Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Why Betsy DeVos became the Trump cabinet nominee Democrats most loved to hate Amber Phillips

Washington: It took a historic tie breaking vote cast by Vice President Pence on Tuesday to get President Donald Trump’s education secretary nominee, Betsy DeVos, confirmed by the Senate.

A few months ago, very few people would have predicted DeVos would be confirmed on a 51-50 vote, the narrowest confirmation vote of a Cabinet nominee ever. Two Republicans, Senator. Lisa Murkowski , Alaska, and Susan Collins, Maine, joined the entire Democratic caucus to oppose her.
Pence breaks Senate tie to confirm DeVos

The Senate has confirmed school choice activist Betsy DeVos as Education secretary, with US Vice President Mike Pence breaking a 50-50 tie. It was the first time a vice president had to break a tie on a Cabinet nomination

But in retrospect, what happened to DeVos makes sense. Her inexperience in public schools, her alienation of some moderate Republicans, a powerful populist movement against her and Senate Democrats’ will to oppose Trump at every turn came together to create the perfect storm.

There are several dynamics going on here, so let’s break down DeVos’ troubled confirmation into four factors.

1) She’s a one-issue nominee

DeVos, a Michigan billionaire philanthropist, is a national figure on the cause of giving vouchers to parents so they can choose whether to send their kids to private or public schools. That is mostly a non-starter for Democrats. But the school-choice-above-all-else narrative also doesn’t fit with some red-state Republican senators, whose rural states don’t necessarily have a ton of private or charter schools to choose from.

“If you are a senator who disagrees with DeVos on the issue of school choice and vouchers,” said Elizabeth Mann of the Brookings Institution, “there aren’t a lot of other places to find common ground.”

2) She doesn’t have experience in public schools

DeVos has not attended, sent her children to, or worked in public schools. And that’s a big problem for people who see the education secretary’s primary role as managing public schools, which a majority of American students attend.

“[L]ike all of us, Mrs. DeVos is the product of her experience,” Collins said on the Senate floor explaining why she’d be voting against DeVos.

Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, poses with boy and his sign for a family member during a rally in Portland, Oregon. Photo: AP

DeVos’ viral confirmation hearing – where she seemed unfamiliar with basic laws and suggested guns in schools could help protect students “from potential grizzlies” — did nothing to assuage those concerns. And it even added a few more, like whether she’d support students with disabilities.

3) A united opposition, a split front of support

The increasingly nationalised debate over school reform has propped up a sizable, well-organized and often powerful coalition of labour and progressive groups that are opposed to DeVos’ school choice position.

But it’s not just teachers unions opposing DeVos. The Washington Post’s Emma Brown talked to parents across the country who opposed Devos and found them to be part of a surprisingly diverse group:

“[A] small army of parents, teachers and others around the country who have risen up against DeVos as President Trump’s nominee heads toward a breathtakingly close confirmation vote. They come from places as diverse as rural Alaska, inner-city Detroit and — suburban Nashville.”

“Vouchers don’t come with any oversight of the schools in which they’re spent,” Anna Caudill, a Tennessee mother of two, told Brown.

Very few Cabinet nominees have such a built-in and well-organized opposition, said Frederick Hess, a DeVos supporter with the American Enterprise Institute. “I don’t know who has that kind of mobilisation on the secretary of state, no matter how much more high-profile the position is,” he said.

U.K. Defense Chief, Following Prime Minister, Praises Trump Approach Michael Fallon said Trump has likely galvanized U.S. and U.K. efforts to strengthen NATO By Ben Kesling

ERBIL, Iraq—U.K. Defense Minister Michael Fallon said Saturday that the British-American defense partnership has never been stronger and that President Donald Trump has likely galvanized the two countries’ efforts to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to push allies to contribute more to mutual defense.

Mr. Fallon, who is scheduled to speak with U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis next week, said in an interview that the longstanding defense alliance between the U.S. and U.K. hasn’t been affected by turmoil within the U.S. or internationally following Mr. Trump’s election.

Mr. Fallon became the most recent U.K. official to offer public support for Mr. Trump’s administration, despite widespread concern among Britons over a broad range of domestic and foreign stances. British Prime Minister Theresa May drew criticism at home after she invited Mr. Trump to visit London, extending the offer during her January visit to Washington.

Mr. Fallon said during a trip to the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil that the U.S. and U.K. agree that NATO partners must do more to contribute to the alliance. Mr. Fallon was due to visit British troops training Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

“The president’s remarks have clearly turbocharged that process,” Mr. Fallon said of the push for increased defense commitments. “If President Trump has galvanized the alliance, then we’re in his debt.”

Mr. Fallon said, in particular, the historically strong relationship between the two countries continues to this day.

“The British-American defense partnership is the deepest, strongest defense partnership anywhere in the world,” Mr. Fallon said. “It was the British prime minister who was the first foreign leader into the White House. And defense and security were right at the top of the agenda. Indeed, it was our prime minister who confirmed the United States’ 100% commitment to NATO.”

When asked if Mr. Trump has caused consternation in the British defense firmament, he said that is in no way the case.

Yale Renames Calhoun College Over Slavery Ties College named for ardent supporter of slavery will instead honor computer scientist who was awarded posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom By Melissa Korn

Yale University will change the name of Calhoun College, a residential college named for an ardent supporter of slavery, and replace that moniker with one honoring computer scientist Grace Murray Hopper.

University trustees, known as the Yale Corporation, voted in favor of the renaming on Friday, reversing a decision last year to keep the name. Keeping the name had been defended as a way to confront rather than paper over the legacy of slavery.

The change will go into effect in time for the 2017-2018 academic year.

“John C. Calhoun’s legacy as a white supremacist and a national leader who passionately promoted slavery as a ‘positive good’ fundamentally conflicts with Yale’s mission and values,” President Peter Salovey said in a message sent to the Yale community on Saturday. He said depictions in the college celebrating plantations and the Old South suggest that Calhoun was honored in part because of his support for slavery, not in spite of it.

Yale is among a number of colleges that have grappled with how to honor their histories without offending modern sensibilities. Vanderbilt University last year said it would pay $1.2 million to remove the word “Confederate” from a residence hall’s facade, while Princeton University said it would keep Woodrow Wilson’s name on its school of public and international affairs and a residential college, while increasing discussion of the former president’s support of segregation.

The naming of Yale’s Calhoun College, one of a dozen residential colleges across the campus, to which students are tied for their undergraduate experience, dates to 1931. Calhoun was a Yale graduate, former U.S. senator, secretary of war, secretary of state and vice president. Yale is adding two more residential colleges this year.

In announcing the name change, Mr. Salovey on Saturday called Ms. Hopper “a visionary in the world of technology” and trailblazer in historically male-dominated fields.

She received her master’s degree in mathematics from Yale in 1930 and her Ph.D. in mathematics and mathematical physics in 1934, then taught mathematics at Vassar College for a decade before enlisting in the U.S. Navy.

Ms. Hopper worked on early computer software and helped develop COBOL, a computer language that became ubiquitous by the 1970s. Ms. Hopper retired as a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy at age 79 and was awarded a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom by former President Barack Obama.

A task force composed of two Yale professors and a university alumnus recently recommended the name-change. Trustees chose from among names that had been submitted as alternatives to Calhoun, and as options for the naming of two new residential colleges on campus.

Can Israel rely on foreign peacekeepers and security guarantees? Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Video#34 http://bit.ly/2kWV8OS; Entire mini-seminar: http://bit.ly/1ze66dS

Israel is urged to concede the historically and militarily most critical mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, in return for a US, or a multinational, peacekeeping force, as well as US security guarantees or defense pact.

2. In order to be effective, defense pacts, and security guarantees – including peacekeeping monitoring or combat forces – must be reliable, durable, specific and politically/militarily sustainable. It must serve the interests of the foreign entity, which dispatches the force, lest it be ignored or summarily withdrawn.

3. However, the litany of US commitments, guarantees and defense pacts are characterized by four critical attributes – escape routes – designed to shield US interests in a way which undermines the effectiveness of the commitments: 1. non-specificity, vagueness and ambiguity, facilitating non-implementation; 2. Non-automaticity, facilitating delay, suspension and non-implementation; 3. Non-implementation if it is deemed harmful to US interests; 4. Subordination to the US Constitution, including the limits of presidential power.
4. For example, the NATO treaty – the tightest US defense pact – as ratified by the US Senate, commits the US to consider steps on behalf of an attacked NATO member, “as it deems necessary.” Moreover, in 1954, President Eisenhower signed a defense treaty with Taiwan, but in 1979, President Carter annulled the treaty unilaterally, with the support of Congress and the Supreme Court.

5. The May 25, 1950 Tripartite Declaration, by the US, Britain and France, included a commitment to maintain a military balance between Israel and the Arab states. However, on October 18, 1955, Secretary of State Dulles refused Israel’s request to buy military systems – to offset Soviet Bloc arm shipments to Egypt – insisting that the facts were still obscure. In 1957, President Eisenhower issued an executive agreement – to compensate for Israel’s full withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula – committing US troops should Egypt violate the ceasefire and Sinai’s demilitarization. But, in 1967, President Johnson claimed that “[the commitment] ain’t worth a solitary dime,” while the UN peacekeepers fled upon the Egyptian invasion of the Sinai, the blockade of Israel’s port of Eilat, and the establishment of intra-Arab military force to annihilate Israel. In 1975, President Ford sent a letter to Prime Minister Rabin, stating that the US “will give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights.” But, in 1979, President Carter contended that Ford’s letter hardly committed Ford, but certainly none of the succeeding presidents.

6. In an April 1975 AIPAC Conference speech, the late Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson dismissed security guarantees as harmful delusion: “Detente did not save Cambodia and it will not save Vietnam, despite the fact that we and the Soviets are co-guarantors of the Paris Accords. And that is something to keep in mind when one hears that we and the Soviets should play the international guarantee game in the Middle East.”

7. According to Prof. Noah Pelcovits, Political Sicence, UCLA: “[In the context of security arrangements] there is only one chance in three that the protector will come to the aid of its ally in wartime, and then only at the discretion of the protector…. What counts is the protector’s perception of self-interest. Otherwise, the commitment is not honored….”

8. Prof. Michla Pomerance, International Relations, Hebrew University, stated that US defense commitments, including the NATO Treaty, “are uniformly characterized by vagueness, non-specificity… and the explicit denial of any automatic obligation to use force… [in] accordance with the desire of the US, as promisor, to keep its options open…. Evasion by means of interpretation would not be a difficult task….”

9. The stationing of foreign peacekeeping tropps on Israel’s border would cripple Israel’s defense capabilities, requiring Israel to seek prior approval in preempting or countering belligerence, which would also strain US-Israel ties. At the same time, appearing to have enabled Israel to act freely, would damage US-Arab ties.

10. The assumption that inherently tenuous, intangible, open-ended and reversible US security commitments constitute an effective compensation for critical Israeli land, tangible, irreversible concessions – such as a retreat from the strategically and historically critical mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – reflects detachment from the Washington constitutional labyrinth and recent precedents, engendering a false sense of security, thus compromising the existence of the Jewish state, transforming Israel from a robust national security producing asset to a frail national security consuming liability, undermining US interests and US-Israel relations.

11. The next video will expand on the inherent non-reliability of US and international security guarantees.

EU MIGRATION NUMBERS 2016: 490.547 IMMIGRANTS, 1.205 MILLION ASYLUM APPLICANTS By Vincent van den Born

EU migration numbers 2016: 490.547 immigrants, 1.205 million asylum applicants

From the offices of EU Parliament’s think tank, comes another publication on migration. Though it claims the document is not the official position of EU parliament, the numbers cited are from official Frontex and Eurostat sources and it represents the documents MEP’s work with. The entire document can be downloaded from here in PDF format. These are the highlights:

Routes and numbers of illegal immigration January-November 2016

The total number of illegal migrants in the mentioned eleven month period: 490,547. The total number of asylum applicants is almost 2.5 times higher at 1.205 million, which is a modest drop from 2015’s 1.323 million.

‘Applicants’ refers to anyone applying for asylum or similar protection or included in an application as a family member.

So while there may have been a sharp decline in – recorded – illegal immigration, the number of applicants has not gone down substantially.

Meanwhile, the geographical displacement of asylum applicants, per capita, remains focused on Germany and Sweden, with countries on the route there (Greece, Hungary and Austria) also taking on substantial numbers.

DUTCH CONSERVATIVE MP SAYS “MUSLIM IMMIGRATION MUST STOP”, GETS SCORNED BY PARTY LEADER By Willem Cornax

On February 9th Ybeltje Berckmoes, MEP for the Dutch Torries (VVD), was invited to a public discussion on women in North-Africa and the Middle East (MENA), called “women in the MENA-region and their role in processes of peace and democracy, as well as civil rights”. The main speaker was Sigrid Kaag, UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon.

Afterwards, Berckmoes was interviewed about her remarks during the discussion. She said:

“It’s not mixing for one bit. I see a threat. Because of their population explosion, angry young men from Africa and the Middle East are coming over here, this needs to stop. In Wester Europe, some sort of Eurabia seems to be developing.”

The VVD’s chairman, Halbe Zijlstra subsequently derided her, saying:

“This is a good explanation on why she is not on the electoral list anymore. The way she says it, that’s why she’s not on the list.”

Two things are stingy about that statement. Had she put in different, more politically correct terms, would it have been acceptable then? This would mean Zijlstra thinks the same, but does not find it politically expedient to say so. What is worse?

Apart from this, the suggestion that these views are the reason she is not on the list for the upcoming election, is bogus as well. Berckmoes herself already indicated last year she would not be running as a candidate anymore.

Berckmoes says she’s “very much drawn to the fate of these women”. Her statements are based on her experiences in NATO and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). She stated, “different cultures can co-exist together.” However, Berckmoes observes women encounter the same problems here as they do in the MENA-region. Why? Because “we’re seeing a mixing of cultures that do not mix”.

Meanwhile, in the real world, more than 50% of Europeans agree with Mrs. Berckmoes and want an immigration stop.

Trump State Department Document Recognizes Jerusalem as Israeli; New York Times Ignores It by Ira Stoll

The Trump administration, breaking with Obama administration precedent, has issued an official State Department document recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel.

And the New York Times, as is typical, entirely missed the news, preferring instead to obsess about Israeli settlements and to portray the Trump administration, inaccurately, as truckling to pressure from Arab monarchs.

The State Department reference to “Israel, Jerusalem” amid a list of countries and capital cities — such as “Egypt, Cairo,” “Lebanon, Beirut” and “Iraq, Baghdad” — came in an appendix to an obscure government document — a report from the State Department’s inspector general detailing a review of the US government’s Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Though it was initially labeled “sensitive but unclassified,” and intended for internal State Department use, the document was distributed by the department this week to a public email list that included The Algemeiner.

According to three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, legal precedents by the Supreme Court doomed…

The 20-page report, dated February 2017, mostly concerns mundane regulatory matters, such as the disclosure that the Middle East Broadcasting Networks“had not conducted a fire drill at its headquarters in Springfield, Virginia since occupying it in 2004.”

Buried in Appendix B, on page 17 of the pdf, is a list detailing the staffing and funding of the broadcasting networks, which provide television, radio and internet news directed at Arab-language audiences. That list includes 16 full-time employees and two contractors in “Israel, Jerusalem.”

Democratic Deceit by Paul R. Hollrah

In a recent column titled “The Elephant in the Living Room,” I surmised that liberals and Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by continuing to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency. What makes that bit of nonsense so dangerous for Democrats is the fact that, by continuing to question Trump’s legitimacy, they could easily invite renewed interest in Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility… an issue that lies festering just beneath the surface.

In Obama’s case, enough is known about his lack of presidential eligibility to invite future researchers to dig deeper into his personal history. As a result, the American people will one day be shocked to learn that, between January 20, 2009, and January 20, 2017, a period of time during which the forces of Islamic jihad made the greatest gains in the conquest of the Christian world since the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, the United States was governed by a half-Muslim impostor with no legitimate claim to the presidency.

But man is a curious animal, and if he feels that he’s been lied to or that certain historical facts have purposely been kept from him, he will move mountains to discover the truth.

A great many major historic events and mysteries remain unresolved and unexplored for years… often for decades, centuries, and even millennia. For example, as World War I raged on in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson (D) reassured the American people of U.S. neutrality. He said, “The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men’s souls. We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.”

However, what the American people did not know was that Wilson, himself, was violating U.S. neutrality by supplying war materiel to the British and, with no apparent regard for the safety of the traveling public, shipping it to England aboard passenger ships. The German spy network in the United States was fully aware of the deceit, causing the German government to publish an April 22, 1915, warning in 50 major newspapers, urging travelers not to sail aboard the RMS Lusitania. And when travelers expressed concern, the Wilson administration assured them that trans-Atlantic travel was safe and that there was no reason for concern.

On Defining Religion by Nonie Darwish

What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader.

Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them, after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible.

Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and it relies on government enforcement to do so.

Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said that President Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries is “a religiously based ban,” and “if they can ban Muslims, why can’t they ban Mormons.” This has become the position of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, which has influenced not only the American public but has convinced the majority of the world that America is “bad.” How can we blame the world, and even a good segment of American citizens, for hating America when such disingenuous and misleading claims are aired to the world from US officials and broadcast by American television channels?

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump Administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader, rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader. He ran as a Republican; meanwhile, Democrats and the mainstream media refuse to engage in respectful and legitimate debate on the most vital threat to Western civilization in the twenty-first century: Islam. Truth has become irrelevant; people seem to prefer a political game of tug-of-war to sway public opinion against the Trump Administration, and, presumably, to elect Democrats forever. That is how the system is set up.

A beautiful friendship by Caroline Glick

Less than a week after he was inaugurated into office, President Donald Trump announced that he had repaired the US’s fractured ties with Israel. “It got repaired as soon as I took the oath of office,” he said.

Not only does Israel now enjoy warm relations with the White House. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in the US capital next week, he will be greeted by the most supportive political climate Israel has ever seen in Washington.

It is true that dangers to Israel’s ties with America lurk in the background. The radical Left is taking control of the Democratic Party.But the forces now hijacking the party on a whole host of issues have yet to transform their hatred of Israel into the position of most Democratic lawmakers in Congress.

Democrats in both houses of Congress joined with their Republican counterparts in condemning UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that criminalized Israel. A significant number of Democratic lawmakers support Trump’s decision to slap new sanctions on Iran.

Similarly, radical Jewish groups have been unsuccessful in rallying the more moderate leftist Jewish leadership to their cause. Case in point is the widespread support Trump’s appointment of David Friedman to serve as his ambassador to Israel is receiving from the community.

Whereas J Street and T’ruah are circulating a petition calling for people to oppose his Senate confirmation, sources close to the issue in Washington say that AIPAC supports it.Given this political climate, Netanyahu must use his meeting with Trump to develop a working alliance to secure Israel’s long-term strategic interests both on issues of joint concern and on issues that concern Israel alone.

The first issue on the agenda must be Iran. Since taking office, Trump has signaled that unlike his predecessors, he is willing to lead a campaign against Iran. Trump has placed Iran on notice that its continued aggression will not go unanswered and he has harshly criticized Obama’s nuclear deal with the mullahs.

In the lead-up to his meeting with Trump, Netanyahu has said that he will present the new president with five options for scaling back Tehran’s nuclear program. No time can be wasted in addressing this problem. Iran continues spinning its advanced centrifuges.

The mullahs are still on schedule to field the means to deploy nuclear warheads at will within a decade. Netanyahu’s task is to work with Trump to significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program as quickly as possible.

Then there is Syria. And Russia.

On Sunday, Trump restated his desire to develop ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Netanyahu must present Trump with a viable plan to reconstitute US-Russian ties in exchange for Russian abandonment of its alliance with Tehran and its cooperation with Iran and Hezbollah in Syria. Here, too, time is of the essence.

According to news reports this week, President Bashar Assad is redeploying his forces to the Syrian border with Israel. Almost since the outset of the war in Syria six years ago, Assad’s forces have been under Iranian and Hezbollah control. If Syrian forces deploy to the border, then Iran and Hezbollah will control the border.

Israel cannot permit such a development. It’s not just that such a deployment greatly expands the risk of war. As long as Russia is acting in strategic alliance with Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, the deployment of Iranian-controlled forces to the border raises the real possibility that Israel will find itself at war with Russia in Syria.