WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Taiwan’s Leader Says Planned U.S. Stops on Trip Will Be Unofficial, Routine Plan for transit through U.S. in January follows Taiwanese president’s groundbreaking phone call with President-elect Trump By William Kazer

Posted By on January 2nd, 2017

TAIPEI, Taiwan—Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen played down the significance of a planned U.S. stopover in January en route to Central America amid warnings from Beijing and speculation that she might meet with President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.

Speaking to reporters Saturday, the president of the self-ruled island said she wouldn’t be on an official visit to the U.S. and would make routine transit stops. “A transit stop is just a transit stop,” she said.

While Ms. Tsai and her predecessors made similar stopovers in the past, her plan to transit through Houston and San Francisco follows a groundbreaking telephone conversation with Mr. Trump in early December. That call set aside nearly 40 years of protocol that has left contacts between the two sides to lower-level officials at the insistence of Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its territory.

Under Washington’s agreement to open full diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, the U.S. downgraded its relations with Taiwan. The two, however, maintain close political, economic and military ties on an “unofficial” basis. Beijing, while tolerating the arrangement, is wary that Washington’s support may stiffen Taiwan’s resistance to China’s goal of reunification.

The phone call between Mr. Trump and Ms. Tsai irked Beijing. The anger was amplified after Mr. Trump questioned the usefulness of the “one China” policy under which the U.S. keeps its ties with Taiwan unofficial.

China’s foreign ministry spokesman this week called on the U.S. to prevent a stopover by Taiwan’s president and avoid sending the “wrong signals” to elements on the island pushing for formal independence.

The phone call may have also played a role in the recent announcement by the small African nation of São Tomé and Príncipe that it was dropping its formal recognition of Taiwan in favor of China. In past years, China and Taiwan have engaged in a bidding war as they competed diplomatic allies. They reached a truce under President Tsai’s predecessor, who adopted a more pro-engagement policy with Beijing. Taiwan has accused China of using “dollar diplomacy” to lure away São Tomé.

Ms. Tsai’s visit to Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador from Jan. 7 to 15 was arranged previously but has taken on new significance as the island seeks to shore up support among its remaining diplomatic partners. Taiwan now has official ties with only 21 countries, most of them small Central American and Caribbean countries as well as Pacific islands. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Istanbul Nightclub Attack New Year’s assault killed at least 39 people By Maria Abi-Habib

Posted By on January 2nd, 2017

BEIRUT—Islamic State on Monday claimed responsibility for a deadly New Year’s attack in Istanbul that killed at least 39 people and wounded dozens more, claiming the operation had targeted Turkey in retaliation for its military operations against the group in Syria.

The statement was distributed by Nashir News, a channel that publishes Islamic State propaganda, and which had called for followers of the extremist group to target holiday celebrations days before the attack.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump Can Reverse Obama’s Last-Minute Land Grab The White House is trying to lock up millions of acres, but no president can bind his successor. By Todd Gaziano and John Yoo

Posted By on January 2nd, 2017

As he prepares to leave office in three weeks, President Obama is still trying to shape his legacy. On Dec. 20 the White House announced the withdrawal of millions of acres of Atlantic and Arctic territory from petroleum development. This week Mr. Obama proclaimed 1.35 million acres in Utah and 300,000 acres in Nevada to be new national monuments. But all the soon-to-be ex-president will prove is the fleeting nature of executive power.

These actions, like many others he has taken, are vulnerable to reversal by President-elect Trump. In our constitutional system, no policy can long endure without the cooperation of both the executive and legislative branches. Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress can enact domestic statutes with any degree of permanence. And because of the Constitution’s separation of powers, no policy will survive for long without securing and retaining a consensus beyond a simple majority.

As president, Mr. Trump can easily reverse the most unwarranted and costly regulations issued in the last few months. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a simple majority of each house may expeditiously disapprove such regulations, so long as the president signs the bill. A CRA disapproval would have the added virtue of automatically prohibiting any future, “substantially similar” rule without congressional action.

Mr. Trump can clear the way for Congress by halting all current rule-makings and ordering agencies to stop enforcing rules enacted in the last two years (or longer). After their defense of the administration’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws, liberals would have no legitimate grounds to oppose Mr. Trump’s temporary enforcement halt.

Mr. Obama’s unilateral actions, by executive order, proclamation or memoranda, are even more vulnerable. The courts have declared some void, including the immigration deportation orders. Mr. Trump can simply order the Justice Department to acquiesce in those decisions and save the public the trouble of litigating others. Mr. Obama taunted his political adversaries that if he didn’t get what he wanted from Congress, he would use his “pen” and “phone.” Those tools also work in reverse. CONTINUE AT SITE

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The FDA’s Rigged Drug Committees A case study in how the agency gets the advice it wants to hear.

Posted By on January 2nd, 2017

Among the Republican priorities in 2017 should be dismantling a culture of bureaucratic control at the Food and Drug Administration that poisons innovation and costs lives. Here’s an idea: Update part of the approval process that was patient zero for distorting data on a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

We’ve reported on the drama over eteplirsen, which FDA approved in September and is now marketed as Exondys 51 by Sarepta Therapeutics. Midlevel bureaucrats have since disparaged the therapy in public, and some insurers are denying coverage. Much of the confusion results from an April show trial known as an advisory committee meeting. A process that is supposed to provide independent advice to the FDA instead became a venue to mislead a panel of nonexperts—and the public—about the drug’s efficacy.

Advisory committees exist so FDA can solicit expert counsel, but the agency stacks panels with allies whose career currency is prestige and government funding. Such committees usually vote the way FDA wants—and then the agency tends to follow the recommendation. On eteplirsen, the panel voted 6-7 against accelerated approval after a critical FDA review, which was later overruled by agency management in a rare exception amid unusual public scrutiny.

The 13-member committee that checked out eteplirsen included: a psychiatrist, a stroke doctor and several others with no experience in Duchenne. The agency seldom invites true experts because anyone who has ever talked to a drug company is deemed financially conflicted. In rare diseases like Duchenne, that problem is more pronounced because the pool of experts can be so limited.

Yet meet Caleb Alexander, chairman of the committee. Dr. Alexander invited speakers at the meeting to state organizations they represent. He read this statement at least a dozen times but neglected to mention his own conflict of interest: Dr. Alexander has received a large FDA grant, information that is available online. The conceit is that folks like Dr. Alexander are less motivated by pecuniary interests than someone who has consulted for a company. Dr. Alexander voted against approval.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

PAT CONDELL: A WORD TO THE CRIMINAL MIGRANT MUST SEE VIDEO

Posted By on January 2nd, 2017

ISRAEL Comments turned off

HIS SAY VICTOR SHARPE ON ISRAEL

Posted By on January 2nd, 2017

The vile Resolution in the United Nations did not take place in a vacuum. Over the years Victor Sharpe has been making the case for Israel, exposing libel and ignorance .

Here are some of his excellent columns:

Intolerance

Victor Sharpe: Western European nations are now submerged in an ever growing, Sharia compliant, Islamic monster that is within the gates. In a generation or two, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and Britain may no longer retain a Judeo-Christian culture or civilization except in small pockets; always besieged by a Muslim majority they so foolishly allowed to grow and strengthen within their borders. (ED: Victor’s excellent analysis is probably the best article you will read this week – or this year. Take a few minutes to read and digest this.)
Canada Free Press

Sovereignty now, or never
Victor Sharpe: For 47 long years since the liberation of biblical Jewish Judea and Samaria from illegal Jordanian occupation – territory the world grotesquely prefers to call the “West Bank” – the beloved Jewish heartland has remained in a political limbo and not been fully or even partially annexed. Israel’s foolish failure to take sovereign control of its own historical, physical and spiritual heartland has allowed a hostile world to thus assume that Israel itself does not believe it has legal sovereignty in the territory.
Arutz Sheva

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

INTERMISSION HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

Posted By on December 30th, 2016

I WILL BE AWAY UNTIL MONDAY JANUARY 2, 2017

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Kerry to Israel: A State Cannot Be Both Jewish and Democratic Our secretary of state might want to review the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan before lecturing Israel. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on December 29th, 2016

Our ineffable secretary of state, John Kerry, delivered another parting shot at Israel today, offering the Obama administration’s “vision” for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. There are many things to be said about it — not least that Kerry’s speech, like last week’s venomous, Obama-orchestrated United Nations resolution on which it builds, is something “pro-Israel” Democrats make sure to do after Election Day.

For now, I just want to highlight one gem (noted by Michael Warren at The Weekly Standard).

Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”

Presumably, Kerry was referring to the fact that Israel has a significant Arab-Muslim population. He conveniently did not mention, since it must never be mentioned, the vow of Mahmoud Abbas (the Palestinian leader Kerry sees as Israel’s “peace partner”) that, “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — soldier or civilian — on our lands.”

Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles — notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.

I thought it might be interesting, then, to review the Constitution of Afghanistan, which the State Department had a major role in drafting. Here are Articles One through Three:

Article One: Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two: The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals.

Article Three: No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.

Then there’s Article Six:

The state shall be obligated to create a prosperous and progressive society based on social justice, preservation of human dignity, protection of human rights, realization of democracy, attainment of national unity as well as equality between all peoples and tribes and balance development of all areas of the country. [Emphasis added.]

A “progressive society based on social justice” that is both Islamic and democratic? According to the State Department, no problem.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

The Resilience of Israel Despite the mess around it, Israel is in its best geostrategic position in decades. By Victor Davis Hanson

Posted By on December 29th, 2016

Israel would seem to be in a disastrous position, given the inevitable nuclear capabilities of Iran and the recent deterioration of its relationship with the United States, its former patron and continued financial benefactor.

Immediately upon entering office, President Obama hectored Israel on so-called settlements. Obama promised to put “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel — and delivered on that promise.

Last week, the U.S. declined to veto, and therefore allowed to pass, a United Nations resolution that, among other things, isolates Israel internationally and condemns the construction of housing in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Obama has long been at odds with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Over objections from the Obama administration, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress last year about the existential dangers of the Obama-brokered Iran deal and the likelihood of a new Middle East nuclear-proliferation race.

Obama then doubled down on his irritation with Netanyahu through petty slights, such as making him wait during White House visits. In 2014, an official in the Obama administration anonymously said Netanyahu, a combat veteran, was a “coward” on Iran.

At a G-20 summit in Cannes, France, in 2011, Obama, in a hot-mic slip, trashed Netanyahu. He whined to French president Nicolas Sarkozy: “You’re tired of him? What about me? I have to deal with him every day.”

In contrast, Obama bragged about his “special” relationship with autocratic Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Never mind that Erdogan seems to want to reconstruct Turkey as a modern Islamist version of the Ottoman Empire, or that he is anti-democratic while Israel is a consensual society of laws.

The Middle East surrounding democratic Israel is a nightmare. Half a million have died amid the moonscape ruins of Syria. A once-stable Iraq was overrun by the Islamic State.

The Arab Spring, U.S. support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the coup of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to regain control of Egypt, and the bombing of Libya all have left North Africa in turmoil.

Iran has been empowered by the U.S.-brokered deal and will still become nuclear.

Russian president Vladimir Putin’s bombers blast civilians not far from Israel’s borders.

Democrats are considering Representative Keith Ellison as the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee despite his past ties to the Nation of Islam and his history of anti-Israel remarks.

Yet in all this mess, somehow Israel is in its best geostrategic position in decades. How?

The answer is a combination of unintended consequences, deft diplomacy, political upheavals in Europe and the United States, and Israel’s own democratic traditions.

Huge natural gas and oil finds off Israel’s Mediterranean coast and in the Golan Heights have radically changed Israel’s energy and financial positions. Israel no longer needs to import costly fossil fuels and may soon be an exporter of gas and oil to needy customers in Europe and the Middle East. (America recently became the world’s greatest producer of carbon energy and also no longer is dependent on Middle Eastern oil imports, resulting in less political influence by Arab nations.) Israel is creating its own version of Silicon Valley at Beersheba, which is now a global hub of cybersecurity research.

The Obama administration’s estrangement from Israel has had the odd effect of empowering Israel.

Rich Persian Gulf states see Obama as hostile both to Israel and to themselves, while he appeases the common enemy of majority-Shiite Iran.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Israel should leave the UN By G. Feygin see note please

Posted By on December 29th, 2016

I could not agree more. In fact I suggested it in the December Outpost and on Ruthfully yours…..http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2016/11/29/my-say-leave-the-un/

Who is to blame for the recent debacle in the U.N.? We shall not rehash details of Obama’s and Kerry’s ambush, nor of perfidious Albion’s tradition of genteel anti-Semitism. Nor shall we discuss the peculiar case of one of the resolution’s principal sponsors: New Zealand. How much are the indigenous Maoris enjoying their “legal occupation”? En passant, we will point out the absurdity of the Jewish prime minister of Ukraine ordering his ambassador to vote in favor of a resolution condemning Jewish possession of the Wailing Wall.

Instead, I blame Benjamin Netanyahu and every single one of his predecessors in the prime minister’s office. There have been more than enough blood libels perpetrated upon Jewish state, from the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution in the 1970s to the recent outrages at the UNESCO, at the U.N. Human Rights Council, etc. to justify suspension, if not outright withdrawal, of Israel from the U.N. membership.

Advantages of such an action are numerous.

Israel would no longer be subject to Security Council resolutions: no one would be able to accuse Israel of being in non-compliance with Resolution X and General Assembly condemnation Y.

All U.N. personnel would be deprived of diplomatic status in Israel and could be summarily removed. This would be particularly gratifying in the case of UNRWA, which has been caught in activities supporting terror on numerous occasions. Nor would a U.N. diplomatic passport serve as an enabling mechanism to interfere with security activities of Israeli police and the IDF.

The leftists would scream about Israel cutting itself off from the “community of nations.” To this our reply should be simply: “‘Community of nations’ is a Newspeak phrase to describe four wolves and a sheep voting on who is to be dinner, and we are tired of being a sheep.”

It is time for Israel to get rid of the self-imposed burden of U.N. membership. It should have been done 40 years ago, but better late than never.