Conservative Blogger
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Israel's Netanyahu calls on US to veto UN's anti-settlement resolution
UN's anti-settlement resolution
This March 14, 2011 file photo shows a general
view of a construction site in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Modiin
Illit.
(AP/Oded Balilty, File)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the
U.S. to use its veto power to block a United Nations resolution
demanding a halt to Israeli settlement activities in Palestinian
territory and declares that all existing settlements "have no legal
validity" and are "a flagrant violation" of international law.
The draft resolution, circulated by Egypt, also stresses that "the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-state solution" which would see Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in peace.
The U.S. vetoed a similar resolution in 2011, but it was not immediately clear how U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power would vote Thursday.
The U.N. Security Council has scheduled a 3 p.m. ET meeting to vote on the resolution. The U.S., along with China, France, Great Britain and Russia, is one of five permanent Security Council members with the power to kill any resolution.
Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon said the resolution "will do nothing to promote a diplomatic process, and will only reward the Palestinian policy of incitement and terror."
"We expect our greatest ally not to allow this one-sided and anti-Israel resolution to be adopted by the council," he said.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. ambassador, has said a cessation of all Israeli settlement activities and an end to its nearly 50-year occupation of Palestinian territory are necessary for a comprehensive peace agreement. Netanyahu has rejected those terms, saying negotiations should take place without conditions.
In September, the international diplomatic "quartet" of Mideast peacemakers called for Israel and the Palestinians to take steps to resume stalled peace talks.
But the gaps between Israeli and Palestinian leaders remain wide, preventing any meaningful talks since 2009.
The draft resolution calls for intensified and accelerated international and regional diplomatic efforts "aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
New Zealand, a non-permanent council member, has been pushing a separate resolution that would set out the parameters of a peace settlement.
The draft resolution, circulated by Egypt, also stresses that "the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-state solution" which would see Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in peace.
The U.S. vetoed a similar resolution in 2011, but it was not immediately clear how U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power would vote Thursday.
The U.N. Security Council has scheduled a 3 p.m. ET meeting to vote on the resolution. The U.S., along with China, France, Great Britain and Russia, is one of five permanent Security Council members with the power to kill any resolution.
Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon said the resolution "will do nothing to promote a diplomatic process, and will only reward the Palestinian policy of incitement and terror."
"We expect our greatest ally not to allow this one-sided and anti-Israel resolution to be adopted by the council," he said.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. ambassador, has said a cessation of all Israeli settlement activities and an end to its nearly 50-year occupation of Palestinian territory are necessary for a comprehensive peace agreement. Netanyahu has rejected those terms, saying negotiations should take place without conditions.
In September, the international diplomatic "quartet" of Mideast peacemakers called for Israel and the Palestinians to take steps to resume stalled peace talks.
But the gaps between Israeli and Palestinian leaders remain wide, preventing any meaningful talks since 2009.
The draft resolution calls for intensified and accelerated international and regional diplomatic efforts "aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
New Zealand, a non-permanent council member, has been pushing a separate resolution that would set out the parameters of a peace settlement.
Showdown looms between Trump administration, sanctuary cities
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, a major showdown looms between his administration and cities across the country over one of his hallmark campaign issues: illegal immigration.
At the Southern border, agents are on pace to apprehend almost 600,000 illegal immigrants, the highest number in eight years. The surge is coming largely from Central American migrants, far outpacing those from Mexico.
"They're mobilizing because they don't know what tomorrow will bring, but know today they can cross,” said Chris Cabrera, of the National Border Patrol Council.
Many illegal immigrants from Central America indeed have been motivated to make the trek after word traveled under the Obama administration that some could request asylum, claiming a “credible fear” of persecution should they return home.
But another driver is the knowledge that certain major cities offer “sanctuary” protections from deportation. Those same cities are now gearing up to fight on their illegal immigrant residents’ behalf against the incoming president.
In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the creation of the L.A. Justice Fund, a multi-million dollar fund to provide legal assistance to immigrants facing deportation.
“The reason it was important for us to act is we will have a change in government next month,” he said. “We expect there could be actions right away.”
In announcing the fund, Garcetti vowed to fight for the “good and law-abiding immigrants of Los Angeles.” Asked if those with a criminal record would be excluded, however, he said no.
But such cities could be in for a major battle with the Trump administration, following campaign vows to deny federal funds to sanctuary cities.
Texas GOP Rep. John Culberson says federal law prohibits local and state law enforcement from refusing to share immigration status information with federal authorities. He believes the law will give Trump the power to follow through in denying funds to sanctuary cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.
“The president can cut off their money at noon on January 20, 2017 if they do not change their sanctuary policy and hand over criminal illegal aliens in their custody to be deported,” Culberson told Fox News.
Culberson, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Department of Justice, added that President Obama’s attorney general not only is aware of the policy, but signed off on tying suspected violations to potential financial penalties.
“I quietly persuaded Attorney General Loretta Lynch to implement this new policy this past July,” he said. “So it’s already done.”
The Immigration Legal Resource Center disagrees, arguing that certain sanctuary policies do not violate federal law.
This gap in interpretation sets up a battle with 100 or so cities that stand to lose substantial federal funds should they refuse to cooperate in the Trump administration’s promised deportation efforts.
The traffic at the border, meanwhile, continues to surge.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports that last month alone, agents arrested 7,406 unaccompanied children and 15,573 families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, a significant surge compared with the same month one year ago, when the agency apprehended 5,604 children and 6,471 families.
Under current policy for those seeking asylum, Border Patrol agents are required to process the immigrants for their day in court, which entitles them to a work permit and a plane or bus ticket to stay with relatives until it’s time to see an immigration judge. The typical wait-time is four to five years and, according to government data, up to 80 percent never show up.
The federal agency that handles deportations is spending, on average, $665 per juvenile to pay for travel to relatives in the U.S. or back home if they’re deported, according to calculations by the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a government watchdog group. That puts the current taxpayer cost at roughly $5 million a month.
With monthly apprehensions at a five-year high, border agents say they are slammed.
"We're not a deterrent because they're looking for us, so we can be standing there and [the smuggler will] still send them across," said Texas-based agent Marlene Castro. "It's been a group, and then maybe five minutes later another group, and then half an hour later you'll see another one."
Trump’s Team: Who’s who in president-elect’s Cabinet, White House
President-elect Donald Trump has quickly announced
his picks for key Cabinet and White House positions since the November
election. The following are his selections so far – Cabinet nominees are
subject to Senate confirmation.
Cabinet-level positions
Individuals Trump intends to nominate
Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State
Rick Perry
Secretary of Energy
Former Texas governor; former Texas agriculture commissioner, two-time presidential candidate
Ryan Zinke
Secretary of Interior
U.S. representative, Montana; member of House Natural Resources Committee; former Navy SEAL
James Mattis
Secretary of Defense
Retired Marine general; former commander of U.S. Central Command
Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of Treasury
Trump campaign finance chairman; former Goldman Sachs partner; Hollywood producer
Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. senator, Alabama
Ben Carson
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital; 2016 candidate for president
Wilbur Ross
Secretary of Commerce
Investor; former banker
Tom Price
Secretary of Health and Human Services
U.S. representative, Georgia; chairman of House Budget Committee; orthopedic surgeon
Betsy DeVos
Secretary of Education
Charter school advocate; philanthropist; Republican donor
Elaine Chao
Secretary of Transportation
Former Labor secretary
Nikki Haley
U.S. Ambassador to United Nations
Governor of South Carolina
Andrew Puzder
Secretary of Labor
CEO, CKE Restaurants Inc.
John Kelly
Secretary of Homeland Security
Retired Marine general; former commander of U.S. Southern Command
Scott Pruitt
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Oklahoma attorney general; former state senator
Mick Mulvaney
Director of Office of Management and Budget
U.S. representative, South Carolina; former South Carolina state senator and representative
Linda McMahon
Administrator of the Small Business Administration
Former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment
White House
Individuals Trump has appointed
Reince Priebus
Chief of Staff
Chairman of Republican National Committee
Michael Flynn
National Security Adviser
Former director of Defense Intelligence Agency; retired Army lieutenant general
Stephen K. Bannon
Chief Strategist
Executive chairman of Breitbart News
Donald McGahn
White House Counsel
Former member of the Federal Election Commission
Boeing CEO vows to build new Air Force One for less after Trump complaints
The CEO of Boeing told President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday that his company can build a new Air Force One for less than originally quoted -- after Trump complained about the cost.
Earlier this month, Trump made headlines for blasting the company on Twitter for alleged cost overruns with the new fleet of Air Force One planes.
Trump called on the government to cancel the contract and called the supposed $4 billion price tag out of control.
Boeing’s Dennis Muilenburg, who met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., addressed the media after the meeting and said, “We’re going to get it done for less than that, and we’re committed to working together to make sure that happens.”
Anthony Scaramucci, a Trump adviser the founder of SkyBridge Capital, tweeted about the price reduction and called it a “big win for taxpayers.”
Trump also met Wednesday with Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Marillyn Hewson after he criticized the cost of its F-35.
"Trying to get the costs down, costs. Primarily the F-35...we're trying to get the cost down. It's a program that's very, very expensive,'' Trump told reporters.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
BIAS ALERT: Slate switches from defense of Electoral College to calling it a tool of white supremacy
What a difference four years and Donald Trump's victory make for the liberal site Slate.
Slate published a piece in November 2012 called "In Defense of the Electoral College" that lists five reasons why the system, which allows state electors to ultimately select the future president whether or not that person won the popular vote, is actually great for democracy.
Those reasons include the "certainty of outcome" and being able to avoid run-off elections.
Of course, that was published in the wake of President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney. The left-leaning site is singing a very different tune this year.
Slate published a new piece a few days after this year's election calling the Electoral College an "instrument of white supremacy and sexism."
The writer claims that the Electoral College was used to both perpetuate slavery, through the Three-Fifths Clause that was eventually abolished, and delay the advancement of women's suffrage.
How do the folks at Slate justify this about-face?
They don't, of course. But they do encourage readers to embrace the idea of abolishing the Electoral College entirely.
Slate published a piece in November 2012 called "In Defense of the Electoral College" that lists five reasons why the system, which allows state electors to ultimately select the future president whether or not that person won the popular vote, is actually great for democracy.
Those reasons include the "certainty of outcome" and being able to avoid run-off elections.
Of course, that was published in the wake of President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney. The left-leaning site is singing a very different tune this year.
Slate published a new piece a few days after this year's election calling the Electoral College an "instrument of white supremacy and sexism."
The writer claims that the Electoral College was used to both perpetuate slavery, through the Three-Fifths Clause that was eventually abolished, and delay the advancement of women's suffrage.
How do the folks at Slate justify this about-face?
They don't, of course. But they do encourage readers to embrace the idea of abolishing the Electoral College entirely.
'Next idea?' After Electoral College fail, anti-Trump forces look for new cause
 |
| Idiots |
A last-ditch effort by die-hard Donald Trump foes to derail the president-elect’s victory in the Electoral College fell flat Monday, leaving the never-Trump movement licking its wounds and looking to 2017 for ways to thwart Trump’s presidency and agenda.
The push to deny Trump the requisite 270 electors and send the election to the House of Representatives seemingly was doomed from the start, though it received significant media attention. In the end, only two Republican electors broke ranks – more defected on the Democratic side from Hillary Clinton.
What comes next for anti-Trumpers isn't entirely clear.
Some are preparing to attack him over his business ties, while the "I" word already is being bandied about.
Liberal filmmaker and activist Michael Moore tried to crowdsource ideas after the Electoral College flop, asking, “He's not president for four and a half weeks. Next idea?”
The Hamilton Electors – the group of electors behind the push to deny Trump 270 votes – published a statement Monday indicating their fight was not over, urging supporters to "stay tuned."
“Hamilton Electors hope this watershed moment will lay the groundwork for the emerging grassroots resistance to Trump’s agenda,” the statement read.
Texas Republican elector Chris Suprun, who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Monday, hinted that a push for Trump's impeachment could be in the works.
“As a person who has always played fast and loose with the law, Trump will likely be impeached within the first year of his Presidency by responsible Republicans in Congress. For the rest of us Americans, his presence in the Oval Office represents a crisis for the Constitution, the economy and the country,” he said in the statement.
Republican lawmakers and mainstream conservative voices for the most part have indicated they're ready to work with Trump. Some were buoyed by conservative picks in his Cabinet such as Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., for Health and Human Services secretary and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., for attorney general.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton, too, signaled immediately after the election that Democrats should give Trump a chance.
But some Trump critics remain, if nothing else, on high alert for any constitutional violations from the Trump presidency.
Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin tweeted Tuesday what he called a “call to action” from Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter. Gerson called on citizens to defend the legislature and judiciary from “any encroachment,” and defend people from “organized oppression, including Muslims and refugees.”
With Trump's inauguration now inevitable, his foes may turn next to battling his Cabinet picks.
Some dissent has been bubbling over the choice of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of State, with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., warning that Tillerson’s relationship with Russia is “a matter of concern for me.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and other Democratic allies also are eyeing a fight over Trump’s business interests. Last week, five Democratic senators including Warren announced they would introduce legislation to require Trump to divest assets that could be a conflict of interest, and put them into a blind trust.
Sens. Ben Cardin, D-Md., Chris Coons, D-Del., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., are all backing the bill, which would deem a violation of conflict-of-interest laws “a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
"The American people do not want the President encumbered by conflicts of interest that put him in violation of the Constitution or US law," Cardin said in a statement.
This isn’t the only sign Democratic lawmakers are gearing up for an impeachment threat sometime in the future. Politico reported Wednesday that House Democrats have held a mock hearing on Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest, using staging, television cameras and testimony from witnesses.
The narrative that Trump could run afoul of the Emoluments Clause -- which bars government officials from receiving gifts from foreign states -- is gaining support from some progressive voices.
GQ’s Keith Olbermann said in a video that Trump is a “moving, breathing conflict of interest who will likely be guilty of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors within hours if not minutes of his inauguration.”
Olbermann went one step further, advising Americans: "Never address Trump as president. He is Trump. Just Trump. Never president."
Former 2000 Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader also wrote an open letter (published in the Huffington Post) earlier this month telling Trump to divest or face impeachment.
“The only appropriate response is to completely divest on December 15 and therefore avoid potentially becoming a walking Article of Impeachment beginning on January 20,” he said.
Republican officials, meanwhile, argue it's time for those fighting his presidency to stand back.
After the Electoral College decision on Monday, RNC Co-Chair Sharon Day said in a statement:
“This historic election is now officially over and I look forward to President-elect Trump taking the oath of office in January. Our unified Republican government will hit the ground running next year so we can deliver real change and make America great again. For the good of the country, Democrats must stop their cynical attempts to undermine the legitimacy of this election, which Donald Trump won decisively in the Electoral College with more votes than any Republican since 1988.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
