ISRAEL Comments turned off

Caroline Glick: Netanyahu’s Challenge With Trump

Posted By on May 27th, 2017

On Thursday, less than 48 hours after US President Donald Trump completed his successful visit to Israel, his chief negotiator Jason Greenblatt was back in town.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson set the tone for Greenblatt’s mission when he told reporters aboard Air Force One that during his visit, Trump “was putting a lot of pressure” on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas “to get back to the table” and negotiate a peace deal.

Tillerson went on to explain why Trump is so keen to make a deal.

“We solve the Israeli-Palestinian peace dilemma, we start solving a lot of the peace throughout the Middle East region,” he said.

Trump apparently agrees with his secretary of state.

At his joint appearance with Abbas in Bethlehem on Tuesday, Trump said, “I firmly believe that if Israel and the Palestinians can make peace, it will begin a process of peace all throughout the Middle East.”

These statements, and Greenblatt’s swift return here indicate that as of now, on a substantive, strategic level, Trump is maintaining Obama’s policies on Israel and the Palestinians. And Obama’s policies on the issue, it bears noting, were substantively all but indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush before him.

Like his predecessors, Trump is advancing a policy that assumes that the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the key issue that the US must grapple with in the Middle East. He is advancing the view that the US’s power in the region, and its ability to foster stability and security, are tied to what happens or does not happen in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to a degree, in Hamas-controlled Gaza. In short, like his predecessors, Trump believes that putting pressure on Israel to give land to the PLO is the key to resolving the conflicts of the Middle East.

This position stands incongruously next to the pledge that Trump made in his speech before Sunni leaders in Riyadh on Sunday. There, Trump explained the fundamental nature of his foreign policy as follows: “America,” he said, “is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard those strategies that have not worked — and will apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopting a principled realism, rooted in common values and shared interests.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Manchester, Abbas and evil losers by Ruthie Blum

Posted By on May 27th, 2017

On Monday night, a terrorist blew himself up outside the Manchester Arena as American singer Ariana Grande finished performing. The mass casualties — 22 dead and dozens wounded — sent Britain into a state of shock and mourning, with Prime Minister Theresa May upgrading the country’s threat level to “critical.”

The following day, U.S. President Donald Trump visited Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

“Allow me at the beginning to condemn the horrible terrorist attack that occurred in Manchester … leaving tens of casualties and innocent people,” Abbas said during a joint press conference with Trump. “I do offer my warm condolences to the prime minister of Britain, families of victims and the British people.”

Trump was more expansive. After offering “prayers to the people of Manchester in the United Kingdom,” and “deepest condolences to those so terribly injured in this terrorist attack, and to the many killed, and the … so many families of the victims,” the U.S. president went on to express “absolute solidarity” with Britain for the loss of “so many young, beautiful, innocent people living and enjoying their lives murdered by evil losers. I won’t call them monsters because they would like that term.”

He then tied the event to the message at the core of his overseas trip. “Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed,” he said. “We cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people. … The terrorists and extremists, and those who give them aid and comfort, must be driven out from our society forever.”

Referring to radical Islamism, he stated: “This wicked ideology must be obliterated. … All civilized nations must join together to protect human life and the sacred right of our citizens to live in safety and in peace.”

This echoed the speech he delivered in Riyadh on Sunday, where he called on all Arab and Muslim leaders to stomp out the phenomenon in their countries.

The only problem with this declaration — as clear as it was crucial — was that not a single Arab or Muslim leader listening to and applauding it believed it was aimed at them. The Sunnis nodded at the prospect of eradicating Shiite violence and vice versa. The Wahhabis agreed that Islamic State terrorism had to be defeated. The state sponsors of terrorism in attendance, such as Saudi Arabia itself and Qatar, were thrilled to be called upon to halt Iran. Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority representatives nodded solemnly about the ills of Hamas.

Whether the tragic irony was lost on Trump is not clear; his true thoughts about the Islamist tyrants on whom his powerful speech was wasted remain somewhat of a conundrum. While in Bethlehem two days later, however, he did praise Abbas for having “joined the summit and committed to taking firm but necessary steps to fight terrorism and confront its hateful ideology.”

This is beyond laughable. Abbas can hardly be counted on to combat a practice he embraces and encourages among his people. Indeed, the Palestinian leader not only promotes stabbings, rammings and bombings targeting Israelis, he pays salaries to the families of perpetrators killed “in action.” He also gives his clerics and educators free rein to spread hatred, particularly against Israel.

For instance, as a Middle East Media Research Institute report revealed this week, a mere four days before Abbas welcomed the U.S. president in Bethlehem, a prominent Palestinian imam at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque prayed to Allah to “annihilate Trump and the conspirators,” and to “annihilate all the Jews.”

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Students harass white professor for refusing to leave campus on anti-white ‘Day of Absence’

Posted By on May 27th, 2017

Popular atheist author calls them a ‘cult’

Racism is alive and well at Evergreen State College – and its target is white people who refuse to apologize for being white.

Students at the Washington liberal arts school, whose main claim to fame is alumnus and Simpsons creator Matt Groening, harassed Biology Prof. Bret Weinstein because he refused to leave campus for the annual “Day of Absence” April 12, The Washington Times reports.

Incredibly, they are trying to get him fired.

Evergreen State practices explicit and institutional racial segregation once a year. Typically nonwhite students and faculty leave campus (to show how valuable they are) and the whites stay on campus (to be indoctrinated in “anti-racism workshops and seminars”), but this year it was reversed, and Weinstein told the director of a campus multicultural office that he was staying put.

Bay Area entrepreneur William Treseder posted Bret’s email to the diversity official, which said the mandatory absence of whites from campus was “a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself”:

You may take this letter as a formal protest of this year’s structure, and you may assume I will be on campus during the Day of Absence. … On a college campus, one’s right to speak – or to be – must never be based on skin color.

As an alternative to leaving campus, Weinstein offered to organize a public discussion of “race through a scientific/evolutionary lens,” as long as “people attend with an open mind, and a willingness to act in good faith.”

Protesters decided to raise hell after reading about Weinstein’s refusal to judge people by their race.

They recorded their harassment of Weinstein, apparently thinking they would be applauded for their bravery of surrounding and yelling at a professor (possibly unaware it backfired at Yale).

Weinstein tries to “reason with dozens of students who routinely shout him down, curse at him and demand his resignation,” as captured on video:

“There’s a difference between debate and dialectic,” Mr. Weinstein says in the video.

“Debate — wait a second — debate means you are trying to win; dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true. I am not interested in debate. I am only interested in dialectic, which does mean I listen to you, and you listen to me.”

One student responds, “We don’t care what terms you want to speak on. This is not about you. We are not speaking on terms—on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one.” …

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Gunmen leave 26 dead, 25 injured in bus attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

CAIRO, May 26 (Reuters) – Gunmen attacked buses and a truck taking a group of Coptic Christians to a monastery in southern Egypt on Friday, killing 26 people and wounding 25 others, witnesses and the Health Ministry said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said the unidentified gunmen had arrived in three four-wheel-drive vehicles.

Eyewitnesses said masked men stopped the two buses and a truck and opened fire on a road leading to the monastery of Saint Samuel the Confessor in Minya province, which is home to a sizeable Christian minority.

Security forces launched a hunt for the attackers, setting up dozens of checkpoints and patrols on the desert road.The grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning, said the attack was intended to destabilize the country.

“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” Ahmed al-Tayeb said from Germany, where he was on a visit.

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called a meeting of security officials, the state news agency said. The Health Ministry put the toll at 26 dead and 25 wounded.

Coptic Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s population of 92 million, have been the subject of a series of deadly attacks in recent months.

MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Big Money Behind Fake News What really powers the media’s fake news scandal machine. Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

Fake news is profitable.

The New York Times hit piece on the Comey memo earned the paper its most concurrent readers per second. Pretty good for a piece about a piece of paper that the leftist paper had never even seen and which was, supposedly, described to it by one of Comey’s associates.

But that didn’t stop it from racking up over 6 million views.

Media fake news isn’t just an agenda. It’s enormously profitable. Hit pieces powered by anonymous sources bring in over 100,000 readers in an age when live is king. For individual reporters, finding a source, real or fake, that can back up the left’s Trump conspiracy theories can put them on the map.

The Comey story comes from Michael Schmidt who made a name by supposedly finding documents relating to media claims of a “Haditha Massacre” in a Baghdad junkyard where “an attendant was burning them as fuel to cook a dinner of smoked carp.” It was dashing and also very convenient.

The claims didn’t hold up in court. Most of the Marine heroes who were dragged through the mud over Haditha had their cases dropped. One case dragged out and ultimately came out to very little. But the New York Times cashed in. And Schmidt did much better out of it than Cpl. Stephen Tatum.

Haditha was the Times’ discount version of Mai Lai. Now in a desperate effort to reclaim the glory days of the media left, the New York Times and the Washington Post are trying to recreate Watergate.

It’s no coincidence that many of the big vital hit pieces aimed at President Trump have come out of the Washington Post. At the end of last year, the paper owned by Amazon boss Jeff Bezos went on a hiring spree. The goal was “quick turnaround investigative reporting”.

Washington Post editor Marty Baron explained, “We are creating a rapid response investigative team to do investigative stories more quickly, using a lot of the digital tools that are available to us now. We hugely value the longer, deeper investigations as well, but we want to supplement that with quicker investigations that can have an impact almost immediately.”

How do you do “quicker investigations”? How can you predict that an investigation will pay off rapidly? The best way to make sure that your investigation will quickly deliver a major story is to fake it.

Those quick investigative stories haven’t been coming from digital tools. They are based on anonymous sources. Real investigative reporting takes time. But a fake news story full of innuendo backed by a bunch of anonymous sources that repeat what “everyone” in the media already knows is true, is quick.

That’s what having “an impact almost immediately” means. You don’t do the hard work. You fake it.

The Washington Post has racked up viral hit fake news stories backed by anonymous sources. And it’s paying off. The Post claimed a traffic increase of 50% at the end of last year with a 75% increase in new subscribers. The official line is that Jeff Bezos has transformed the Post’s digital strategy. The reality was conveyed by its new anti-Trump slogan. “Democracy dies in darkness.” The silly slogan was an exercise in branding. It announced that this was the paper of choice for “researched” attacks on Trump.

Now the Post has hit $100 million in digital revenues and added hundreds of thousands of digital subscribers. All of this is quite a change from a few years ago when the Post was losing $50 million a year and Baron was talking about shrinking the newsroom.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

The National Association of Scholars’ “Beach Books Report” College “Common Reading Programs” are as “progressive” as you think. Jack Kerwick

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

Depending on the institution of one’s choice, those who are planning to enter college for the first time in the fall may be expected to read an assigned book over the summer. That is, many schools have a “common reading program,” a program designed to insure that incoming students read the same book before embarking upon their college career.

As the National Association of Scholars has amply demonstrated in its recent “Beach Books Report (BBR),” the ideological indoctrination of college students can’t begin quickly enough.

The BBR is a study of 348 institutions of higher learning. This includes 171 public four-year schools, 81 private sectarian schools, 70 private nonsectarian institutions, and 26 community colleges. Fifty-eight of these schools were identified by U.S. News & World Report as among the top 100 universities in the country, while 25 are among the top 100 liberal arts colleges. The colleges and universities covered by the BBR report are located in 46 states and Washington D.C.

What the study found is that colleges “rarely assign” classic texts, making “the common reading genre…parochial, contemporary, and progressive.” In fact, 75% (271) of the common reading books were published between 2010 and 2016 while 94% (327) were published between 2000 and 2016.

The books were all published during the lifetime of the students.

As for the most popular subjects and themes, anyone who knows anything at all about contemporary academia won’t be surprised by the BBR’s findings.

For the academic year 2016-2017, the study’s authors ascribed to the common readings 576 subject labels that are divided into 30 subject categories. “The most popular subject categories,” it states, “were Civil Rights/Racism/Slavery (74 readings), Crime and Punishment (67 readings), Media/Silence/Technology (34 readings), Immigration (32 readings), and Family Dysfunction/Separation (31 readings).”

The BBC also broke the readings down into 251 theme labels and 18 theme categories. That most of these “register the common reading committees’ persisting interest in ‘diversity,’ defined by non-white ethnicity at home and abroad,” is hardly unexpected to readers of this column. Some other findings, though, while anything but shocking, are nevertheless telling.

“Many common readings discuss books of which a film or television version exists, an increasing number are graphic novels [what used to be called “comic books”] or memoirs, many have a protagonist under 18 or simply young-adult novels, and a significant number have an association with National Public Radio (NPR).”

Comic books; young-adult novels; books based on popular films and TV shows and associated with NPR—this is much of the stuff of common reading programs.

The BBR summarizes its findings: “The themes register most strongly the common reading genre’s continuing obsession with race, as well as the infantilization of its students, its middlebrow taste, and its progressive politics.”

Indeed. This past academic year, “the most popular themes were African-American (103), Latin American (25), Protagonist Under 18 (25), African (15), and Islamic World (13).”

For the last three consecutive years, “Racism/Civil Rights/Slavery and Crime and Punishment were the two most popular subject categories,” and “African-American themes were…the most popular theme [.]” These subjects and themes became even more popular this past year than they had been in the two preceding years.

The “top books” for common reading illustrate this trend. The most routinely assigned text is Bryan Stevenson’s, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. This is a work of nonfiction. The theme is “African-American” and the subject categories are “Civil Rights/Racism/Slavery” and “Crime and Punishment.”

Then there is Ta-Nehisi Coates’ memoir, Between the World and Me. The theme is “African-American,” and the subject categories are “Civil Rights/Racism/Slavery” and “Crime and Punishment.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Fourth Circuit Distorts the Law to Defeat Trump’s Travel Ban Call it ‘Trumplaw.’ By David French see note please

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

This is written by a “Never Trumper” who has not let up on his criticism, so this column is very important….rsk

A strange madness is gripping the federal judiciary. It is in the process of crafting a new standard of judicial review, one that does violence to existing precedent, good sense, and even national security for the sake of defeating Donald Trump. We’ll call this new jurisprudence “Trumplaw,” and its latest victim is once again the so-called Trump travel ban. The perpetrator is the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This afternoon, the Fourth Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction on Trump’s temporary halt on immigration from six majority-Muslim countries — each of which is either a state sponsor of terrorism (Sudan and Iran) or overrun with terrorist violence, with entire regions under jihadist control (Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia). Indeed, some of these countries no longer have a recognizably functional government.

Here is the essence of the court’s ruling: Trump’s campaign statements were so grotesque that they not only (1) hurt the feelings of a Muslim resident so much that he was granted standing to challenge an executive order that did not apply to him, but also (2) rendered an otherwise lawful executive order so damaging that the harm to the plaintiff’s feelings (and his wife’s possibly delayed entry into the United States) outweigh the government’s asserted national-security interest in pausing to reexamine foreign entry from hostile and war-torn countries.

Since Trumplaw is such a novel form of jurisprudence, it’s exceedingly hard to square with existing precedent. So, when existing precedent either doesn’t apply or cuts against the overriding demand to stop Trump, then it’s up to the court to yank that law out of context, misinterpret it, and then functionally rewrite it to reach the “right” result.

Take, for example, the Fourth Circuit’s reading of a Supreme Court case called Kleindienst v. Mandel. In Mandel, a collection of scholars demanded that the U.S. grant a non-immigrant visa to Belgian Marxist journalist. The government had denied him entry under provisions of American law excluding those who advocated or published “the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism.” Make no mistake, the First Amendment protects the right to advocate or publish Marxist doctrines every bit as much as it protects the free exercise of the Islamic faith. Yet the Supreme Court still ruled against the Belgian journalist:

We hold that, when the Executive exercises [its] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.

The meaning is clear. If the order is supported by legitimate and bona fide reasons on its face, you simply don’t go beyond the document. By that standard, the executive order is easily and clearly lawful. On its face, the order asserts a legitimate and bona fide national-security justification. On its face, the order isn’t remotely a Muslim ban. On its face it doesn’t target the Muslim faith in any way, shape, or form. On its face it describes exactly why each nation is included. The Fourth Circuit, however, interpreted Mandel to argue that the Court looked only at the face of the document to determine whether its supporting reasons were legitimate, not whether they were “bona fide.” It could go “behind” the document to determine “good faith.”

MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Shock: Complete MSM News Blackout on NSA Illegal Spying Bombshell By Debra Heine

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

“The legacy media’s institutional left-wing bias has always been obvious, but it’s never been quite this sickening.”

On Wednesday, investigative news site Circa News broke a blockbuster story about illegal spying during the Obama years. So far, only Fox News and a handful of conservative websites have covered the bombshell news. According to Newsbusters, the big three networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — have completely omitted the story from their evening broadcasts. So have the Washington Post, the New York Times, and every other major mainstream media outlet. They’ve opted instead to cover RussiaGate fodder that continues to bear little fruit and negative news about Donald Trump.

“Trump shoved someone in Brussels today!” every mainstream media news outlet in America reported ad nauseam on Thursday.

In their report, Circa revealed that “the National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall.”

“More than one in 20 internet searches conducted by the National Security Agency, involving Americans, during the Obama administration violated constitutional privacy protections,” Fox News’ Bret Baier reported near the top of Special Report Wednesday evening. “And that practice went on for years. Not only that, but the Obama administration was harshly rebuked by the FISA court for doing it.”

Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen cut to the chase: “On the day President Obama visited Los Angeles last October to yuk it up with Jimmy Kimmel, lawyers for the National Security Agency were quietly informing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that NSA had systematically violated the rights of countless Americans.”

Via Newsbusters:

“Declassified documents, first obtained by the news site Circa, show the FISA court sharply rebuked the administration,” Rosen noted as he began to read a passage from the FISA court’s opinion. “’With greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S. person identifiers to query the results of internet ‘upstream’ collection, even though NSA’s Section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries.’”

The Fox News reporter was intrigued by the documents because: “These disclosers are timely though, as Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act—one of the primary means by which U.S. citizens are caught up in incidental surveillance—is up for reauthorization, Bret, by the Congress at year’s end.”

John Soloman, one of the Circa reporters who broke the story, talked with Rosen and told him that “tonight, for the first time, we can say confidently that there’s been a finding that some of that espionage, that spying on Americans, actually violated the law.”

The condemning evidence seemed to have no end, as Rosen reported that:

The documents show it was back in 2011 that the FISA court first determined NSA’s procedures to be, quote, “statutorily and constitutionally deficient with respect to their protection of U.S. person information.” Five years later, two weeks before Election Day, the judges learned that NSA had never adequately enacted the changes it had promised to make. The NSA inspector general and its office of compliance for operations “have been conducting other reviews covering different time periods,” the judges noted, “with preliminary results suggesting that the problem is widespread during all periods of review.”

Rosen had also mentioned how “the judges blasted NSA’s ‘institutional ‘lack of candor’’ and added ‘This is a very serious fourth amendment issue.’” CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Why Won’t the FBI Give Congress the Comey Memos? By Rick Moran

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

The FBI says it won’t give Congress the memos written by former FBI Director James Comey that reportedly gave his impressions of conversation he had with President Trump.

They say they must check with Special Counsel Mueller first and that there are “other considerations.”

Politico:

The House Oversight Committee and other congressional panels requested the memos earlier this month after The New York Times reported that Comey wrote in one that Trump had asked him to shut down the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Trump denied the allegation.

In a letter to Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the FBI’s assistant director for congressional affairs, Gregory Brower, said the bureau can’t provide the memo until it consults with Robert Mueller, the new special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s election meddling.

In light of Mueller’s appointment “and other considerations,” Brower wrote, “we are undertaking appropriate consultation to ensure all relevant interests implicated by your request are properly evaluated.” Brower pledged to update the Oversight panel “as soon as possible.”

Chaffetz responded to Brower’s letter on Thursday by restating his demand for the memos and setting a new deadline of June 8.

“Congress and the American public have a right and a duty to examine this issue independently of the special counsel’s investigation,” Chaffetz said. “I trust and hope you understand this and make the right decision – to produce these documents to the committee immediately and on a voluntary basis.”

“All relevant interests”? The only “relevant interest” that should concern the FBI is a speedy resolution by the people’s representatives to a situation that is harming the president and — not coincidentally — the Republican Party.

And how long does it take to get the special counsel on the phone and ask him if it’s OK to release the memos to Congress?

The FBI is slow walking the investigation and is resisting cooperating with Congress, letting Trump dangle while his political enemies savage him. Can you say “revenge”?

Note to FBI: Stop playing cutesy with the most important pieces of evidence you have and give the damn memos to Congress.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Trump’s Israel Trip Was ‘the Moment’ to Announce Embassy Relocation, Lawmakers Say By Nicholas Ballasy

Posted By on May 26th, 2017

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of House members called on President Trump to move the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Some had speculated that Trump would announce the embassy relocation, which was one of his campaign promises, during his recent trip to Israel.

“With new prospects for supporting Israel under President Trump, Congress needs to do everything it can to fulfill our promise of recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the state of Israel and to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) at an Israel Allies Foundation congressional reception on Wednesday evening. “Jerusalem is the site of Israel’s president, parliament and Supreme Court. However, you have a world community that’s not letting Israel have official world acceptance of that and that’s wrong. I don’t know of any other country in the world that’s not allowed to name its own capital and be accepted by the rest of the world.”

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush “committed” to moving the embassy but did not follow through with the 1995 law requiring the relocation. Green said that he hopes Trump moves forward with the embassy relocation but described Trump’s visit to Israel earlier this week as “a good trip” overall.

“Why would we not have our embassy in the capital city of Israel? It just doesn’t make any sense, and if somebody wants to stop the peace process because of that they have a whole bunch of things they’re not going to agree on,” Green told PJM. “I’m a Democrat and I’m not sure what’s going through President Trump’s head to do that, but he committed to it. But again, on a bipartisan basis, we’ve been deflated before – hopefully that won’t be this time, because next time I go to Israel I would hope we’ll see groundbreaking on our embassy there.”

Some of the lawmakers at the event were disappointed that Trump make a statement in Israel committing to the embassy move. The administration has said it’s considered the proposal, and has also indicated that a Mideast peace agreement is a priority.

“I think the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I’m sorry that President Trump, who said during his campaign that we would move it, hasn’t done it, but I’m hoping he will in the future,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). “I was in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem. I voted for it in the original legislation.”

Engel continued, “To be fair to President Trump, none of the presidents moved the embassy. I think it’s frankly something President Bush should have done, something President Obama should have done and something President Trump should do. You know, he’s new. There’s still plenty of time – let’s hope he does the right thing.” The law includes a national security waiver that presidents have invoked to stall the move.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said now is the time to move the embassy.