Friday, September 2, 2016

I Am A Creep.



I never send chain letters, but this one works.
You will be offered sex by simply passing it on!
It's incredible!
Send 'I LOVE HILLARY' to ten friends.At least 9 will reply telling you to go f**k yourself.

I would love to send it to the letter writer below but he/she did not have the guts to sign.

When I returned home I received this handwritten letter but no address or signature.  The handwriting appears to be from a woman.

"You're a nasty old racist, and an embarrassment to your Landing's neighbors.  Vote for whoever you want, but keep your ugly, offensive thoughts to yourself. You're a real creep."
This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader. Pertains to questions from Judicial Watch for Hillary who now will have to answer under sworn oath.(See 1 below.)
This also from a dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)

I have posted this before but thought worth doing so again.  Shows how imperial the Obama's have made their time in office.  (See 2a below.)

No hope for resolution of Palestinian-Israel issue(s) for a while. (See 3 and 3a below.)
I wrote this in the previous memo but failed to post the article so am doing so here. 

We now learn what I believed all along.  Obama lied, made secret deals which allowed Iran to cheat. Just more lies from our president who obviously thought he needed to try and leave a foreign policy legacy that would challenge Nixon and Reagan. He has fallen flat on his face.  (See 4, 4a, 4b and 4c below.)
Anti-Semitism on college campuses is not new.  Before I left for Pittsburgh, 16 members of my fraternity class wished our former advisor, Dr. Henry Abraham, a happy 95th birthday.  Hank is the recognized authority on the history of The Supreme Court and while at Penn asked why he had been passed over for tenure.  He was told by the Political Science Department Dean in 1951 the department already had a Jewish Tenured Professor so "Hank" left Penn and went to The Univ. of Va. where he was tenured the day he arrived.  

Hank taught at UVA until his retirement.  Scalia was one of his closest friends.  Hank spoke for me in Savannah when I ran the JEA Speaker Series.  He is now wheelchair bound but still teaches a course for seniors and from the neck up he is as alert as ever. (See 5 below.)
My friend. Allen West. responds to Colin Kaepernick's behaviour.  (See 6 below.)
My next memo will be devoted to my Pittsburgh trip.
1)Judicial Watch Submits Email Questions to Hillary Clinton – Written Answers, Under Oath, Due September

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it submitted questions to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices.  Clinton’s answers, under oath, are due on September 29.  On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch further discovery on the Clinton email matter and ordered Clinton to answer the questions “by no later than thirty days thereafter….”  Under federal court rules, Judicial Watch is limited to twenty-five questions.
The questions are:
  1. Describe the creation of the system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
  1. Describe the creation of your email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.
  1. When did you decide to use a email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?
  1. Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
  1. In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?
  1. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.
  1. Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.
  1. After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?
  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?
  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?
  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a email account to conduct official State Department business?
  1. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.
  1. At the time you decided to use your email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?
  1. On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.
  1. In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.
  1. Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.
  1. In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.
  1. On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.
  1. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your email account or the server that hosted your account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?
  1. When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?
  1. After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?
  1. In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.
  1. After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?
  1. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
  1. Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
“These are simple questions about her email system that we hope will finally result in straight-forward answers, under oath, from Hillary Clinton,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
In his opinion ordering Clinton to answer written questions under oath Judge Sullivan wrote:
The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the system for State Department business.
In its July 2016 request to depose Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch argued:
Secretary Clinton’s deposition is necessary to complete the record. Although certain information has become available through investigations by the Benghazi Select Committee, the FBI, and the State Department Inspector General, as well as through Plaintiff’s narrowly tailored discovery to date, significant gaps in the evidence remain. Only Secretary Clinton can fill these gaps, and she does not argue otherwise.
To [Judicial Watch’s] knowledge, Secretary Clinton has never testified under oath why she created and used the system to conduct official government business. Her only public statements on the issue are unsworn.
Judge Sullivan also ordered that Judicial Watch may depose the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel by October 31.
The questions and deposition arise in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Judicial Watch has already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.

2) When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care.  Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't get a vote in a Democrat controlled US Congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.
Next, she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake."

Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection.  When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security.  When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledgenof drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.  After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.   Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill

losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell person - ready for another four or eight years of this low-life fool?

Now we are exposed to the unsecure keeping and attempted destruction of beyond Top Secret emails while Hillary was US Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation. What "shoe will fall" next?

But to her loyal fans:  "What difference does it make?"

Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!

2a) What a disgraceful waste of taxpayers monies!!!
  This is so sad!!!!

Mamie Eisenhower
Had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary
Jackie Kennedy
Lady Bird  Johnson
Pat Nixon
Betty  Ford
Rosaline Carter
Barbara Bush
Hillary Clinton
Laura Bush
Michele Obama
Taxpayers  (see breakdown below)

Michele Obama: Twenty-two personal staff members paid for by the Taxpayers

One               $192,200 - Sher, Susan                  (Chief Of Staff)
Two               $160,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C.           (Director of Policy And Projects For The First  Lady)
Three             $133,000 - Rogers, Desiree G.      (White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four              $122,000 - Johnston, Camille Y.    (Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five               $120,000 - Winter, Melissa            (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six                $110,000 -  Medina , David S.        (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Seven            $104,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First  Lady)
Eight             $95,000 -   Starkey, Frances M.      (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First  Lady)
Nine              $90,000 -   Sanders, Trooper           (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First  Lady)
Ten               $85,000 -   Burnough, Erinn            (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven           $84,000 -  Reinstein, Joseph B.      (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve           $82,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R.   (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator for The First Lady)
Thirteen         $80,000 - Fitz, Alan O                   (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First  Lady)
Fourteen        $77,500 - Lewis, Dana M.             (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen           $72,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M.   (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First  Lady)
Sixteen          $70,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E.           (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The  First Lady)
Seventeen     $65,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A.    (Associate Director of Correspondence For The  First Lady)
Eighteen        $63,000 - Tubman, Samantha       (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen        $60,000 - Boswell, Joseph J.        (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First  Lady)
Twenty          $56,000 - Armbruster, Sally M.     (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One   $55,000 - Bookey, Natalie            (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two   $55,000 - Jackson, Deilia A.          (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)            


Total $2,075,200 in annual salaries.

The Canadian Free Press had to 
publish this, perhaps because 
America no longer has a free press 
and the USA media is too scared that
 they might be considered racist or 
suffer at the hands of Obama if any 
of them published this.


Deja Vu and the Coming Palestinian Elections

Municipal elections are scheduled for October 8th in the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas has reversed its previous position and is now participating, and may win–not as Hamas, per se, but by putting forth “fellow traveler” candidates known to be close to Hamas. The elections will likely be close.

The unpopularity of the Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah Party due to corruption, incompetence, and growing repression helps explain why West Bank voters might choose Hamas. In other cases voters may prefer Hamas’s Islamism to Fatah’s brand of secularism–or may prefer Hamas’s manifest desire to kill Israelis over Fatah’s and the PA’s tamer stance. And there is another factor: in many areas Hamas is presenting a single candidate while the non-Hamas vote is split among rival contenders. As The Times of Israel reported about Hebron,

These are the first elections in more than a decade in which voting is taking place at the same time in both Gaza and the West Bank, and Hamas and Fatah are going head-to-head….As in the other cities in the West Bank, the trouble in Hebron is that because there are so many secular slates of candidates, there is a reasonable chance that the more moderate camp of Fatah and groups of its ilk will split the secular vote, paving the way for victory by Hamas candidates.
Deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra is said to have said. In the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, most of these same conditions existed and the result was a narrow Hamas victory in the popular vote (44 to 41 percent) that produced a much larger Hamas majority in parliament (74 to 45).
There is one difference from 2006 that is very much worth mentioning. The myth exists that the United States forced the Palestinians to hold those elections over the objections of the PA leadership. That’s false (as I explained at length in my book about Bush administration policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Tested by Zion). In fact the Palestinians had held a successful presidential election in January 2005 whose purpose was to establish the legitimacy of Mahmoud Abbas as Yasser Arafat’s successor. They wanted parliamentary elections, again to strengthen Fatah’s legitimacy, and were confident they would win. We did not force them to hold the 2006 elections. Today, at least that argument is over: no one is claiming that these elections of 2016 are being demanded by the United States and imposed by the Obama administration on a reluctant PA leadership.

But the similarities to 2006 are very striking, including the most fundamental one: allowing a terrorist group, Hamas, to contest the election without the slightest nod to stopping its terror or giving up its rule of Gaza. This is wrong for many reasons, but here are the top two. First, Hamas may win power in a number of West Bank cities but Fatah will not be able to contest elections as freely in Gaza. In this sense the dice are loaded, or to mix metaphors Hamas can say heads I win in the West Bank and tails you lose in Gaza. Second, those who wish to contest elections should be forced to choose between bullets and ballots. This is what happened in the Northern Ireland agreements, where the IRA had to end its guerrilla and terrorist war and could then run for office. It is a mistake with global implications to allow terrorist groups to have it all: to run for office like peaceful parties, but continue their violent activities. That was the mistake we made in 2006, and it is being repeated.
There is an argument for holding these elections, of course, and a powerful one. There have been no parliamentary or presidential elections in the West Bank and Gaza since 2006 and these elections provide at least a taste of democracy. They will tell us a good deal about Palestinian public opinion. And perhaps in some cases they will produce better, meaning more responsive and competent, municipal governments. But perhaps their clearest achievement will be to show that nothing has changed since 2006 and indeed for decades more: Fatah and Hamas are implacably at odds, Palestinians are split, the Palestinian “national” government and national movement are hopelessly divided, Hamas’s brand of rejectionism and terror remains widely popular, and a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is nowhere in sight.
Well, one thing has changed since 2006: Abbas is ten years older and his time in office is closer to its end. Until succession issues are dealt with the notion of serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is completely unrealistic–whatever happens at the United Nations, whatever the French suggest or the Russians try, and whatever the Obama administration or its successor believe.

3a) Why Peace Is Not at Hand


One of the things that will certainly not happen during the waning days of the Obama administration or even in the next administration is conclusion of an Israeli–Palestinian peace agreement. A new poll, the “Palestinian-Israeli Pulse: A Joint Poll” undertaken recently by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, shows why.

Relentless optimists have long argued that Israel and the Palestinians are an inch apart and, as former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta put it in 2011, peace can be attained if they would “just get to the damn table.” Wrong.

Pollsters asked Palestinians and Israeli Jews if they support a two-state solution. The answer was a weak “yes:” Only 53 percent of Israeli Jews and 51 percent of Palestinians even support this in principle. But IDI then got down to brass tacks. A deal would require compromise, so pollsters asked each side about specifics.

Take Jerusalem, for example: Would people accept the division of Jerusalem, under which West Jerusalem would be Israel’s capital and East Jerusalem would be the capital of a new Palestinian state? Just 30 percent of Palestinians supported such an arrangement and 32 percent of Israeli Jews. Majorities were opposed. Majorities on both sides said sovereignty over the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif was critical to them: 55 percent of Israeli Jews said this was a deal-breaker, as did 57 percent of Palestinians (in other words, a compromise wherein the Jews get the Western Wall and the Palestinians get the Temple Mount is opposed by majorities on both sides.)

Or how about the refugee issue? Pollsters asked about a compromise where Palestinian refugees would go to Palestine, not Israel, except for 100,000 who could go to Israel under some sort of “family reunification” arrangement. Acceptable? Nope: acceptable to only 17 percent of Israeli Jews and to 49 percent of Palestinians — and to only 43 percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank.

A third key item that makes no one happy is giving Palestine sovereignty over its air space, land, and water resources but allowing Israel to maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. Israeli Jews found that too much to take, with only 38 percent supporting it, while Palestinians thought it was too little and only 33 percent backed it.

And on other issues, predictably, one side says yes and the other says no. A deal that would mark a final end to the conflict and an end to claims was supported by 64 percent of Israeli Jews, but only 40 percent of Palestinians. Making the new Palestinian state entirely demilitarized gets the backing of 61 percent of Israeli Jews but only 20 percent of Palestinians.

So “just getting to the damn table” will not solve the problem, because Israelis and Palestinians are deeply divided on all the major issues. Moreover, majorities simply don’t trust the other side. Eighty-nine percent of Palestinians think Israeli Jews are untrustworthy and the feeling is mutual: 68 percent of Israeli Jews think Palestinians are untrustworthy.

There are two items on which Israeli Jews and Palestinians agree. First, only 43 percent on each side thinks the other side wants peace. Second, 77 percent of the Israelis and 73 percent of Palestinians think chances for a peace deal leading to a Palestinian state in the next five years are low.

There are some other interesting findings. If an Israeli–Palestinian peace deal would include an offer from the EU that Israel could join it, only 12 percent of skeptical Israeli Jews would change their minds and accept the deal. Europe, with its growing Muslim communities and anti-Semitism, today isn’t much of a lure. But if a peace deal would mean peace with all the Arab states, 26 percent of Israeli Jews would change their negative view and vote yes.

And here’s a striking finding: 29 percent of Palestinians would change their minds and accept a deal if the new Palestinian state and Jordan became a confederation. It’s interesting that the pollsters included this sensitive question, and remarkable that confederation with Jordan is viewed positively by so many Palestinians. The old Palestinian Authority/PLO leadership in Ramallah doesn’t want to talk about such a possibility, for many reasons. Their gravy train would end if the Jordanian government ran things. And the idea that every Palestinian heart pines for sovereignty in a separate Palestinian state, which has been the key PLO demand for decades, is obviously undermined by finding that Palestinians may be more pragmatic than their “leaders” about what the future may hold.

What it doesn’t hold is a quick trip back to the table to sign a peace deal. Next year is the 50th anniversary of Israel’s victory in the 1967 war, when it conquered the West Bank and Gaza. People have been saying “the occupation is unsustainable” for a half century, but it isn’t going to end soon

Obama Let Iran Cheat on the Deal


Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present
Edited by Eunice G. Pollack

Louis Brandeis graduated from the Harvard Law School at age 20 with the highest grade point average in that school’s history and, after other academic triumphs, was appointed  Supreme Court justice. When Brandeis was studying law at Harvard, an anti-semitic professor by the name of Peters always displayed animosity towards him.  One day Prof. Peters was having lunch at the University dining room when Brandeis came along with his tray and sat next to him. The professor said,"Mr. Brandeis you do not understand. A pig and a bird do not sit together to eat.”  Brandeis looked at him and calmly replied, "Don’t worry, professor. I'll fly away," and he went and sat at another table. 

Peters, decided to take revenge on the next test paper, but Brandeis responded brilliantly to all questions. Unhappy and frustrated,  Peters asked him the following question:  "Mr Brandeis, if you were walking down the street and found a package,  a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money, which one would you take?"Without hesitating, Brandeis responded, "The one with the money, of course."   Peters, smiling sarcastically, said, “Just like a Jew. Unlike you I would have taken the wisdom."  Brandeis shrugged indifferently and responded, "Each one takes what he doesn't have." 

Prof. Peters hate for the Jewish student came to a finale when he scribbled on his student’s final exam the word "idiot" and handed it back to him.  A few minutes later, Louis Brandeis got up, went to the professor and said to him in a dignified but sarcastically polite tone, "Prof. Peters, you autographed the exam sheet, but you did not give me a grade...”


Message from a non-oppressed black man to Colin Kaepernick…

By Allen West 

If there’s one thing I live for, it’s football season, especially college. Saturday night I was enjoying a fantastic game between Charleston Southern University and North Dakota State University. The game went into overtime and ended with the Bison of NDSU winning 24-17. However, as I watched this thrilling game, it was an item on the ESPN news ticker that disturbed me — to which I see a need to respond to this “teachable moment.”
As we reported yesterday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem in Friday’s pre-season game against Green Bay because he was protesting “black oppression” in the United States. The Niners went on to lose.
The NFL issued a statement that said players are encouraged but not required to stand for the national anthem. Hmm, this is the same NFL that refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to wear a helmet decal in honor of the fallen Dallas Police officers gunned down on Thursday July 7th.
This is the same NFL that said nothing when players from the then- St. Louis Rams displayed the false narrative symbol of “hands up, dont shoot” — which we know didn’t happen. I find it rather interesting that the NFL has no issue disrespecting law enforcement officers but only “encourages” players to respect the symbol of our nation, the American flag, and our anthem, the Star Spangled Banner.
However, I would recommend a simple scripture from the wise King Solomon for Mr. Kaepernick, Proverbs 17:28 (NIV): “Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”

Or, as the old folks down South would say, “best for a stupid person to keep their mouth shut and not open it and let everyone know they are.”

Mr. Kaepernick, a biracial young man adopted and raised by white parents, claims America is oppressing blacks at a time when we have a black, biracial president who was twice elected. We’ve had two black attorneys general and currently have a black secretary of homeland security, along with a black national security advisor. Here in Dallas our police chief, whom I know, is an outstanding black leader. The officer in Milwaukee who shot the armed assailant after issuing an order to drop his weapon was black. Is Mr. Kaepernick following suit and cherry-picking what he terms “oppression?”
First of all, let me clarify to you sir, you are a multi-millionaire “one-percenter” just because you can throw a ball and kiss your biceps. Men like Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Oscar Robertson, Ernie Davis, and Bernard King and Condredge Halloway of my alma mater were athletes who knew of oppression. You sir may certainly have the right to sit upon your “fourth point of contact” when the National Anthem is played but never forget, you live in a nation that has provided you the privilege to have that right.

My story is one I wish to share. My dad was a corporal in the U.S. Army and served during World War II. He was born in 1920 and knew oppression. Yet, when he sat me down on the steps of our home, 651 Kennesaw Ave NE in Atlanta, he shared with me that there was no greater honor or privilege, than to wear the uniform of these United States. Perhaps that‘s why his first and middle sons, along with his grandson, are all U.S. combat veterans, just like Dad. Herman West Sr. was not a victim, and he raised men who would never allow anyone to suppress or oppress them. Perhaps you should stop trying to make victims and admonish people, black people, to be victors — try it, and you may find that more satisfying than your insidious action and word vomiting.

If you want to know about oppression of blacks in America, past and present, how about you ask Rep. Nancy Pelosi of the San Fran Bay Area about the policies that decimated the black family? Maybe you can cross the Bay over to Oakland and ask Rep. Barbara Lee about the 13 to15 million black babies killed since 1973, and ask her who is Margaret Sanger?

Or perhaps you can ask the two California senators, Boxer and Feinstein, about who doesn’t support better education opportunities for black children in the inner cities — school choice, vouchers, charter schools, home schooling.

Perhaps you didn’t know Barack Obama was the one who cancelled the DC school voucher program for deserving young black children — talk about oppression. Is that something you’re willing to do, or is it just too difficult?
You should look at who’s been controlling the communities and cities where blacks live. This isn’t not about what America has done; it’s about what a certain group, a political party has done. And your somewhat backhanded comment towards our law enforcement officers — well, wonder how many times San Francisco PD has protected you?

Here is the deal young man. My recommendation is that you apologize. Be a stand up fella and admit you made a very stupid comment. Humbly state that you do realize how very special this country is and the opportunities it has afforded you — and many others. You should take that stand and apologize to all of those who are currently serving in our Armed Forces and those veterans who’ve been willing to make that last full measure of devotion. You see, when the National Anthem is played, it has a very special meaning to us — maybe you should take a hiatus and go over to Helmand Province in Afghanistan and spend a week and understand why. Go over and throw a football with the men and women who enable you to earn those millions of dollars.

The American flag has a very touching meaning for those of us for whom it will drape our coffin — as it was for my Dad…and it will be for me. That song defines who we are as a proud and exceptional people. This is a land where so many dream of coming to and earning the title of American. Your actions were shameful, disgusting, despicable and disrespectful.
You do have a right and a freedom of expression. But know, there are consequences to your ignorant action, which is what it was.
When the National Anthem is played, I salute because I am a black man born and raised in the inner city afforded the opportunity for greatness in my own right. May you seek God’s forgiveness and find humility, because we, the people are not going to forget what you did and said. 


No comments: