Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

Controversial train station in Jerusalem to be named after Donald Trump

Published

on

Controversial train station in Jerusalem to be named after Donald Trump

When President Trump declared the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he certainly expected to receive praise from officials and citizens in the Jewish state. What he may not have anticipated was having his name enshrined in the most controversial train station in the country, one that is being planned for the heart of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Israeli Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz said Tuesday the station would be named after the U.S. President who accepted what Israelis have known for millennia. Like the city itself, the station will be contested by the international community for antagonizing Palestinians. When complete, it will give a direct connection between Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv to the Western Wall. With a top speed of around 100 mph, it will cut travel time between the airport and Israel’s most popular tourist attraction to 28 minutes.

“The Western Wall is the holiest place for the Jewish people,” Katz said. “I decided to name the train station leading to it after US President Donald Trump, following his brave and historic decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders applauded the name.

Further Reading

Planned Western Wall train station to be named for Trump — minister

https://www.timesofisrael.com/planned-western-wall-train-station-to-be-named-for-trump-minister/Transportation Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadia said Wednesday the project is estimated to cost more than $700 million and, if approved, would take four years to complete.

Katz’s office said in a statement that the minister advanced the plan in a recent meeting with Israel Railways executives, and has fast-tracked it in the planning committees.

Katz said a high-speed rail station would allow visitors to reach “the beating heart of the Jewish people — the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.” He proposed naming the future station after Trump “for his brave and historic decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital” earlier this month.

Call me old fashioned by I just got into social media recently. Yes, I'm that gal you see at the real coffee shop (aka not Starbucks) with an actual book. Returning to my roots in journalism now that technology allows me to do so from the comfort of my own gazebo.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. ed

    December 27, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    It will take 4 years to complete ? Good – plenty of time to rename it after a true leader or a Biblical event / location.

    In the short term, naming it after Trump massages Trumps’ ego and could well gain the Israelis more favorable actions by our Narcissist-in-Chief.

    Before the Trump pom-poms start waving, it should be pointed out that Trump once again signed the waiver preventing the US from actually moving our embassy for another 6 months – by which time he may well be either impeached or declared mentally unfit to hold office (depending on the outcome of his upcoming physical).

  2. Pingback: Bye MAGAnificent 2017, Hello MAGAnificent 2018 – THE TRUMPET @Hillary Is 44

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign Affairs

With ISIS defeated, it’s time to bring the troops home

Published

on

With ISIS defeated its time to bring the troops home

In the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, much was made of the threat of ISIS.  Wild threats abounded as candidates fought each other over who would come down harder on the then-thriving Islamic State.

Sen. Ted Cruz threatened to “carpet bomb (ISIS) into oblivion”.

Now-President Trump promised to “bomb the (expletive) out of ‘em.”

Former Secretary of State and presidential participation trophy winner Hillary Clinton added the possibility of war with Russia by insisting on a no-fly zone over Syria.

And who could forget neocon mascot Senators Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham engaging in what amounted to a bidding war over who would dump more American ground troops into the Middle East?

But since the Trump administration clunked into gear a year ago, news about ISIS has grown more and more sparse, with the latest revelation buried under coverage of the President’s latest Twitter meltdown:

ISIS is gone.

Over the course of the last year, ISIS has been destroyed by increased airstrikes, and coalition armies have systematically liberated ISIS-held territory across Iraq, to the point that both the Iraqi and Iranian governments have declared victory over the self-appointed caliphate.

Of course this is wonderful news for Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds, and everyone else oppressed by the brutal black-flagged regime.

But will it mean good news for American families?

Out of 1.3 million active US military personnel, about 450,000 are deployed overseas.  That’s right – nearly half a million Americans are deployed at over 600 bases in at least 130 different countries, at a time when we have exactly zero declared wars.

When are they coming home?

The victory over ISIS, while encouraging, doesn’t remotely put the War on Terror to bed.  Aside from the thousands of soldiers still fighting America’s longest war in Afghanistan and mopping up ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we have hundreds of even thousands of American troops in places like Norway and Poland, and a large Air Force presence in Somalia.  

The last time the United States actually fought a Congressionally-declared war was in WWII, and that’s important because in the absence of a congressional declaration, we have slowly built up a perpetual military presence around the world, with no end in sight.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

The Constitution vested the power to declare war with Congress alone, so that the people’s representatives would get a say in our decision to send Americans to die. A quick review of the last sixty years will show that, as Congress has deferred that power to the President via authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs), conflicts have started more frequently and dragged on much longer, with no defined scope or condition of victory.  As I pointed out in a recent column about Presidential Emergency Powers, ceaseless foreign conflicts and undefined potential threats have removed virtually all accountability from executive power. If the President wants a war, the President gets a war – Congress be damned.

As much as we have been conditioned to accept the presupposition that a persistent, global American military presence is necessary for our security, that’s really not the case at all. President Eisenhower’s famous warning about the “military-industrial complex” has been largely unheeded, and it’s undeniable at this point that there are a lot of folks in both the public and private sectors who profit, either directly or indirectly, from the massive and perpetual show of American force. That profit is at least part of the reason that the United States currently spends more on defense than the next seven countries combined, nearly three times the second-place nation on the list, China.

But the $610 billion we spend for defense each year pales in comparison to the cost in human life and limb precipitated by our consistent propensity for foreign adventurism.  Since 2001, 6,930 Americans have died fighting the War on Terror, and over 52,566 have been wounded.

And that’s without factoring in the tragic epidemic of veteran suicide.

Outside the states, the death toll has been exponentially greater, with estimates ranging between one and two million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone.

The longer a war drags on, the greater the danger that these numbers will become mere statistics, and that’s why the defeat of ISIS presents a great opportunity to change course on our reckless foreign policy. With the rise of antiwar sentiment on the conservatarian right and its slow integration into the pro-life movement there should be plenty of common ground and political will to draw down our foreign involvement.

It’s time to take advantage of the opportunity to bring our people home, before more Americans come home in body bags.

____________________________________________________________

 Article originally published in the Des Moines Register.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The 10 most genocidal leaders in history

Published

on

The 10 most genocidal leaders in history

Here is another list article from John Hawkins Grumpy Sloth website. This piece was written by Deena Lyon, and continues to warn those who love socialism siren song that it shall raise humanity up, and take care of humanity for a very long time.

Trouble is when you take the place of God himself and fear that people will turn on you, what can you do? You must shackle them in fear, up to threating and even carrying out the death sentence. You think big government will take care of the people, but more often than not, it becomes a weapon against the innocent and has murdered millions if not billions and trillions and googols of them. We as humans just never learn that we can’t better than or without God Almighty.

Most of the men listed here (sorry ladies, no devil women here) were leaders from the 20th Century. Only one man listed that took power in the late 19th Century.

Reference

The 10 Most Genocidal Leaders In World History

https://grumpysloth.com/10-genocidal-leaders-world-history/There must be a special place in Hell for the dictators on this list. The majority of them found Communism and/or Socialism to be the ultimate tool in committing mass murder. If you ever wonder how one person can kill millions just remember that government can be the most dangerous instrument known to mankind.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Iran nuclear sanctions waived again, but human rights sanctions imposed

Published

on

Iran nuclear sanctions waived again but human rights sanctions imposed

President Trump and the United States continue to support the Iran nuclear deal. Today, he signed a 120-day waiver on sanctions that should be imposed on the nation for breaching the 2015 deal. He did so with a promise that this would be the last waiver he’ll sign.

“I am waiving the application of certain nuclear sanctions, but only in order to secure our European allies’ agreement to fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal. This is a last chance,” Trump said in a statement Friday. “In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. And if at any time I judge that such an agreement is not within reach, I will withdraw from the deal immediately.”

At the same time, the administration issued 14 new sanctions against individuals involved in human rights violations during the Iran protests as well as those who support the Iran missile program. These sanctions, while very minor, lend a small amount of credibility to the administration, which has openly supported the protests in the Muslim theocracy.

Further Reading

‘Last Chance’ for Iran, Trump Says, as Sanctions on Tehran Regime Waived Again

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/01/12/last-chance-for-iran-trump-says-as-sanctions-on-tehran-regime-waived-again/US President Donald Trump said on Friday he would waive nuclear sanctions against Iran for the last time to give Washington and its European allies a chance to fix the “terrible flaws” of the 2015 nuclear deal.

A senior administration official said Trump wants the deal strengthened with a follow-on agreement in 120 days or the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the international pact.

If the U.S. Is Not Isolated on the Iran Deal There Is Something Really Wrong With Our National Soul

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/01/12/u.s.-not-isolated-iran-deal-something-really-wrong-national-soul/One of the first lessons you should learn as you transition into adulthood is that you don’t go along just because everyone else is doing something. The arguments for staying in the JCPOA, as best I can tell, is that the other parties (Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, and Iran) won’t like us if we leave and we’ll lose unspecified money in sales. So a) popularity and b) money. If you want to argue that a deal that is essentially unenforceable and unverifiable prevents Iran from developing nukes, have at it. I’m not going to argue with you because I don’t argue over imaginary happenings.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.