Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Dagny Skis. Dark Clouds Gathering Over Hillary. Marcus Supports Trump.

Dagny's dad was a ski champion at Rollins College, so Dagny is learning how to water board and ski at age 4 from a pro.

They have a ski boat and live across the street from a lake in Maitland near Orlando. Blake will be next.

Controversy over the death of a Gorilla to save a 4 year old.

Meanwhile, millions of people have been slaughtered by Muslim "animals" and this gets less media attention.

As I understand it, Obama's policy regarding Muslim refugees is to ignore uncaged ISIS Gorillas joining in the flight of refugees so they eventually can roam over to America and cause comparable trouble as they have been in Europe.  In fact, recently our State Department warned Americans regarding travel to Europe because of the unvetted influx of Muslims being infiltrated by these ISIS Gorillas.

Maybe Obama can resolve the ISIS crisis by hosting another "beer summit" on the grounds of The White House. Apparently that is what he demands Netanyahu do regarding Abbas and those pesky Palestinians who have taken to stabbing Israelis as their refreshing new "peace/piece" tactic.
If laws mean anything anymore in this nation founded upon the adherence to them,  Hillarious has more problems ahead as dark clouds gather.

Democrats place winning above anything else so Hillarious could eventually be gutted by the Demwit establishment. Never put anything past politicians when power and control are the ultimate prize. Particularly, this could be the case with Obama in charge of the Justice Department.  Hillary could become his sacrificial lamb.

Matters could turn so bad that even the media and news folks might be forced to save what little credibility they have left and turn against Hillarious. They did the last time around as they gushed for/over Obama and threw her overboard. (See 1, 1a, 1b and 1c below.)

That said, Thomas Friedman still continues to parse in defense of Hllary.  One day he is going to break some hand bones twisting in his effort to apologize and appease his intellectual base that gush over his every word.

I was unable to copy the article but I refer you to:

Clinton’s Fibs, and Her Opponents’ Double                                     Whoppers

By Thomas L. Friedman Op-Ed Columnist
June 1, edition of New York Times
The Left versus Israel. (See 2 below.)
My friend, Bernie Marcus, stands with Trump and states why.

Bernie is one of the most practical and common sense businessmen I know.  (See 3 below.)
1)Hillary’s Potential Email Felonies

While Hillary Clinton likes to appear unconcerned about her email scandal, her actions have the potential to invite serious Federal issues.

For example, when Hillary accepted donations to her Foundation she may have violated Title 18 § 201. Section (b) clearly states “Whoever -- (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity of any fraud, on the United States”…  The contents of the Clinton private server have yet to be fully investigated. However, if Hillary made any contact with any foreign agent or officer, such as booking speeches by Bill Clinton, she committed a Federal felony.

The FBI seem to be looking into the connections between her Charitable Foundation and her actions as Secretary of State.

And when she “allowed” Russia to control 20% of Canadian uranium in return for donations to the entity of her foundation, even indirectly, she violated §201. The penalty for each offense is to be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.

When she placed classified information on her personal server she may have violated USC 18 §798; Disclosure of classified information:
(a) “Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information --
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes…”
Note that just making this information available -- to hackers -- or using it in a manner prejudicial to safety, is a Federal crime. “Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. “The term “classified information’ means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution…” Romanian hacker Guccifer claims to have hacked into her server and has struck a plea bargain with federal prosecutors.

The existence of this server, with her approval, is itself a violation of federal law, since it was kept in an insecure manner. There are no excuses, the prosecutors won’t have to prove anything was done intentionally. For Hillary to employ a private internet tech to set up this server was itself a federal felony since it could not have been secure. Particularly since she was given a secure .gov email address and knew she had to use it exclusively for work product. High school freshmen today are instructed to submit all their homework to a very specific website maintained by their high school.
§832. Participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States
(a) “Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, willfully participates in or knowingly provides material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A) to a nuclear weapons program or other weapons of mass destruction program of a foreign terrorist power, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years.”
Hillary worked, through her private server and Clinton Foundation, to aid Russia in gaining access to uranium.
§1001. Statements or entries generally:
(a) “Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry…”
§1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title….”
When Hillary said her emails only concerned yoga classes and her daughter’s wedding plans she was making fictitious statements, misrepresented the nature of the emails, and fraudulently described the nature of the emails in order to avoid investigation. She also erased over 30,000 emails. Some of those recovered contained classified information.
§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States…”
§2232. (a)
(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.—Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both..
(b) “Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction.—Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court's continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Hillary knew her emails were being investigated and intentionally acted to obstruct the investigation.
If not for the efforts of Judge Rudolph Contreras to order the State Department to release emails, Hillary would have continued to destroy them and delay the investigation.

An interesting side note is that Hillary went to Maine South high school in Park Ridge, IL, a suburb that borders Chicago. The FBI agent who sold more secrets to Russia than any agent in history, Robert Hanssen, grew up two miles from her and went to nearby Taft High School in Chicago.


Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee

A Sanders win in California would turbocharge the mounting Democratic unease about her viability.

How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.
The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.
To this end, data from mid-May show that there were nearly 1.5 million newly registered Democratic voters in California since Jan. 1. That’s a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for Mr. Sanders.
A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.
There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely.
Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs. Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind him, respectively.
Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.
The worries about Mr. Sanders’s strength have stirred the beginnings of a capitulation to him—by the Clinton camp, in league with the Democratic National Committee—at the convention. To placate him, they have already granted Mr. Sanders greater influence over the party platform. Two divisive figures, Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison, have been added to the platform committee, ensuring that the party will be pulled further left. In addition to putting Mr. Sanders’s socialist nostrums on display, the platform negotiations are likely to spur an ugly fight over the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.
With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.
Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.
There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.
Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.
Where is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the campaign, other than to say that he doesn’t believe Mrs. Clinton compromised national security with her home-brew email server. But with her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders candidacy showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking ball for the president’s legacy, Mr. Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee and to the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn’t displease the White House.
All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the Democratic presidential nominee.
Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton, 1994-2000.
1b) If Clinton Implodes, Democrats May Turn to Biden and Warren

The persistence and growth of Hillary’s e-mail scandal concerns party leaders. Smart Democrats began dusting off copies of their Plan B for the 2016 fall campaign this week. They were prompted by a devastating report from Department of Justice inspector general, who found that “significant security risks” were raised by Hillary Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail server at the State Department. 
Democrats know that an FBI report, potentially even more damaging, may be leaked in the coming weeks. Even if Hillary faces no criminal liability, she could find the number of Americans who view her as honest and trustworthy dropping below Donald Trump’s numbers.  
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein, who helped break open the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, told CNN: Hillary Clinton did not want her e-mails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress, and that’s why she set up a home-brew server. I think we all know that. People around her will tell you that in private if you really get them behind a closed door.
I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials, and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall because of this distrust factor. And, indeed, Trump has a similar problem. But she’s the one whose numbers are going south. 
“Trump lies about his businesses and changes with the wind,” one former Democratic senator told me. “But if Hillary is found to have compromised national security, that will be viewed as more relevant to the job of president.” 
Democrats will carefully watch the polls in the next few weeks. If Hillary stays slightly ahead of Trump or is competitive, she will become the Democratic nominee at the Philadelphia convention. But if her numbers slide, watch for super-delegates now in her camp to consider the possibility of substituting Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate — with the possible addition of Senator Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, as political balm for the party’s not nominating a woman for president. 
 Everyone knows that the election is in the hands of independent voters, who are about 40 per cent of the electorate. In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, 59 percent per cent of independents said that their view of Clinton was unfavorable, and 67 percent said that she was “not honest and trustworthy.” 
Even liberals appear close to the end of their patience with the Clintons. The Washington Post editorial board said that the findings of the State Department report demonstrate “Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules.” During an MSNBC panel this Thursday, the comments were scathing as panelists ripped Hillary’s refusal to be interviewed by the inspector general and lambasted her obvious lie that her private e-mail practices were allowed by the State Department. “Trump now has ten new words for her: Incompetent Hillary, Dangerous Hillary,” former advertising brand executive Donny Deutsch said in exasperation. “I don’t know how to move the untrustworthy needle” on her, he concluded. 
Mike Barnacle of MSNBC said that the report “adds to the weight of voter exhaustion when it comes to the Clintons.” Al Hunt of Bloomberg News noted that the report’s depiction of Hillary’s State Department aides as enablers for her behavior “raises questions about who she surrounds herself with.” A partial answer is that she hires people who are at least as good at stonewalling investigations as Richard Nixon ever was. Only five of the 26 current and former Clinton aides whom the inspector general sought to interview agreed to cooperate.
Clinton herself refused to be interviewed, despite having claimed on CBS’s Face the Nation as recently as May 8 that she was “more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime” about her e-mail situation. Brian Fallon, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign, preposterously tried to justify the refusal by pointing to her willingness to be interviewed by the FBI for its probe. He also tried to disparage the neutrality of the inspector general’s office by saying that there were “open questions” about the “appropriateness” of its review. He told Wolf Blitzer of CNN that “there were reports about individuals in this office coming forward and suggesting there were hints of . . . anti-Clinton bias inside that office.” When pressed for specifics, he failed to provide any. 
This Is Not Business as Usual 
One reason may be that the last thing Hillary Clinton really wants to talk about is how the office of the inspector general functioned during her four-year tenure at State. Astonishingly, the department had no permanent inspector general during that period, the office being filled by an acting inspector, Harold Geisel. He had been an ambassador appointed by President Bill Clinton and also had close ties to the State Department’s leadership. Those ties would have barred him from seeking the job of permanent inspector general. “It’s a convenient way to prevent oversight,” says Michael Harris, a University of Maryland professor who is an expert on the role of inspectors general in government. Acting inspectors general are “in a position where they could be removed at any moment.” 
Geisel isn’t responding to calls from reporters, but the last permanent inspector general before him is. Howard Krongard served as the inspector general for State from 2005 to 2008. He told the New York Post that “it’s clear” that Hillary Clinton “did not want to be subject to internal investigations.” He believes that her actions in seeking to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests and the requirements of the Federal Records Act were clearly premeditated and intentional. That is significant because, as my NRO colleague Andrew C. McCarthy points out, violating those rules is an actual violation of federal law.  
Krongard doesn’t believe Hillary Clinton is in danger of indictment from an Obama Justice Department. He believes that, even if the Justice Department were to pursue a criminal referral on the matter from the FBI, it would be plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor similar to the one that former CIA David Petraeus secured when he was found to have compromised classified information. Hillary Clinton aides have privately told allies they believe she could survive even that development if it was accompanied by a “heartfelt” apology.  
Even if Hillary Clinton is capable of such a move, the FBI report into her e-mail scandal could spook Democratic delegates if the negative publicity generated by it damaged her poll numbers. And that could be a devastating political blow for Clinton. Unlike Republican delegates, who are “bound” to vote for the winner of their state’s primary or caucus on the first ballot, Democratic delegates are only “pledged” to support the winner. And they are only pledged to vote for a candidate if they can do so “in good conscience.” One Democratic super-delegate I spoke with joked that the political definition of that phrase is “can they win in November.” 
If Democratic delegates decide that Hillary is too much of a political liability to nominate, don’t expect them to turn to Bernie Sanders. Despite polls showing him with a bigger lead over Trump than Hillary has, few prominent Democrats believe that Sanders could survive sustained attacks on his record as a self-proclaimed “socialist.”
That’s where Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren would come in. Biden would be sold as a steady hand who would energize President Obama’s supporters, and Warren would be pitched to delegates as someone who could keep Sanders progressives on board. “The implication would be that, at age 74, Biden might serve only one term and Warren would be a natural successor,’ a former Democratic congressman told me. 
Senior Clinton adviser Joel Berenson insists that the American people have no interest in what he calls the “gray area” of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail situation. Senator Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.), who is a staunch Hillaryite, told MSNBC that voters will think that she merely made “a mistake trying to protect her privacy.” But that’s not what smart Democrats are privately saying. They know that the inspector general’s report is a preview of coming revelations in the upcoming FBI report, and they are laying the groundwork to implement Plan B if they think it will be necessary. 
John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

1c) Dark clouds gather over Hillary Clinton
By Don Metcalf
Dan Metcalfe teaches secrecy law at American University’s Washington College of Law. He served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, during which time he handled information-disclosure policy issues on dozens of Clinton Administration scandals. He’s a registered Democrat who says he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November “if she escapes indictment and manages to become the Democratic presidential nominee.” 
Metcalfe believes, however, that Clinton will be indicted, and should be, over the email scandal. He explains why in this column.
Metcalfe writes:
For those of us who recognized from the outset that Ms. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email system for all her official business (not to mention her unprecedented use of a private server atop that) was a clear violation of the Federal Records Act (“FRA”), the findings of the State Department’s Inspector General (“IG”) to that effect in his May 25 report were no surprise. In fact, on the admitted facts of the case, no other conclusion was possible, and it was simply another “shoe waiting to be dropped.”
For Metcalfe, the primary significance of the IG’s Report “is that it so flatly and persuasively belies nearly every public ‘defense’ that she has uttered on the matter”:
No, her self-serving email set-up was not “allowed” under the State Department’s rules. No, she was not “permitted” to use a personal email system exclusively as she did. No, what she did was hardly just a matter of her “personal convenience.” No, there is no evidence that any State Department attorney (other than perhaps Secretary Clinton herself) ever gave “legal approval” to any part of her special email system. No, everything she did was not “fully above board” or in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules,” far from it. 
Yes, she was indeed required by the FRA to maintain all official emails in an official system for proper review, delineation, and retention upon her departure. Yes, her private server equipment was in fact the subject of multiple attempted intrusion attempts (i.e., hacks), including by foreign nations. 
The list goes on and on. (Note that this does not even include Ms. Clinton’s many serious “misstatements” about her handling of classified or potentially classified information.)
And, yes, an indictment is warranted:
[T]he most likely Democrat nominee, having just been seriously wounded by this week’s IG report, is manifestly vulnerable to a much greater wound in the form of a criminal indictment for misconduct that far transcends what the IG report dealt with. . . .
Former Secretary Clinton’s intent. . .is not what matters in this case. Rather, the applicable legal standard is a mere “gross negligence” one, as specified in the standard national security non-disclosure agreement that she signed and its underlying criminal statutes. 
And when you marry that to the fact that (among other things) her admitted failure to use the State Department’s special classified email system for classified (or potentially classified) information constituted a clear violation of a criminal prohibition, you start worrying big-time. And this is especially so given that Ms. Clinton did not just violate such laws inadvertently or even only occasionally — she did so systemically. In other words, her very email scheme itself appears to have been a walking violation of criminal law, one with the mens rea prosecution standard readily met.
Like everyone I know who has worked with FBI Director James Comey, Metcalfe considers him a man of “the utmost integrity.” Accordingly, Metcalfe says:
Given that the facts and law are so clear in Ms. Clinton’s case, it is difficult to imagine her not being indicted, unless Jim Comey’s expected recommendation for that is abruptly overruled at “Main Justice” (i.e., by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, or by Attorney General Loretta Lynch) or at the White House by President Obama (who customarily does not intervene in such things and would do so here either secretly or at no small political peril).
My view is that, more likely than not, a Comey recommendation to prosecute would be overruled at Main Justice. One way or another, however, the IG’s report signals stormy weather for Hillary Clinton
2)The Left. vs. Israel
by Daniel Pipes: The Washington Times

Since the creation of Israel, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims have been the mainstay of anti-Zionism, with the Left, from the Soviet Union to professors of literature, their auxiliary. But this might be in process of change: as Muslims slowly, grudgingly, and unevenly come to accept the Jewish state as a reality, the Left is becoming increasingly vociferous and obsessive in its rejection of Israel.

Much evidence points in this direction: Polls in the Middle East find cracks in the opposition to Israel while a major American survey for the first time shows liberal Democrats to be more anti-Israel than pro-Israel. The Saudi and Egyptian governments have real security relations with Israel while a figure like (the Jewish) Bernie Sanders declares that "to the degree that [Israelis] want us to have a positive relationship, I think they're going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians."

But I should like to focus on a small illustrative example from a United Nations institution: The World Health Organization churned out report A69/B/CONF./1 on May 24 with the enticing title, "Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan: Draft decision proposed by the delegation of Kuwait, on behalf of the Arab Group, and Palestine."
The Left is becoming increasingly vociferous and obsessive in its rejection of Israel.
The three-page document calls for "a field assessment conducted by the World Health Organization," with special focus on such topics as "incidents of delay or denial of ambulance service" and "access to adequate health services on the part of Palestinian prisoners." Of course, the entire document singles out Israel as a denier of unimpeded access to health care.
This ranks as a special absurdity given the WHO's hiring a consultant in next-door Syria who is connected to the very pinnacle of the Assad regime, even as it perpetrates atrocities estimated at a half million dead and 12 million displaced (out of a total pre-war population of 22 million).

Mahmoud Abbas (left) and Ismail Haniyeh (right), pictured in March 2007, both had close relatives go for medical treatments in Israel.
Conversely, both the wife and brother-in-law of Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, whose status and wealth assures them treatment anywhere in the world, chose to be treated in Israeli hospitals, as did the sister, daughter, and grand-daughter of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Israel's sworn enemy.
Despite these facts, the WHO voted on May 28 to accept the proposed field assessment with the predictably lopsided outcome of 107 votes in favor, 8 votes against, 8 abstentions and 58 absences. So far, all this is tediously routine.

But the composition of those voting blocs renders the decision noteworthy. Votes in favor includedevery state in Europe except two, Bosnia-Herzegovina (which has a half-Muslim population) and San Marino (total population: 33,000), both of which missed the vote for reasons unknown to me.

To repeat: Every other European government than those two supported a biased field assessment with its inevitable condemnation of Israel. To be specific, this included the authorities ruling in Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

All but two European governments voted to support a biased field assessment with its inevitable condemnation of Israel.

Making this European near-unanimity the more remarkable were the many absented governments with large- to overwhelming-majority-Muslim populations: Burkina Faso, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, and Turkmenistan.
So, Iceland (with effectively no Muslims) voted for the amendment and against Israel while Turkmenistan (which is over 90 percent Muslim) did not. Cyprus and Greece, which have critical new relations with Israel, voted against Israel while the historically hostile Libyans missed the vote. Germany, with its malignant history, voted against Israel while Tajikistan, a partner of the Iranian regime's, was absent. Denmark, with its noble history, voted against Israel while Sudan, led by an Islamist, did not.

This unlikely pattern suggests that monolithic Muslim hostility is cracking while Europeans, who are overwhelmingly on the Left, to the point that even right-wing parties pursue watered-down left-wing policies, increasingly despise Israel. Worse, even those who do not share this attitude go along with it, even in an obscure WHO vote.

Muslims, not leftists, still staff almost all the violent attacks on Israel; and Islamism, not socialism, remains the reigning anti-Zionist ideology. But these changes point to Israel's cooling relations with the West and warming ones in its neighborhood.

Why I Stand With Donald Trump

As a backer of former Republican presidential candidates, I now stand in support of Donald J. Trump because the fate of this nation depends upon sending him, and not Hillary Clinton, to the White House

I know Donald Trump, but we’re not close friends. However, I believe he will begin on Day One undoing the damage done by President Barack Obama. I stand ready to help him at every turn.

Like many, I am deeply concerned about the US Supreme Court. When Trump recently released his list of potential appointees, I grew confident in his resolve to keep our court balanced. Even more important: Clinton will push the court leftward for generations. She must be stopped.
But I draw even more from lessons learned when we founded The Home Depot in 1978 rather than from the contentious GOP primary of 2016. I genuinely believe that if we to started The Home Depot today, we would fail because of the hurdles government, especially the current administration, places in front of small business owners.  I never forget The Home Depot’s small business roots – we started as a small business with four stores in Atlanta, Georgia. 
I think of the banker who nearly lost his job by taking a risk and giving us a line of credit when we started. He didn’t just look at our balance sheet; he believed in our character and determination. Government regulators don’t allow this under Dodd-Frank – a law Hillary Clinton wants to make far worse
And going public under Sarbanes-Oxley, a Clinton favorite? Not the company we built, nor thousands of other businesses like ours the nation will never know because they died at birth, strangled by faceless bureaucrats and politicians who erroneously believe that government “can do it better.” 
Yet the risks we took in the 1970s have resulted in millions of jobs – not just at The Home Depot, but at our suppliers, our vendors, and even our customers’ businesses. Investors believed in us, and the government did not stop us.
We could not do this today, for the same reason why so many Americans have dropped out of the workforce, why their wages have been stagnant, why their health care is a mess, and why our economy has stalled. It’s Obama/Clinton-style government that’s getting in the way.
I have never seen our government as hostile to free enterprise, especially small business, as it is today. It is driving over-regulation, over-taxation, over-litigation, and over-spending. These “overs” are killing small businesses, which create the majority of new jobs in America.
Politicians like Obama and Clinton, aided by the media and academia, have peddled a dangerous sentiment that government can provide for Americans better than the private sector. That’s not just false, it’s likely the nexus of Trump’s massively popular slogan, “Make America Great Again.” We saw it first hand.
The vast majority of early Home Depot associates did not have a college education. But they worked hard and were paid with salaries and stock options. Those options made many people wealthy, and fueled our robust growth.
One young man started with us at 17 years of age, bringing carts in from the parking lot. Ultimately, he became a regional president. Imagine Americans vilifying this young man, who became a millionaire and earned every penny of it.
What makes America great? Risk, preparation, hard work, and a young man’s willingness to shag carts from a parking lot because he has faith that he and his family can be great.
Donald Trump is right: To inspire more of these men and women, we must make America great again. Record-breaking numbers of Republican primary voters agree. They overwhelmingly want Donald Trump to lead this sea change, and we believe he can. But he needs to stand on our shoulders; he cannot do it alone.
One of the greatest lessons we took away from The Home Depot is to always listen to your customers. Without their input, we surely would have failed. Republican leaders must listen to their customers, too – their voters – and they have spoken clearly.
As Americans, the choice is abundantly clear: If you want four more years of President Obama, vote for Hillary Clinton; if you want to take the country in a new direction, vote for Donald Trump.
Make no mistake, Republicans who refuse to stand behind their party’s nominee are electing Clinton, whether they cast their ballots for her or not. I have a message for the #NeverTrump crowd: Enough already. Donald Trump is our presumptive nominee and it is time to get over wishing it were not so. If you don’t, change your social media hashtag to #HillaryGOP.
As a GOP donor who stood steadfastly behind Jeb Bush – and who has contributed to candidates for a generation – I urge all Republicans to stand up and be counted in support for Donald Trump.
Bernie Marcus is co-founder of The Home Depot and chairman of The Marcus Foundation.

The Son of An Hamas Leader. Trump's Problem and Attraction! Muller's Effort.

Time for you to put in your own!

This woman is on the Canadian Supreme Court, was given an Honorary Degree by The Yale Law School and is why Democratic societies best Socialist ones: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2689603980/
Unbelievable speech by the son of a top Hamas leader:  http://bcove.me/gaqkrc4b

The West refuses to hear what he says because they remain gripped in the historical vise of fear and prejudice.(See 1 and 1a below.)
Warts and all! (See 2 below.)
Trump's problem is not so much what he says or even his more outlandish ideas but the boastful, self- centered manner in which he says what he says. However, Trump has proven there is a well spring of support and belief beneath the PC turf and overburden.

A further problem he has, as does any Republican candidate for office, is the press and media have a basic anti-attitude, anti-bias and are more prone to find a bucket of paint with which to smear them. You find it in the subtle way they twist a story or downright lie. The New York Times has become famous for these tactics and MSNBC is notorious.

Furthermore, Trump's persona, his hair do, his past relationship with women, three marriages and wealth (we distrust wealthy in America) and his opulent bragging make him a target for questioning his right to be in The Oval Office and were it not for his two opponents and Obama's miserable  presidency he might not even be the front runner of his party.

Meanwhile, Obama fears those challenging the unsubstantiated scientific claims regarding climate changes so now he wants the Justice Department to make it unlawful to challenge the assertions of "Greens."

School text book writers have even begun incorporating the scientific myths of "Greens" as acceptable truths.  This is the Radical's  method of inculcation and acceptance.  If it is in print in a text book it must be so.(See 3 and 3a below.)

Now let's hear some real truth.  Click on "here."  One to savour! Here
Peter Muller ran a hard campaign and if you supported him you were not let down.  He did not win, turnout was low so we were let down by others not him.

Netanyahu and the Peace Charade

2) Hillary’s Crooked Defense

In Clintonworld, anything that isn’t found criminal becomes permissible.

Hillary Clinton campaigning in Oakland, Calif., May 27.ENLARGE
Hillary Clinton campaigning in Oakland, Calif., May 27. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
“I’m not a crook.”
In 1973 the sitting president, Richard Nixon, used these words at a news conference to 
deny allegations he had profited off his public service.
In 2016 an aspiring president, Hillary Clinton, as part of her campaign for the White 
House, is advancing an aggressive variant of the Nixon defense. It runs like this: 
Anything that isn’t criminal is permissible—and therefore none of it should be 
disqualifying for the Oval Office.
This has become the go-to argument for Team Clinton these days. Thus Maryland 
Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings was quick out of the box last week when the State 
Department’s inspector general released a damning report finding that then-Secretary of 
State Clinton had defied the department’s rules by setting up her private email server. Mr. Cummings, ABC News said, pointed out that the inspector general’s report “does not 
accuse Clinton of any crime.” The implication is that it therefore doesn’t matter.
Chalk it up as one legacy of the first Clinton presidency, which has prepared the way for
the second. Because by refusing to resign after being caught out in an affair with an intern, President Bill Clinton successfully lowered the bar for would-be President Hillary.
In his fight to remain in office, Mr. Clinton’s argument was that because sex between two consenting adults—even between the president of the United States and a subordinate 27 
years his junior—wasn’t a crime, it was nobody’s business but his and his family’s. In this brave new world, even perjury turned out not to be a crime when Bill Clinton did it, because it 
was about sex.
Today the No Crime/No Foul defense defines the case for Mrs. Clinton. And she and her defenders have been invoking it for years:
“There were no criminal violations involved here.” The speaker was Clinton Budget Director Leon Panetta in July 1993, putting forward the White House party line on the 
firing of seven people in the travel office, in which some had detected Hillary’s hand. 
Three years later, an internal memo would surface confirming Mrs. Clinton as the force 
behind the sackings.
“As far as even a breath of criminal activity by either the president and the first lady, it 
will turn out to be nothing at all.” This time it was White House counsel Lloyd Cutler in 
March 1994, dismissing the inquiry into the smelly Whitewater land deal. The remark 
came at the same time Mrs. Clinton was explaining to the press that she hadn’t been 
forthcoming about the details because she had been trying to protect her family’s privacy.
Those motives for helping Webb Hubbell, you can criticize or not, but they’re not 
criminal.”This was 1998, and it was now the turn of Lanny Davis, a former White House 
special counsel. Mr. Davis was arguing that the hundreds of thousands in payments that 
Mrs. Clinton’s former law partner had received from Clinton associates after he’d 
resigned from the Justice Department was not hush money to keep him quiet.
“No evidence of a crime.” “Nothing criminal.” “Nothing illegal.” “No criminal activity.” 
How frequently these words pop up when the subject of discussion is some action by Mrs. Clinton.
Now we have the FBI investigation into her private email server. When the New York 
Times reported the news last year, the Clinton campaign haggled over the Times’s use 
of—you guessed it!—the word “criminal” the Times had used to describe the 
investigation. The Times issued a correction.
In a perverse way, it all works to Mrs. Clinton’s advantage. For so long as a criminal 
conviction is presented as the only possible disqualification for running for president, 
Mrs. Clinton will remain viable even if she does get indicted. In addition, the whole 
obsession with whether the FBI investigation will end up in an indictment helps deflect attention away from other key aspects of the server mess that themselves make pretty substantive claims for Mrs. Clinton’s unfitness.
Even putting aside the question of criminality, we know the following: While in a 
position of trust, Mrs. Clinton deliberately chose to put American security at risk by 
setting up her home server. In so doing, she also concealed what should have been public 
records from the American people. In the year since she’s been found out, almost every 
public statement she has made in defense of her actions has been exposed as false. And 
she refused to cooperate with investigators.
In short, this is a woman who never tells the truth when a lie will serve her purposes 
equally well.
What an extraordinary place this has left her party and her country. Here we are, six 
months out from the presidential election, and the Democratic nominee is under federal investigation.
It used to be, before the Clintons first moved into the White House, that having no 
criminal conviction was something that kept you out of prison. But the way Mrs. Clinton 
and her defenders talk, it’s almost as though it should make her president.

Trump Makes Sense on Energy

From the mouth of The Donald comes wisdom on America’s 

climate dissonance.

After delivering an energy-policy speech in Bismarck, N.D., May 26. ENLARGE
After delivering an energy-policy speech in Bismarck, N.D., May 26. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Political markets are weird: They cry out for something and yet politicians, 
with their enslavement to conventional wisdom and careerist caution, are 
unwilling to supply it.
Then along comes Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump, in his set-piece energy speech on Thursday, did something that 
might outlast his presidential hopes. In his anti-intellectual way, he made 
an intellectual contribution. For decades, poorly justified scientific fears of 
future warming have hovered as an incubus over U.S. energy development.
 These fears, you’ll notice, have not actually blocked much of anything: 
Fracking happened. The U.S. continues to export coal to China. But these 
fears fill America’s leadership class with guilt and cognitive dissonance.
Give Mr. Trump credit for trying to break the spell.

Opinion Journal Video

Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. on the presumptive Republican nominee's plan to unleash American energy markets. Photo credit: Getty Images.
In a speech the media 
has done its best to 
ignore or debunk, he 
said, “From an 
standpoint, my priorities
 are very simple: clean 
air and clean water.” 
With these words, he relegated back to the land of abstraction the 
abstraction known as climate change.
His was a model political speech, one thatHillary Clinton might learn from.
 It set an agenda, with a minimum of windy rationalization, that voters can 
assess. Mr. Trump, as all politicians do, offered a prayer to the false deity 
of energy independence but he also offered a perfectly serviceable vision of
 Americans freely competing in global energy markets based on our own 
natural and (note) renewable resources and technology.
Mr. Trump hit the climate moment squarely.
By now, it should be obvious that a succession of “fraudulent” (to borrow a
word used by out-of-school climate activist James Hansen) agreements like
 Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris are not paving the way for a non-fraudulent 
agreement to impose costly climate actions the public would never support.
The climate policy that actually gets enacted by now has a track record: It 
consists of ludicrous gestures and policies of cost-without-benefit like 
Tesla subsidies, whose driving force is the desire of influential pre-
Trumpian elites for handouts.
As for the $100 billion spent on climate research, it has yielded one 
certainty: A human impact is hard to disentangle from a welter of natural 
What’s more, science can’t deny its nature forever. New information, based
on actually measuring and understanding things like temperatures, 
emissions and cloud formation, is increasingly rewriting our hazy 
understanding of atmospheric processes. This data suggests our computer 
models have overstated the warming risk.
Also ripe to be revisited are the “business as usual” scenarios presumed by 
the climate alarmists, in which patterns of energy production and 
consumption don’t change in the absence of heroic government central 
planning efforts.

The rise of the lithium-ion battery and explosion of battery-powered 
devices in our lives, of which even Tesla is but a flamboyant and overrated 
derivative, was not the product of climate policy.The emergence of 
fracking, which has played the major role in upending the U.S. coal 
industry, was not the product of climate policy.
Climate movement types, meanwhile, have increasingly turned to vilifying 
nonbelievers as a substitute for dealing sensibly with a possible human 
impact on climate. A minority movement is on its way to becoming a cult, 
increasingly anti-science. Know them by their talk of “saving” the planet: 
Even under the worst scenarios, global warming does not endanger the 
planet. It poses an inconvenience to human communities that have become 
accustomed to stacking their wealth at the water’s edge.
Perhaps it took Donald Trump fully to exploit the fish-in-a-barrel 
vulnerability of Democrats on climate. Democrats love citing a pending 
climate catastrophe but want to live in the land of the real politically, never 
taking ownership of policies actually commensurate with the alleged crisis. 
Al Gore, when he was running for president in 2000, wanted Bill Clinton
 to open the strategic reserve to keep gas prices low.
In his speech, Mr. Trump tweaked Hillary Clinton for promoting U.S 
fracking technology to China as secretary of state, then proposing to
 regulate fracking out of existence at home. He tweaked President Obama 
for seeking to block Canada’s energy exports by killing the Keystone 
pipeline even while enabling Iran to open its spigots.
Mr. Obama, proving again that he makes a better representative of the 
countries he visits than the one he comes from, said from Japan on 
Thursday that foreign leaders are “rattled” by the rise of Donald Trump.
Good grief. What endorsement could carry less weight with the American 
people? These are the same foreign leaders who’ve been marching 
America’s major allies into permanent decline, not least with massive 
renewable-energy subsidies that have produced no benefit for their 
societies. If anything survives as a monument to the great Trump boom of 
2016, let’s hope it’s a turn toward realism on energy and climate.

Sex and the Citizens: Trump Edition

He has exposed illusions—mine, anyway—about 

gender relations in the U.S.

At Donald Trump rally in San Diego, May 27.ENLARGE
At Donald Trump rally in San Diego, May 27. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Donald Trump doesn’t speak the truth so much as reveal it. 
His campaign has ruthlessly exposed the illusions of well-
educated middle-class professionals—people like me.
We believed that changes in law and public norms had 
gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across 
partisan and ideological lines. We thought that longstanding 
racial and ethnic prejudices had been marginalized. We hoped
 that the most religious population in any Western 
democracy would deal compassionately with the suffering of 
refugees from war-torn nations, whatever their religion. We 
assumed that some beliefs had moved so far beyond the pale 
that those who continued to hold them would not dare to say 
so publicly.
Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political 
correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his 
followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we 
mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest
political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole.
Nowhere is that truer than in gender relations. Mr. Trump’s 
attitudes toward women are a throwback to the Rat Pack. His 
past on-air conversations with shock-jock Howard Sternmake
 Don Draper of “Mad Men” sound like a feminist. His 
response to the familiar critique that these attitudes “objectify” 
women is, in effect: That’s what men do. The difference is that I 
don’t hide it. You’ve tried to make us feel guilty, and we’re not 
going to take it anymore. In my America, men will be free once 
again to be men, and the country will be better off.
Surprising numbers of Americans seem to agree with him.
In April, survey researchers at the Public Religion Research 
Institute (PRRI) asked a blunt question: Do you agree or 
disagree with the statement that “Society as a whole has become
 too soft and feminine.” Fifty percent of men agreed, as did 34% 
of women. Whites and Hispanics gave the statement identical 
42% support, with African-Americans a few points lower. 
Whites had the largest gap between men and women (20 points),
 with the African-American gap close behind at 17 points. The 
Hispanic gap stood at only six points—Hispanic women were 
significantly more likely to agree with the sentiment than were 
their white and African-American counterparts.
Forty-five percent of respondents with a high-school education 
or less agreed with the “too soft and feminine” proposition; so 
did 48% of those with some college education, compared with 
only 31% for those with a bachelor’s degree or more.
Age made less difference than might have been expected. In fact,
Americans in the 30-49 age range were somewhat more likely to
 agree than were those 50 and older, with only the youngest 
adults registering a significantly different view.
By contrast, partisanship and ideology made a big difference. 
Sixty percent of Republicans felt that American society has 
become “too soft and feminine,” compared with 43% of 
independents and only 29% of Democrats. Support among 
conservatives, moderates and liberals stood at 58%, 44% and 
24%, respectively.
Gender and partisanship interact. Seventy-two percent of 
Republican men endorsed the statement, compared with 46% of 
Republican women. Although Democratic men were less than 
half as likely as their Republican counterparts to agree, they 
were 10 points more likely to do so than were Democratic 
So Mr. Trump’s supporters want a tougher, more masculine 
America. But what does this mean, exactly? The PRRI survey, 
conducted in partnership with the Atlantic magazine, offers 
some clues. Although only 39% of Americans believe that 
society is better off when men and women hew to traditional 
gender roles, the figure rises to 50% among Mr. Trump’s 
As one might expect, Mr. Trump has mobilized the most 
passionate opponents of America’s current gender regime: 
68% of his supporters believe that society has become “too 
soft and feminine”—74% of men backing him, and 59% of 
the women. (Females in the Trump camp are 25 points more 
likely to express this sentiment than are women as a whole.)
Women are often seen as more compliant with established rules 
than are men, and more inclined to pursue progress through 
compromise within these rules. But large majorities of 
Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and in the 
PRRI poll nearly half—45%—have concluded that to set things 
right, we need a leader who is willing to break the rules on their 
behalf. Among Mr. Trump’s supporters, 65% endorse this view. 
My interpretation: They think it will take a “real man,” 
indifferent to respectable opinion and procedural niceties, to 
blow up the entire corrupt system and get the country back on 
The general-election contest between Donald Trump and 
Hillary Clinton will bring gender to the center of American 
politics, with consequences that are no more predictable than 
any other dimension of this astounding year.