The State of New York will lose one congressional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, due to coming up 89 persons shy of Minnesota, which will take the lost seat. Some people have blamed the result on an undercount of actual New Yorkers due to the animus between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for not prioritizing the census.
They should consider another reason: New Yorkers who have felt increasingly marginalized by the strong leftward lurch of the Empire State.
Politics: Alt-Left in Congress and New York State Assembly
The 2018 elections saw the rise of “the squad” in Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York City. Their success, and that of Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders, have moved fringe ideas into the mainstream and is appalling to many. Thousands of lifetime Democrats left the Democratic Party as a result, especially after the head of the Democratic National Committee said that the far-left was “the future of our party.“
Similarly, over the past two election cycles, the New York State assembly moved from tackling issues in a bi-partisan manner to one which has a veto-proof super-majority of Democrats who intend on pushing a far-left agenda.
Why register for the census if it just pushes a thumb down on a scale for a political regime which does not represent your political views?
The New York Times echoes the voices of the far-left and encourages them with highly biased and false narratives.
The media is pushing stories that White people are inherently racist and men have caused all of the problems in the world. Bankers are crooks who steal money and opportunity from the poor, and Zionists are thieves who steal land from Arabs. If only women were in power, there would be no coronavirus and peace in the world…
The mainstream media is attempting to brainwash society with their new “truths” of secular wokeness, that people are good and bad based on inherent characteristics, not by actions.
Why follow the media calls to register for the census to aggravate the lies?
I am sure that the census did not properly count all New Yorkers. As many of us watched politicians and census takers aggressively search for non-citizens to increase the power of the left, we framed our census forms and mounted them on the wall as mementoes of when we felt we counted.
Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at each other about voting rights. Each has portrayed the other as racist, naive or dishonest. In truth, each makes fair points and the best policy is to incorporate suggestions from each.
Issue Suggestion Comment
Automatic registration <Democrat> Get all citizens registered easily
Accessible ballots <Democrat> Allow for big fonts, multiple languages
Picture ID <Republican> Prevent fraud and insure integrity of vote
Early voting <Democrat> Make it easier for people to cast vote
No Mail-in vote <Republican> Prevent fraud and insure vote integrity
Suggestions to overhaul current voting system incorporating suggestions of both parties
Many of the above recommendations complement each other. Allowing early voting minimizes the need for mail-in votes. Requiring a picture ID to prevent fraud is logical and also dovetails with eliminating mail-in voting.
The most important thing regarding voting is for it to accurately reflect the desire of legal voters. Fraud and the legitimate fear of fraud undermine our democracy, the government and unity of the republic. For the sake of that unity, incorporate the logical proposals of both Democrats and Republicans.
January 6, 2021 was a spectacle in Washington, D.C. when protesters stormed the U.S. Capital building which was convening to certify the results of the presidential elections. The overrun of the capital came just as Democrats won two Senate run-off seats in Georgia giving the party full control of Congress. One person was shot and killed and members of Congress needed to be escorted to secure rooms as the building was put in lock down. A curfew was imposed on the city.
People bemoan that the United States has become a Banana Republic which cannot peacefully hold elections or have a transition of power. They wonder how a powerful and wealthy country could descend into such chaos. Quickly pointing to President Donald Trump as the instigator for the event is a missed opportunity to expose the root causes of the mayhem. The danger of not exploring it is the casual dismissal of needed changes to society that go beyond January 20th when Trump leaves office and when the world moves passed the pandemic, hopefully in the coming months.
The instigating reasons include the notion that there is theft, the normalization of violent protest and the breakdown of trust and respect. All of this in the backdrop of a broader move to extremist views by many Americans and the relatively newer belief that government actually matters.
People become enraged when they feel deeply wronged, especially when it comes to something being stolen. If rights, liberties, lands or votes are viewed as being stripped away, then people will actively resist such wrongs.
President Donald Trump actively fed the narrative that peoples’ votes were being stolen which was the reason he lost the election, with “Stop the Steal” exclamations. He told his supporters to not even bother voting in the Georgia Senate run-off, as the system wouldn’t let their voices be heard.
This is not new, as Democrats often make claims of “voter suppression.” A conspiracy theory came out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth four years ago when she said as she lost “they were never going to let me be president.” Her backers believed her and held “Not My President” rallies during Trump’s early months in office.
The United Nations also promotes the notion of theft when it comes to Israel. It uses racist language that Israelis are “stealing Arab land” as if dirt can be inherently “Arab” (imagine someone saying that Alabama is inherently “white”). It established a special agency, UNRWA, which promises to enable millions of Arabs to “return” to Israel, actively fueling anger at the Jewish State.
Normalizing Violent “Protests”
The world actively promotes Palestinian “resistance” and normalizes terrorism. The 2% War which began in September 2000 killed and maimed thousands of Israeli civilians is commonly called the “Second Intifada” meaning “uprising,” softening the crimes of the murderers. Left-wing media states that Palestinians are only “resorting to violence” even when all their foundational charters and glorification of terrorists are plain to see.
In the United states, when the Black Lives Matter protests burned cities to the ground the media said that the protesters were “mostly peaceful” despite the videos of massive looting and scenes of charred buildings. The public seemingly gave a pass to the anarchy. When anarchists seized downtown Seattle and declared their alt-left caliphate with a concocted flag, the police were ordered to not engage.
Normalization by definition creates a new normal.
The Loss of Trust and Respect
There has been a continued erosion in the trust of institutions in the United States over several years. Blacks and liberals have distrusted the police for a long time but the nature of distrust has broadened and deepened.
The Internet is a great tool in allowing people to connect and find areas of interest but its use has had broad ramifications for businesses and society.
The personalization capabilities of search engines has allowed people to narrowly focus on topics and points of view that interest them. Such model and migration of eyeballs has shifted advertising dollars from television and newspapers to online giants like Google and Facebook. It forced the legacy media to pivot their businesses from neutral providers of information to highly-biased disseminators of propaganda. The media’s business model became #AlternativeFacts. When the Internet giants then followed suit during this election and shut down opinions which it found offensive, there became a deep resentment to all of the media.
Amid this backdrop, liberal society endorsed the idea that people’s perceptions of race and gender trumped science, undermining the foundation of truth. Even language became “weaponized” as people received daily addenda to the dictionary.
As the foundations of language and science were being shaken, woke society came after America’s founding fathers and institutions.
Kneeling for the national anthem, and the blitzkrieg of tearing down statues of Jefferson and Washington and renaming buildings and institutions were taken by many Americans as not protests but a profound disrespecting of America. The nation’s capital building became a symbol to either defend or mock.
A Move to Polar Extremes and Suddenly Government Matters
Moderate politicians have been forced out of both the Democratic and Republican parties for the past twenty years. The primary system has favored those who can activate a loud loyalist base and targets politicians who have preferred bipartisanship. The test of party purity advanced more extreme right-wing and left-wing politicians, who resemble the talking points of narrow slices of extremist ideology fed on social media and the Internet.
As bipartisan politicians leave Congress and state houses, extremist opinions and laws get enacted. This leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the minority as the majority advances its agenda without fear of being voted out of office. When a blue state sees a red state dramatically limiting abortion access, it passes laws allowing for legal abortion up until birth, essentially blessing infanticide.
Extremism doesn’t exist in a vacuum; each side feeds the other. Both sides see that government matters as they adopt extremist laws so it drives people to the polls, with the 2020 presidential election having the biggest turnout in 120 years.
There is not one single thing that needs to be done to become a more perfect union and a more perfect planet. The change of administration and broad vaccinations that are underway will certainly help, but much more needs to be done, as the storming of the U.S. Capital building has been years in the making.
Leaders must stop promoting false narratives of “theft.” While there was certainly a media frenzy against Trump (as there was in 2016), there is no proof of massive voter fraud. Republicans must loudly denounce Trump’s comments, not just Democrats. In other parts of the world, we similarly need to stop inflammatory language such as saying “Arab land” which undermines a chance for peace and the UN promoting the notion that Israel is a “colonialist enterprise.”
Don’t normalize violence and calls for violence. Watching U.S. cities burn and Palestinians blowing up buses and pizza stores and then excusing those actions as “justice” and “natural protest” encourages more violence. Denounce the violence, arrest perpetrators and strip those who call for such actions of any funding.
Build Trust and Respect. It will be difficult for the media to turn back the tide and become neutral providers of information, and social media’s business model is built on giving people what they crave. As such, it is important that the source of all articles and information be included with articles. People understand that Fox tilts right and MSNBC tilts left and can thereby understand that they are only presented with half of the story. Regarding respect, people must understand that revolutions produce counter-revolutions and consider that a casual disrespect of someone or something will likely come full circle.
Embrace the Center. While people encourage the idea of a “wide tent” and talking to the “other side” it must be acknowledged that the fringe must remain on the fringe and not have seats of power. People in the right-of-center and left-of-center can have constructive dialogues of compromise while those at the polar extremes can only battle. If the extreme right or left are aiming to “primary” an incumbent in your district, understand that a vote for such politician will leave them off any committees of significance in the capital.
The capture of the nation’s capital did not happen in a vacuum and it is incumbent on all of us to take actions to reverse course on multiple fronts.
My grandparents were poor Jewish immigrants on the Lower East Side of New York City. They opened a small clothing store across the street from their apartment and did their best to make ends meet.
One day, a group of local boys came to their store and asked them to pay for “glass insurance” to make sure that the glass in the front of their store did not break. My grandfather declined as the windows had never been cracked. The next day, the front windows were shattered.
Such is the nature of extortion: to get people to pay for items lest you destroy their property and livelihoods. It has gone mainstream among the woke.
The threats to livelihoods can be seen in various forms including from lawsuits, new government laws and woke corporate initiatives.
Consider the Colorado baker who would not design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple’s wedding. While he was willing to sell them any item in the store, he declined to create something which celebrated an event which stood against his religious beliefs. The State of Colorado sued him in a case that got the attention of the federal Department of Justice as the man’s life and livelihood came crashing down around him.
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders pushed bills that would require private companies to change the composition of their boards to include more women or minorities as well as cap the salaries of executives or face fines. The Oscars, which are not simply an awards show but a ticket to boost sales, has called for a new diversity standard for any movie to even be considered for an award. A film like ‘1917’ about British soldiers in World War I which was nominated for ten Oscars would have needed to insert ahistorical figures of women and minorities to meet the new woke standard.
Meet my demands, or I will hurt your livelihood and/or damage your person and property.
The immediate battle locale is Georgia, which is having two new elections for senators which will determine the balance of power in Washington on January 5th. The Democrats raised 55% more money than Republicans, much from out of state including progressive strongholds of California and New York. Those funds are being used to blanket the airwaves to drown out any non-Democratic voices. It is the last hurdle as the Democrats seek to control every part of Congress to obviate the need for bi-partisanship and enforce an alt-left agenda upon the entire country.
A decade before my grandparents had the windows of their clothing store in New York City smashed, they lived in Vienna, Austria where they saw the city destroy their family’s stores, synagogues and kosher restaurants. The Nazis in the 1930’s wanted to get rid of every Jew, while local hooligans in the 1940’s just wanted to extort money. America will soon see the depth of Socialist power which will determine whether alt-left progressives simply move to seize the property of the right or to drive them completely out of business and the country.
Both the political right and left are coming after the large social media platforms due to their powerful influence over society. The right has complained about the censorship executed by the likes of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter for silencing conservative voices while the left has voiced concern about these perceived monopolies destroying competition. The left has mostly been dismissive about the idea that the corporations have a left-leaning disposition, and if they do, they are nonplussed. If corporations are allowed to contribute to election campaigns (see Citizens United v. FEC which the left abhorred), they should similarly be free to share or block content.
As to the question of whether shadow-banning is real, consider this blog of FirstOneThrough which has a right-of-center orientation to American and Israeli politics.
On a typical week, Facebook would account for over 10 times the number of referrals to an article as search engines. That pattern was relatively consistent whether there were few or several posts.
But the pattern broke during the election cycle.
Impact of Facebook Shadow Banning on views of First One Through blog
During the seven week cycle before the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the blog remarkably went from getting roughly 13 times as many views from Facebook than search engines to only 3 times as much. The change was completely the result of a sharp decline in Facebook readership, as the volume produced from search engines remained constant.
That meant that fewer people had a chance to read the analysis of a vocal Libertarian and Zionist leading up to an important election. Once the election passed, Facebook permitted viewership patterns to return to normal (as of the following five weeks).
How and why did this happen?
Did a liberal reader flag the October 1 article “Vote Harvesting,” a completely true first-hand account of watching how a local election official can influence who gets to vote? Did Facebook decide on its own that posts from a writer who penned on September 25 “NY Times Tries Hard to Paint Obama/Biden as Pacifists and Trump as Mercenary” is an opinion to be silenced? Did an anti-Israel agitator do their utmost to flag a blogger who wrote on September 27 about the vile anti-Semitic Hamas Charter and how former Democratic U.S. President Jimmy Carter backed the Hamas terrorist group?
Whatever the origin of shadow ban, it clearly happened.
If Facebook wants to present itself as a biased platform like MSNBC or Fox News, that’s fine. A private platform can take whatever form it chooses. While it may be annoying when a media company like The New York Times pretends to be unbiased and not left-leaning, the tilt is well known and consistent. Only people living in a liberal bubble believe it to be a neutral and factual publication.
However, what kind of platform swings alt-left for just moments in time like during an election season? If the analysis presented by a blogger is offensive, then make it clear for that person to take their business and opinions elsewhere. Always.
What was done by social media in this instance was clear election-meddling, and on the grandest of scales due to the enormous power of social media. (\According to Pew research, 43% of Americans got their news from social media in 2018, a number that surely went up by 2020. That growing figure is despite a majority of people (57%) being skeptical of what they read.
In 2008, Barack Obama and his supporters were very effective in using social media, especially relative to John McCain supporters according to Pew Research. Obama voters surpassed McCain voters in posting content online (26% vs. 15%) and engaged politically on social media (25% vs. 16%) to yield a very successful outcome. But now, the social media companies themselves are keeping the gap in favor of Democrats by blocking the distribution of conservative posts.
Shadow banning in social media is very real and can easily tip presidential elections that are decided by less than one percent of voters in a couple of states. It is frightening and appalling that we no longer have to only fear the actions of foreign actors in the conduct of our democracy but the large social media platforms themselves.
There are many people who simply cannot understand how anyone could vote for Donald Trump. The accusations of his racism, misogyny and sowing hatred in the country overwhelm so many that they cannot pause to consider that many people consider many of Trump’s actions to be excellent and preferred to what Joe Biden might do as president. People who prioritize a strong economy built on capitalism and a strong foreign policy in rewarding allies over enemies might be willing to ignore Trump’s vile statements.
It is much the same of people who vote for Ilhan Omar for congress despite her repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes. Some constituents love her progressive socialist values and give a pass to her comments.
A popular lawn sign that “Hate has no home here” dots much of suburbia but the reality is that many liberals and conservatives are willing to overlook the hatred. Liberals might rant about Trump but will defend Omar, while conservative people will do the reverse. The placards really need to add the word “SOME” before “HATE”.
Pew Research did a poll in August 2020 about the top issues for voters. Trump voters placed the economy, violent crime, immigration, gun policy and foreign policy as their top five issues. Biden voters placed healthcare, the coronavirus, race and ethnic inequality, the economy and climate change as their biggest issues. The two different lists point to an America that doesn’t simply have different policy preferences on certain matters (like capitalism over socialism) but completely different priorities.
Yet to read social media leads one to believe that hate itself is on the ballot. That a vote for the likes of Trump or Omar is a tacit approval of inciting division in these envisioned “United” States.
Arguably, the polls and social media should be read together and not as distinct data points. Trump voters consider fellow citizens that ignore the economy, violent crime and their most important issues as undermining America, much like Biden supporters view people who do not prioritize healthcare, the coronavirus and racial inequality as destroying society.
It is worth considering whether the hate that’s on the ballot in 2020 really belongs to the politicians or the convictions of our fellow Americans.
The middle has been collapsing for some time. Senators like Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-NV) could no longer exist in today’s political climate. The moderates in both the Republican and Democratic parties have been expunged in their respective primary seasons.
Fringe parties like Democratic Socialist and the Working Families Parties have successfully inserted themselves into America’s main parties. Far left extremists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are no longer on the outside looking in, but have seats in Congress, are members of important committees and been endorsed by the heads of the Democratic National Committee and the Speaker of the House.
In New York State, Democrats forcibly retired politicians that considered bi-partisanship a noble idea. The majority Democratic Party is now looking to seal the fate of the state by actively looking to expel the last of the moderates and achieve a super-majority to advance extremist ideas. The terms “DINO” and “RINO,” Democrats In Name Only and Republicans In Name Only have become slurs.
For their part, the Republicans can’t stand the incumbent president of their own party, with dozens upon dozens shunning Trump. It’s an unheard of dynamic in the history of American elections: Republican hate Republicans and Democrats hate Republicans. It sounds like an easy vote this election.
The cleft in society will not be bridged with endorsing a party that has swung far from the center. It will also not be cured with a vote for an Independent or Libertarian, which might feel like good, but does as much as throwing a pebble into the trench.
In this contentious election, the best path forward to heal the country is to vote purple – not all blue (Democratic) or pure red (Republican) up and down the ballot, but to vote for a mix of both parties. If you live in a deep blue state, vote straight red, and if you’re in a deep red state, vote blue in every race. Americans must force the parties to find common ground, as a sweep for Democrats or Republicans in 2020 is a vote for extremist ideologies and policies.
June 23rd was the Democratic Primary in New York. As the coronavirus was still raging, I decided to vote a day beforehand to avoid crowds.
I arrived at the voting location in White Plains about an hour before its scheduled close. There were only two Hispanic men in front of me inside, so I was able to enter as the center had a strict limit on the number of voters allowed indoors at one time. The men were clearly frustrated, engaged in a discussion with officials behind the partition glass.
I went to an open window and told the middle-aged woman that I needed a ballot. I gave her my name and she looked me up in the system. In short order it became clear that it was not going to be a quick vote as she got up and said she needed to check something.
While waiting for her return, I got a clearer picture of the saga involving the two Hispanic men. It seemed that they had brought in a large number of ballots to submit, and the official who I later learned was Reginald LaFayette, the Chairman of the Westchester County Democratic Party, said that he could not accept the stack of votes. The men left, disappointed, and other people who had waited outside soon took their place at the window. I would watch thirteen other people come-and-go during the twenty minutes I was there.
I was told that my party registration was in question and that it was not clear I was qualified to vote in the Democratic primary. While I had been a Democrat for decades, I switched party affiliations to Libertarian in 2018 after Tom Perez, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee said that the future of the Democrats was with the far-left progressives winning House seats. However, for this election, a friend heavily involved in Westchester politics told me about the importance of switching back to being a Democrat as Congressperson Nita Lowey was retiring and her seat was being pursued by another far-left progressive named Mondaire Jones. My friend dropped change of party affiliation forms (for my wife as well) at my house in January 2020 and told me to submit them by Valentine’s Day. I mailed mine in two days before the deadline.
Not according to the Westchester Democratic Party.
According to their records, my change form was marked received in their ledger on February 19, several days after the deadline. I protested that it could not have taken a week for the mail to arrive and Lafayette joined the discussion. He went to the records and pulled the envelope I had mailed to check the postmark date. It proved illegible – perhaps the 11th or the 17th – and LaFayette decided to let me vote. This was another indication of the power the chairman had to allow (me) or disallow (the Hispanic men) votes.
There were other interesting observations during my wait.
Of the thirteen other people I watched vote, six were White and seven were Black. The White people ranged in age from college girls to an older couple, with each casting a single ballot. In sharp contrast, every Black person was in a narrower age range (roughly late 20’s to mid-40’s) and they all brought several ballots with them. The quantities were less than from the Hispanic men – handfuls rather than dozens – but the difference was striking. Why were the Black people bringing in outside votes which were all accepted, while the White people only voted for themselves and the ream of Hispanic people’s ballots were disqualified? I heard one Black woman say that the additional ballots she was submitting were from her parents and aunt who had recently moved to the city, but what about the others?
My mind wandered-
Were these people very effective at collecting ballots at their churches to get the vote out for their favorite candidate? Did they go door to door in their neighborhood? If they went to a nursing home and took dozens of ballots from elderly people, could they have effectively stuffed the ballot box with their own personal preferred candidate? What kind of questions could Lafayette – or anyone tasked with such a situation around the country – ask to determine if the votes should be admissible?
Westchester County Democratic Committee Chairman Reginald A. Lafayette
President Trump has argued that the mail-in system is ripe for voter fraud. While I hope that will not happen, I witnessed either the very essence of fraud or a skilled person ensuring a fair election. I honestly don’t know which.
What is clear to me, is that if this turns out to be a close election, the local people at the voting centers will have a greater impact on the winner of the 2020 presidential race than the Supreme Court.
Many people have their taste in music locked in by their mid-20’s. They typically find it hard to add new artists to their song lists and revert to their old favorites each day.
Similarly, people see their spouses and old friends through old lenses. They don’t really age in their minds who remain as youthful and energetic as their memories allow, not as they truly exist today.
We see this dynamic playing out in politics today as well.
The Palestinian Arabs call for a new state to be established on lands ruled by Jordan and Egypt way back in 1967. The fact that over fifty years have passed since those illegal occupiers were routed by Israel does not seem to faze the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Many Palestinian Arabs are even more ambitious with seemingly older memories when they chant “we don’t want two states; we want ’48,” in a call to recreate a reality from 1948 before the Jewish State was reborn.
American voters are doing it as well. They have deluded themselves into believing they are voting for Joe Biden as he was in 1988 and not the man as he exists today in 2020. They ignore his clearly compromised facilities and pretend he is up to the task of running the country.
I do not fault people for seeing the world as they want it to be or as they really visualize it. But it is madness to pretend that others share their time-warped perceptions. It is delusional, off-putting and not constructive.
When a fellow American says they cannot vote for a 2020-Joe Biden or an Israeli says that he is not going back in time to set borders from 1948 or 1967, it doesn’t mean that they do not share some common desires like peace in the Middle East or a president that is not Donald Trump. It means that they see the world as it truly exists today and will act accordingly.
Looking at the world through vintage glasses is wonderful when engaging with close friends and family members but is dangerous when negotiating or entering the voting booth. Democrats are doing both when they dismiss the Trump peace plan which considers reality in Israel and its territories, and when they delude themselves into talking about 2020-Joe Biden as if he’s still 1988-Joe Biden.
Carlucci co-sponsored New York’s anti-BDS bill. S2430 was introduced for the stated purpose of “prohibit[ing] New York State from contracting with corporations that are boycotting Israel.” The bill has passed the assembly and has not yet been delivered to Governor Cuomo for signature. This is of particular importance as the United Nations recently assembled a list of 112 companies doing business in Israeli territories which will become the basis for global boycott action.
Opposes UN Security Council Resolution 2334. One of the last acts by the Obama Administration was to allow the United Nations Security Council to pass Resolution 2334 which declared Israel’s activities east of the 1949 Armistice Lines to be illegal. Carlucci said the resolution “is an obstacle peace and should be rescinded.“
Recognizes and Supports the 2004 Bush letter to Ariel Sharon. President George W Bush sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004 which specifically stated that final borders in a peace agreement would incorporate “existing major Israeli populations centers” and that in a two-state solution, “the settling of Palestinian refugees [would be] there, rather than in Israel.“
Redo UNRWA. Regarding the UN agency which handles Palestinian refugees, Carlucci said “UNRWA failed the Palestinians and the cause of peace. A new strategy is required to address the humanitarian needs of Palestinians and securing a prosperous future. Meaningful and sustainable investments in Palestinian society and realistic goals for a reinvigorated peace process are essential to bringing stability and growth to the Middle East.“
Supports the Taylor Force Act. The Taylor Force Act was designed to condition financial support to the Palestinians on their ceasing to support terror against Americans and Israelis, including paying stipends through the Palestinian Authority Martyr’s Fund to individuals who commit acts of terrorism and to the families of deceased terrorists.
Opposed the Iranian nuclear deal. Carlucci stated “I oppose re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 for many reasons, including most concerning is that it did not stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, it did not address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, it lacked inspections at military sites, it allowed Iran to continue its research into what could lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and it did not prohibit development of ballistic missiles. Now that we have been removed from the Iran deal, we must restart negotiations as soon as possible with the goal being that Iran never get control of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. These new negotiations must have these parameters in place to guide a productive resolution.“
Sen. Carlucci also added that he supports “a secure Israel to protect our ally and Israeli lives” and will vote to supply Israel with the funding needed to defend itself against nations that want to do it harm.
Significantly, he wants to ensure that Israel is not politicized and that both parties should be involved in the comprehensive work to support a two-state solution.