Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Haley One Of Trump's Finest Appointments. If Republicans Cannot Pass Needed Reforms and Legislation Then Throw Them Out Even If Democrats Are Unworthy As Well.

Niki Haley proving to be one of Trump's best appointments.

We are not, however, going to pull out of U.N's Human Right's Council. (See 1 below.)
Tomorrow former FBI Director, Comey, will testify.  He has basically already leaked everything he wants the public to know and done so in a somewhat self serving manner..

Comey politicized the office and engaged in practices that have harmed the public's faith in the FBI.

We have a pretty clear understanding that he did not feel Trump leaned on him too heavily to go soft on Flynn or the Russian collusion investigation unlike Obama who told Russia's president to tell Putin I will go soft on Russia once I am re-elected. This from Obama's own lips.

I have no doubt the mass media and Democrats will do whatever they can to perpetuate the belief that Trump is unworthy of the office he was elected to and so the hate Trump movement will continue undeterred by facts.

When the smoke has cleared, I suspect Trump will have been found to have acted in a manner that was not totally appropriate but no laws were broken and there was no collusion with Russia but some of his campaign staffers had financial connections.  This may take several years and millions of dollars and is something Democrats need in order to keep the anti-Trump flame kindled.

Trump is a New York  Real Estate Developer and not a slick politician.  His ways, manner and responses are not those of a person who has spent his entire life in a political bubble drinking polluted Potomac water.

I believe when all of this mostly witch hunt nonsense is over with it will be Obama, Holder, Rice, Kerry, Powers and Clinton, among others, who will be the ones who have been found to have lied, purposely lied, and we can begin with the cover up related to "Fast and Furious" and go all the way to Benghazi.

Once again, I believe Trump's opposition are digging their own grave but with the mass media acting on behalf of and running interference for  blood thirsty Democrats, Republicans cannot sit quietly with folded hands and allow themselves to be run over by Democrat Dump Trucks.

Consequently, unless Republicans pass legislation pertaining to improving our method of raising revenue while at the same time unleashing the power of our economy, can get government out of the health care business and allow choice and the free market to reign again, can rebuild our military and finally rid the nation of the restrictive abuses Obama imposed on our economy then one has to ask why should they be allowed to govern.

That is not to say Democrat ideas would be any better.  They would not.

Americans are a "can do" lot and when nothing is being done about needs and directions we generally are willing to throw the bums out even if the bums sitting in the wings are unworthy as well. This is why voters are disgusted and why our republic is not secure.

If Republicans cannot come together and agree on what is best for America, our economy and military preparedness, then Republicans will have proven, that when given the reigns of government, they failed and, thus,  deserve to be turned out of office. They may have legitimate issues with Trump regarding his legislative agenda but they cannot come into the court of public opinion with dirty hands and plead they are still electable.

Peacocks belong in zoos, not walking the halls of Congress.

Time will tell whether Republicans will place the nation's interests first or will they duck.
Haaretz is one of Israel's most liberal newspapers.(See 2 below)
My friend, Don Kole, has been a devoted collector of African artifacts for many years,  He has now moved his collection from his business office to a local museum.  I have seen Don's collection many times and assisted him in having a display of some of his memorable pieces shown  at the opening of GMOA's new wing addition in January 19 - April 14, 2013.  The brochure associated was entitled "From Savanna to Savannah."

I encourage anyone who is interest in the beauty of African art to visit Don's collection and I will be happy to arrange a group tour if you have an interest.  Just e mail me and list several dates.
Finally, Trump made a speech in Ohio today with respect to health care, infrastructure, Democrat obstructionism and approval delays.   What Trump says is worth hearing, his ideas are spot on but his delivery , though folksy and home spun, is repetitive and dull at best.
The sounds of Sharia coming to Michigan, then America. (See 3 below.)
1)  U.S. warns it may pull out of U.N. human rights body, citing mistreatment of Jewish state, member abuses

 Anne Gearan

By Anne Gearan

UNITED NATIONS -- The Trump administration warned Tuesday that the United States could pull out of the U.N. Human Rights Council unless the body ends what Washington calls the whitewashing of dictators' abuses and unfair attacks on Israel.
President Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, delivered the ultimatum in an unusual address in Geneva to the 47-member body.

"The United States is looking very carefully at this council and our participation in it. We see some areas for significant strengthening," Haley told council members.

"Being a member of this council is a privilege, and no country who is a human rights violator should be allowed a seat at the table."

The United States accuses the council of shielding the repressive regimes it should be condemning, allowing such regimes to join the body and then use it to thwart scrutiny. It is the same criticism that led former president George W. Bush to shun the council in 2006, a decision that Barack Obama reversed in his first year in office.

Haley pointed to what she said are egregious human rights violations in Venezuela, a council member, and said if the country cannot reform it should step down from the rights council.

Haley outlined proposals for reform in a separate address later Tuesday, delivered away from the council headquarters. She again accused Venezuela of masking starvation and repression at home with membership in the human rights body, and added others to the list of those she said misuse positions on the council.

"Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, China, Burundi and Saudi Arabia occupy positions that obligate them to, in the words of the resolution that created the Human Rights Council, 'uphold the highest standards' of human rights," Haley said in remarks at the Graduate Institute Geneva.

"They clearly do not uphold those highest standards."

"When the council fails to act properly - when it fails to act at all - it undermines its own credibility and the cause of human rights," Haley said.

"It leaves the most vulnerable to suffer and die. It fuels the cynical belief that countries cannot put aside self-interest and cooperate on behalf of human dignity. It reinforces our growing suspicion that the Human Rights Council is not a good investment of our time, money, and national prestige."

The council risks becoming as discredited as its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, Haley said.
That 60-year-old body was disbanded in 2005 as irredeemably tainted by its protection of abusers, and the Human Rights Council was formed as a fresh start.

"America does not seek to leave the Human Rights Council. We seek to reestablish the council's legitimacy," Haley said.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, attended the council session.
"It's hard to take Ambassador Haley seriously on U.S. support for human rights in light of Trump administration actions like the Muslim ban and immigration crackdowns," he said in a statement. "Regardless of the party in power, the U.S. needs to lead by example and practice what it preaches on human rights."

The United States is demanding changes to the way members of the council are chosen. Countries should have to compete for membership, thus making it much harder for human rights abusers to slip through, Haley argued.
The council must also stop singling out Israel for criticism, Haley said.

The former South Carolina governor, frequently mentioned as a future Republican presidential candidate, has focused heavily on what she calls mistreatment of Israel at the United Nations. The effort has endeared her to Israeli leaders and to conservative U.S. pro-Israel organizations. Haley will travel to Israel later this week.

"It's hard to accept that this council has never considered a resolution on Venezuela, and yet it adopted five biased resolutions in March against a single country, Israel," Haley said in her remarks before the council. "It is essential that this council address its chronic anti-Israel bias if it is to have any credibility."

The council should immediately address worsening human rights conditions in Syria, Congo, Eritrea and Ukraine, Haley told the body.

Before she spoke, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein had criticized Israel for the 50-year occupation of land the Palestinians claim for a future state. He invoked the Holocaust while saying that Israel's actions now are not comparable.

"The Holocaust was so monstrous and so mathematically planned and executed it has no parallel, no modern equal," Zeid said. "Yet it is also undeniable that today, the Palestinian people mark a half-century of deep suffering under an occupation imposed by military force."

In June 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights in fighting with Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

In response, Israeli U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon criticized Zeid, a veteran Jordanian diplomat, and said Israel is "looking forward to working with the U.S. to enact real reforms and put an end to this most absurd chapter in the history of the U.N." "The connection between the commissioner and human rights has proven to be purely coincidental and it comes as no surprise that he chose to spread lies about Israel before he even mentioned the massacres in Syria," Danon wrote in a statement issued in New York.

Haley is the first U.S. United Nations ambassador to address the council, and her address is part of a Trump administration campaign to demand reform to what Haley has called hidebound and biased U.N. bureaucracies.

Exclusive: Obama’s Detailed Plans for Mideast Peace Revealed - and How Everything Fell Apart

Documents obtained by Haaretz detail where Netanyahu was willing to compromise on borders, and how the U.S. failed to get Abbas on board over Jerusalem in 2014

WASHINGTON – Haaretz has obtained two previously unseen documents from the height of the Obama administration’sefforts to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which reveal how the talks fell apart in 2014.
They could offer U.S. President Donald Trump, who is currently trying to get the two sides to renew direct negotiations, some valuable lessons on what happened the last time the conflict’s core issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, refugees and mutual recognition – were put on the table.

They also show the exact language that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was willing to accept on the issue of the 1967 borders during the negotiations, and how far the Obama administration was willing to go on the delicate and sensitive issue of Jerusalem in order to try and get a “yes” to its peace plan from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The documents are two internal drafts of then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s “framework agreement” in 2014, which was supposed to be the basis for the final stretch of negotiations between the two sides. One of the documents is from mid-February 2014 and the other from March 2014. Combined, these two documents show what it would take to “bridge the gaps” between Abbas and Netanyahu, as Trump is hoping to do.

Mid-February 2014 document: Netanyahu’s border concession

The first version of the framework agreement obtained by Haaretz is from mid-February 2014. It’s an internal U.S. draft that was written two days before a crucial meeting between Kerry and Abbas in Paris. The document’s title is “Working Draft Framework for Negotiations,” and its first line explains: “The following is a proposed framework to serve as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on a permanent status, final peace agreement.”
A former U.S. official familiar with the 2014 negotiations told Haaretz that during the first two months of that year, the U.S. team held extensive talks with Netanyahu’s most senior advisers over this document. The ideas and positions expressed in the document were mostly based on the contents of a secret negotiations track that operated in London up to that January between Netanyahu’s envoy for the peace process, Isaac Molho, and Prof. Hussein Agha, a close adviser to Abbas. Netanyahu asked the U.S. team to take the fruits of those secret negotiations and turn them into an “American document” outlining the basis for a final peace agreement.

In the days ahead of Kerry’s meeting with Abbas, the U.S. team was fervently discussing the contents of the “framework” document with Netanyahu’s senior advisers. The idea was that if the Americans and Israelis could agree on most of the framework, Kerry could then present the document to Abbas – and hopefully get his approval as well.
The document obtained by Haaretz is one of the very last drafts the U.S. team was working on, and includes suggestions and objections from the Israeli side, which are clearly marked within the document.

The document touches on all the “core issues” of the conflict – the same issues that Trump’s team, sooner or later, will want the Israelis and Palestinians to discuss and resolve together.

The first of the core issues mentioned in the document is mutual recognition between Israel and Palestine. The document states that the peace agreement between the two sides “will need to be based on a shared commitment to fulfilling the vision of two states for two peoples, with full equal rights and no discrimination against any member of any ethnic or religious community. Achieving this outcome of two states for two peoples – Palestine, the nation-state of the Palestinian people, living in peace with Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people – will enable the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the two states.”

A former senior U.S. official told Haaretz that this clause was an attempt to please both leaders: Netanyahu gets a clear reference to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, but Abbas gets an immediate clarification that this will include full equal rights and no discrimination against Israel’s Arab minority.

The second core issue discussed is borders. This is perhaps the most dramatic part of the document, stating that “the new secure and recognized international borders between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually-agreed swaps whose size and location will be negotiated, so that Palestine will have viable territory corresponding in size to the territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan before June 4, 1967, with territorial contiguity in the West Bank. In negotiating the borders, the parties will need to take into account subsequent developments, Israel’s security requirements and the goal of minimizing movement of existing populations while avoiding friction.”

Many U.S. and Israeli officials told Haaretz that Netanyahu was aware that this paragraph, which effectively means Israeli acceptance of the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations, would appear in Kerry’s framework. According to these sources, Netanyahu was willing to enter final-status negotiations based on these words. But he had one reservation, which is indeed mentioned in the U.S. document: He wanted to avoid direct usage of the words “territorial contiguity.”

The Americans, however, refused to accept this demand by the prime minister, claiming it totally emptied the rest of the borders section of any meaning.

Jerusalem should not be redivided

One of the most complicated issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fate of Jerusalem – yet in the February 2014 draft of the American framework, only one short paragraph was devoted to it.

“Jerusalem is perhaps the most complicated and sensitive of all the issues to be resolved in the agreement,” it stated. “Any solution to these issues must correspond to the deep historic, religious, cultural and emotional ties of both peoples to the city’s holy sites, which must be protected. The parties agree that the city should not be redivided and that there cannot be a permanent status agreement without resolving the issue of Jerusalem.”
This paragraph is accompanied by two notes. The first note includes two different sentences, one of which was eventually supposed to be included in the framework. The man who was supposed to decide between the two was Netanyahu.

Here are the two sentences:

Option 1: “Israel seeks to have the city of Jerusalem internationally recognized as its capital and the Palestinians seek to have East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.”

Option 2: “Palestinians seek to have the internationally recognized capital of their state in East Jerusalem and Israelis seek to have Jerusalem internationally recognized as their capital.”

Haaretz could not confirm which of these sentences Netanyahu eventually told Kerry he preferred, but one thing is clear: Both sentences fall far short of the Palestinian demand to have a capital in East Jerusalem, which Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. When Kerry presented this kind of formula to Abbas, the Palestinian leader became visibly angry, saying he could not put his signature on such a document, according to former U.S. officials.

What Abbas didn’t object to, though, was the sentence stating that Jerusalem would not be redivided. This may come as a surprise to many Israelis, but Abbas has actually stated publicly in the past he doesn’t believe Jerusalem should be physically divided as part of a peace deal.

No Right of Return into Israel

On the “core issue” of Palestinian refugees, the document states: “The establishment of an independent Palestinian state will provide a national homeland for all Palestinians, including the refugees, and thereby bring an end to the historic Palestinian refugee issue and the assertion of any claims against Israel arising from it.”

What this means, in effect, is that there will be no “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and their descendants into Israel. Instead, the framework offers four different solutions for the refugees: resettling them in the State of Palestine; settling for good in their current host states; resettlement “in third countries” around the world that would agree to accept them; and, in special humanitarian cases, admission into Israel, which “will be decided upon by Israel, without obligation, at its sole discretion.”
Another section in the document states that “during the negotiations, the parties will seek to promote an atmosphere conducive to negotiations and do their utmost to prevent deterioration in this atmosphere.” This phrasing would have most likely led to a partial freeze on building in the settlements during the course of the final-status negotiations. There are no Israeli objections attached to it – at least, not in the version obtained by Haaretz.
The document also includes a reference to “an international effort to deal with the property claims” of Jews who were expelled from Arab countries as a result of the decades-long conflict with Israel.

In this 1952 photo from the UNRWA archive, refugees walk through Nahr el-Bared, Lebanon refugee camp, one of the first camps established as part of emergency measures to shelter 1948 refugees. AP

With regards to security arrangements, the framework draft states there will be a “full and final” Israeli withdrawal from all parts of the Palestinian state, but that this withdrawal will be phased and gradual. The document sets no timeline for this, and says only that it will be negotiated between the two sides.

The document also states that Israel will preserve the ability to defend itself, by itself, in any case of emergency “or an emerging threat,” and that Palestine will be a demilitarized state but with an effective internal security force.

Abbas responds with rage – and the document is altered

When Kerry met Abbas in Paris on February 19, 2014 and presented him with this version of the framework accord, the Palestinian president responded with anger and disappointment. Former U.S. officials say his biggest concern was with how the document addressed Jerusalem. The weak wording on this paramount issue was a nonstarter for him.
As a result of Abbas’ reaction, the U.S. team realized that in order to get a “yes” from the Palestinian president, they would have to change some parts of the framework document. The challenge was how to do it without losing Netanyahu, who had verbally expressed his openness toward the February version of the document (although he never accepted it in writing).
Abbas was scheduled to meet President Barack Obama in the White House on March 16, 2014 – less than a month after his dinner with Kerry in Paris. Ahead of that meeting, the U.S. peace team crafted an updated version of the framework, which, unlike the February document, was not pre-negotiated with the Israelis. The result was a different document, one that on a number of issues was tilted more toward the Palestinians.

March document: Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem

The March version of the framework, as obtained by Haaretz, was written on March 15, 2014, a day before Obama met Abbas in the White House. This document, too, is a last internal U.S. draft. The changes between this and the previous document start in the very first section, “The Goal of the Negotiations.” This states that one of the goals is “to end the occupation that began in 1967” – a choice of words that didn’t appear in the February document.

While the February document included very vague language on the future of Jerusalem, the March version states clearly that “in order to meet the needs of both sides, the permanent status agreement will have to provide for both Israel and Palestine to have their internationally recognized capitals in Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem serving as the Palestinian capital.”
The document also stated that “the Old City, religious sites and Jewish neighborhoods [will be] addressed separately as part of the final status negotiations.”

During his meeting with Abbas in White House, Obama read this document to the Palestinian leader – including the Jerusalem paragraph. With regard to mutual recognition, the document states: “Once the needs of both sides are met on all the foregoing issues, the two-state solution will have to be expressed in the Agreement through mutual recognition and establishment of a state of peace between Palestine, the nation-state of the Palestinian people, and Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is without prejudice to the historical narratives of both sides, and with full equal rights for all and no discrimination against any of their citizens.”

This language contains a major victory for Netanyahu: Even in the most “pro-Palestinian” version of the Obama administration’s framework, there was a clear reference to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. However, it also offers a significant “carrot” to Abbas by stating that this mutual recognition will only be the very last part of the negotiations, and will come only after everything else has been resolved.

On most of the other core issues, the March document wasn’t dramatically different than the February one – including borders, refugees and security arrangements. There were, however, a number of language “tweaks” that seem more favorable to the Palestinians. The borders section, for instance, no longer includes the words “subsequent developments” that were included in the February version and are a clear reference to Israel’s major settlement blocs.

After failing to first negotiate a document with Netanyahu and then get a “yes” from Abbas, the Americans now wanted to test the opposite option: Getting the Palestinian leader to agree to a document on the core issues, and then take it back to Netanyahu. But Abbas didn’t accept Obama’s framework document. He didn’t reject it, though – he simply didn’t respond.
The Obama administration was disappointed and frustrated by his reaction. Obama asked Abbas to “see the big picture” instead of squabbling with “this or that detail” – to no avail. A month later, Kerry’s peace talks collapsed.
Palestinian and U.S. officials later explained that Abbas was disappointed by the fact Netanyahu’s government was planning to delay a promised release of dozens of Palestinian prisoners, and that he felt the Obama administration could not truly “deliver” concessions from Netanyahu.
“Abbas was always afraid of saying yes to something, only to then discover that Bibi [Netanyahu] doesn’t accept it. He was afraid of being blamed by his opponents of selling out the Palestinians in return for nothing,” one former U.S. official told Haaretz, adding that “perhaps with Trump, he will believe that Israeli concessions are more of a real possibility.”

Other American officials, as well as Israeli ones, see this episode as proof of Abbas’ inability to deliver a final peace agreement, mostly as a result of his internal political troubles.

The March 2014 meeting was the last time Obama invited Abbas to the White House. Netanyahu, meanwhile, backtracked publicly from the positions he expressed during his conversations with Kerry, and later also lied to the Israeli public multiple times during the 2015 Knesset election about what he agreed to during the 2014 negotiations.

Ultimately, both Israel and the Palestinians didn’t officially accept – or reject – Kerry’s framework proposals. Maybe the Trump administration will have more luck in getting them to commit to actual concessions on “the core issues.”
He's young, attractive … speaks in platitudes about celebrating inclusiveness and diversity' 
 Abdul                                                          El-Sayed with                                                          wife Sarah.

The Democratic Party may have found its next Barack Obama.

His name is Dr. Abdul el-Sayed, he’s a 32-year-old medical doctor and he recently launched his campaign for governor of Michigan, the election for which is in November 2018. If he wins he would be America’s first Muslim governor

He speaks articulately, without an accent, inserts humor into his speeches at seemingly just the right moments, and he has the full backing of America’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood-linked network of Islamic organizations.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, El-Sayed said Michigan voters are having “buyer’s remorse,” and that President Trump’s decisions “are at odds with deeply held American values, and distractions from real issues.” 

Sayed served as the executive director of the Detroit Health Department and Health Officer for the City of Detroit, appointed by Mayor Mike Duggan. At 30 years old, he was at the time of his appointment in 2015 the youngest health director in a major U.S. city.

According to El-Sayed, his decision to run for governor was influenced by concerns over state leadership following the lead-tainted water crisis in Flint, as well as policies being implemented in Washington, D.C., under President Trump.

“It’s Obama II,” Manasseri said. “Elizabeth Warren will be coming to campaign for him, the Democrats in other states will be raising money for him. The DNC number-two man [Keith Ellison] will be raising money for him. Of course this guy is going to be on theSunday morning talk shows. He’ll be everywhere. A candidate for governor who is Muslim Brotherhood …if that doesn’t tell you there’s a Shariah swamp in Michigan I don’t know what does.”

No comments: