Houseman’s research finds, as MarketWatch explains, “The government for decades has vastly overestimated the growth of productivity in the American manufacturing sector. It’s been growing no faster, really, than the rest of the economy. What that means is, the adoption of technology is not the chief reason why millions of working-class Americans lost their jobs in a vast region stretching from the mouth of the Mississippi river to the shores of the Great Lakes. Nor was it inevitable.”
               China developed its manufacturing often by appropriating innovation development from the U.S., all while taking full advantage of the strong dollar against the cheaper Chinese currency and raising tariffs against American imports. With that manufacturing base and capability established, U.S. companies then began moving operations to China. Setting up shop in China, innovation in America slowed while China saw it grow.
               This is the economic challenge Trump recognized and campaigned to fix. Manufacturing needs to be brought back to the U.S. and leveling the playing field via challenging China with tariffs is one component of this effort.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55973?utm_medium=email&utm_source=3487&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             As The Weekly Standard editorializes, “In ordinary English usage, a protest is a collective action or gesture meant to bring pressure on a government or corporate entity. The Gaza ‘protests’ are meant to bring pressure on Israel, but they’re intended mainly to kill and maim both Israelis and the Palestinian ‘protesters’ themselves. These demonstrations would be better described as suicide-riots.”
               Imagine if Mexican officials encouraged illegal immigrants to wield weapons as they attempted to infiltrate the border wall near San Diego. That’s basically what’s happening in Israel. As the editorial explains, “For nearly two months, Hamas and other militant factions have been encouraging young Palestinian men to storm the fence separating Gaza from Israel. The rioters cut holes in the fence, charge Israeli guards with crude weapons like axes, and lob fire bombs over the wall in attempts to set Israeli fields on fire. Hamas has pledged to massacre those on the other side of the fence, and these riots are expressions of that intention. Israeli defense forces are obliged to respond with force.”
               Death is unavoidable in such circumstances. And guess who gets blamed? The Israelis. “This is Hamas’s longstanding strategy,” opines The Weekly Standard. “The more Palestinian young men die, the more hellish the conditions of Palestinian neighborhoods, the more sympathy aroused in Western media.” On that last note, Erick Erickson,observes, “The media is a knowing accomplice in helping a terrorist group push out its propaganda.”
               Hamas is a sinister group of Islamic terrorist provocateurs. But Hamas is also convenient cannon fodder, which explains the media’s sordidly empathizing with it and assigning blame elsewhere. When it comes right down to it, the Leftmedia and most Democrats believe that the Israelis lack sovereignty over Jerusalem. Therefore, their resentment extends not just to the Israelis but to Americans who join them in defending Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The headlines are replete with Palestinian deaths. But those deaths are self-inflicted. Israel’s restrained military might says enough.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55968?utm_medium=email&utm_source=3487&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             It is curious, then, that the conservative National Review would publish an article calling for a societal rejection of biological truth in the name of compromise. Conservatism, after all, is a philosophy rooted in the pursuit of objective truth.
               In “Time for a Compromise on Transgenderism,” NR’s J.J. McCullough calls on conservatives, in the name of compromise, to set aside rational thought and biological reality and embrace the delusion behind transgenderism; namely, that sex/gender is not rooted in our DNA, but in our feelings. Though laudable in its attempt to strengthen social cohesion, it is nevertheless a study in falsehoods and contradictions.
               McCullough declares, “Homosexual people are unavoidable and common. … Through education, and especially exposure, homosexuality is no longer regarded as bizarre, threatening, or mysterious.”
               First, homosexuals and transgenders are actually only a tiny subset of the population. According to ULCA’s Williams Institute, just 1.7% of the U.S. population identifies as homosexual, and just 0.3% as transgender. Other studies put the number of homosexuals at 3-4%. But fewer Americans identify as transgender than have heterochromia (two different colored eyes). It should also be noted that both homosexuality and transgenderism are behaviors, not biological traits.
               Second, social acceptance of a behavior does not convey moral validity. The Communist Chinese implemented the one-child policy, but social acceptance of the policy does not make the tens of millions of abortions it brought about any less murder. Or you could go the Nazi Holocaust route. Enough said.
               McCullough declares resistance to the normalization of deviant sexual behavior is an “immature, demagogic phase” of American life, ignoring the fact it is the LGBT proponents who are aggressively trying to overturn thousands of years of social order and proven biological science.
               Americans who hold to traditional morality and biological reality are accused of hatred and bigotry, forced by the state to deny reality and violate deeply held religious beliefs, or face hate-crimes charges, public vilification and even the loss of their livelihoods.
               McCullough’s “compromise” is for the reality-based population (i.e., “cultural conservatives and traditionalists”) to extend “broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else.” This is a straw man. No conservative calls for mistreating transgenders or denying basic human rights. Just the opposite; Christians proclaim the eternal worth of every soul as a child of God.
               However, dignity is a subjective term. It flows outward from dignified people, and cannot be granted. Despite being mocked, cursed and spat upon, Christ could not be robbed of his regal dignity by the offending Jews. On the other hand, those engaged in the most flamboyant displays of sexual deviancy during LGBT parades cannot obtain dignity, regardless of the coercive power of the state.
               Though McCullough claims transgenderism is a “persistent aspect of humanity,” that is demonstrably false. Examples of effeminate homosexual men, or “butch” lesbians, have long been with us, but the claim that a biological male is an actual woman, or vice versa, is very recent, not to mention delusional.
               More important than these battles in the culture wars are the implications for life itself.
               According to Johns Hopkins University, the first U.S. institution to perform “sex reassignment” surgery, “The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex — so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”
               Furthermore, studies show a staggering 41% of transgendered people attempt suicidein their lifetimes, and that suicide rate is relatively constant regardless of other variables, like living in an area where homosexuality/transgenderism is widely accepted. Nurturing their delusion, rather than providing treatment, is cruel and deadly.
               Even McCullough admits, “The risk of psychologically and physically damaging children by encouraging or enabling them to embrace transgender identities before pubescence must be acknowledged as a valid concern backed by credible evidence.”
               Yet if the first phase of the compromise is for conservatives to accept the delusional altered reality of transgenderism, then on what basis does one then reject allowing a sexually confused child to “transition”?
               The problem with McCollough’s entire argument is that the Rainbow Mafia is not interested in compromise; they simply  demand our surrender. Prior to the Supreme Court’s Oberge fell ruling, LGBT proponents mockingly asked conservatives to tell them how our lives would change if same-sex marriage was legal. As we predicted, so they have done. Christians are being persecuted by the state, ostracized by society and denied their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association. Their livelihoods are being destroyed.
               So while McCullough’s intentions are worthy, his approach is completely wrong. No person should be forced to accept biological falsehoods, nor violate their moral and religious beliefs, to appease a few militant, biologically confused people. We should never, ever allow the compulsive power of the state to silence debate, especially when one side is rooted in delusion.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55990?utm_medium=email&utm_source=3487&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The resurrected and greatly expanded tax is significant for two reasons: First, and most important, it serves as a Democrat model for other cities. Democrats always aim to punish the successful so they can redistribute to their favored constituency groups in return for votes and, thus, power.
               Second, Seattle is home to both Starbucks and Amazon, two of the nation’s largest employers, both of which oppose the tax. Now, don’t get us wrong, we have little sympathy for either company. Starbucks has been at the forefront of leftist social justice battles, albeit recently getting a taste of its own medicine. And Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is the world’s richest man and a stalwart financier of leftist causes, not least of which is owning The Washington Post. Amazon recently justified some anti-conservative discrimination based on the work of the radical leftist hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
               But Amazon Vice President Drew Herdener sounded downright conservative in denouncing this “tax on jobs.” He hammered the city, saying, “City of Seattle revenues have grown dramatically from $2.8 billion in 2010 to $4.2 billion in 2017, and they will be even higher in 2018. This revenue increase far outpaces the Seattle population increase over the same time period. The city does not have a revenue problem — it has a spending efficiency problem. We are highly uncertain whether the city council’s anti-business positions or its spending inefficiency will change for the better.” Indeed, Amazon is looking to expand elsewhere.
               A letter signed by more than 100 Seattle business leaders likewise nailed it: “We oppose this approach, because of the message it sends to every business: if you are investing in growth, if you create too many jobs in Seattle, you will be punished.” Companies won’t hire more workers, and they’ve stop shy of earning $20 million.
               As Fox News dryly notes, “Seattle once had a $25-a-year per head tax, but killed it in 2009 because leaders said it sent the wrong message to businesses during the recession.”
               Back to homelessness, again, Seattle’s city council helped create the problem. Investor’s Business Daily reports, “From 2010 to 2013, the city saw an explosion in the construction of ‘congregate housing units’ — basically, affordable, dorm-room size apartments with shared kitchen and living areas. Within those three years, private developers constructed 1,800 units. But by 2015, not one was built. Why? In 2014, the city stepped in and smothered this option with regulations that required the apartments to be bigger, banned them from more desirable areas, and forced builders to jump through costly design reviews.” Voila, housing shortage.
               And that’s on top of Seattle’s job- and pay-crushing  $15/hour minimum wage, its income-redistributing tax on high-earners (that was struck down as illegal), its tax on property owners to pay for political speech, its soda tax and its gun tax, just to name a few.
               It sure seems Seattle’s Democrat overlords are doing everything possible to follow in the footsteps of the socialists killing Venezuela.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55994?utm_medium=email&utm_source=3487&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Truth be told, this moving of the goalposts is nothing new for the rogue nation. Kim’s primary goal is to maintain his grip on power, while at the same time working to relieve the extremely debilitating effects of the U.S.-led international sanctions. He is now angling for concessions from the U.S. ahead of any deal. It’s the classic bait-and-switch play. China, while understandably desiring to avoid any real possibility of war in its region, still wants to maintain its North Korean puppet as a bargaining chip, which it can regularly rattle for its own geopolitical aims.
               But do these reports signal that the highly anticipated summit talks are essentially over or for naught? Not at all. The two countries that have the most to lose should the summit collapse are North Korea and, even more significantly, China. Trump has kept the pressure on China by continuing to threaten increased tariffs should China not concede to playing fair with trade, while at the same time he has offered juicy carrots such as a willingness to reexamine the U.S.‘s export ban on ZTE issued last month. The ban will have a massively crippling effect on the Chinese telecom giant, as last year alone ZTE imported over $2 billion worth of components from U.S. companies.
               So while Kim would love to play the same old game North Korea’s leaders have always played, proclaiming their willingness to turn from their threatening ways in exchange for sanctions relief and economic benefits only to later renege, China is unlikely to let Kim play the old charade this time if doing so provokes even more of Trump’s trade squeeze. In the meantime, expect to hear continued rumblings and threats to cancel from North Korea right up until the summit occurs.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55996?utm_medium=email&utm_source=3487&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a scheme developed by opponents of the Electoral College — generally leftists who would rather see the president of the United States elected by popular vote than via the Electoral College system the Founders established in the Constitution.
               The Electoral College was designed to make the presidential election a truly national contest. It forces candidates to recognize all regions and not ignore small states and rural areas in favor of large states and major metropolitan areas. The process, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”
               Democrats are not happy with the Electoral College, however. liar-Hillary Clinton, as we are repeatedly reminded, won the national popular vote by roughly three million votes. If it weren’t for the Electoral College (and men, and women, and whites, and James Comey, and the Russia, and… and…), she would be president right now. Therefore, in the eyes of Democrats, the Electoral College is no longer relevant.
               But consider this: Over 20% of Clinton’s 65.8 million votes came from California and New York alone. Take those two deep-blue states out of contention and she would have lost the popular vote by three million. liar-Clinton didn’t campaign hard enough in the Rust Belt, losing states she mistakenly assumed would stay in her column. liar-Clinton ignored these states in favor of big blue vote buckets like Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and other major metropolitan areas.
               In fact, the 2016 election is proof positive that we do need the Electoral College and that it is still relevant.
               It’s typical Democrat behavior to assume that because they can’t seem to win something, then the game must be rigged. This is why they came up with the national popular vote scheme in the first place. Recognizing that their most loyal voters tended to be in metropolitan areas, and that these areas were growing (more Americans live in cities than in rural areas), Democrats pined for a popular-vote strategy that could secure them a lasting national presence as it has in several states with large metropolitan areas. California and New York are perfect examples.
               The National Popular Vote Compact began in 2007. Laws were introduced in states that would pledge that state’s Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the outcome of that state’s vote. In other words, if a given state votes for the Republican candidate, but a Democrat wins the national popular vote, then that state’s electors must pledge to vote for the Democrat. The compact goes into effect when the total number of states on board reaches 270 electoral votes, the winning number to become president.
               With the recent addition of Connecticut, there are now 11 states, plus the District of Columbia, in the compact. They are all deep blue states, of course, and they hold a total of 172 electoral votes. Given that these states are unlikely to actually vote Republican anytime in the foreseeable future, this compact is currently almost meaningless. However, according to the compact’s website, there are 12 more states in which the bill has passed at least one chamber, totaling 96 electoral votes, which would bring the compact total to a very relevant 268.
               It’s ironic from a historical perspective that Connecticut joined the compact. It was Connecticut’s Roger Sherman who argued against a national popular vote for president during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He, like many Founding Fathers, feared the tyranny of the majority, noting that the people at large “will generally vote for some man in their own state, and the largest state will have the best chance for the appointment.”
               Today’s Democrats believe that just the opposite is taking place — that smaller states and rural populations (i.e., Republicans) are running the country. Barack liar-nObama complained after the 2016 election that the Electoral College works against Democrats. And liar-Clinton has been calling for the abolition of the Electoral College since scum-Al Gore’s loss in 2000.
               The case can be made that the Electoral College does favor Republicans, but that may be because the GOP knows how to run a presidential election better than Democrats from a technical standpoint (if not always politically). It could also just be the ebb and flow of presidential politics. Coalitions come and go, states change from blue to red and from red to blue. It is the nature of politics, and it is how our federal republic works.
               The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is not a solution to this issue because there is no problem. If Democrats want to win a presidential election, then they should front a candidate who wants to be president of all the people instead of just those she doesn’t consider “deplorable.”   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55961

             Using a form of radiocarbon dating to detect traces of natural methane gas (CH4) in groundwater near fracking sites, the study concluded, “We found no relationship between CH4 concentration or source in groundwater and proximity to active gas well sites. No significant changes in CH4 concentration, CH4 isotopic composition, pH, or conductivity in water wells were observed during the study period. These data indicate that high levels of biogenic CH4 can be present in groundwater wells independent of hydraulic fracturing activity.” To sum it up, the study found no evidence of any groundwater contamination from fracking activity.
               And while environmentalists and ecofascists are typically quick to dismiss any studies that don’t comport with their desired narrative, including attacking the source of the study’s funding (often claiming the bill was footed by profit-driven oil companies), that dodge of relevant science will not be possible with this study. The two organizations that funded the study were the David & Sara Weston Foundation, whose mission is to “enrich and strengthen underserved communities in … the arts, environmental conservation and social services,” and the Deer Creek Foundation, whose objective is to “enrich the cultural and artistic quality of life in St. Louis metropolitan area.” Will environmentalists listen or does their commitment to ecofascist dogma prevent objective analysis? We think we know the answer. But we suppose they can always try raw water instead…   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55916

             One of my recent emails from the Democrat Party included a link promoting their shop, which has about 40 items. Most of those items are, predictably, caustic, promoting what they are against rather than what they are for — for obvious reasons. But I came across this $25 baby onesie and was struck by the abject hypocrisy. How many babies will never wear this outfit because the Democrats ensured they would never be born?
               Democrat identity politics are built on what they oppose, because if Americans actually understood what they support, and the future implications, the Party would collapse. If there is one generalization about about Democrat activists that universally holds true, it is that they are consummate hypocrites. This item tragically demonstrates that truth.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55921

             For eight years, America endured a “pen and phone” president so thoroughly convinced of his own moral superiority that he viewed Congress as more of an impediment than a co-equal branch of government. And the same media that gushed over his “courage” — even now, The Washington Post is referring to the former president’s disastrous appeasement of Iran as one of his “signature foreign policy achievements” — is aghast that what can be done by executive fiat can be undone the same way.
               How bad was the Iran deal? There was no deal. “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” stated a letter sent in 2015 from the State Department to then-Rep. Mike Pompeo. Thus the notion that Barack liar-nObama’s executive order was binding is absurd.
               It was implemented because liar-nObama knew he couldn’t get the constitutionally required two-thirds vote of approval from the Senate for a treaty. Thus, he called it an understanding, and with ample help from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), he turned that treaty provision on its head, making it necessary for two-thirds of the Senate to kill the deal.
               Given political cover, Congress allowed the agreement to go forward, and liar-nObama gushed about having Iran “fully rejoin the community of nations.” The regime was then rewarded with more than $100 billion in sanctions relief and $1.7 billion in cash, delivered on pallets by unmarked planes in the middle of the night — a portion of which even former Secretary of State hanoi-John Kerry admitted would be used to support terrorism.
               A portion? After agreement’s implementation, Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, traveled to Moscow and got Vladimir Putin to provide air support for pro-Assad, Iranian-backed militias fighting in Syria. Teheran began ballistic missile testing. It engendered civil war in Yemen and Lebanon. It quadrupled its financial support of terror proxy Hezbollah, and established a supply route in Iraq for arming its fighters in Syria.
               How desperate was liar-nObama to make any kind of deal? The administration used the NSA to spy on Israel, “coincidentally” capturing conversations between anti-deal U.S. officials, Jewish American leaders and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. National security advisor Ben Rhodes created a media echo chamber of “know nothing” journalists duped into disseminating administration lies about the Iranian regime’s nature. And as columnist Eli Lake reminds us, just days before the deal was implemented, “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps boarded a U.S. Navy vessel and briefly detained U.S. sailors who had accidentally drifted into Iranian waters. In case the point was missed, the sailors were videotaped on their knees with their hands clasped behind their heads.”
               The point was missed. hanoi-Kerry called the subsequent release of the sailors “a testament to the critical role that diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure and strong.”
               Trump has ended this nonsense. More important, he is free to pursue that which a feckless liar-nObama refused to “meddle with” in 2009, even as Iranian dissidents were being beaten and killed: regime change.
               Toward that end, Trump has circulated a three-page white paper among National Security Council officials that “seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change,” The Washington Free Beacon reports.
               And contrary to leftist assertions that Trump is putting America on the brink of war, the document “deemphasizes U.S. military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region.”
               The mullahs are sitting on a populist powder keg. In addition to unpopular adventurism, Iran is facing an acute water shortage precipitated by bad water management policies and aging infrastructure. The regime’s promise to spread the nuclear deal’s wealth to its people has been broken, leaving the nation with an 11% unemployment rate, while the Revolutionary Guard who runs Iran’s ballistic missile program and answers solely to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei controls between 15% and 30% of the economy. The government has also banned Telegram, an encrypted personal messaging app used by half the country that Iran’s ICT minister, Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi, insisted was “encouraging hateful conduct, use of Molotov cocktails, armed uprisings, and social unrest.”
               Lake envisions a three-prong strategy for regime change. First, Iranians need to take charge of their own revolution, which requires Trump to refrain from picking leaders, arming particular factions or precipitating an invasion. Second, credible channels of communication that abet domestic resistance, but refrain from empowering outside groups seeking to impose their own agenda on such a movement, must be established. Third, Trump must expand his list of demands beyond nuclear parameters. Lake suggests tying the removal of sanctions to the removal of the office of Supreme Leader from the nation’s constitution.
               All good, but columnist David French adds an essential ingredient to the mix, insisting “we must beat Iran on the battlefield, not by invading or declaring war but instead by ensuring the endurance and ultimate victory of our allies in the proxy conflicts raging across the Middle East.”
               He reminds us why. “Arguably no nation in recent history has taken more deadly action against the United States without a corresponding American response,” he asserts. “No wonder the regime believed it could dictate terms to the liar-nObama administration.”
               They can’t dictate terms to Trump. “If the regime continues its nuclear aspirations, it will have bigger problems than it has ever had before,” the president asserted during his withdrawal announcement.
               In response, Iranian parliamentary members burned a paper American flag and chanted “death to America,” while Khamenei tweeted that Trump’s “corpse will also be worm food while IRI stands strong.”
               Anyone who believes such contempt for America and its leaders hasn’t been the Iranian government’s position for decades is as delusional as an liar-nObama administration and the cabal of equally spineless European leaders who also believe evil should be appeased — especially if it accrues to the EU’s globalist profit-making schemes.
               And that goes double for mostly Democrat congressional hypocrites who opposed  liar-nObama’s deal, but now oppose Trump for rescinding it. They are joined by their fellow progressive elitists “for whom there is only one right way to conduct a presidency, and that is the Harvard-Democratic-groupthink way,” columnist Michael Walsh explains.
               Leftist arrogance is nothing new. Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement of 1938 and liar-Bill Clinton’s Agreed Framework of 1994 were both sold as grand achievements in diplomacy. Both were catastrophic failures, yet both were ignored by an equally clueless liar-nObama administration, led by an “arc of history” narcissist who was ultimately forced to admit the JCPOA only delayed Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons.
               Today marks the 70th anniversary of Israel’s creation and the first day Jerusalem will be the official home of the U.S. Embassy. North Korea has announced it will dismantle its nuclear test site prior to negotiations ostensibly aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.
               Perhaps Harvard-Democratic-groupthink isn’t all it’s purported to be.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55931

             Why does the embassy’s location matter? Fox News explains, “Although Trump has said his declaration does not set the final borders of the city, his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has been perceived by both Israel and the Palestinians as taking Israel’s side in the most sensitive issue in their conflict. The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.” Most of the world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as a result.
               Not surprisingly, the Palestinians did respond with violence. Terrorists have denied Israel’s right to exist from the moment it was formed. And radical Muslims have been slaughtering Jews for centuries. Unfortunately, the violence today resulted in at least 41 Palestinians killed, including what the Israelis called three “armed terrorists” aiming to plant a bomb near the Gaza border fence. Tens of thousands of protesters mobbed the fence, some in an attempt to cross, and Israeli soldiers fired on them.
               Meanwhile, just a couple of weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron was glad-handing Trump at a White House state dinner, he was busy leading the charge to issue an official European Union statement criticizing the U.S. embassy relocation. Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania blocked it — the latter two are looking to move their embassies to Jerusalem, as well. We suppose the statement was Macron’s way of blowing raspberries at Trump for shredding the Iran deal Macron had tried to save.
               Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pronounced that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is “the right thing to do.” He’s right. As for the future of the peace process, our own Brian Mark Weber said in December, “Peace will be illusory until Israel’s enemies accept its right to exist.”   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55941