NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Progressives Against Lunch Bill de Blasio urges a boycott of Chick-fil-A in the Big Apple.

Posted By on May 9th, 2016

Progressives want to politicize everything, even chicken sandwiches. Witness New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign to get his fellow citizens to boycott the Chick-fil-A restaurants that are opening around the Big Apple.

The fast-food chain opened its first New York restaurant last year, and the line at lunch time at the restaurant near our office stretches around the block. This is no small feat in midtown Manhattan, where you can’t walk 20 yards without hitting a deli, a food truck or some other fast-food joint.

This meeting of popular supply and demand is too much for Mr. de Blasio, who last week urged New Yorkers not to eat the spicy chicken fare because the chain’s owners are known for opposing same-sex marriage.

“Chick-fil-A is anti-LGBT,” said the mayor, who fancies himself a spokesman for all progressive causes. “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them. But they do have a legal right.” Good to know he isn’t trying to ban the business, though give him time.

A Chick-fil-A spokesman responded that, “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” There are also laws that ban discrimination. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Iran Test-Fires Another Ballistic Missile Iranian general quoted as saying missile with range of 1,250 miles was carried out two weeks ago

Posted By on May 9th, 2016

TEHRAN—Iran has test-fired another ballistic missile, the latest in a spate of tests following the implementation of the nuclear deal with world powers.

Iran’s semiofficial Tasnim news agency Monday quoted Gen. Ali Abdollahi, deputy chief of army headquarters, as saying that the test-firing of the missile, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, or 1,250 miles, was carried out two weeks ago.

Iran, which insists the tests don’t violate the deal, is likely seeking to demonstrate that it is pushing ahead with its ballistic program despite scaling back the nuclear program following the deal that led to the lifting of international sanctions on Tehran.

In March, Iran test-fired two ballistic missiles—one emblazoned with the phrase “Israel must be wiped out” in Hebrew—that set off an international outcry.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Defining a Cyber Act of War The rules regarding this dangerous threat aren’t clear—some concision is urgently needed. By Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Posted By on May 9th, 2016

The federal government has a fundamental responsibility to provide for the nation’s defense. Until recently, the government has fulfilled that role almost exclusively through nuclear deterrence and conventional military forces. But a new type of warfare—in cyberspace—is emerging as a top threat to America.

In recent years, foreign actors have used sophisticated technologies to acquire the personal files of millions of federal employees, to gain access to the private information of multibillion-dollar U.S. businesses, and to tap into the control center of the Bowman Avenue Dam in New York, among many other known cyberattacks.
Yet Washington has no clear policy for responding to a cyberattack. If an attack against the U.S. occurs through conventional military means, the policies are clear. These guidelines must be broadened to include the cyber domain.

Current U.S. policies permit the Defense Department to respond to a cyberattack against military forces and infrastructure. But the U.S. doesn’t have a clear policy governing the Pentagon’s response to a similar attack against critical civilian infrastructure.

If an attack occurs today, would the U.S. be able to respond in a timely manner? In the cyberworld, an attack can occur in mere milliseconds, requiring an appropriate response in real time. That might not be possible if explicit policies are not in place.

During a Feb. 9 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, whether it would be helpful to have a definition of what constitutes an act of war in cyberspace. He replied that if the military had a “much fuller definition of the range of things that occur in cyber space, and then start thinking about the threshold where an attack is catastrophic enough or destructive enough that we define it as an act of war, I think that would be extremely helpful.” CONTINUE AT SITE

POLITICS Comments turned off

I’m Voting Trump, Warts and All I stand by all my criticisms of the New Yorker, but the stakes for the country are too great to elect Clinton. Gov. Bobby Jindal

Posted By on May 9th, 2016

Some of my fellow Republicans have declared they will never, under any circumstances, vote for Donald Trump. They are pessimistic about the party’s chances in November and seem more motivated by long-term considerations. They think devotion to the “anybody but Trump” movement is a principled and courageous stance that will help preserve a remnant of the conservative movement and its credibility, which can then serve as a foundation for renewal.

I sympathize with this perspective, but I am planning to vote for Donald Trump. Why? Because the stakes for my country, not merely my party, are simply too high.

I was one of the earliest and loudest critics of Mr. Trump. I mocked his appearance, demeanor, ideology and ego in the strongest language I have ever used to publicly criticize anyone in politics. I worked harder than most, with little apparent effect, to stop his ascendancy. I have not experienced a sudden epiphany and am not here to detail an evolution in my perspective.

I believe this presidential election cycle favors Republicans, due more to President Obama’s shortcomings than to any of our virtues or cleverness. I also believe that Donald Trump will have the hardest time of any of the Republican candidates in winning. He has stubbornly stuck to the same outlandish behavior and tactics that have served him so well to date. Mr. Trump continues to have the last laugh at the expense of his critics and competitors, myself included.

I think electing Donald Trump would be the second-worst thing we could do this November, better only than electing Hillary Clinton to serve as the third term for the Obama administration’s radical policies. I am not pretending that Mr. Trump has suddenly become a conservative champion or even a reliable Republican: He is completely unpredictable. The problem is that Hillary is predictably liberal.

There will be none of her husband’s triangulation. Republicans are fooling themselves if they think this President Clinton would sign into law policies like Nafta, the crime bill, welfare reform, or the deficit reduction packages that marked Bill’s tenure. While Bill felt compelled to confront Sister Souljah—and less directly Jesse Jackson—to appeal to moderate voters, Hillary is more responsive to pressure from Black Lives Matter and the far left. I have no idea what Mr. Trump might do, while Mrs. Clinton is predictable. Both are scary, the former less so.

The next president will make a critical appointment to the Supreme Court, who will cast the tiebreaking vote in important cases that will set precedents for years to come. Issues like the sanctity of innocent human life, constitutional protections for religious liberty and Second Amendment rights, and limits on the unelected federal bureaucracy hang in the balance. CONTINUE AT SITE

POLITICS Comments turned off

When You Can’t Stand Your Candidate A story of 1972. By Elliot Abrams

Posted By on May 9th, 2016

The party has nominated someone who cannot win and should not be president of the United States. We anticipate a landslide defeat, and then a struggle to take the party back from his team and his supporters and win the following presidential election. Meanwhile, we need to figure out how to conduct ourselves.

No, not Donald Trump and the Republican party today. George McGovern and the Democratic party in 1972. I was in those days a law student and active supporter of Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, whose staff I joined when I got out of school. Jackson, who served in Congress from 1941 until his death in 1983, ran for president twice—in 1972 and 1976—and led the foreign policy hardliners in his party.

Watching conservative Republicans writhe in anguish over Trump, it’s worth looking back at what Jackson and the foreign policy hawks who surrounded and supported him—and detested McGovern and McGovernism—did back then.

Jackson’s biographer, Robert Kaufman, describes the time well in Henry M. Jackson: A Life in Politics (2000):

Jackson regarded McGovern’s impending triumph [at the Dem­ocratic Convention in Miami Beach, in July 1972] as an unmitigated disaster for the party. .  .  . [H]‌e stoutly resisted the inevitability of the McGovern candidacy by all means at his disposal right up until the Democrats nominated McGovern in July.

Supporters of Jackson and Hum­phrey, southerners, and organized labor had banded together in an abortive effort called “Anybody But McGovern.” .  .  . Even when Muskie and Hum­phrey formally bowed out, Henry Jackson would not. He received 536 votes for the nomination on the convention floor. I. W. Abel, head of the United Steelworkers of America, nominated him. Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia seconded the nomination.

So here’s a first lesson: Do not allow the Republican convention to be a coronation wherein Trump and Trumpism are unchallenged. There’s no reason others who won many delegates, from Rubio to Cruz to Kasich, should not have their names put in nomination. The party needs to be reminded that there are deep divisions, and Trump needs to be reminded of how many in the party oppose and even fear his nomination.

BOOKS Comments turned off

At 68 – is Israel isolated?Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Posted By on May 9th, 2016

Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western policy-makers – joined by the “elite” Western media – contend that 68 year-old Israel is increasingly isolated due to its defiance of global pressure to evacuate the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which tower over Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and 80% of Israel’s population, transportation, technological and business infrastructure.

Since 1948, global pressure on Israel to commit itself to dramatic concessions has been a fixture of Israel’s foreign policy and public diplomacy, accompanied by warnings that Israel was dooming itself to painful isolation. An examination of Israel’s global position – economically, militarily and diplomatically – documents that irrespective of Israel’s uphill diplomatic challenges, these warnings crashed on the rocks of reality, and resoundingly refuted by an unprecedented integration of Israel with the global street.

Thus, side-by-side with the rough diplomatic talk which has always pounded Israel, there has been an increasingly mutually-beneficial, geo-strategic walk. This is highlighted by Israel’s unprecedented civilian and military integration with the international community, in response to growing international demand for Israel’s military, economic, technological, scientific, medical, pharmaceutical and agricultural cutting-edge innovations.

Israel’s increasingly global integration is reflected by a series of developments in the last few weeks, which are consistent with Israel’s well-documented 68-year-old track record on the global scene.

For example, notwithstanding Europe’s support of the Palestinian Authority and harsh criticism of Israel, NATO does not subscribe to the “isolate Israel” theory, follows its own order of geo-strategic priorities, and therefore refuses to cut off its nose to spite its face. Hence, on May 3, 2016, NATO significantly upgraded its ties with Israel, inviting Jerusalem to establish a permanent mission at their Brussels headquarters. This upgrade will expand the surging, mutually-beneficial Israel-NATO cooperation in the areas of counter-terrorism, intelligence, battle tactics, non-conventional warfare, science, cyber and space technologies and defense industries, where Israel possesses a unique competitive edge.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

MY SAY: THIS IS THE GOP -REP. PHIL OLIVA (R-NY DISTRICT 18)

Posted By on May 8th, 2016

http://www.philoliva.com/issues-1/

The number one job of the federal government is to defend the country against foreign enemies.

The national economy is weak. Over 94 million Americans are out of work, incomes have been stagnant for years and 49% of recent college graduates are underemployed or unemployed.

I co-authored an economic plan that was called “A Plan for New York Revival” by the Wall Street Journal, adding that it would “lift the state’s flagging economy” if enacted. The plan focused heavily on cutting taxes and regulations, investing in infrastructure, accelerating hi-tech start-ups, and modernizing our workforce with the necessary skills and training.

I support an E-Verify system, enhanced surveillance on the border, increased border patrol and a crackdown of sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration law.

wrong track.png

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Obama’s DOJ Won’t Call “Felons”, Felons Anymore Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on May 8th, 2016

Understandable. We wouldn’t want to stigmatize murderers, drug dealers, rapists and robbers. Their victims might disagree, but they’re just Crimeaphobic.

Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, who has headed the Office of Justice Programs since 2013, announces in a guest post that her agency will no longer use words such as “felon” or “convict” to refer to released prisoners.

“Many of the formerly incarcerated men, women, and young people I talk with say that no punishment is harsher than being permanently branded a “felon” or “offender,” Mason writes. “This new policy statement replaces unnecessarily disparaging labels with terms like “person who committed a crime” and “individual who was incarcerated,”

Should go over as well as “man caused disasters” for terrorism. But the side benefits of living inside a Groucho Marx movie set in an Orwellian dystopia is that we get plenty of laughs.

“The labels we affix to those who have served time can drain their sense of self-worth”.

I suppose we could discuss the self-worth of their victims, but that would not be politically correct.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Meet the First Muslim Mayor of London by Soeren Kern

Posted By on May 8th, 2016

Conservative Party candidate Zac Goldsmith accused Khan of giving “platform, oxygen and cover” to Islamic extremists. He also accused Khan of “hiding behind Britain’s Muslims” by branding as “Islamophobes” those who shed light on his past.

“The questions are genuine, they are serious. They are about his willingness to share platforms with people who want to ‘drown every Israeli Jew in the sea.’ It’s about his having employed someone who believed the Lee Rigby murder was fabricated. It’s about his career before being an MP, coaching people in how to sue the police.” — Conservative Party candidate Zac Goldsmith.

In 2008, Khan gave a speech at the Global Peace and Unity Conference, an event organized by the Islam Channel, which has been censured repeatedly by British media regulators for extremism. Members of the audience were filmed flying the black flag of jihad while Khan was speaking.

“I regret giving the impression I subscribed to their views and I’ve been quite clear I find their views abhorrent.” — Sadiq Khan.

“A Muslim man with way too many extremist links to be entirely coincidental is now the Mayor of London. I suppose this is hardly a shock, though. The native English are a demographic minority (and a rapidly dwindling one) in London, whilst Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh are a rapidly expanding demographic.” — British politician Paul Weston.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Khamenei’s Anti-Americanism by Majid Rafizadeh

Posted By on May 8th, 2016

Khamenei is sending a strong signal to Washington that Iran’s reintegration in global financial system does not mean that the Iranian regime will change its hostility towards the U.S. and Israel.

“The Persian Gulf is the Iranian nation’s home and the Persian Gulf and a large section of the Sea of Oman belong to this powerful nation. Therefore, we should be present in the region, hold war games and display our power.” – Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

In addition, Khamenei is sending a message to the Iranian people that the current process of implementing the nuclear agreement, lifting sanctions, and partial economic liberalization does not mean that Iran is going to liberalize its politics and allow freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and more political participation.

Some politicians and policy analysts argue that Iran’s sanctions relief and the continuing implementation of its nuclear program would push Iran towards moderation in dealing with the United States and Israel, as well as scaling down Iran’s expansionist and hegemonic ambitions. The realities on the ground suggest otherwise.

As Tehran’s revenues are rising, anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are escalating.

The Iranian regime continues to view the U.S. and Israel as their top geopolitical, strategic and ideological enemies. According to Iran’s Mehr News Agency, on May 1, Khamenei welcomed the Secretary General of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ramadan Abdullah Shalah, and his accompanying delegation in Tehran:

“Ayatollah Khamenei reaffirmed that with this perspective in regional issues, Iran sees the United States as the main enemy with the Zionist regime standing behind it. He pointed to extensive, unprecedented sanctions of the U.S. and its followers against the Islamic establishment in recent years and dubbed the objective of them as discouraging Iran from continuing its path; ‘but they failed to achieve their goals and will fail in future as well.’ ”

Khamenei is sending a strong signal to Washington that Iran’s reintegration in the global financial system does not mean that the Iranian regime will change its hostility towards the U.S. and Israel.