Friday, October 21, 2016

A Few Responses. 1967 Withdrawal, Rabbi Sachs and Thoughts About The U.N.. Strassel In Georgia!

As for myself, I personally believe a woman has a right to her body within the law regarding 
abortion decisions (Roe v Wade) but I also believe public money should not pay for such decisions in most instances.
A few responses from friends and fellow memo readers regarding my discussion about the claim that, in the last 7 plus years, my LTE's have turned "hateful," As  noted in my previous memo I did not totally disagree and suggested reasons why my writing had become "harsher."

a) Dick,

If “less hateful” means being less biting, less pointed, or less persuasive – don’t you dare! The old Berkowitz is just fine with me.


b) To Me: "BULL HOCKEY about your being mean and angry.  How can you not be and be alive in this country, today?  I'm furious all of the time when I hear my weak-kneed friends talking about how mean Trump is, the bad words that he uses, etc.  Their stupid minds are so short. I quickly run through the list of presidents that carried on clandestine affairs, and worse. This came to my mind the other day, and I've used it, freely. "Those weren't gravy stains from the President's Day dinner on Monica's dress! "  That's really bad, I know.  I actually said it to a Liberal who I thought would be really angry, and he said, "I love it, and I'm going to use it!".  Yea!   

And while I don't think that abortion should be a part of political debate, it is.  And the very sensitive Liberals are so shocked by what Trump says, but they tolerate the murder of babies at near-full term.  Where are their minds and sensibilities? 

...Keep on "keeping on".  Actually, someone gave you a nice compliment the other night in the op section.  Hope that you saw it.  Frankly, I can't stand mealy-mouthed people that have no intestinal fortitude (read that: balls).  They're wrong, and we're right, and that's that!!!  Even my friend, Jesus, said,in the Bible, that he didn't like "lukewarm people".  We are hardly that.


m  (1:20 a.m.)" 

If Israel has to withdraw to 1967 borders then America will also have to shrink quite considerably as will most every nation in the world.

Current attitudes and views should not control actions taken in different eras and far in the past.  Current attitudes certainly can/should control current and future behaviour once this becomes accepted law and/or policy.  That said, I do not believe the U.N. can/should control the world's behaviour because it has proven it cannot enforce its views but it can establish a moral tone. That is why it was established.

The problem, even with this view, is that the U.N has been hijacked by most of its most amoral members who also control most of its agencies and committees etc. 

I often wonder, would the world be better off if there was no U.N and I certainly believe America should only fund the agencies of The U.N we find effective. (See 1 below.)
Krauthammer explaining his vote. (See 2 below.)

I understand why many bright people, whom I respect, have decided not to vote for Trump. I do not agree with their decision because, though it might be understandable, they are, in essence, allowing the other candidate, who also repels them, to be elected.  

I had dinner with a dear friend and his wife last night and his parting comment went something like this: 'whomever you vote for just make sure you feel embarrassed afterwards.'
As I wrote in a previous memo I believe my father would have destroyed Hillary were he to have been her debating opponent because he was a very competent and skilled legal advocate. ( I noted, in a previous memo, that a Fed. District Judge in Louisville wrote a book about exceptional lawyers who appeared before him and cited an argument my father once made in his court.)

In the midst of a debate being able to think quickly takes training and talent. Trump, obviously, is not a truly skilled and disciplined debater beyond a certain point either because he loses patience, lacks the training and/or cannot avoid saying something that undercuts any previous effectiveness. He seems incapable of avoiding touching the hot light bulb.

Though some time has past since the third debate I did make these simultaneous comments to my wife as we watched the third debate:

a) When Hillary started on her mechanical challenge regarding the 17 intelligence experts who concluded Russia was trying to disrupt or impact our election; Trump should have called attention to the fact that Hillary subsequently joined the crowd accusing GW for relying upon similar intelligence analysts who were convinced Iraq had WMD.

b) Trump should have called Hillary's hand when she pirouetted away from answering the question about her 'pay for play' activities involving The Clinton Foundation.

c) Trump should have asked the TV audience to explain to themselves why they were willing to promote Hillary to the presidency considering her history of lies, her crookedness and willingness to expose our nation's secrets.

As Kim Strassel points out in the article I am posting below, Trump fails to connect dots and uses language in making accusations that is self-defeating. (See 2 below.)

Speaking of Kim, again I remind you she will be appearing at The Plantation Club, at The Landings in Savannah,Tuesday, Nov. 1 at 4:30 - 6:30 PM to discuss and sign her new book as well as the election and in Atlanta, Wednesday, Nov 2.

Wednesday, November 2nd 

Join the Republican Jewish Coalition and Fulton County GOP
as we co-host a special presentation featuring Kimberley Strassel

Gifted Wall Street Journal Columnist and Excellent Investigative Reporter

With a Special Introduction by 
Bernie Marcus

Member of the RJC Board of Directors
and Founder of Home Depot

"The Intimidation Game"
Kim Strassel-one of the preeminent political columnists writing today and member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board-provides an insightful, alarming look at how the Left, once the champion of civil liberties, is today orchestrating a coordinated campaign to bully Americans out of free speech.

Her recent articles can be viewed here

"The Intimidation Game" will be available for purchase and signing

Wednesday, November 2nd
5:15 p.m. mix and mingle and promptly at
5:30 p.m. the program will begin 
*Light Refreshments will be available

Heritage Sandy Springs
6110 Blue Stone Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30328

RSVP is Requested
Please click here to RSVP

There is no charge to attend.
'Israel has every right to refuse a 1967 withdrawal'
Former FM director-general: Since 1973 the US has assured Israel it won’t back changes to UNSC 242.

US support for a resolution to replace UN Security Council Resolution 242 would conflict with commitments given to Israel by Washington going back to 1973, former Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

“I remember that after the ’73 war the United States gave Israel commitments that it would not allow for a change in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242,” Gold said.

“The United States is Israel’s major ally, that has not changed,” Gold told the Post on the sidelines of a speech he delivered to the Israel Allies Caucus conference in Jerusalem.

“While we have tactical disagreements from time to time, I believe that America will stick by its commitments to Israel.”

Resolution 242 was approved in November 1967, some five months after the Six Day War. It is the basis on which the entire Israeli-Arab peace process is structured.

Most significantly, its text specified an Israeli withdrawal from “territories” – not “the territories” – captured during the war.

“All the peace agreements [and initiatives] were based on this resolution,” Gold said.

The Palestinians have long pushed for a revision of Resolution 242, to explicitly state that Israel must return to the 1949 armistice lines.

In the past, the US has opposed such resolutions. As one of five UN Security Council members with veto power, it has been able to thwart past efforts to replace 242.

Israel has been fearful that US President Barack Obama, however, might back and even initiate his own revision to Resolution 242 in the two months he has between the November 8 US presidential election and when he leaves office in January. The US has hinted that Israel does not have its automatic support at the UN Security Council.

The concern is that Obama might want to place his stamp on the peace process by pushing for a resolution that sets new parameters for the peace process, including specifying the territory from which Israel must withdraw.

On Wednesday night, in response to a Channel 2 story about possible moves by Obama during his last two months in office, Netanyahu said he expects the US position to remain the same.

But he added that he hopes Obama would not follow in the path of past presidents who used that time to set forward new initiatives.

Israel has maintained that a UN Security Council resolution that imposes the terms of a peace deal discourages the Palestinians from negotiating such an agreement.

Gold told the conference that those in the international community who support the idea of replacing 242 have to decide whether they want to encourage or discourage a negotiated peace deal.

Resolution 242 “did not envision a full Israel withdrawal from the territories that were captured in 1967 for a very simple reason. It was a war of self-defense, and Israel had claims to secure and recognized boundaries,” Gold said.

“Jerusalem was not even mentioned in 242. What is clear, given the chaos in the region that exists today, is that Israel has every right to resist calls to withdraw to the 1967 lines.”

Gold also spoke about another option that Israel fears, a Security Council resolution against West Bank settlement activity.

“A settlements resolution would be a blunt instrument. It would not distinguish between an unauthorized outpost and neighborhoods in the heart of Jerusalem,” Gold said. “It would violate a core commitment in the Oslo agreements that all permanent-status issues must be negotiated.”

Gold said that under the 1993 Oslo Accords there were six such issues, and that it was not possible to just deal with one of them.

Gold clarified that, under Oslo, Israel is not prohibited from engaging in settlement activity, because it is presumed that such activity would be addressed in a final-status agreement.

“The adoption of a UN Security Council resolution just on that question breaks down the peace process and makes resuming serious peace negotiations in the future much more difficult,” Gold concluded.
My vote, explained
By Charles Krauthammer:;  Opinion writer October 20 at 7:00 PM Follow @krauthammer < 

The case against Hillary Clinton could have been written before the recent WikiLeaks and FBI disclosures. But these documents do provide hard textual backup. 

The most sensational disclosure;;  was the proposed deal between the State Department and the FBI in which the FBI would declassify a Clinton email and State would give the FBI more slots in overseas stations. What made it sensational was the rare appearance in an official account of the phrase “quid pro quo,” which is the currently agreed-upon dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable corruption.
This is nonetheless an odd choice for most egregious offense. First, it occurred several layers removed from the campaign and from Clinton. It involved a career State Department official (he occupied the same position under Condoleezza Rice) covering not just for Clinton but for his own department.

Second, it’s not clear which side originally offered the bargain. Third, nothing tangible was supposed to exchange hands. There was no proposed personal enrichment — a Rolex in return for your soul — which tends to be our standard for punishable misconduct. 
And finally, it never actually happened. The FBI turned down;;  the declassification request. 

Hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign released by WikiLeaks show how stances she has taken on the campaign trail compare to what she said in private speeches. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post) In sum, a warm gun but nonsmoking. Indeed, if the phrase “quid pro quo” hadn’t appeared, it would have received little attention. Moreover, it obscures the real scandal — the bottomless cynicism of the campaign and of the candidate.

Among dozens of examples, the Qatari gambit. Qatar, one of the worst actors in the Middle East (having financially supported ;>  the Islamic State, for example), offered $1 million ;;  as a “birthday” gift to Bill Clinton in return for five minutes of his time. Who offers — who takes — $200,000 a minute? We don’t know the “quid” here, but it’s got to be big.
In the final debate, Hillary Clinton ran and hid:;  when asked about pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation. And for good reason. The emails reveal <>  how foundation donors were first in line for favors and contracts. 

A governance review ;;  by an outside law firm reported that some donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.” You need an outside law firm to tell you that? If your Sultanic heart bleeds for Haiti, why not give to Haiti directly? Because if you give through the Clintons, you have a claim on future favors. 

The soullessness of this campaign — all ambition and entitlement — emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains:;  that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job? Asked one of her aides
; , Joel Benenson: “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?”

It’s that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the embarrassing about-face ;;  on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds swung decisively against free trade.

So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank. As she told;  a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was “a need to do something because, for political reasons . . . you can’t sit idly by and do nothing.” 

Giving the appearance that something had to be done. That’s not why Elizabeth Warren supported Dodd-Frank. Which is the difference between a conviction politician like Warren and a calculating machine like Clinton.

Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn’t seen it so clearly laid out. Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.

I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained;  in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.

The only question is whose name I’m going to write in. With Albert Schweitzer doubly unavailable (noncitizen, dead), I’m down to Paul Ryan or Ben Sasse. Two weeks to decide. 

Where Trump Fell Short

He made a compelling case against Clinton but failed to reach out beyond his base.

At the final presidential debate in Las Vegas, Oct. 19.ENLARGE
At the final presidential debate in Las Vegas, Oct. 19. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Among the biggest tasks for any presidential candidate is painting a picture of what life will be like under his opponent. But Mr. Trump has been so overwhelmingly the focus of this race (what will he do next?) that Hillary Clinton’s policies seem at most a media afterthought. On Wednesday he finally changed that dynamic, with the help of Fox News moderator Chris Wallace, the only debate host to keep the focus on the issues and to pose challenging questions to both sides. On substance, Mrs. Clinton was exposed for what she is: a liberal in an ethical minefield.
From the debate’s first question—about the Supreme Court—Mr. Trump highlighted that Mrs. Clinton is far to the left of the average voter. She feigned support for the Second Amendment, even while making clear that her Supreme Court nominees would abolish the individual right to bear arms. In her rush to play the woman card, she ended up defending even late-term abortions, which are opposed by a strong majority of Americans. She pledged that her Supreme Court would ditch equality under the law, and instead operate as a weapon for social justice.
Mr. Trump presented a country that would ride economic growth to a better future. Mrs. Clinton presented a country that would continue the angry work of redistributing a shrinking pie. She showed that she would double down on the worst of President Obama’s economic policies and regulations. Hate your ObamaCare? You’ll have to keep it, and pay more. Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that Mr. Trump would cut taxes, and that she would raise them. She said that her administration could institute all her sweeping new government programs without adding “a penny” of debt—a ludicrous claim.
Then Mr. Trump did his most effective job yet of underlining the risks of electing another ethically and morally damaged Clinton. He painted her as a woman who recklessly disregarded national security with her secret server, and who then was let off the hook by friendly investigators. Particularly compelling was the comparison Mr. Trump made to retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who faces jail in an investigation of leaked classified information—and who received none of the allowances from the Justice Department that Mrs. Clinton did. The Democratic nominee also had to outright (and noticeably) duck a question about the Clinton Foundation, because she has no way of refuting the evidence that she and her State Department staff did favors for donors and buddies.The GOP nominee also drew out Hillary Clinton the political hack, who caters her poll-driven policies to whatever audience she’s standing in front of at the moment. He reminded voters of her secret speeches to bankers, in which she expressed the polar opposite of what she’s saying today on the campaign trail. Mr. Trump’s criticism of her flip-flop on the Pacific trade deal elicited one of her biggest whoppers of the night. Mrs. Clinton again claimed that she changed her mind on the agreement after reading it. But emails dumped by WikiLeaks prove that she had decided against the deal before the text was released, purely to curry union support.
If Mr. Trump nonetheless loses this election, it’s because he has failed to do the harder job: He hasn’t given millions of voters the comfort—or reason—that they need to vote for him.
Despite some high-profile Never Trumpers, the GOP is remarkably consolidated around its nominee. This isn’t so much Mr. Trump’s doing as it is the hard work of conservative leaders, who have convinced many Republicans that it is their duty to stop Hillary. The radio host Mark Levin on Monday summed up this argument on his show: “It’s not even about supporting Trump. It’s about taking the most principled moral position you can for your family and your country, under very difficult circumstances. And that’s what you do in life most of the time.”
Wednesday’s debate probably helped Mr. Trump with that constituency only. It’s everyone else that is his problem. To win, he needs more than conservatives—that’s simply the math. Yet during the debate he continued to offend the very constituencies he needs. You don’t win over women by bragging that you didn’t even apologize to your wife after being caught, on tape, ogling other ladies and boasting about sexual exploits. You don’t win Hispanics by needlessly deploying the word “hombre” in a discussion about crime. You don’t win independents by suggesting that you might refuse to accept the results of the election if you lose.
The Trump campaign’s entire bet seems to be that it can turn out unprecedented numbers of white voters, overlooked masses who are new to politics and drawn by Mr. Trump’s brash talk to finally take part. He had better hope so. Because he’s running out of time to make the bigger sale.

No comments: