RUTHFULLY YOURS

It’s fashionable for the media to mock the “clown car” of the Republican presidential primary field. And it’s true that the Republican Party is burdened with a surplus of overqualified candidates with name recognition; successful governors, smart young senators and even a celebrated surgeon and CEO.

Meanwhile the Democratic Party’s “inevitable” candidate is inevitably generating financial scandals faster than her husband generated his inevitable sex scandals.

Competing against her is Senator Bernie Sanders who is currently discussing 90 percent tax rates and why he believes women want to be raped. His winning campaign slogan is “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country.”

You also don’t need a choice of 23 highly qualified conservative free market candidates when you can choose between Hillary Clinton and a senile Socialist from Vermont visiting late night talk shows to discuss his rape fantasies. Either Hillary Clinton will take all your money or Bernie Sanders will take all your money and then take away your underarm spray deodorants for the sake of all the hungry children.

And you’re lucky if that’s all he does.

In a 6-3 ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court sided [2] with the Obama administration and struck down a law allowing Jerusalem-born Americans to record Israel as their place of birth on their passports. “Put simply, the nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote [2]. And if the nation must speak with one voice, he added, and “that voice must be the President’s.”

The law in question was part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act [3], passed in 2002 and signed by President Bush. Section 214 instructed the State Department to “record the place of birth as Israel” in the passports of Jerusalem-born American children if their parents requested that designation. However despite signing the bill, Bush insisted, “U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed,” and that his administration was not legally bound to follow that provision. He further insisted [3] the resolution “would, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states.”

On April 14, 2015, by a unanimous vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a procedure for the Senate and House to review the future nuclear agreement with Iran. The Senate and House subsequently approved the bill and it was signed into law in late May.

What did we get? After the completion of an Iran nuclear deal the US Senate and House of Representatives will get to decide whether and when the previously approved Congressional sanctions on Tehran will end.

Critical to that determination will be whether the administration has sufficient leverage to get necessary Iranian concessions to make a deal worthwhile.

Supporters of the new preliminary framework with Iran on its nuclear work castigated supporters of this Congressional initiative. They described it as an attempt to “kill the Iran agreement”.

They challenged critics to come up with a better alternative deal.

They also claimed some opponents of the framework agreement simply wanted war with Iran or were opposed to an agreement only for partisan purposes.

Voters have not only foiled Recep Tayyip Erdogan plan to mesh the country’s parliamentary system with his autocratic instincts, they have stripped his party of the capacity to form a government in its own right. In a part of the world not know for it, this is encouraging news.
Voters in the Turkish Republic have dealt the so-called neo-Ottomanism of Recep Tayyip Erdogan a blow. The Sultan – sorry, President – had hoped his Islamist movement, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), would not only win a clear majority of 276 deputies in the 550-seat parliament but a two-thirds majority. Had the AKP won 330 seats in the June 7 election, Erdogan could have set in motion constitutional changes leading to the transformation of Turkey’s political system from a parliamentary system to a presidential one. As it now stands, however, Erdogan’s AKP has won less than 41% of the vote and will have to make do with 258 deputies — not enough to form a government on its own.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been ignoring Bruce Jenner. As a child of the ’70s, I ignored him in the cereal aisle, where his Olympic-champion mug couldn’t entice me to pick his terminally bland Wheaties over more healthful Sugar Smacks. I ignored him in the ’80s, during his star-turn in Can’t Stop the Music, a disco-tinged Village People biopic that saw him nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for worst actor. In the ’90s, I don’t recall Jenner at all, as I was rather busy ignoring him.
By the mid-2000s, however, Jen-ner had become much more difficult to ignore. He’d plighted his troth to the Kardashian clan, America’s First Family of publicity tapeworms, who are as long on fame’n’money as they are short on talent, unless you consider leaked sex tapes and Instagram butt-selfies a talent. As the paterfamilias/house eunuch of the Kardashian seraglio—both in real life and in the fake reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians (now in its tenth smash season)—Jenner allowed viewers to witness him getting ignored by his daughters and serially humiliated by his wife. “Momager” Kris (her self-appointed nickname as her daughters’ tireless manager) would leave him behind on trips, confiscate his ATM card, and generally keep his huevos in her purse, well before he started carrying one (the two recently divorced).

The pronoun police at GLAAD distributed a helpful tip-sheet for journalists who should now see that Caitlyn “is—and always has been—a woman.” GLAAD commanded journalists to “avoid the phrase ‘born a man’ when referring to Jenner.” And the fierce guardians of free speech in the press did what they always do in such situations—they hung their heads and bleated obediently, cisgenders terrified to misgender. The Washington Post’s LGBT/straight etiquette columnist (yes, they have one) highly recommended GLAAD’s tips. And a Post colleague went so far as to set up a Twitter bot that would automatically correct anyone using “he” instead of “she” when writing about Brucelyn.

Fresh off its widely-mocked exclusive on the traffic citations given Marco and Jeannette Rubio – fewer than one per year, combined – the New York Times has an in-depth look at Scott Walker and the wealthy conservatives who backed him throughout his rise to national prominence. It’s a classic of the genre.

The article is more sophisticated than the awkward and error-filled attempted hit on Walker by Gail Collins from the Times editorial page, who blamed Walker for layoffs that took place before he had been elected. And it avoids the kind of over-the-top claims that require corrections. But the piece nonetheless makes clear that its authors believe Walker’s views are far out of the mainstream and that he owes his success to wealthy conservatives eager to exploit a simpleton as the vessel for their ideological goals.

Those disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which struck down a law allowing Jerusalem-born Americans to have “Israel” listed in their passports as their the place of birth, are missing the long-term significance of the case, which will play out about three months from now.

The United Nations General Assembly is laying plans to opens its next session on September 15, and there have been rumors that France plans to submit to the Security Council a resolution to prescribe a Palestinian state in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, with a capital in Jerusalem, with a negotiating deadline of 18 months. The Obama administration is thought to be considering voting for the resolution, or allowing it to pass with a U.S. abstention.

It’s increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Teach for America — whose leaders are at the forefront of inflammatory anti-police protests in Baltimore, Ferguson, and now McKinney, Texas — and left-wing activist groups such as Organizing for Action (President Obama’s partisan community-organizing army).

Guess what, taxpayers? You’re paying for it!

Wendy Kopp founded Teach for America in 1989 after writing her Princeton University thesis on the need for a “national teaching corps” of elite college grads who would serve students on short-term stints in low-income neighborhoods. The do-gooder group has exploded into a massive, nonprofit business.

“Between 2000 and 2013, “ researchers at the National Educational Policy Center reported, “TFA’s yearly operating expenditures increased 1,930 percent — from $10 million to $193.5 million. Of those expenditures, TFA annual reports show that about a third of operating costs are borne by the public.” Individual TFA chapters have raked in millions in federal AmeriCorps grants, supported by leaders in both political parties. Large corporations (including $100 million donor Wal-Mart), philanthropic foundations, and individuals have pitched in nearly a half-billion dollars in tax-deductible charitable private donations.

The Ohio governor and presidential hopeful is reportedly talking to a strategist who disdains those on the right.

Ohio governor John Kasich has yet to enter the presidential race, but his reported talks with Republican strategist John Weaver, even before the Washington Post reported Tuesday that he would serve as a senior strategist for the campaign, were already raising some eyebrows.

Weaver, a chief strategist for John Huntsman in 2012 and an advisor to John McCain in both 2000 and 2008, has made little attempt to hide his less-than-positive feelings toward certain conservative elements of the GOP. And he’s never been shy about criticizing the Republican party as a whole. Hiring Weaver in and of itself could turn off some more conservative GOP operatives and activists. And to some Republicans, it also telegraphs a potential campaign strategy — past campaigns run by Weaver have bypassed the Iowa caucuses and headed straight to New Hampshire, a path that irks some early-state operatives.

“I think for those in the know, it probably makes them scratch their head,” said one Republican consultant.

Though most voters pay no attention whatsoever to a candidate’s consultant, for the operatives, activists, and state-level officials whose support campaigns court each cycle, the staffing choice could be salient.

At first glance, yesterday’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry might seem destined to end up as but a footnote in most constitutional-law books. It decides only whether the president or Congress controls the content of U.S. passports — now Nancy Pelosi can no longer demand that the Golden Gate Bridge appear on the visa pages of your next one. But because Zivotofsky involves the treatment of Jerusalem, it adds to the president’s foreign-affairs arsenal and could affect the struggle over U.S. Middle East policy, such as an Iranian nuclear deal.

Zivotofsky upholds the executive’s right to control passports. According to the Court’s decision, the State Department, rather than Congress, decides whether to record the birthplace of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem as “Jerusalem,” rather than “Israel.” All of the justices agree that the president holds a monopoly on the recognition of foreign governments, which stems from his exclusive constitutional authority to “receive Ambassadors” and has existed since President Washington’s 1793 proclamation of neutrality during the French Revolution. Congress, on the other hand, has the authority to control immigration, the borders, and international travel. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on behalf of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, used an ill-conceived and undefined balancing test to conclude that Congress could not use these powers to contradict the president’s position on Israel’s territorial boundaries. A law using passports to contradict the president’s decision to recognize Israel “would not only prevent the Nation from speaking with one voice but also prevent the Executive itself from doing so in conducting foreign relations.”