacked in the major cities. In Safed, they stole Jewish property, destroyed homes and defiled synagogues. Some Jewish women were raped, beaten and murdered.

Morgenstern quotes a report by Rabbi Shmuel Heller of Safed, who assessed the tragedy that ensued:

“For forty days, day after day, from the Sunday following Shavuot, all of the people of our holy city, men, women and children have been like refuse upon the field. Hungry, thirsty, naked, barefoot, wandering to and fro in fear and confusion like lambs led to the slaughter…They [the Arab marauders] removed all the Torah scrolls and thrust them contemptuously to ground, and they ravished the daughters of Israel—woe to the ears that hear it—and the great study house they burned to its foundations…And the entire city was destroyed and laid ruin, they did not leave a single wall whole; they dug and sought treasures, and the city stood ruined and desolate, without a single person.”

Policy speeches vs. policy Caroline Glick

What is President Donald Trump’s Middle East policy?http://carolineglick.com/policy-speeches-vs-policy/

Monday Trump is scheduled to release a new US national security strategy on Monday. This past Tuesday Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster gave a speech laying out some of its components in a speech in Washington.

McMaster’s speech was notable because in it he laid out a host of policies that McMaster himself has reportedly opposed since he was appointed to his position in February.

McMaster for instance has been open in his opposition to linking terrorism with Islam. He has also reportedly insisted on limiting US actions in Syria and Iraq to defeating Islamic State. McMaster reportedly fired his deputy for Middle East policy Derek Harvey last summer due to Harvey’s advocacy of combating Iran’s consolidation of control over Syria through its proxies President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah.

In his speech on Tuesday, McMaster embraced the policies he has reportedly opposed. He discussed at length the threat of what he referred to as “radical Islamist ideology.”

That ideology, which the US had previously interpreted “myopically,” constitutes “a grave threat to all civilized people,” he said.

McMaster regretted US myopia noting, “We didn’t pay enough attention to how it’s being advanced through charities, madrassas and other social organizations.”

McMaster fingered Turkey and Qatar, two ostensible US allies, as the main sponsors and sources of funding for Islamist ideology that targets Western interests.

He noted that in the past Saudi Arabia had served as a major sponsor of radical Islam. But Riyadh has been replaced by Qatar and by Turkey, he said.

Trump’s electoral victory raised hopes of his supporters and some of his advisers that the US would designate the Muslim Brotherhood has a terrorist organization. The Brotherhood has spawned multiple jihadist terrorist groups including al-Qaida and Hamas. President Recep Erdogan’s AK Party is a Turkish version of the Muslim Brotherhood.

NIDRA POLLER: ISRAEL AND PALESTINE-THE BROKEN RECORD

The account that follows has taken on greater significance since December 7th when President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill the 1995 recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, and take steps to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. International law is being thrown at President Trump and the State of Israel like murderous rocks in the hands of shababs. The peace process is a chorus line of porcelain dolls, too beautiful to touch, endangered by the heavy-handed president and the stubborn Jewish state. A pure white curtain is drawn over Middle East realities and the wailing of the professional mourners breaks the hearts of the world’s media. This brutal unilateral decision is tearing apart the pristine calm of the Middle East. And the 2-state solution in divine perfection floats down from the heavens, escorted by Palestinian angels. Everyone, or at least all the good souls in this wide world, knows the shape and the lines of this perfect state. It was almost ready to land. And now it’s all spoiled.

This is the assumption that underlies the weeping, wailing, and scolding. The righteous indignation. The peace process has been betrayed. The holier than thou international community had set forth the rules and the stepping stone and the destination. How dare this upstart president barge into the head of the line, pluck the gem of Jerusalem, and hand it to Israel?

Take the time to read this detailed account of a Colloquium held in Paris on November 27th. Palestinians and their supporters, speaking to an audience they assumed to be 100% sympathetic, made no secret of their intentions and ultimate objectives: to turn the Oslo process upside down. First, the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. Then, the negotiations. These were not marginal extremists. Elias Sanbar is the Palestinian ambassador to UNESCO. Hala Abu-Hasira is “first counselor” of the Palestinian mission to France. Invited to take part in a debate on a French TV station yesterday, she smugly declared that Jerusalem, according to international law, is a corpus separatum. That was in 1947!