Now For Some Debt Bomb Humor and Paula! Remember April 21 Meeting

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pg7vhYq4ojY

Oh if dogs could only vote!
===
Remember:  April 21, 7 PM at our home to meet two fine young candidates for public office. Please come and if so let me know. Do not let apathy dictate your actions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama's peace effort for the Palestinians and Israelis was born out desire and the prospect of it being implemented was always ephemeral.

What it did accomplish is further negative marks against Obama's already sinking diplomacy initiatives world wide, put a dent in Kerry's hull, exposed fissures and increased distrust between America and Israel that will take some time to heal and gave encouragement to Abbas that his intransigence will eventually net him more dollars etc.(See 1 and 1a below.)
===
And now for some debt bomb humor:    Http://www.youtube.com/embed/GXcLVDhS8fM?feature=player_detailpage

and then:

From the Intensive Care Unit

Husband’s Message (by cellphone):

Honey, a car hit me while I was out of the office. Paula brought me to the
Hospital. They have been making tests and taking X-rays

The blow to my head has been very strong, fortunately it seems that did not cause any serious injury, but I have three broken ribs, a compound fracture
in the left leg, and they may have to amputate the right foot.

Wife’s Response: 

Who is Paula? 

===

I consider the U.N. basically worthless and it has proven so because it has lost its moral moorings but then there are those who say without the U.N. debate would be supplanted by conflagrations. My response is I thought we had plenty of ongoing wars, ie. Africa, Middle East and then some outbreaks from time to time in other hot spots and then there is the Ukraine.

But be that as it may, on occasion the U.N. publishes some interesting work and recently I became aware of a report correlating a nation's GDP ranking with its social benefits. We place fairly high in GDP but when you see how our wealth fails to produce social benefits you have to shake your head.

More money is not the answer.  We simply do a poor job of allocating and getting the benefits we are due on a return on investment and it is evident government is largely to blame. Government is big, it is cumbersome, it is distant and it is bureaucratic.

Government can provide seed money for projects the private sector may be reluctant to engage but that's about it and that is why I continue to believe our nation would prosper if we eliminated The Department of Education, The Department of Energy and closed about a third of what is left.

the former CIA official,  Morreell, is a perfect example of how bureaucrats cover the ass with obfuscation and many would not know how to engage in straight talk if it hit them in the face.

Now this former seniorofficial has been hired by the Clinton crowd - payback for covering her behind?

And then there is Susan Rice.  But what difference does it make?
===
Just beg for more. My friend Toameh explains.
===
Noonan and the Obamacare mess(See 3 below.)
===
 Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Check your newspaper, Twitter feed, or CNN.  You will find the Malaysian airplane, Ukraine, the mudslide in Washington State, and in Washington, D.C. the terrible story of a missing 8-year-old girl.  There is the occasional story about the Syrian civil war, the Central African Republic, or the declining U.S. defense budget. 

 You are unlikely to learn much about the meeting between Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and President Obama, or about the current state of Secretary of State Kerry's "American Framework" for Israel-Palestinian peace.

The reason is that Secretary Kerry and the president have managed to alienate both sides at the same time, so they don't want to talk about it.  This takes some doing, so it is worth considering how they managed.

From Israel's side, requirements for a peace deal with the Palestinians include a few points:

• End of conflict; end of claims
• The promises of U.N. Resolution 242
• Israel's capital in Jerusalem

End of Conflict; End of Claims is shorthand for "This is the last time we will have a negotiation over land, recognition, refugees or anything else. Whatever we give here and whatever you get here is the last thing."  It includes, inter alia, accepting the language of U.N. Resolution 181, which calls for the establishment of a Jewish State and an Arab State in Palestine.  The Arab states voted against Res. 181 in 1947, and Israel has been waiting 67 years for them to correct the vote.  This is part of why Israel wants the Arabs to accept Israel as the "Jewish State" – because the U.N. called it that.

So when Kerry says it's counterproductive to insist, he is denying Israel's requirement for legitimacy and the promise of "respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area."  If that language sounds familiar, it is because it comes straight from U.N. Resolution 242.

The State Department spokesperson said it was unnecessary for the U.S. to insist, because "[t]he American position is clear[:] Israel is a Jewish state[.] … [W]e do not see a need that both sides recognize this position as part of the final agreement."

So, if the U.S. does it, the Arabs don't have to.  That eviscerates the other important protection given to Israel by the U.N. (one of the few times a resolution worked in Israel's favor).

U.N. Resolution 242: At the end of the 1967 war, the Arab states were handed the obligation to provide Israel with "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force," and "termination of all claims or states of belligerency."

Secretary Kerry took the requirement off the table, just as he did Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, telling an audience at the White House, "One of the lynchpins of the current peace process is theseparation of Israel's security assurances from the general negotiations."  Security for Israel would be guaranteed in a "separate agreement" with the U.S., he said.

Under Kerry's new formulation, two principles emerge.  Kerry assumes that first, there will be a continued state of war between Israel and its neighbors, negating the idea of a "peace process" entirely, and that second, Israel's sovereign legitimacy and secure boundaries do not have to be recognized by the Arab states, the Palestinians, or anyone else – just determined, accepted, and guaranteed by the United States.

The Israeli government vociferously objects to both principles.

OK, so the Israelis are unhappy, but if Israel's primary requirements are on the chopping block, why are the Palestinians angry?  President Obama, promising Mahmoud Abbas a country, did, in fact, ask for four concessions:

• Recognize Israel as a Jewish State.
• Agree that Palestinian refugees will be settled in the new State of Palestine, not in Israel (or accept compensation).
• Agree that Israel can maintain at least a short-term security presence in the Jordan Valley.
• Agree to "a presence" in Jerusalem, but not all of it.

That Abbas rejected them all should have been expected.  Abbas, too, has a bottom line, which does not include peace with Israel or the establishment of a Palestinian State.  His sole priority is not to do what will get him killed by unhappy Palestinians or deposed by the Arab League.  This includes:

No recognition of Jewish patrimony anywhere in Palestine (Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan).  The Arab League reiterated that position last week.  Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said the PA would not interfere with how Israelis "want to define themselves," but "Israelis cannot deny that I have my own narrative, I have my religion, I have my story. [They are] asking me to change my narrative."  It should be noted that his "narrative" includes the claim that Palestinians are descended from non-Arab, non-Muslim Canaanites, just to make the point that Palestinians were there first.

Not to give up the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to live in places within pre-1967 Israel to which they claim roots, no matter how many generations ago.  Abbas reiterated just this week:  "No-one can give up the right of return."

No settlements, no Jews, no IDF.  Erekat announced that "[n]o settler will be allowed to stay in the Palestinian state, not even a single one, because settlements are illegal and the presence of the settlers on the occupied lands is illegal."  If you think he was drawing a distinction between "settlers" and "Jews," he was not.  "Settlers" are simply Jews living where Erekat and Abbas and Kerry don't want them.  Abbas toldThe New York Times that the Palestinian state wouldn't have an army, but that NATO and American troops should be responsible for the security in the West Bank.

Full control of East Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine.  Jewish patrimony in East Jerusalem is constantly being undermined by the PA, and its minister of religious affairs and the former chief justice of its Religious Court both recently declared that the PA's Islamic belief and political position is that Jews are prohibited from praying at the Western Wall of the Temple Mount.

So Abbas said no to all and returned to the West Bank a hero.  "I am a hero.  I said no to Obama," he said at a carefully scripted rally back in Ramallah in which he called the American proposals "immature."

Perhaps, but only in the very short term, and in a very narrow sphere of influence.


1a)  Washington Post : Kerry’s folly, Chapter 3

By Charles Krauthammer

When has a secretary of state been involved in so many disastrous, self-initiated negotiations? First, John Kerry convenes — against all advice and holding no cards — Geneva negotiations to resolve the Syria conflict and supposedly remove Bashar al-Assad from power. The talks collapse in acrimony and confusion.

Kerry’s response? A second Geneva conference that — surprise! — breaks up in acrimony and confusion.

Then, even as Russian special forces are taking over Crimea, Kerry goes chasing after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — first to Paris, then Rome, then London —offering a diplomatic “offramp.” Lavrov shrugs him off. Russia annexes Crimea.

The crowning piece of diplomatic futility, however, is Kerry’s frantic effort to salvage the Arab-Israeli negotiations he launched, also against all odds and sentient advice. He’s made 12 trips to the region, aiming to produce a final Middle East peace within nine months.

It is month nine. The talks have gone nowhere. But this has been a fool’s errand from Day One. There never was any chance of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas concluding a final peace .

Now in the 10th year of a four-year term (there never was a reelection — he just stayed in office), Abbas doesn’t have the legitimacy. With half of Palestine (namely Gaza) controlled by his rejectionist mortal enemy Hamas, he doesn’t have the authority.

And he doesn’t have the intention. Abbas openly refuses to (a) recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (b) yield the so-called right of return (which would flood Israel with millions of Palestinians, destroying the state demographically) and (c) ever sign any agreement that ends the conflict once and for all.

Any one of these refusals makes a final peace impossible. All three make the entire process ridiculous. Kerry has given up trying to get a final agreement. He’s given up on even getting a “framework agreement.” He’s reduced to simply trying to keep the moribund talks going.

At a price, of course. For Israel. It is supposed to keep releasing imprisoned terrorists simply to keep the Palestinians at negotiations that they themselves say have achieved nothing.

Abbas wants to call off the farce so he can go to U.N. agencies for recognition — a strategy of achieving statehood without negotiations with Israel that contradicts every agreement the Palestinians have signed since the 1993 Oslo Accord.

For their part, the Israelis are tired of the diplomatic Ponzi scheme in which they are required to release terrorists to keep Abbas at the table. Until when? Until every murderer has been freed — at which point Abbas will go to the U.N. anyway?

To keep stringing along the Israelis, some genius decided to dangle Jonathan Pollard. What’s he got to do with anything? Why is he being offered as an incentive for Israel to accept otherwise unacceptable conditions?

Normally, the United States facilitates agreements by offering Israel compensation for the security risks it takes upon giving up territory, because the Arabs either cannot or will not offer security guarantees of their own. Thus the United States might try to re-establish the military balance with advanced weaponry or access to timely intelligence.

But Pollard? He is an American traitor who is up for parole next year anyway. It has long been a mistake for Israel to agitate for his release. He disgracefully betrayed his country. What kind of corrupt and cynical quid pro quo is this?

One that Abbas is trying to make irrelevant. On Tuesday, he essentially turned over the negotiating table by signing on to 15 U.N. and international conventions as the “State of Palestine,” thus publicly undermining the essence of the U.S. peace process and humiliating the hapless secretary of state. Kerry will likely ignore the insult and carry on regardless. Uselessly.

Instead of trying to stave off the U.N. bid with the release of Palestinian terrorists and an American spy, perhaps the administration could simply stop fighting Congress, which developed a far more effective method. Under law, any U.N. agency that recognizes “Palestine” has its U.S. funds cut off.

The Obama administration keeps trying to restore funding for UNESCO, which in 2011 defied the U.S. by recognizing Palestine. What kind of signal is this to the rest of the world? Financial sanctions are precisely the kind of pressure that can support diplomacy. Yet this administration seems intent on removing sanctions that might thwart Palestinian moves toward unilateral statehood, the latest Palestinian strategy for getting land without offering peace.

After all, that would be diplomacy with teeth. So 19th century.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Abbas to Kerry: Please Beg Me More!

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry rushes back to the region in yet anther desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."

In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to an extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands therefore have continued to increase almost every day.

Palestinian Authority [PA] leader Mahmoud Abbas is now waiting to see what the U.S. Administration will offer him in return for refraining from pursuing his bid to join various international treaties and institutions.

In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Hours after Abbas signed the applications for joining a number of international bodies and treaties, he received an urgent phone call from Kerry asking him to refrain from further moves that could "derail" the peace process.

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before Kerry rushes back to the region in yet another desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."

On Wednesday night, Abbas and the PA leadership received the first sign that the U.S. Administration was nervous and confused following the PA's surprise decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties.

Kerry's envoy, Martin Indyk, invited Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat and Israeli Justice Minister Tsipi Livni to an emergency meeting in Jerusalem to find ways of preventing the "collapse" of the peace talks in the wake of Abbas's decision to apply for the memberships.

The meeting lasted for several hours and, according to Palestinian sources in Ramallah, Indyk and Livni "reprimanded" Erekat for surprising Israel and the U.S. Administration with the new decision.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in happier times. (Image source: Nirvana News YouTube video still)

Abbas dispatched Erekat to the meeting to see what the Americans and Israelis are prepared to offer him in return for suspending this bid.

So far, however, Abbas does not seem to be satisfied with what his emissary, Erekat, heard from Indyk and Livni. Abbas is therefore expected to step up pressure on the two parties in the coming days and weeks, if he can, in the hope of extracting as many concessions as possible.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of a "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands have therefore continued to increase almost every day.

Realizing how desperate Kerry is to achieve an extension of the talks, Abbas decided that this was the right time to set new conditions, such as the release of jailed Fatah militia leader Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat, Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Barghouti is in prison for his role in terrorist attacks against Israelis during the second intifada. Sa'adat is serving a lengthy prison term for his role in the assassination of Israel's Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.

As Kerry increased his pressure on the Palestinians to agree to an extension, Abbas added two more conditions: the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and a complete cessation of construction in settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Abbas has also made it clear that his decision to join international organizations and treaties does not mean that he is interested in a "clash" with the U.S. Administration.

Abbas is right. Of course he does not want a "clash" with President Barack Obama and Kerry. Rather, Abbas wants the two men to continue begging him not to walk out of the peace process and turn their entire Middle East policy into another blunder. He wants them to exert pressure on the Israeli government to accept both his old and new demands.

Abbas apparently thinks he is moving in the right direction, and that Obama and Kerry have no choice but to accept his demands and intensify U.S. pressure on Israel. Abbas does not want totally to walk out of the peace talks at this stage. He feels that he can still extract further concessions from the Israelis and Americans, and that his decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties has left the U.S. Administration in a state of panic that the peace talks might fail. Now he is waiting to see what price Obama and Kerry are willing to pay to avoid that scenario.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)  Peggy Noonan: Obamacare a 'Huge, Historic Mess'

Obamacare has been nothing but a "huge, historic mess" that is unique in the annals of lawmaking and administration, says The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan.

"The leaders of our government have not felt, throughout the process, that they had any responsibility to be honest and forthcoming about the major aspects of the program, from its exact nature to its exact cost," writes Noonan.


"We are not being told the cost of anything—all those ads, all the consultants and computer work, even the cost of the essential program itself."

One large problem, said Noonan, was that Democrats pushed to pass the bill without knowing what was in it and without bothering to understand its implications.

The bill's biggest proponent, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, was Democratic House speaker, when she said "that we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." That was a "historic admission" that she was fighting for something she didn't understand, said Noonan. "This is how we make laws now."

But while Republicans were alarmed, Democrats for the next three years were inspired and "would carry on like blithering idiots making believe they'd read the bill and understood its implications," wrote Noonan. 

The White House, meanwhile, "lied in a way so specific it showed they knew exactly what to spin and how," Noonan said, including President Barack Obama's promises that Americans could keep their healthcare plans and doctors.

However, that wasn't true, as "your existing policy had to pass muster with the administration, which would fight to the death to ensure that 60-year-old women have pediatric dental coverage," said Noonan.

But the bill has not insured tens of millions of uninsured Americans, as promised, but it "has terrorized millions who did have insurance and lost it, or who still have insurance and may lose it," she said.

But the program is too defeating to be comprehended, and two things will happen, Noonan wrote: "Those inclined to like the spirit of the thing will support it on the assumption the government knows what its doing. And the opposition will find it difficult to effectively oppose—or repeal the thing—because of the program's bureaucratic density and complexity. 
It's like wrestling a manic, many-armed squid in ink-darkened water."

Another problem is that the bill that was signed in 2010 is far different than the law that now exists, after parts have been delayed or changed 30 times, she said. 
"It is telling that the president rebuffed Congress when it asked to work with him on alterations, but had no qualms about doing them by executive fiat," said Noonan. 

Supporters have also changed their words, going from "this is an excellent bill, and opponents hate the needy" to "People will love it once they have it" to "We may need some changes" to "I've co-sponsored a bill to make needed alterations" to "This will be seen by posterity as an advance in human freedom."

Meanwhile, she contended that there are few Democrats who would pass Obamacare again. 

"Some would do something different, but they wouldn't do this," Noonan said. "The cost of the blunder has been too high in terms of policy and politics."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------