Friday, September 16, 2016

Donald Can't Get A Break But Then Republicans Attending A Black Church Should Know This. Berkeley An Educational Cancer. Inside Not On Top! American Education.

 A married man was having an affair with his secretary.
One day they went to her place and made love all afternoon.
Exhausted, they fell asleep and woke up at 8 PM. 
The man hurriedly dressed and told his lover to take his shoes outside and rub them in the grass and dirt.
 He put on his shoes and drove home.
'Where have you been?' his wife demanded.
'I can't lie to you,' he replied,
'I'm having an affair with my secretary. We had sex all afternoon.'
She looked down at his shoes and said:
'You lying bastard! You've been playing golf!'
Poor old Donald, he just can't get a square deal, but then, that is the risk a Republican Candidate takes whenever they enter a Black Church that is packed with Democrat sympathizers who prefer being enslaved than challenged. (See 1 below.)
There comes a time when a institution of higher learning reaches such a low point it needs to be shut down .   Berkeley has always been an educational cancer where radicals congregated and is run by feckless administrators. (See 2 below.)
Truthful intentions are always revealed in the fine print details.  AIPAC did its best but with Obama you always fall short because he is wily and distrustful and Congress allows itself to be end 'ruined.' (See 3 below.)
Selling Ambassadorships is nothing new.  One of my former partners gave $300,000 to Bill Clinton's First Campaign and was appointed. Amb. To The Hague. (See 4 below.)
Last evening, Jimmy Fallon mussed up Trump's hair to see if it was real.  Would have been better for the nation had he sought what is in his head than on top but then that is the level to which our nation seems to have sunk.

At least Trump proved to be a good sport.  
Kim is right, Democrats have been masterful at hiding who they are and blaming Republicans who have not been able to figure it out until Trump came along and decided to stand up and give it back. (See 5 below.)
Our son attended The American University in Cairo many years ago.  He was able to learn Arabic while there, inter act with many Middle Eastern students, some with whom he continues to be close to this day.

They in turn got to learn about America and to relate to him.

There was a time when America was good at communicating and 'propaganda.' We were excellent at telling the story of our nation and then we won the Cold War and slid back into our shell. 

Our own education about who we are has been corrupted by PC'ism and the radical left who have taken over our university campuses. University administrators also welcomed millions in donations from Middle Eastern nations who have established Islamic Departments and funded radical professors who preach/teach falsehoods and hatred aimed at America. Young minds are being shaped to distrust their country,and eventually many wind up hating America.

Lamentably we have allowed our university campuses to become corrupted and cesspools of radicalization towards students who still wish to support and promote our nation but their voices are challenged, drowned out and thus, stilled.

America has a great story of freedom to tell and ironically we do it better on foreign shores than on our own. (See 6 below.)
I hope everyone has a great weekend.  Has begun cooling abit here in Savannah.  

Did Flint Preacher Set a Trap for Trump?

By Todd Starnes

The minister of a Methodist church made national headlines after she scolded Donald Trump for injecting politics into a campaign stop.
The Rev. Faith Green Timmons came on stage and stopped Trump in the middle of his remarks at Bethel United Methodist Church.
Click here to join Todd's American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives!

She told him to stay focused on the water crisis and not Hillary Clinton.
“I invited you here to thank us for what we’ve done in Flint, not give a political speech," the reverend told Mr. Trump.
Trump graciously complied with her demand.

But something doesn't pass the smell test. Consider this screen grab from the minister's Facebook page:
"We have our chance to show Donald Trump that this nation is filled with intelligent, wise black
citizens of integrity many of whom live right in Flint, Michigan," she wrote. "What he will see is
how we are braving a man-made catastrophe. HE WILL NOT USE US, WE will EDUCATE HIM!!!"

Well, I guess the Rev. Timmons showed Mr. Trump -- ambushing him in a House of Worship. I will
give her credit for hushing up a protester who kept interrupting his remarks.

By the way, the Rev. Timmons has since deleted that Facebook posting. Hmm.
Mr. Trump showed great restraint and class as he complied with her request. And he deserves credit
for at least trying to start a dialogue.

I wonder if Rev. Timmons "educated" President Obama like she did Mr. Trump?

In the safe spaces on campus, no Jews allowed

This article is excerpted from a longer piece in the Tower.

When Arielle Mokhtarzadeh arrived at University of California, Berkeley, to attend the annual Students of Color 
Conference, she had no way of knowing that she would be leaving as a victim of anti-Semitism.

The conference has maintained a reputation for 27 years as being a “safe space” where students of color, as well
as white progressive allies, can discuss issues of structural and cultural inequality on college campuses.

For Mokhtarzadeh, an Iranian Jew at UCLA, her freshman year was punctuated by incidents of anti-Semitism that 
were both personal and met with national controversy. She was shocked during her first quarter in school, when 
students entered the Bruin Cafe to see the phrase “Hitler did nothing wrong” etched into a table. Months later, 
Mokhtarzadeh’s friend Rachel Beyda was temporarily denied a student government leadership position based 
solely on her Jewish identity, an event that made news nationwide.

The campus was supposed to be her new home, her new safe space — so why didn’t she feel that way? She 
went to the conference hoping for some answers.[So you’re a Jew and you’re starting college? Prepare for anti-
But on the first day there, she was horrified when the discussion became an attack on Israel — and soon devolved
 into attacks on the Jews.“Over the course of what was probably no longer than an hour, my history was denied, 
the murder of my people was justified, and a movement whose sole purpose is the destruction of the Jewish 
homeland was glorified. Statements were made justifying the ruthless murder of innocent Israeli civilians, blatantly 
denying Jewish indigeneity in the land, and denying the Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered,” she 
said. “Why anyone in their right mind would accept these slanders as truths baffles me. But they did. These 
statements, and others, were met with endless snaps and cheers. I was taken aback.”

Mokhtarzadeh walked out on the verge of tears. “It was in that moment, during that conference, that I realized that 
every identity and every intersection of identity was to be welcomed and championed in progressive spaces — 
The recent surge of progressive activism on college campuses across the country has led to many debates on the 
merits of concepts such as “microaggressions” and “safe spaces” in educational settings that should respect free 
speech and dialogue. Student uprisings against racial injustice and discrimination at Yale, the University of Missouri 
and dozens of other universities have shown the power of students who have banded together against
 institutionalized racism in academia and the student body.

But little has been said about how the idea of “intersectionality” — the idea that all struggles are connected and 
must be combated by allies — has created a dubious bond between the progressive movement and pro-Palestinian activists who often engage in the same racist and discriminatory discourse they claim to fight. As a result of this alliance, progressive Jewish students are often subjected to a double standard not applied to their peers — an Israel litmus test to prove their 
Progressive Jewish students have said they feel like they have to hide their Jewish identity in order to belong in 
these movements. Such was the case of Michael Stephenson, a Jewish sophomore at the University of Missouri 
who participated in the racial justice protests last fall, and yet felt his Jewish identity undercut his “social justice” 

He told the Jewish Week newspaper that there were countless moments when his social justice cred was 
questioned, including statements that “bordered on anti-Semitism.”While the effectiveness of campus protests is 
worthy of debate, it should remain undeniable — and undeniably troubling — that the progressive college 
movement, and specifically pro-Palestinian groups within it, have pushed anti-Semitic rhetoric in the name of 
progressive values. For example, the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Northeastern University 
likes to fashion itself a progressive organization, but in 2012 the school’s SJP adviser was recorded telling 
members to be proud to be called an anti-Semite — to wear it as a “sign of distinction. This proves that I’m working
 for the right side, the just cause.”

The ramifications of ignoring the normalization of anti-Semitism cannot be understated: The most recent FBI hate 
crime report found that 58.2 percent of hate crimes motivated by religious bias were targeted at Jews. Jews make 
up 2.2 percent of the American population, so the FBI’s statistics make it clear that Jews are the most 
disproportionately attacked religious group in America. It should be troubling to everyone that an SJP member at 
Temple University physically assaulted a pro-Israel Jewish student two years ago, calling him a “Zionist baby killer.
” But it should be far more troubling that the SJP chapter at Temple (like all SJP chapters) promotes itself as a 
progressive organization, claiming solidarity with movements such as Black Lives Matter.[‘Jew.’ Why does the word
Another incident occurred at UC Santa Cruz, when Jewish student Daniel Bernstein, an elected representative on 
his college council, received a message from the SJP-aligned chair of the student council instructing him to abstain 
from a vote on divestment from Israel because he was elected with a “Jewish agenda.”

“I was literally in awe,” Bernstein said. “Just the phrase ‘Jewish agenda’ is so volatile and anti-Semitic. To think that 
my own council members think that I am unable to uphold their beliefs and ideals in the greater student assembly 
because I am Jewish is beyond anything I ever thought would be told to me.”

Northeastern University’s SJP chapter was so persistent in anti-Semitic harassment — from defacing the statue of 
a Jewish donor to disrupting Holocaust awareness events — that the university was forced to temporarily suspend
the organization in 2014. The SJP chapter at Vassar College even tweeted Nazi propaganda from 1944.
When these events happen, there are no outcries from the progressive community. Tyler Fredricks, a student at 
Duke, has noticed the variation in responses from the SJP-aligned progressive crowd when instances of anti-
Semitism occur.
“When someone wrote ‘No n—–s, whites only’ on a Black Lives Matter flyer, the Duke community held a march 
where over a hundred students marched and rallied in support. They did the same thing when someone wrote a
homophobic slur in the dorms,” Fredricks said. “When someone wrote anti-Semitic comments on a Duke Friends 
of Israel flyer, there was no march, rally or campus outrage.”

This pattern has made Jews of all ages question their place within higher education. “Jewish students and their 
parents are intensely apprehensive and insecure about this movement,” Mark Yudof, the former president of the 
University of California system, told the New York Times. “I hear it all the time: Where can I send my kids that will 
be safe for them as Jews?”

Two more questions come to mind: If the progressives who have fought against racial injustice and bigotry for so 
long eventually become the ones who perpetuate it, who will remain to call them out? At this rate, if anti-Semitism
is normalized through the efforts of the rising progressive movements on college campuses, what will the future 
look like for Jewish college students?

Outreach is imperative now. This means making the progressive community understand the ramifications of anti-
Semitic speech. Engaging this audience — through trips to Israel, visits to Holocaust museums, and even simply 
interacting with Jewish students — can help change the narrative.

3)  Obama’s Israel Sequester
He arm-twists an ally to do an end-run around Congress.

The Obama Administration has used various means to usurp Congress’s power of the purse, but 
twisting the arm of an ally is a new low. That’s what the President in effect did this week by requiring 
Israel to accept his spending limits in return for a modest boost in military aid.

As diplomats rolled into the U.S. for the U.N. General Assembly this week, the White House rolled out
a deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that would provide $38 billion in military assistance 
to Israel over the next decade. The previous agreement, which ends in 2018, included $3.1 billion in 
annual aid. While the Administration is advertising its “unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security,” 
its real feelings are betrayed by the fine print.

Start with the fact that Congress typically tacked onto the $3.1 billion an additional $500 million each 
year for missile defense. 

Thus the new agreement represents a mere 5% increase amid growing Middle  East threats, which will 
likely proliferate over the next decade thanks to the Administration’s retreat from the region and 
nuclear deal with Iran.

The aid is also less than the $4 billion annually that Mr. Netanyahu sought and the Senate wanted to 
provide. After Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee on foreign 
operations, refused to sign off on the deal, the Administration impelled Israel to agree not to lobby for 
more aid and to return any funds Congress appropriates in the future that exceed the agreement’s terms.
In other words, the Administration has pressured Israel to cut out Congress. While the deal isn’t 
binding on Congress, Israel would be accused of bargaining in bad faith if it doesn’t keep its word. It’s 
unclear why Mr. Netanyahu would agree to such self-abnegation, but he might be hedging his political 

In March Donald Trump professed that he would make Israel repay U.S. military assistance. The 
chance that Mr. Trump might win and keep that promise might have convinced Mr. Netanyahu to lock 
in the Administration’s spending caps. 

On the other hand, if Democrats take the Senate and House in a rout this November, they might also 
want to pare back aid to Israel to pad domestic spending.

The deal also has a thinly veiled “buy American” provision that eliminates Israel’s ability in prior 
agreements to use some military aid for defense research and development. While the U.S. has
benefited from Israel’s shared technology, the Administration wants the funds to flow to American 
companies that have been hurt by cuts in U.S. defense spending.

So with one maneuver the Administration has managed to slap Congress and Israel, vindictive to the

WikiLeaks’ Guccifer 2.0: Obama Sold Off Public Offices to Donors

Corruption doesn't start or end with Hillary

US President Barack Obama (L) bids farewell to US Ambassador to Britain Matthew Barzun at London's Stansted airport on April 24, 2016.
US President Barack Obama (L) bids farewell to US Ambassador to Britain Matthew Barzun at London’s Stansted airport on April 24, 2016. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
On September 13, WikiLeaks lived up to its promise of releasing more Democratic 
National Committee (DNC) documents. This time they were from hacker Guccifer 
2.0, serving as a teaser for larger and likely more embarrassing leaks from the
DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
Both the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign have attempted to insulate 
themselves from the content of the releases by alleging the hacks were organized 
by the Russian government. The claims are a mix of paranoia and PR/damage 
control, and will have enduring consequences. It may lead to what former 
Secretary of Defense William Perry referred to as a drift back into Cold War 
The leaks include more evidence of overt corruption within the DNC. Oneemail 
dated May 18, 2016, from Jacquelyn Lopez, an attorney with the law firm Perkins 
Coie, asked DNC staff if they could set up a brief call “to go over our process for 
handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.”
Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the 
ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and 
Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially, Obama was auctioning
off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton
served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over 
$3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to
 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 
reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
The second largest donor, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to 
the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by 
Obamain 2009.
The third largest donor on the list, Frank Sanchez, donated just over $3.4 million 
and exchange was appointed to Undersecretary of Commerce for International 
Trade by Obama in 2010.
A 2013 article published by the Guardian corroborates the pay-to-play scheme this 
list suggests. “Barack Obama has rewarded some of his most active campaign 
donors with plum jobs in foreign embassies, with the average amount raised by 
recent or imminent appointees soaring to $1.8m per post, according to a Guardian 
analysis,” wrote Dan Roberts. “The practice is hardly a new feature of U.S. politics,
 but career diplomats in Washington are increasingly alarmed at how it has grown. 
One former ambassador described it as the selling of public office.”
A separate release from DC Leaks, an anonymous organization, revealed emails 
between former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Democratic Party mega-donor 
and Powell’s business partner, Jeffrey Leeds. In the exchange, Powell vents to 
Leeds over the Clinton campaign trying to use him as a scapegoat regarding 
Clinton’s controversial use of a private email server that instigated a FBI criminal 
investigation. “I warned her staff three times over the past two years not to try to 
connect it to me. I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement,” Powell wrote in one email, according to The Intercept.
Another major issue brought up by the latest leaks is the media blackout on the content of what was released. Politico, The New York Times, and several other news outlets opted to report solely on the fact that there was a new leak—citing a statement from DNC Chair 
Donna Brazile, who claims the DNC is the victim of a Russian cyber-attack—without delving into the specifics of the content.
The recent leak teaser from WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 serves to show how 
extensive and far back the documents obtained in the hacks go. While no emails
were released in this latest release, the documents to come will—at the very least—
shed further light as to the extent of corruption in the Democratic Party.

Democrats’ Deplorable Emails

How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked


If the 2016 election is remembered for anything beyond its flawed candidates, it will be 
recalled as the year of the Democratic email dump. Or rather, the year that the voting 
public got an unvarnished view of the disturbing—nay, deplorable—inner workings of 
the highest echelons of the Democratic Party.
What makes the continuing flood of emails instructive is that nobody was ever meant to 
see these documents. Hillary Clinton set up a private server to shield her communications
 as secretary of state from the public. She gave top aide Huma Abedin an account on that 
server. She never envisioned that an FBI investigation and lawsuits would drag her 
conversations into the light.
The Democratic National Committee and Colin Powell (an honorary Democrat) likewise 
believed their correspondence secure. But both were successfully targeted by hackers, 
who released the latest round of enlightening emails this week.
These emails provide what the public 
always complains it doesn’t have: 
unfiltered evidence of what top 
politicians do and think. And what a 
picture they collectively paint of the
 party of the left. For years, 
Democrats have steadfastly portrayed 
Republicans as elitist fat cats who 
buy elections, as backroom bosses 
who rig the laws in their favor, as 
brass-knuckle lobbyists and operators
 who get special access. It turns out 
that this is the precise description of the Democratic Party. They know of what they speak.
The latest hack of the DNC—courtesy of WikiLeaks via Guccifer 2.0—shows that Mrs. 
Clinton wasn’t alone in steering favors to big donors. Among the documents leaked is 
one that lists the party’s largest fundraisers/donors as of 2008. Of the top 57 cash cows 
18 ended up with ambassadorships. The largest fundraiser listed, Matthew Barzun, who
drummed up $3.5 million for Mr. Obama’s first campaign, was named ambassador to 
Sweden and then ambassador to the United Kingdom. The second-largest, Julius 
Genachowski, was named the head of the Federal Communications Commission. The 
third largest, Frank Sanchez,was named undersecretary of commerce.
Keep in mind what an earlier leak revealed: a May 18, 2016, email from an outside 
lawyer to DNC staffers in which the attorney suggests a call to “go over our process for
handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.” Add this to what
the Clinton and Abedin emails have shown to be a massive pay-to-play operation at the 
Clinton Foundation, in which megadonors like the crown prince of Bahrain got special 
access to the secretary of state.
And there are also all those Clinton speeches, for which they were paid millions. News 
comes this week that despite the Clintons’ promises to distance themselves from their 
foundation, they will first be holding what sounds like one last fire sale on future 
presidential access: a belated birthday bash for Bill Clinton, with a glitzy party at the 
Rainbow Room in Manhattan. A donation of $250,000 gets you listed as “chair” of the 
party, while “co-chair” costs $100,000. Foundation officials are refusing to say who has donated, or how much.
So which political party is all about money, influence and special access? The Republican Party held a true, democratic primary. Seventeen candidates battled it out, and the voters choose a nominee 
that much of the party establishment disliked.
Leaked emails show that the Democratic Party hierarchy retreated to a backroom to 
anoint Hillary Clinton and then exercised its considerable power to subvert the primary 
process and kill off the Bernie Sanders campaign. In one email, Chief Financial Officer
Brad Marshall suggested sliming Mr. Sanders on religion: “Can we get someone to ask 
his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I 
think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My
 Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” 
How’s that for deplorable?
Perhaps most revealing are Mr. Powell’s emails, which show, undisguised, how Clinton 
supporters think. Specifically, the emails demonstrate that this crowd recognizes the 
Clintons as a menace—and yet they are willing to excuse away anything. “I would rather 
not have to vote for her,” Mr. Powell wrote to a friend. “A 70-year person with a long
track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still 
[sleeping with] bimbos at home.”
Unpack that. Mr. Powell is saying that Hillary is old; that she is a scandal factory; that she
will cut any corner to win and do anything for a buck; that she won’t help the country;
and that her husband remains a liability. And yet other emails suggest Mr. Powell 
nonetheless was (is?) debating giving her a boost with a well-timed endorsement in the
This is the modern Democratic Party. The more it has struggled to sell its ideas to the 
public, the more it has turned to rigging the system to its political benefit. Don’t take 
Republicans’ word for it. Just read the emails.

Preserving a Powerful Weapon 

Against Terror

The American University of Afghanistan gives young Afghans a 

modern education and exposes them to U.S. values.

A guard tower of the American University of Afghanistan compound in Kabul after the Aug. 24 attacks there.ENLARGE
A guard tower of the American University of Afghanistan compound in Kabul after the Aug. 24 attacks there. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
As we commemorate the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks this week, it 
is worth reflecting on last month’s attack on the American University of 
Afghanistan (AUAF) in Kabul.
AUAF is one of America’s most important legacies in Afghanistan. The 
university, founded after the toppling of the Taliban with support from the 
U.S. government and private donors, offers internationally accredited 
bachelor’s and master’s degree programs. Its mission is to train a new 
generation of leaders in Afghanistan’s development, giving them the tools 
to help build a modern, productive and inclusive Afghanistan. Over the 
past decade, AUAF has graduated more than 1,000 students. Many now 
occupy senior roles in the country’s government and private sector.
The university thus represents a direct threat to the terrorists and their 
poisonous ideology. That’s why on Aug. 24 terrorists stormed the
 university’s campus, going room to room with guns and grenades, sowing
 chaos and wreaking havoc. They murdered 14 students, professors and 
guards. Another 40 were wounded before the attackers were killed by 
security forces.
It was the deadliest attack in AUAF’s history, but not the first. Earlier this 
summer, terrorists kidnapped two professors outside the university’s gates. 
Their whereabouts remain unknown.
AUAF is a potent reminder that Muslim nations are a critical battleground 
in the fight against terrorism. The students and professors killed in the 
August attack were almost all Muslims. The university is full of Muslim 
students who are proud to attend an “American” institution, where 
American professors and visiting students mix with local Afghan faculty 
and students, exchanging ideas and forging longstanding bonds.
A partnership between Stanford Law School and AUAF fostered many 
such bonds over the past decade. Naqib Khpulwak, an Afghan law 
professor at AUAF who spent time at Stanford, e-mailed his friends at 
Stanford after an attack last year, reassuring them that everything was all
 right: “We are all safe so far. Thanks for asking. The terrorists want to 
terrorize us, we refuse to give in. . . . It did not stop us from our work not 
for one minute. This tells me the terrorists will not succeed. Everyday 
passing, people hate them more and keep on doing their work. I work 12
 hours per day six days a week this summer. This is my response to them.”
Tragically, Naqib was among those killed in the Aug. 24 attack.
If the U.S. no longer wishes to undertake complex nation-building efforts 
abroad, it is important that America equips the citizens of those countries to
 do so. That means providing them with a modern education, helping them 
develop local and international networks of like-minded individuals, and 
providing them with exposure to U.S. values, norms and culture.
The U.S. needs more Naqibs, and more students trained by people like 
Naqib, to make the changes needed to root out terror. Institutions such as 
AUAF provide the necessary venue for this to take place.
Support for AUAF among Afghans has skyrocketed as a result of last 
month’s terrorist attack, which was widely seen as an attack on the future 
of Afghanistan. But AUAF needs more support. Today the university is 
closed and is grappling with difficult questions about how to ensure 
adequate safety on campus and prevent further attacks.
The U.S. must do everything it can to ensure that AUAF navigates this 
challenging time and re-emerges stronger and more resolved to serve as a 
beacon of hope in a troubled land.
Mr. Benard is the CEO of an investment firm focused on frontier markets 
and the co-founder the Afghanistan Legal Education Project, which 
established the partnership between Stanford Law School and the 
American University of Afghanistan.

No comments: