ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Six weeks ago, Britain sent 30 Royal Marines from 42 Commando to board and impound the Iranian Grace 1 oil tanker, which then changed its name to the Adrian Darya 1 before being released, but that is not the only mystery surrounding this operation. 

The Gibraltar authorities had sent a request to Britain to help them enforce the EU’s embargo on Syria as it suspected the tanker was intending to supply the Assad regime with over two million barrels of crude oil.

The ship was seized on July 4, just one day after the British territory passed “Sanctions Regulations 2019” which gave its chief minister, Fabian Picardo, powers for the “automatic recognition and enforcement of UN, EU and UK sanctions.”

The close timing between enactment and enforcement suggests they knew the tanker was heading their way. But before proceeding, Britain must have considered the consequences of such an act, especially as it involved Iran. 

The last time Britain tried to act internationally without American consent was during the Suez crisis, back in 1956, and that Anglo-French initiative was stopped in its tank tracks by President Eisenhower.

However, since the creation of the EU, Europe has begun to form its own defense force and foreign policy, independent of American influence. This has put Britain in a difficult situation and a huge strain on the “special relationship,” as well as the NATO alliance.

Not that Theresa May seemed too concerned as she was keen to work with Europe, even if that meant defying American policy. 

Alongside the EU, she kept the U.K. in the Iran nuclear deal after President Trump pulled the United States out last year. Although her diplomatic efforts to keep Iran on-board didn’t stop her from dropping the Royal Marines on-board one of its tankers. 

Iran then seized the UK-flagged Stena Impero tanker on July 19 for alleged “nautical violations.” Shockingly, there was no naval patrol near enough to protect it.

Over the past 30 years, successive British governments have stripped the Royal Navy of most of its ships and it can no longer operate as an effective maritime force without some outside help, so it is baffling how Mrs. May thought the U.K. could still police the oceans with impunity.

It was rumored, but denied by her spokesperson, that Mrs. May’s government turned down initial offers of help from America and this had allowed the Iranians to take the Stena Impero. Her Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, had been a keen advocate of building an EU maritime force. 

Protection from the U.S. Navy is now in place in the Strait of Hormuz. But Britain is still supporting the nuclear deal, even after Iran has admitted stockpiling low-enriched uranium beyond agreed limits.

To America’s shock the Iranian tanker was allowed to leave Gibraltar after Iran sent written assurances that the oil would not go to Syria. Britain’s territory also argued that U.S. sanctions did not apply in the EU and rejected a last-minute appeal by U.S. authorities.

President Trump has strongly criticized the outcome of the British operation. The United States claims the ship had violated its sanctions on Iranian oil exports, was being used for money laundering, and is connected to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

There are even some doubts now that Syria was the sole destination for the oil. The BBC reports that it could just be a safe haven for the tanker to offload oil into smaller ships for delivery across the Mediterranean, including southern Europe. 

Days before the tanker’s sailing, a warrant was issued by a U.S. federal court in Washington calling for it to be seized. Meanwhile, the U.K.-flaggedStena Impero and its crew are still being held by Iran. Is there a link there?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has threatened, “anyone who allows this ship to dock is at risk of receiving sanctions from the United States.” Already the Iranian tanker has been refused help by Greece.

Mr. Johnson will have to decide whether Britain’s foreign policy should be aligned with the United States or the EU. The early signs are that he is looking to keep things the way they are for now after confirming the U.K. will not participate in sanctions against the Middle East nation.  

But that luxury of opting between two differing policy objectives may not remain for long. After Brexit, Britain will desperately need a good trade deal with America and it still needs the U.S. Navy to look after British and other shipping in the Gulf and beyond.

Unless it is changed, Gibraltar’s “Sanctions Regulations 2019” gives it the automatic recognition and enforcement of U.N., EU and U.K. sanctions, but not American. So, will Britain still play the role of the EU’s maritime enforcer, if Gibraltar sends it another request?

And will America still be willing to bail it out?

• Andrew Davies is a U.K.-based video producer and scriptwriter.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

How do people make choices? It’s a complicated question that philosophers have been pondering for millennia. But it turns out that wisdom and experience can be found outside of the ivory tower and TED Talks. For me it was working as a mall cop. Seriously.

As a recent college graduate with a pretty nice resume, I was nonetheless unemployed and struggling to find solid work like many other college graduates with a political science degree — or as I’ve learned to call it, a “good intentions” degree. Being an unarmed security guard at Reston Town Center in Northern Virginia was a simple job; stand around and make sure people didn’t set things on fire while the white collar class worked at the Fortune 500s in the towering office spaces that looked down upon us, shopped at the stores we couldn’t afford to shop, and drove cars we’d probably never so much as test drive. 

If you think I was bitter and confused … you are right.

What I didn’t expect was to learn from the work ethic of the many legal immigrants who were working redeye shifts at the mall and evening shifts as baggage handlers at Dulles Airport just to send some money back home to their families. Never in a million years did I imagine that I would be on a first-name basis with a mentally ill homeless man, whose sole pleasure was finding enough loose cash and change so he could buy a cigar, and smoke it right down to the end of the label. I’ll never forget the moment I had to ticket a man’s BMW for double parking, and as I put the ticket under one of his windshield wipers, he came outside in his three-piece suit and chastised me in public because he didn’t want to pay the ticket.

“You wouldn’t be here if you went to college and made better decisions,” he said to me, almost like a caricature of a man blinded by his own wealth and privilege. I wanted to give him the middle finger, but instead I shot him a smile and walked away. I had a choice to make about how I was going to handle that situation. And he still had a ticket to pay.

This isn’t a story about how I got something better eventually by humbling myself amongst the blue collar crew that clean our toilets and prepare our food so we can be comfortable. It’s a story about being thankful for what you have, and understanding that everything ultimately comes down to the choices we all make.

I find the timing perfect that a new film based on the life of Fred Rogers from “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood” should be coming to theaters shortly. Times like these are when we could use some folksy wisdom from America’s neighbor. During a commencement speech at Dartmouth University  in 2002, Mr. Rogers gave a speech that could easily be given to any graduating class today. 

“I’m very much interested in choices,” Rogers said, “and what it is and who it is that enable us human beings to make the choices we make all throughout our lives.”

“What choices lead to ethnic cleansing? What choices lead to healing? What choices lead to the destruction of the environment? The erosion of the Sabbath? Suicide bombings or teenagers shooting teachers. What choices encourage heroism in the midst of chaos?”

“What is essential is invisible to the eye” Rogers’ said, quoting a phrase from the French novel “The Little Prince.” “Well, what is essential about you? And who are those who have helped you become the person you are?”

Choices — everything ultimately comes down to us making very deliberate choices; to burn down the neighborhood or choose to be neighborly. Christopher Grant of El Paso, who ran toward the shooter there earlier this month made one such choice too. He was gravely wounded in the attack, and saved the lives of others. 

“It’s not the honors and the prizes or the fancy outsides of life which ultimately nourish the soul,” Fred Rogers said. “it’s the knowing that we can be trusted, that we never have to fear the truth that the bedrock of our lives from which we make our choices is very good stuff.”

Mr. Rogers knew it, we know it, what matters are the choices we make knowing that truth.

• Remso W. Martinez is social media coordinator at The Washington Times.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

As we approach the 80th anniversary since the beginning of World War II, the U.S. media begins to hype up another round of its Russophobic campaign. The goal is to equally split the blame for the global catastrophe between Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union, at the same time casting a shadow on modern Russia. 

Most noticeable was The Washington Times that published two articles of similar content over the recent days — “Whitewashing Culpability” by Herman Pirchner Jr. (August 14) and “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: a Bad Deal, 80 Years Ago” by Victor Davis Hanson (August 15). Both authors almost accuse Moscow of “allying” with the Nazis during pre-war times.

It is puzzling that the said “experts,” who dwell on the triggers that started World War II, fully ignore the events that took place before Aug. 23, 1939 when the German-Soviet Nonaggression pact was signed. It is clear that these are attempts to whitewash the cynical “appeasement” policy shown by Western democracies toward Hitler in order to redirect his aggression to the East — against the Soviet Union. 

The authors fail to mention the infamous Munich agreement of 1938, when the leaders of France and Germany “greenlit” Nazi plans to tear apart the sovereign state of Czechoslovakia. Back then the Soviet government openly showed support to Prague. In accordance with existent agreements we proposed providing military assistance to Czechoslovakia, should Hitler attack it. However, the said initiative was not set in motion — mostly due to Poland’s actions — it denied passage of the Red Army through its territory.

Moreover, Warsaw actively took part in the breakup of Czechoslovakia by annexing Cieszyn Silesia. The Soviet Union strongly condemned the actions of the Third Reich, it refused to recognize the annexation of Czechoslovakia, prioritizing reaching an agreement with London and Paris. 

Until the very last moment the USSR did not give up its attempts to establish a dialogue with Great Britain and France in order to stand up against Nazi Germany together. A proof to that are trilateral British-French-Soviet negotiations, which lasted until late August, 1939. Although in reality the Western countries derailed the process in an attempt to minimize their obligations should Hitler attack the USSR. 

Moreover, London conducted secret negotiations with Berlin. German Minister of aviation Hermann Goring (Hitler’s closest associate) was planning to visit Great Britain on August 22-23. 

In said conditions, signing a non-aggression pact with Germany became a harsh necessity for the Soviet Union — a mandatory and immensely hard decision. It was made due to fruitless negotiations with Great Britain and France and a threat of fighting a war on two fronts, considering the ongoing battles against the Japanese army on the Khalkhyn Gol river. 

All the more “fantastic” are attempts of the authors to belittle the decisive role of the Soviet nation in the defeat of the Nazis. There is no doubt that the victory was achieved through joint efforts of the anti-Hitler coalition allies. However, it also cannot be denied, that by the summer of 1944 the outcome of the war was predetermined by the Red Army’s victories in the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, in which the Germans lost over 2 million soldiers.

The aid received by the Soviet Union from Western countries during the war through the Lend-Lease Act became an important contribution to the fight against the Nazi invaders. Russia remembers the assistance, and our gratitude was voiced by President Vladimir Putin on many occasions. However, according to statistics, the volume of goods received by the Soviet Union during the war years amassed to less than 5 percent of overall volumes of military production of our country over that period.  

In 2020 we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the victory over the greatest threat of the 20th century — Nazism and its hateful ideology. That triumph would not be possible without cooperation of a large number of states, including the USSR and the United States. Up until today it serves as a reminder that only through joint efforts can we resolve modern global conflicts. Attempts to portray the Soviet Union as the “initiator” of World War II defiles the sacred memory of millions of Soviet people, whose heroic deeds saved European countries from Nazi occupation. 

• Nikolay Lakhonin is the press secretary of the Embassy of the Russian Federation.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In pursuing American foreign policy, some presidents found it necessary to develop clear doctrines to articulate their purpose. While most were formulated in the last 100 years, the practice began much earlier. Two are noteworthy.

In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine made clear to European powers that they should refrain from colonizing the western hemisphere in exchange for American neutrality in conflicts between European nations, unless those contests played out in the Americas. It was a pragmatic initiative by a new nation seeking to avoid European entanglement, while protecting American interests in the “new world.”

The Truman Doctrine, 124 years later, was founded on a different premise that reflected a new role thrust upon us in the wake of World War II. Concerned with Soviet aggression throughout the world, the Truman doctrine of “containment” expressed our willingness to provide nations with the funds, equipment, and military force to resist communist domination. 

Succinctly stated by Truman, the policy would “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation” by insurrection or external aggression. Again, this was a pragmatic response to the post-WWII world that could once again erupt in conflict. Indeed, both doctrines were coherent responses to reality and genuine threats to American interests.

In 2016, candidate Donald Trump expressed the popular sentiment that America was overcommitted in the world, that our national wealth was being spent senselessly on foreign wars, while our allies shirked their duty in sustaining national security partnerships. Indeed, he questioned the value of some alliances, much to the chagrin of establishment politicians.

But his “America First” philosophy was compelling to voters and carried him to victory. However, once elected, he was confronted with the painful realities of a world in turmoil where disengagement is difficult and dangerous. North Korean missile and nuclear proliferation, Iranian nuclear ambitions and aggression in the Middle East, and the pestilential terrorism of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) were on his plate. 

While President Trump had no doctrine per se to deal with any of this, the outline of one has taken shape episodically in the two years since he was elected.

In engaging troublesome regimes, Mr. Trump has revealed a bias for resolution to besetting problems and a willingness to use maximum pressure to alter the status quo. Moreover, he has been willing to employ all of the elements of national power — diplomatic, informational, military and economic — to compel results.

That included his penchant for a “productive disruption” that rejects staid diplomacy for unconditional dialogue with foreign foes like North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, sending pinstriped diplomats into a state of high dudgeon.

And despite his serious desire to disengage from decades-old wars, President Trump has made clear his willingness to employ military power where it is strategically wise to do so, as in destroying ISIS, confronting Syria over its use of chemical weapons, or Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf. His actions foretell his doctrine.

The Trump Doctrine that is emerging is not simply one of response to threats, like the Monroe and Truman strategies, but rather a doctrine of “relentless engagement” that seeks to isolate, engage, and resolve major foreign policy threats to world peace.

Its application begins with an unambiguous articulation of U.S. objectives, for example, nonproliferation in North Korea and Iran, reinforced by a willingness to apply punishing economic sanctions to compel dialogue toward a nonmilitary resolution.

Importantly, it also utilizes the full range of U.S. national power, including strategic and tactical force projection tailored to a specific end, as it was in defeating ISIS, or preconfigured to address growing threats, like Iran’s misbehavior in the Persian Gulf.

Finally, it includes providing an avenue to peaceful resolution through unconditional negotiations. “Relentless engagement” — implemented correctly — can produce efficacious results. Nevertheless, this doctrine is a work in progress, particularly in formulating effective power projection.

After World War II, the United States used forward deployed forces to implement its security strategy. It was necessary, but it was expensive; and years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq have further sapped American military power. Mr. Trump is rebuilding our defenses as well as applying pressure on allies to pay their fair share in securing peace. 

Nevertheless, forward deployed forces — wisely configured and financially supported by allies in strategic locations throughout the world — are vital to preempt and deter conflict. Mr. Trump is correct in questioning the need for an abundance of them in Europe and Asia.

However, in implementing his promise to withdraw from foreign wars — while avoiding the blunders of the Obama administration’s precipitous abandonment of Iraq — the president should consider the follow-on role of immediately available forward deployed forces tailored to sustain peace. This is not only important for an Afghanistan infected with ISIS and al Qaeda, but other vital regions where his nascent doctrine of “relentless engagement” may have application. 

• L. Scott Lingamfelter is a retired U.S. Army colonel, combat veteran, and Middle East Foreign Area Officer. He also served in the Virginia General Assembly.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

While most of us have been thinking about the end of summer and while the political class frets over the Democratic presidential debates and the aborted visit of two members of Congress to Israel, the Trump administration has quietly moved to extend and make permanent the government’s authority to spy on all persons in America.

The president, never at a loss for words, must have been asked by the intelligence community he once reviled not to address these matters in public.

These matters include the very means and the very secret court about which he complained loud and long during the Mueller investigation. Now, he wants to be able to unleash permanently on all of us the evils he claims were visited upon him by the Obama-era FBI and by his own FBI. What’s going on?

Here is the backstory.

After the lawlessness of Watergate had been exposed — a president spying on his political adversaries without warrants in the name of national security — Congress enacted in 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It prescribed a means for surveillance other than that which the Constitution requires.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution — written in the aftermath of British soldiers and agents using general warrants obtained from a secret court in London to spy on whomever in the colonies they wished and to seize whatever they found — was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights to limit the government’s ability to intrude upon the privacy of all persons, thereby prohibiting those procedures used by the British.

Thus, we have the constitutional requirements that no searches and seizures can occur without a warrant issued by a judge based on a showing, under oath, of probable cause of crime. The courts have uniformly characterized electronic surveillance as a search.

I am not addressing eyesight surveillance on a public street. I am addressing electronic surveillance wherever one is when one sends or receives digital communications. FISA is an unconstitutional congressional effort to lower the standards required by the Fourth Amendment from probable cause of crime to probable cause of foreign agency.

Can Congress do that? Can it change a provision of the Constitution? Of course not. If it could, we wouldn’t have a Constitution.

It gets worse.

The court established by FISA — that’s the same court that President Donald Trump asserts authorized spying on him in 2015 and 2016 — has morphed the requirement of probable cause of being a foreign agent to probable cause of communicating with a foreign person as the standard for authorizing surveillance.

What was initially aimed at foreign agents physically present in the United States has secretly become a means to spy on innocent Americans. In Mr. Trump’s case, the FISA court used the foreign and irrelevant communications of two part-time campaign workers to justify surveillance on the campaign.

Add to all this the 2002 secret order of President George W. Bush directing the National Security Agency to spy on all in America all the time without warrants — this is what Edward Snowden exposed in 2013 — and one can see what has happened.

What happened?

What happened was the creation of a surveillance state in America that came about by secret court rulings and a once-secret presidential order. As a result of this, part of the government goes to the secret FISA court and obtains search warrants on flimsy and unconstitutional grounds and part of the government bypasses FISA altogether and spies on everyone in America and denies it and lies about it.

Bill Binney, the genius mathematician who once worked for the NSA and now is its harshest critic, has stated many times that, as unconstitutional as FISA is, it is a pretext to NSA spying on all persons in America all the time.

How pervasive is this unlawful spying? According to Mr. Binney, the NSA’s 60,000 domestic spies capture the content and the keystrokes of every communication transmitted on fiber optic cables into or out of or wholly within the United States. And they do so 24/7 — without warrants.

Now, back to that quiet late summer proposal by the Trump administration. Some of the statutes that govern who can go to the FISA court and under what circumstances they can go are about to expire. Inexplicably, the president once victimized by FISA wants to make these statutes permanent. And he wants to do so knowing that they are essentially a facade for spying. That would institutionalize the now decades-long federal assault on privacy and evasion of constitutional norms.

It would also place Mr. Trump in the same category as his two immediate predecessors, who regularly ordered government agents to violate the Fourth Amendment and then denied they had done so. 

Some of my Fox colleagues joke with me that I am shoveling against the tide when it comes to defending the right to privacy. They claim that there is no more privacy. I disagree with them. As long as we still have a Constitution, it must be taken seriously and must mean what it says. And its intentionally stringent requirements for enabling the government to invade privacy remain the law of the land. The president has sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the NSA. 

The late Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland once wrote that we cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow and which to ignore. If we could, the Constitution would be meaningless.

Did he foresee our present woes when he wrote, “If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned”?

Is that where we are headed?

• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a regular contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Every two years, Democrats and reporters talk about Texas turning blue. Indeed, Texas is the great blue hope for Democrats.

In 2018, Democrats made significant gains in Texas. This was caused by a killer combination: U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke raised and spent a record $80 million, which benefited Democrats down ballot. Mr. O’Rourke brought in hundreds of thousands of new voters and the vast majority of those voters cast a straight ticket Democratic ballot.

When the election returns came in, the results were significant.

Democrats gained two congressional seats, two state Senate seats, and 12 state House seats. They won a huge number of valuable judicial seats, including every judicial race in Harris County and flipped several regional courts of appeals.

The question now is this: Do the 2018 election results forecast Texas turning blue in 2020?

When the current election cycle began, most keen observers knew there would be eight competitive congressional races. Two are held by Democrats, won in 2018, and six are held by Republicans.

Three of these seats are in suburban areas, and Democrats made significant electoral gains in the suburbs in 2018. For Republicans to maintain their majority in Texas, they will need to win back the suburbs.

In recent weeks, three Republicans in competitive seats have decided not to run for reelection. Whether they decided not to seek reelection because they thought they would lose is unknowable. It is at least as likely that they did not like being in the minority and did not expect to be in the majority next Congress.

Straight ticket voting will no longer be available to voters. This was a major advantage for Texas Democrats in 2018 that will not be in place in 2020.

President Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016. I do not believe Texas will be a battleground state in 2020, even if a Texan is on the Democratic ticket.

But that does not mean Texas Republicans should be complacent.

In fact, the threat from Democrats is serious.

In the Texas House, Republicans hold a narrow nine-seat majority and Democrats could retake the House majority for the first time since 2002. That would be particularly consequential as the next legislature will pass new maps for legislative districts.

In response to the 2018 elections, Texas Republicans have set a bold goal of registering one million new Republicans voters before next year’s election. A new super PAC, Engage Texas, has been created and has raised more than $10 million to accomplish the goal.

I do not believe 2018 will predict Democratic gains in 2020.

Presidential election turnout is different from a midterm election. President Trump will turn out more Republicans in 2020 at greater numbers. It is hard to imagine higher Democratic enthusiasm in 2020 than they had in 2018.

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats will have their own presidential nominee, and all signs point to a very progressive agenda that will not be shared by a majority of Texas.

Texans do not want to see the oil and gas industry destroyed by the Green New Deal. Texans do not want to see the private employer-based health care industry destroyed by Medicare for All. Texans do not want higher taxes, bigger government and more regulations on business.

Rapid demographic changes are occurring in Texas and white voters are making up a smaller share of the vote every election cycle.

Republicans have a good record to sell to voters, especially after the legislature passed meaningful property tax reform and made a significant new investment in public schools.

⦁ Matt Mackowiak is president of Austin, Texas, and Washington-based Potomac Strategy Group. He’s a Republican consultant, a Bush administration and Bush-Cheney reelection campaign veteran and former press secretary to two U.S. senators.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

On this week’s “Last Week Tonight,” host and political comedian John Oliver was making fun of the rumor that President Trump was going to purchase Greenland. To be honest, it’s a funny topic. The concept of America, or any country for that matter, purchasing another country at this point in history is absurd and gives comedians piles of material to work with — or should at least. 

Unfortunately for the team at “Last Week Tonight,” who I would estimate is around 20 or more writers and producers — many of whom are probably great comedians — they always have to fall back on the same tired, cheap “orange man bad” premises.

In the middle of what could have been a solid monologue, Mr. Oliver dropped the old ‘Melania doesn’t love Trump and is a prisoner’ tired joke when he said, “Greenland is icy, distant, and semi-autonomous. It’s exactly Trump’s type,” while an image of the first lady appeared on screen. Boring.

Since Mr. Trump became a serious candidate for president in 2015, late night comedians, especially the four heavily political ones (John Oliver, Samantha Bee, Stephen Colbert, and Trevor Noah) have beat the same jokes and concepts about the man to death … then dug them, beat them to death again … and repeated that even a few more times.

Here are literally all the ideas they have in no particular order: 

He’s not as rich as he claims to be.

Women hate him.

Melania is a prisoner.

He’s stupid.

He’s a Nazi.

He has tiny hands.

He’s crazy.

He’s evil.

He’s racist.

He’s a Putin puppet. 

He’s a corrupt businessman.

His hair is bad.

He’s orange.

I’m sure I’m missing a few? Probably, but you get the point.

Millions upon millions of dollars get poured into staffing and producing these jokes on TV when they are the same hacky, eye-roll-inducing criticisms you can get for free on Twitter. 

Another problem with all of these “joke” premises is that they come from a place of hate, not one of actual humor. Sure, it works for their audiences, but even they are getting tired of the same stuff. The only people who watch and enjoy these shows anymore are ‘bubble-living’ liberals — which makes perfect sense. Every one of the hateful premises for the jokes that they enjoy are based on the same unfounded hateful claims that they yell to each other all day long.

The numbers for the shows whether on social or in TV ratings may stay consistent, but that consistency comes from the same liberal bubble communities. Sure, there might be a spike when you see Stephen Colbert draw a swastika on a chalk board or say something about Mr. Trump having Mr. Putin’s penis in his mouth (both he’s done) because it’s so shocking that people want to see what the extra hateful fuss is about, but other than that, it’s the same stale and tired material.

Michelle Wolf (remember her?) found out the hard way that hateful jokes don’t sell. She bombed at the White House Correspondents Dinner, not because of her making fun of Sarah Sanders (I know that was the headline), but because her material was mean instead of funny. She didn’t try to make fun of Mrs. Sanders — she went to berate her — which I’m sure plays well with the crowds who currently write for political comedy shows.

One out-of-touch step further were her jokes about abortion — she even had a ‘Happy Abortion Day’ sketch on her show — which I’m sure plays to ultra-liberals in bubbles, but not to anyone on either side of the issue, because whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, abortion is never funny.

One of the best pieces of advice that is given to every comedian early in his career is to go to open mics to perform in front of people who ‘don’t know you.’ People who know you and like you will almost always laugh to be nice.  People who don’t know you will sit silently or heckle if your jokes are something they’ve heard before or are just plain bad.

Sadly for the creatives for the late night hosts I mentioned, it seems as if they’re just writing for their friends in their liberal-bubble — it’s been old for Trump supporters since about the first time they heard jokes based on those premises and here’s where they should heed my advice — it’s getting very old for Democrats that they think are on their side outside of their realm.

While Democratic candidates for president push very little policy and more of the premises of hate about Donald Trump that I mentioned above, Democratic voters are slowly losing hope in their 2020 chances. And when they try to escape the stresses of life and politics by tuning in to a comedian who says nearly the exact same thing, their party turns them completely off.  

So where one might simply write off Mr. Oliver’s tired joke about Melania not loving her husband — Democrats that don’t live in the bubble groan, roll their eyes and turn off the TV — and eventually their own party.

By the way, the best joke about it was the meme of the huge gold Trump Tower in Greenland — which Mr. Trump copied and tweeted. My only complaint, he should have given the creator, Jon Gabriel, credit.

• Tim Young is a political comedian and author of “I Hate Democrats/I Hate Republicans” (Post Hill Press).

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.

Click
here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

By Cherrelle Swain

In its fifth year, the Black Alumni Ball was an impactful evening of celebration with nearly 2,000 Black Alumni on August 10, 2019. The ball was held from 8 PM-2 AM at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington, DC. It was hosted by The Massive Host, King Flexxa, with the soundtrack being provided by Nate Hopp and Jerome Baker III and LIVE entertainment delivered by Johnny Graham & the Groove. In addition, the VIP reception was sponsored by Hennessy.

In 2018, the Black Alumni Ball team debuted the Inaugural class of their Influencer program with 15 dynamic individuals who are shining examples of being a game-changer, an individual who is shifting the culture and being an example of excellence. In 2019, the class will grow with the addition of 17 individuals being inducted.

They are as follows: Christian Brown (Howard University Alumna, Owner of Rise Enterprises LLC), Christian Howard (Clark Atlanta University Alumna, Psychotherapist Consultant), Jessica T. Ornsby, Esq (Georgetown University Law Center, Founder of A+O Law Group), Marcus Goodwin (The University of Pennsylvania Alumnus, Founder of The CEO Program), Charles Gussom (University of District of Columbia Alumnus, Community Development Manager, Martha’s Table), Byron Westbrook (Salisbury University Alumnus, Former NFL Player, Head Coach, and Podcaster), Lilybelle Davis (University of Maryland/Columbia Law School Alumna, Corporate Law Attorney), Carrington D. Barbour (Palomar College Alumnus, CEO, JustCarrington), Deanna Collins (Morgan State University Alumna, Founder, The Pretty Girls Guide), Shanae McFadden (Delaware State University Alumna, Blogger, Owner of Sensational Statements, and Podcaster), Dr. Amber Robins (Xavier University of Louisiana Alumna, Board Certified Family Medicine Doctor), Sydney Mikel Pearsall (Delaware State University Alumna, Owner, Part & Parcel, and Podcaster), Chauntay Mickens (University of Connecticut Alumna, Co-Founder and President of Lunchbag Social), Shelly Bell (North Carolina A&T State University Alumna, Founder, Black Girl Ventures), Rontel Batie (Florida A&M Alumnus, Lobbyist), Anwaa Kong (Morgan State University Alumnus, Founder, MVEMENT App & Serial Entrepreneur) and Matt Aaron (Howard University Alumnus, Founder, Aaron Financial)

Collectively, the Black Alumni Ball team states, “We can’t believe we are in our 5th year of the Ball. We are so grateful to have the unwavering support within the Black Alumni community, and we are looking forward to continuing to celebrate Black Excellence! It is our goal to create a dialogue on the importance of uplifting one another and wanting to unify as a unit to help one another advance in the future.”

The Black Alumni Ball is an annual event whose mission is to bring black alumni from all universities throughout the nation, including both PWI’s (Predominantly White Institutions) and HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), for a night of sophistication, style, and fun. In addition to a magical evening, a portion of all proceeds will be provided to a Non-Profit Organization in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area from the Black Alumni Ball Scholarship Fund.

This post originally appeared in The Washington Informer.

By AFRO.COM / BE INSPIRED GLOBAL

DR. FRANCES “TONI” DRAPER speaks on Trumps Baltimore attacks and calls to action the community to be proactive leading up to the 2020 Elections. #TheBlackMediaAuthority

By Mark F. Gray, Special to the AFRO, [email protected]

Howard University’s athletic department recently accepted a monetary gift from three-time NBA champion and six-time all-star Steph Curry to help tee off a new version of their golf program. 

Howard athletic director Kery Davis wouldn’t disclose the donation amount but did say it was “significant” enough to fund the program for at least six years. 

Curry’s passion for golf has been well-documented over the past few years, particularly on the satirical miniature golf TV show “Holey Moley,” which he executive produced on ABC earlier this summer. It wouldn’t be a surprise if he tried to qualify for the PGA Tour when his NBA career is over.

NBA Superstar Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors at Langston Golf Course in Washington, D.C. to announce his commitment to Howard University establishing a new Division I golf program (Photo by Mark F. Gray)

The two-time MVP is a regular during the offseason. He plays several celebrity golf tournaments and earned an exemption to play in the 2017 Ellie Mae Classic on the Korn Ferry Tour, where he barely missed the cut finishing ahead of several other amateurs in the competition. Curry also has become a regular in the American Century Golf Tournament that features a group of athletes from other sports during a 96-hole event in Lake Tahoe, Nev.

“Golf is a sport that has changed my life in so many ways,” Curry said. “It’s a discipline that challenges your mental wherewithal from patience to focus and is impossible to truly master.”

 Plans for the program include for the inception of a women’s program as well. The program will also receive an apparel sponsorship from Baltimore-based Under Armour for its uniforms and from Callaway Golf Company for equipment. 

Former Howard basketball player Jeron Smith was one of the key players who helped bring the program back to life.  Smith, a former Nike executive who worked for President Barack Obama in the last 18 months of his presidency, accompanied Curry to the historic Langston Golf Course, home of the program.  However, it was the passion of senior recreational golfer Otis Ferguson IV that motivated Curry make the commitment.

Ferguson, an avid golfer himself, approached Curry during a visit to Howard and explained how he’d been unsuccessful at convincing the school to restart the golf program. The university previously fielded a Division II golf team but the time spent with Ferguson was the catalyst for Curry to jump start a new beginning like this.

“We connected on golf,”  Curry said. “Accountability, competition, discipline, all those different ideals we learned through the game of golf.”

The program at Langston Golf Course is scheduled to launch during the 2020-2021 school year. Ironically, of the relationship between the university and it’s home course is forged inside a bond of two legacies: the Golf DC run course is named after Howard alum John Mercer Langston, the first Black American to hold public office.  It was also the first course that allowed Black golfers to play in D.C. 

Curry began the process of making his HBCU sports investment long before Fox Sports analyst Chris Broussard admonished the NCAA for its recently terminated “Rich Paul Rule” requiring basketball agents to have a degree before advising players who were thinking of entering the draft as being racist. Broussard opined, on an instagram post, that blue chip Black college athletes attend HBCUs.  Though Curry went to Davidson, a non-HBCU, he admitted that he was not making a statement.

“You don’t have to go to an HBCU to support it,” Curry said.  “This is just an opportunity that I wanted to get behind.”