Rep. Nadler Fits The Bill! Violation of The Hulk's Privacy!
===
This from a dear friend in response to my memo indicating I was supporting Peter Muller.
"Thrilled that you are supporting Muller. I do not know him, but anyone would be better than Morse. He is so arrogant. I have known Morse for years and he does not deserve to be a judge.... It takes a brave soul to run against an incumbent, and if you are supporting him, I know he is a worthy candidate. C"
===
A young Millennial comes to the same conclusion I recently wrote pertaining to the veracity of politicians and how little their word and/or commitments mean. (See 1 below.)
===
This article supports what I have been writing for years and just recently I wrote the U.N. had proven virtually worthless when it came to their effectiveness in carrying our the basic tenets of their Charter. (See 2 below.)
===
As readers of my memos know I have been a member of AIPAC for over 40 years and have attended some of their annual meetings but they grew so large and my ability to get around has become more difficult so I stay apprised in other ways.
I totally concur with the thrust of this article. The annual conference is occuring now and will be attended by over 17,000. (See 3 below.)
===
Humor.
Dick
===
The store clerk called 911 when they saw him collapse to the floor.
The paramedics rushed the man to the nearest hospital where he had emergency open heart bypass surgery. He awakened from the surgery to find himself in the care of nuns at the Catholic Hospital.
A nun was seated next to his bed holding a clipboard loaded with several forms, and a pen.
She asked him how he was going to pay for his treatment. "Do you have health insurance?" she asked.
He replied in a raspy voice, "No health insurance."
The nun asked, "Do you have money in the bank?"
He replied, "No money in the bank."
Do you have a relative who could help you with the payments?" asked the irritated nun.
He said, ''I only have a spinster sister and she is a nun.''
The nun became agitated and announced loudly, "Nuns are not spinsters! Nuns are married to God."
The patient replied, "Perfect. Send the bill to my brother-in-law."
=================================================================================
1) Iran Deal Opponent Challenges Nadler for Congressional Seat
By Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Rosenberg has just launched his congressional campaign, seeking to unseat Cong. Jerrold Nadler who has been ensconced as the representative to Congress from New York City's Upper West Side for decades.
In any other year such a challenge might be laughed off as an impossible dream, but this year, after Nadler sold out his heavily Jewish constituency by knuckling under to President Obama and supporting the Nuclear Iran Deal, the time just may be ripe.
There is a lot about Rosenberg that naturally appeals to residents of the Upper West Side. He is a health care entrepreneur who spent half a decade as an investment banker focused on renewable energy. He's a Jewish Orthodox day school alumnus, a graduate of Yeshiva University's business school, the grandson of Holocaust survivors and a fervent lover of Israel who spent a year in yeshiva there and made at-least-yearly visits since he was six years old.
Given the make-up of the community and the strong position taken by nearly all major Jewish and other pro-Israel organizations against the Nuclear Iran Deal, Rosenberg was deeply disappointed that Nadler supported the Iran Deal which contains unacceptable shortcomings.
Rosenberg pointed out the 15 year pathway to Iranian nuclear power, the $150 billion relief in sanctions that can and will be used to support terrorism and the lack of promised anytime, anywhere inspections drew the ire of district residents, including himself, who saw and still see Nadler's act as a grave betrayal.
While it is true that Nadler has not faced a primary opponent in more than two decades - the political makeup of the district guarantees whoever is the Democratic nominee will be the Representative - Rosenberg sees the time as propitious. "We have entered a new and dangerous chapter in American government," Rosenberg said, pointing to the inertia of incumbents feel more beholden to those in party leadership than to their own constituents.
Rosenberg sees the current hyper-partisanship of Washington as a disservice to those who elect them to office. He points to Nadler's history of such extreme partisanship: "efforts to impeach President George W. Bush, attacks on former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, even harsh criticism of the previous mayor, Michael Bloomberg, for investigations into the actions of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
"When it comes to legislation supportive of Israel or other common sense measures, I will reach across the aisle to create bipartisan support," Rosenberg explained. He hopes such bipartisanship will flourish during the next administration.
"A recent survey showed that more than 70 percent of American Republicans support Israel, and more than 55 percent of American Democrats do. So why isn't that reflected in how the parties vote?" According to Rosenberg, the elected class is not reflecting the wishes of the people, and that greatly concerns him.
In what ways does Rosenberg want U.S. dealings with Israel to change, should he play a part in shaping American policy towards Israel? For one, he wants U.S. military aid to Israel to double, to $6 billion. "Israel should be able to purchase F-22 stealth jets, which it does not currently have." Rosenberg also believes Israel should have access to bunker buster bombs.
The neighborhood in which Israel resides has gotten dramatically more dangerous recently, and a huge factor adding greatly to that danger is the Nuclear Iran Deal.
"Nadler just publicly criticized Iran's firing of ballistic missiles," Rosenberg notes, but the terms of the deal which Nadler supported specifically weakened the ban on Iranian ballistic missile activity, making Israel less secure, not safer, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Rosenberg's style of leadership is best characterized, he says, as one of "seeing a problem or an opportunity, noting whether anyone is going to step up, and then doing so" himself if there is a vacuum.
He gave an example of how he took action while still an undergraduate at YU. He saw that business school graduates of other New York area universities had greater networking abilities, and started a program to greatly enhance and encourage networking with alumni, by presenting to and gaining approval from YU's board of directors.
Recognizing a problem, figuring out a solution, and stepping forward to take the lead is Rosenberg'smodus operandi. It is what he did when he launched his healthcare initiative, Preath, which will bring free market methodology to healthcare expenses, he did it at YU by starting an initiative which brought in six figures in donations and he did it on the Upper West Side, when he founded Or Chayim.
It is obvious, after speaking with Rosenberg, that an adored role model was his grandfather Stanley Diller.
A Holocaust survivor who arrived as a penniless orphan in the U.S., Diller started out as a factory worker and then went on to selling venetian blinds and floor coverings. From there he got involved in real estate. Eventually, Diller became a pillar of the Los Angeles Jewish community, building hospitals and schools. Diller founded Yavne Hebrew Academy, the largest Jewish day school outside of New York City. Rosenberg attended Yavne.
Rosenberg realized the party is not likely to endorse him. But that's okay, he says. "The Republican Party endorsed Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush raised $130 million and had unparalleled name recognition," and neither of those establishment credentials took them to the finish line. Rosenberg is feeling just fine about having outsider status in this age of political upheaval and unpredictability.
What Rosenberg does have going for him is an unshakable love for the American dream and of the Zionist ideal.
And what about peace in the Middle East? He has ideas about that also, but they don't involve the imposition of any solutions by the Europeans or the Americans. Or by the United Nations. The parties will have ultimate say, Rosenberg says, and real peace is the only goal.
About the Author: Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the U.S. correspondent for The Jewish Press. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools.
==================================================================================
2) The U.N.’s Reckless Leader Does It Again in Morocco
2) The U.N.’s Reckless Leader Does It Again in Morocco
Ban Ki-moon, by seeming to cheer on separatist rebels, betrayed the United Nations charter once more.
By AHMED CHARAI
Casablanca, Morocco
When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon leaves office late this year, it will end an era of incompetence and malfeasance excessive even by U.N. standards. Meanwhile, he’s doing damage to my country, Morocco. His actions have set back efforts to broker a resolution to a long dispute in the Sahara, and triggered Thursday’s expulsion of some members of the U.N.’s peacekeeping mission in response to Mr. Ban’s politicized meddling.
Since Mr. Ban became secretary-general in 2006, his tenure at the U.N. has been pockmarked by failures both institutional and personal. U.N. peacekeeping forces now are more likely to stir fear than confidence, given their record of sexual predation in the Central African Republic over the past two years. The Ebola epidemic in Africa was made worse by the bungling of the U.N.’s World Health Organization. Mr. Ban himself was excoriated by five U.N. human-rights experts for trying to deny the world body’s responsibility for a disastrous cholera outbreak in Haiti in 2010. The secretary-general’s “opaque” hiring practices were denounced in 2011 by an internal U.N. report.
The man regarded as the world’s top diplomat also has a habit of pouring gasoline on burning international conflicts, In January, as a stabbing spree by Palestinian terrorists beset Israel, Mr. Ban remarked that it is “human nature to react to occupation.”
Two weeks ago, Mr. Ban waded into a less well-known conflict, in Morocco. For background: A leftist militia called the Polisario, based in and backed by the military establishment of neighboring Algeria, lays claim to half the territory of Morocco—the country’s Saharan south. Polisario waged a guerrilla war in the 1970s which never formally ended. Morocco’s monarch, Mohammed VI, has since invested billions into the development of the Sahara, so that it features glistening ports and infrastructure, decent housing and good schools. In the neighboring territory the Polisario patrols, the militia’s people still live in huts without running water or electricity, despite decades of generous international aid money from the U.N. and numerous charitable organizations.
The monarch’s plan for decentralization of governance kingdom-wide would grant Saharans self-rule. He also offers amnesty to militia members who agree to lay down their weapons. Such overtures have won an expression of formal appreciation by the U.N. Security Council, and been deemed “serious, realistic, and credible” by the Obamaadministration. The Polisario, offering no peace plan of its own, calls for continued “resistance.”
Enter Mr. Ban. On March 5 he visited Algeria and the Polisario camps in his official capacity and threw off the mantle of peace broker to become a party to the conflict. He declared Morocco a “colonizer” and an “occupier,” and flashed a “V” sign with the guerrilla fighters—which they understandably interpreted as a show of U.N. solidarity with their military campaign.
Mr. Ban’s actions should not be surprising. He has taken a neutral stance as Syria’s Bashar Assad killed nearly 500,000 of his own people. He stood on the sidelines as Russia’sVladimir Putin invaded and annexed Ukraine’s Crimea. He oversaw toothless peace talks in Libya as the country collapsed into a failed state of multiple civil wars. Yet in Morocco, a conflict for which the U.N. itself has recognized the merits of a comprehensive settlement proposed by Morocco, he has effectively encouraged the perpetuation of armed struggle.
After Mr. Ban’s “occupation” remarks, Moroccan Saharans took to the streets of the southern provincial capital of Laayoune. Some 180,000 people marched in peaceful protest to the headquarters of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum of the Western Sahara (Minurso). The government denounced Mr. Ban’s actions and announced plans to reduce Minurso staff and pull Moroccan peacekeepers out of U.N. missions world-wide.
According to a U.N. statement, Mr. Ban “expressed his deep disappointment and anger regarding the demonstration” saying it was “disrespectful to him and to the United Nations.” This was a remarkable condemnation of a peaceful protest.
By stoking passions instead of acting as a peacemaker, Mr. Ban has undermined the credibility of the institution which Moroccans had accepted as a venue for peace talks, and in which they had placed their hopes. He has also further exposed his habitual betrayal of the U.N.’s founding charter.
Mr. Charai, the publisher of the Moroccan news magazine L’Observateur, is on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council and an international councilor of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
============================================================3)
AIPAC is not about candidates. It's about solidarity with Israel.Trump and AIPAC, playing the race card
By Ari Lieberman
The writer is an attorney and former prosecutor who writes on Israel military matters
As the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual conference is slated to commence this week, some self-appointed Jewish leaders are calling for AIPAC to disinvite GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump while others are calling for a walk-out or some form of boycott when he speaks. The former option isn’t even legally viable as AIPAC is registered as a 501(c)(3) and under this provision of the U.S. tax code, AIPAC must provide all candidates an equal opportunity to participate.That leaves us with the latter option – a walk out. Those advocating this position argue that Trump is a “racist” presumably because he wishes to secure the U.S. border, wishes to address trade imbalances due to the unfair practice of currency manipulation by some foreign governments and wishes to protect Americans from malevolent ideologies that wish to destroy any semblance of Western civilization.
Of course, they’ll put a different spin on that matter. As Liel Leibovitz of Tablet puts it, Trump demonstrates “unmasked bigotry” by spewing “…repeated and vile denigration of immigrants, Muslims, and others for no purpose save for the inflammation of electoral nervous systems…” And just to make sure we all understand the point, pictured next to the article is a lighthouse with the words “Trump Watch” written in menacing Nazi-style calligraphy.
Putting aside for the moment that such Nazi-like comparisons are beyond asinine and denigrate the memories of the 6,000,000 who perished in the Holocaust, there is no question that Trump is a flawed person and a flawed candidate. He has demonstrated bouts of narcissism, is an unrepentant braggart and has “misremembered” on a number of occasions. But is he truly any different or worse than Hillary Clinton? She’s been caught fabricating on more occasions than Richard Nixon on a bad day and has displayed sheer indifference to the lives of those sworn to protect our country – Benghazi comes to mind.
Is he truly any different or worse than Hillary Clinton? She’s been caught fabricating on more occasions than Richard Nixon on a bad day...- Benghazi comes to mind.
But let’s assume for the moment that Leibovitz is entirely correct. Let’s assume that Trump is bigoted and intolerant; what in heaven’s name does that have to do with AIPAC?
AIPAC is a non-partisan issue. It's not about Donald Trump or any other candidate. It's about solidarity with Israel and transcends any single individual or political party. The AIPAC conference celebrates an alliance that has endured through thick and thin for 68 years. An alliance that is based on shared strategic interests and cherished moral values. Those calling for demonstrations or boycotts against Trump during the AIPAC convention detract from this very important purpose. They are nothing more than sanctimonious narcissists who wish to hijack the conference to pursue agendas that have little if anything to do with the strategic U.S.-Israel partnership. They are of course free to protest and boycott but the AIPAC conference is certainly not the appropriate venue to do so.
Then there are those Trump detractors who feign concern over alleged acts of anti-Semitism at Trump rallies. Of the hundreds of thousands who’ve attended Trump rallies, they have only been able to present two instances involving two deranged individuals. With that, they are attempting to paint all Trump supporters and possibly Trump himself – who has an orthodox Jewish daughter – with a broad brush. It’s a sneaky and immoral tactic often used by unsavory elitists to fling mud but the underhanded tactic often works.
===================================================================================As stated, Trump is far from perfect but protesting his presence at an event designed to further cement relations between two great democracies, is completely inappropriate. It is therefore incumbent on AIPAC to take the necessary precautionary measures to ensure that this charade does not occur. Moreover, those who seek to link Trump with Nazism through symbolism or other nefarious methods, maintain ulterior motives that have nothing to do with combatting anti-Semitism and denigrate the memories of those killed in the worst act of genocide the world has ever known.
No comments:
Post a Comment