Baby Boomers seem to enjoy borrowing money. At some point, however, someone confronted with having to pay off the debt will object since those future generations will not have had any say in the creation of the debt. What does the nation do when it reaches that point?

The last three presidents of the U.S. (George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump) have imposed  $22 trillion in additional National Debt out of a total of $29 trillion of debt. These three presidents are responsible for 76% of the nation’s entire National Debt from the founding of the Republic. Each person’s share of just the National Debt is $85,423 and for every household, it is $221,321. In his first year in office, President Biden (FY 2021) has increased the National Debt by $1.5 trillion and is now proposing many trillions more in new social programs.

At what point does this massive national debt become so burdensome that it is an unjust law on the citizens of the U.S. by placing them in servitude to the federal government?

There is a passage in Martin Luther King, Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, on unjust laws that should be mandatory reading for every lawmaker. It extends far beyond the heinous evils and unjust nature of racial discrimination. It is a timeless analysis of the fundamental attributes needed in structuring “just laws” in a democracy.

King is asked: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” He replied, “…there are two types of laws: there are just laws and there are unjust laws.” He explained the moral basis for the distinction. But it is his two examples of the differences that provide insight into structuring “just laws” in a democracy.

To Dr. King, an unjust law is a law the majority imposes on a minority but not on itself. A just law is one that applies to all equally.

Secondly, an unjust law is one inflicted upon a group that had no part in its passing; e.g., the group was deprived of the right to vote.

While these principles apply to racial discrimination, they can also be applied to the rapidly increasing, massive national debt that is being imposed on future generations who have not been given a “say” or “vote” in the process. Future generations are being told, “pay our bills.”

Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the National Debt. Actually, Republicans, through the Trump presidency, for all their righteous calls for fiscal restraint, are responsible for about 60% of the National Debt. Biden is quickly moving the split into a 50-50 tie. Both parties relish spending our money and using budget gimmicks to impose more debt on us while lying to our faces. For example, Congress and past administrations lie about the increasing debt by keeping the cost of continuing wars off the books or passing Continuing Resolutions.

It is highly unlikely that present politicians and voters will pay off this debt in their lifetimes. This means we citizens are living on the future productivity of those who have no ability to participate in creating the debt.

Other than the writings of Dr. King and a few leaders of peaceful resistance movements, the discussion of “unjust laws” is left for philosophers and ethicists. The immenseness of the national debt and its impact on future generations requires discussion today—especially by federal candidates.

The national debt could become so burdensome to future generations that it undermines democracy. We can no longer separate questions of morality from the consequences of legislative actions like thoughtless increases in the debt ceiling and new open-ended programs.

We can easily claim there is nothing we can do—our elected leaders control the budget, spending, and continuing increases in the debt ceiling. Moreover, those borrowed funds go to “good causes” supporters claim must be addressed, arguing it would be immoral not to take care of the least among us.

If the state imposed the full amount of taxes on citizens needed to pay for all the programs it provides, there would be a tax revolt against “unjust taxes.” Tax revolts have happened since the government first imposed taxes on people. But the accumulation of massive debt is different from imposing taxes on people. Accumulating and deferring the payment of debt allows the state to avoid taxing voters by shifting the cost of our wants to future generations.

Each dollar expended by us today without earning that dollar is a dollar our posterity will have to repay for us. Is there a point at which the debt imposed on future generations is so massive that it converts the social obligation of paying reasonable taxes into involuntary servitude to the government?

Citizens in a democracy are responsible for the actions of the state. Those taking state action are our servants. We have the ability through our vote to control them.  As we continue to amass debt, we are telling future generations they “have no rights.” This is the essence of an “unjust law.” Worse than being a Kakistocracy, we are becoming an unjust country that is willing to inflict servitude upon future generations so that we can avoid living within our means.

The post $30 Trillion National Debt is an Unjust Law to Our Children appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Rose Corkery on April 20, 2021

Former President George W. Bush commented on the present-day Republican Party on Tuesday and said it wasn’t what he had envisioned.

“I would describe it as isolationist, protectionist and to a certain extent nativist,” Bush said on “The TODAY Show.” The former president said that the GOP’s platform is not what he had envisioned now that he is not actively engaged in Washington, D.C., politics.

“Well it’s not exactly my vision, but you know, I’m just an old guy they put out to pasture so just a simple painter,” Bush said.

Bush proposed solutions to the current migrant crisis, including revamping the U.S.’ asylum system and retooling worker visas, as there are a plethora of unfilled jobs across the country many hard working immigrants could fill.

Bush noted some Republicans have refused to listen to his solutions regarding immigration reform. He said that when he was in office, some Democrats hadn’t listened to him “because you can score political points with the issue.”

The former president denounced the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and said when Biden was sworn into office, “the results of this election, though, were confirmed,” in another interview for the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference, according to USA Today.

WATCH:

Bush said the 2020 election hadn’t been stolen during the SXSW conference, USA Today reported.

“It did make me sick, I felt ill and I just couldn’t believe it,” Bush said on “The TODAY Show.” “You know, but the truth of the matter is, I was optimistic that we would survive that because I believe so strongly in the institutional stability of our country.”

“And it did survive, the Congress met, ratified the election, the courts met and are still meeting today to hold people to account for storming the Capitol,” the former president said.

The former president voiced his concern about people spreading misinformation. Bush said he doesn’t know what can be done about misinformation and added that he doesn’t use social media platforms.

The post George Bush Calls Republican Party ‘Isolationist, Protectionist, And To A Certain Extent Nativist’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

What has come to be colloquially known as the ‘anti-war left’ arguably saw its rise during the Vietnam War. Protesters were usually more left-leaning populations such as college students, African-Americans, women, and the arts community. The movement was so broad-sweeping that public opinion quickly turned against the Vietnam War. It all hit a fever pitch when Alaska Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers to the press for a subcommittee he chaired.

The anti-war left endured through the end of the Cold War and helped, in part, to elect Bill Clinton. While Clinton was no exemplar for non-interventionism, he rarely deployed troops and came closer than any other president to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And while a good portion of Democratic congressmen and women voted for the Iraq War, the anti-war left soon reemerged.

It was this wave that Barack Obama rode to the 2008 Democratic nomination. Of course, Obama’s actual foreign policy agenda was more akin to George W Bush’s than Clinton’s. And ever since then, the anti-war left has been fading away.

The United States now has a president who is sometimes anti-war. In other words, he seems to be inclined to avoid military force, but occasionally Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton convince him otherwise.

Yet, while President Trump is doing what no other president has done by stepping foot in North Korea, Democrats are sharply criticizing him for it. Sure, Trump doing everything short of tweeting kissy face emojis at Kim Jong-Un is concerning given what the North Korean dictator has done. But that doesn’t change how monumental it is that US-North Korean relations have improved so much in a relatively short period of time.

It seems like forever ago when Trump called Kim “rocketman”, but it has actually been less than two years. Some people (myself included) might object to the very notion of carrying out foreign policy by tweet, but it’s undeniable that the US has a better relationship with North Korea than it ever has.

Apparently that’s not good enough, though.

Several Democratic presidential candidates have taken the opportunity to slam Trump for the meeting. Julian Castro said, “It’s worrisome that this president erratically sets up a meeting without the staff work being done, it seems like it’s all for show, it’s not substantive.” Kamala Harris used the meeting as an excuse to call Trump the biggest national security threat to the US.

A Joe Biden’s spokesman said, “President Trump’s coddling of dictators at the expense of American national security and interests is one of the most dangerous ways he’s diminishing us on the world stage and subverting our values as a nation.” Even Bernie Sanders, who has a well-established anti-war record, was critical of the meeting, stating, “We need real diplomacy. What’s going to happen tomorrow and the next day?”

Of course, all of these individuals were quick to criticize Trump for antagonizing Kim two years ago.

This all goes to show that, sadly, the anti-war left is dead and gone. All it takes to see this is a look at the 2020 candidates.

The only candidates to make non-interventionist foreign policy a core part of their platform are Tulsi Gabbard and the aforementioned Gravel. I’ve already talked about how Gabbard is being sidelined in the race., and Gravel couldn’t even qualify for the first two debates despite the integral role he played in opposing the Vietnam War.

Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both say they’re against military interventions, but rarely speak about it. The rest of the candidates have varying degrees of history in supporting interventionist practices, but haven’t really taken a stand one way or the other for their campaigns. It seems as if the approach is just “Whatever Trump is doing is bad.”

While that might play to the base, it’s lacking any real foreign policy. To quote a certain democratic socialist, “What’s going to happen tomorrow and the next day?”

Cindy Sheehan, a notable anti-war activist, echoed this idea during the Obama years in saying, “The ‘anti-war left’ was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’ movement.”

It’s not really surprising that Trump has these inclinations of anti-war sentiment. He was a registered Democrat all the way up until 1987, and then again from 2001 to 2009. That overlaps with two of the biggest eras of the anti-war left: opposition to the Vietnam War and the broader Cold War, and opposition to the Iraq War.

While Trump’s party affiliation has been malleable, so too has the left’s dedication to their anti-war principles. Democrats in Congress didn’t seem to care when the Obama administration destabilized Libya or killed thousands of civilians via drone strikes.

Now, it seems that Democrats don’t care about South Korean President Moon Jae-in declaring a new “era of peace,” or that North Korean media described the DMZ meeting as “a new history of reconciliation and peace.”

It’s clear that the anti-war left is gone. As Sheehan said, it’s now all about opposing the Republicans, even if that means opposing peace.

In the words of George Orwell, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. “

The post Democrats’ Criticism of Trump-Kim Meeting Confirms It: The Anti-War Left is Dead appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Hanna Bogorowski on December 8, 2018

• George H.W. Bush was laid to rest Wednesday alongside his wife, Barbara and daughter, Robin.
• Their 73 years of marriage saw everything from the Oval Offices to near-death experiences in World Wars to the birth of six children, 17 grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.
• Beginning even before Bush himself, a political dynasty has grown with the Bush name.

George Herbert Walker Bush was 17-years-old when he met his wife, Barbara Pierce, at a Christmas dance in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Barbara was 16, wearing a red and green dress, when she was introduced to her future husband of 73 years. Barbara passed in April of 2018, and George was laid to rest Thursday alongside her.

The pair became the longest married presidential couple to date, and in those years they built a political dynasty of a family that continues to influence the United States and the world today.

The Bushes brought six children into the world, who then had 17 grandchildren, who then had their eight great-grandchildren. Many in the Bush family tree followed George’s footsteps into politics, with one serving as Texas Land Commissioner, another governor of Florida and one even as president.

George himself was the son of a senator, Prescott Bush of Connecticut.

When George and Barbara met, George was a senior in high school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, and Barbara was in boarding school in South Carolina.

Barbara would eventually drop out of college at the age of 19 to be closer to George, a decision she rarely regretted but had to answer for to critics when she eventually became first lady.

“I thought he was the most beautiful creature I had ever laid eyes on,” Barbara once said of George. “I couldn’t even breathe when he was in the room.”

One of the many letters Barbara and George would send each other while George was stationed overseas serving in the Navy in World War II appears to sum up the couple’s love.

Dated Dec. 12, 1943: “I love you precious with all my heart, and to know that you love me, means my life.”

The future president and first lady would go on to have six children: George, Robin, Jeb, Neil, Marvin and Dorothy.

The couple’s eldest son is George Walker Bush, a two-term governor of Texas and then a two-term president of the United States.

Robin, George and Barbara’s first daughter, died at the age of three from leukemia.

Next in the political dynasty is John Ellis Bush, or Jeb, who served as the governor of Florida for eight years and also took a swing at the presidency in 2016.

Neil and Marvin turned into successful businessmen and investors, and Dorothy became an author and philanthropist.

The five living children gave George and Barbara 17 grandchildren, who like their parents and grandparents, forged successful paths in politics, business and philanthropy.

George W. Bush married Laura Lane Welch and the two have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna.

Barbara, the granddaughter, is a co-founder and board chair of the non-profit Global Health Corps and married screenwriter Craig Coyne in 2018.

Jenna married businessman Henry Chase Hager in 2008 and is a mother of two. She is a journalist, television personality and teacher.

Jeb met his future wife, Columba Garnica Gallo, in Mexico in 1970 while he was teaching English for a foreign exchange program. The two have three kids: George Prescott, Noelle Lucila and Jeb Jr.

George Prescott Bush followed his family’s political lead and was elected Texas Land Commissioner in 2014.

George and Barbara’s third son, Neil, is a Texas businessman with three kids of his own, including Lauren Bush, who is married to the son of multi-billion dollar fashion designer Ralph Lauren.

The Bush’s fourth and final son Marvin, is also a successful businessman with two kids.

The only living daughter of George and Barbara is Dorothy Bush Koch, an author and philanthropist with four kids from two marriages. She is married to Robert Koch, a former aide to a House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt.

George and Barbara and their daughter Robin now lay alongside each other at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.

Follow Hanna on Twitter

Email tips to hanna@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2018 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post A Look At The Political Dynasty George HW Bush Leaves Behind appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Brad Sylvester on December 7, 2018

A meme posted on Facebook by David J. Harris Jr., who has nearly 500,000 followers and often posts conservative content, claims that a quote expressing support for stricter border control is attributable to former President Barack Obama. The meme was shared almost 20,000 times.

“Those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws,” reads the quote.

Verdict: True

Then-Sen. Obama made the statement while speaking about immigration on the Senate floor on April 3, 2006. While Obama spoke positively of immigrants, he was critical of illegal immigration.

Fact Check:

At the time of the speech, the Senate was debating the proposed Securing America’s Borders Act, a bill that would have, among other measures, replaced and expanded fencing along the southern border. A number of senators spoke about the bill and immigration in general, including Obama, then a senator from Illinois.

“Those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we cannot allow people to pour into the U.S. undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws,” he said in the speech.

His actual words were slightly different than the quote attributed to him in the meme – Obama never used the word “simply,” and he abbreviated “United States” during his remarks.

Obama continued his speech by pointing out that “while security might start at our borders, it doesn’t end there,” pivoting to a pitch for immigration reform that addressed illegal immigrants already in the country. They must “acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong” and pay a penalty before being granted a path to citizenship, argued Obama in the speech.

The bill ultimately died in the Senate.

Obama made similar statements on several other occasions. In a 2005 joint press conference with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, he advocated for bipartisan immigration reform, at one point stating that “we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States, undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

In his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama expressed concern over the economic impact of immigration.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” he wrote. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole – especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan – it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

Obama also voted in favor of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, a bill that authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing and barriers along the southern border. The bill passed in the Senate in a 80 to 19 vote and was signed into law that October by President George W. Bush.

Even as Obama opposed illegal immigration, he said at the time that immigrant communities “enrich our cities” and spoke positively about having an “open nation.”

In should be noted that in 2005 and 2006, political opinions on immigration were quite different than they are today. Border security could be considered a bipartisan issue in those days, garnering significant support from both Republicans and Democrats. In 2006, about 40 percent of Democrats were in favor of building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, as opposed to less than 10 percent in 2017, according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight.

As president, Obama left a mixed legacy on immigration.

On one hand, he cracked down on illegal immigration, removing around 3 million illegal immigrants from the country, more than any other president.

Yet on the other hand, he crafted and implemented Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a program that gave quasi-legal status and work permits to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

A couple years later, Obama attempted to use another executive action to expand protections for illegal immigrants by implementing Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, also known as DAPA. The program would have protected millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, but it was challenged and ultimately defeated in the courts.

Obama’s rhetoric towards immigration was generally positive during his presidency.

“We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants,” he said in a 2013 public address. “The promise we find in those who come from every corner of the globe has always been one of our greatest strengths. It’s kept our workforce vibrant and dynamic.”

Nonetheless, as Obama continued to push for immigration reform as president, there were still echoes of his earlier remarks.

“Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws,” Obama said while announcing DAPA in 2014. “We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded.”

Follow Brad on Twitter

Have a fact check suggestion? Send ideas to brad@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2018 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post FACT CHECK: Did Obama Say That Illegal Immigrants ‘Disrespect The Rule Of Law’? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Nick Givas

Former President George W. Bush called former President Bill Clinton “a brother with a different mother,” while speaking at the leadership summit in Dallas Thursday, CBS News reports.

The former presidents spoke on issues related to their time in the White House, with Clinton warning future generations about the double edge sword of technology in the age of digital information. The discussion developed a personal tone when both were asked about their lives outside the White House.

Clinton said his three-year-old granddaughter sang happy birthday to his grandson at a party recently. Bush interrupted, “Can your granddaughter sing happy birthday in Mandarin? Mine can.”

Clinton smiled and said, “No but she can sing it in Spanish.”

Bush was asked why he has a friendship with Clinton, prompting Bush to say he’s “a brother with a different mother.”

This isn’t the first time the Republican has used that term to describe Clinton. In 2014, he called Clinton a “brother from another mother” on Instagram.

Thanks, 42! Hope you like the book about your pal, #41. #HowAreYouSTILLNotOnInstagram #PresidentialGrammers #BrotherFromAnotherMother”

WATCH:

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post George W. Bush Calls Clinton a ‘Brother With A Different Mother’ AGAIN [VIDEO] appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Thomas Phippen

Former President Barack Obama has an active role in rebuilding the Democratic party, The Hill reported Sunday.

Obama, who left office January 20, has regular “check ins” with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, one aide told The Hill. He will campaign for Democratic candidates this fall and publicly decried the Republican plan to replace Obamacare. (RELATED: Obama Trashes Senate GOP Health Care Bill)

The former president has a larger role behind the scenes of the Democratic party. He’s met privately with various lawmakers who are trying to build party consensus after a devastating presidential election in 2016 and multiple defeats in special elections this spring.

“[Obama] doesn’t want the focus to be on him,” one source close to Obama said. “He doesn’t want to be out in front.”

During one conversation with Perez, Obama said “Hey man, it’s only the future of the world in your hands,” a DNC staffer told The Hill.

Obama’s staff confirmed that the president would return to the campaign trail this fall to stump for Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. (RELATED: Obama Going Back To Campaigning Months After Leaving Office)

It’s normal for former presidents to take some time away from politics after leaving office, but usually they return to the public sphere. After leaving office in 2001, Clinton considered seeking a post at the U.N. but worked to build up the Clinton Foundation instead while his wife Hillary Clinton went into electoral politics.

George W. Bush took a different approach and has largely avoided the public sphere for private life on his Texas ranch.

“Well the other person who has served as a role model for me for a long time was George H. W. Bush, who famously said once you leave the stage you stay off the stage, and I thought long and hard about that,” Bush said at The Hoover Institute in 2012. “And decided that not being on the stage was something I am comfortable with.”

Follow Thomas Phippen on Twitter

Send tips to thomas@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Obama Still Keeps Regular ‘Check Ins’ With DNC Chairman appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Kevin Daley

Nearly 200 congressional Democrats have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, alleging the Trump Organization’s business dealings with foreign governments violates the Constitution.

The lawsuit has the greatest number of congressional plaintiffs of any lawsuit against the president, and has few analogues in the history of the country.

“We do this not out of any sense of pleasure or partisanship, but because President Trump has left us with no other option,” said Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Though the Constitution does not preclude federal office-holders from doing business with foreign powers, the little-known and rarely litigated Article I emoluments clause forbids public officials from accepting gifts of value or receiving special treatment in commercial dealings with foreign interests without the approval of Congress.

According to court filings, the president’s eponymous Trump Organization is composed of some 500 separate entities spanning two dozen countries, many of whom do business with foreign governments. Congressional Democrats contend that Trump has violated the emoluments clause because these entities — from which he is not divested — have done business with foreign governments.

The forthcoming litigation is the latest in a series of suits lodged against Trump over emoluments. The first such lawsuit was organized in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an advocacy group formerly led by Clinton aide David Brock. A number of accomplished lawyers and legal scholars are participating in the effort, including Laurence Tribe, the legendary Harvard Law School professor; Erwin Chemerinsky, incoming dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley; and Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House.

CREW’s lawsuit faces a significant procedural challenge over standing, which requires them to demonstrate that they are injured in some fashion by the Trump Organization’s dealings with foreign governments. What’s more, that injury must be a specific and particularized, not generalized or theoretical harm.

Those involved in litigation brought by congressional Democrats say that they will encounter no such standing issues, because of the special status the emoluments clause grants Congress in such controversies.

“The Framers of our Constitution gave members of Congress the responsibility to protect our democracy from foreign corruption by determining which benefits the president can and cannot receive from a foreign state,” Chemerinsky said. “When the president refuses to reveal which benefits he is receiving — much less obtain congressional consent before accepting them — he robs these members of their ability to perform their constitutional role.”

The lead senator filing the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Blumenthal served as the state’s attorney general for over 20 years, and clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post UNPRECEDENTED: 200 Congressional Democrats Sue Trump appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Ted Goodman

The U.S. is expected to issue an ultimatum to the United Nations Human Rights Council Tuesday: either remove anti-Israeli bias or America may withdraw.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Saturday that Washington would decide whether to withdraw after a three-week session in Geneva, Switzerland wraps up this month, according to Reuters.

“When the council passes more than 70 resolutions against Israel, a country with a strong human rights record, and just seven resolutions against Iran, a country with an abysmal human rights record, you know something is seriously wrong,” Haley said in a Washington Post op-ed.

U.S. Diplomat Michele Sison spoke out against what the U.S. considers “unfair singling out of Israel” during a closed session of the U.N. Security Council May 24. The U.S. has long been a critic of the council, leading to a three-year boycott from 2006 to 2009 under former President George W. Bush.

The Trump administration took issue with the most recent U.N. report that asserted Israel was endangering the territorial viability of a potential sovereign Palestine by vastly accelerating the pace of housing announcements for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The U.S. historically vetoed U.N. Security Council resolutions that condemned Israel for years. That pattern changed in December when former President Barack Obama’s administration allowed a critical resolution to take effect by abstaining rather than vetoing the resolution.

Western nations and allies are responding now that the Trump administration is putting the U.N. on notice. Eight groups, according to Reuters, wrote to Haley in May, saying that withdrawal would actually hurt Israel more than it would help, according to Reuters.

Haley made it clear that the U.S. is looking for the U.N. to make some changes within the Council in order for it to feel comfortable as a member.

Haley also asserted that membership on the Council must be determined through competitive voting, in order to keep human rights abusers from obtaining seats. “As it stands, regional blocs nominate candidates that are uncontested,” she explained in the op-ed. “Competition would force a candidate’s human rights record to be considered before votes were cast.”

Follow Ted on Twitter

Send Tips to ted@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post US To UN Human Rights Council: End Anti-Israeli Bias Or We’re Out appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Phillip Stucky

Stat News published an article Tuesday that accuses President Donald Trump of mental decline, despite the fact that none of the experts referenced in the article agreed with the premise.

Senior Science writer Sharon Begley asserted that the president currently has a different speaking style than he had during interviews in the mid-1990s. She then took her “analysis” to several experts who essentially reported if there was a difference, it could be as a result of a declining mental capacity.

“Here are clearly some changes in Trump as a speaker,” New York City psychologist Ben Michaelis told Stat News. “Clear reduction in linguistic sophistication over time,” with “simpler word choices and sentence structure. … In fairness to Trump, he’s 70, so some decline in his cognitive functioning over time would be expected.”

The expert then offered that the change in speaking styles could be a result of a strategy to have a greater appeal to voters.

“He may be using it as a strategy to appeal to certain types of people,” Michaelis added.

There’s actually a lot to back up that theory. Carnegie Mellon University published a survey in March 2016 that analyzed the graded reading level of president’s political speeches. It rated Trump’s words to date as within a 6th to 8th-grade reading level, the sweet spot for successful politicians looking to voice their message to a wide audience.

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were also rated in that same range. Vermont Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders’s grammatical usage also fell within that area, according to the report.

Psychologist John Montgomery has a different theory, however.

“It’s hard to say definitively without rigorous testing of Trump’s speaking patterns, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that Trump has had significant cognitive decline over the years.”

The president is currently 71. Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is 69, and Sanders, who campaigned against Clinton in the presidential primary, is 75.

New Media start-up AXIOS highlighted the article in its daily newsletter, praising Begley for the analysis, and saying that the issue is “one of the most difficult topics for any journalist to take on.”

“Medical experts are hesitant to evaluate someone they’ve never seen as a patient,” AXIOS creator Mike Allen wrote in his newsletter. “If you haven’t seen ’90s-era Trump, ad all you know is what you hear now, the difference is pretty startling.”

Sharon Begley didn’t immediately return a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Follow Phillip On Twitter

Have a Tip? Let us Know

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Journalist Accuses Trump Of Cognitive Decline appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.