Cannot Tweet Yourself Into The Oval Office! Blacks,Their Own Worst Enemy. Soros and Israel; Hillary and Perjury.

                       (See 4 below.)



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before the campaign ends, before it is too late and before voters have defined him in their own way Trump must learn to communicate directly with the voters. He will never get a fair deal from the press and media.  They will redefine what he says, they will publish only parts of what he says and they are committed to defeat him.

He cannot tweet himself into The White House.  He must speak directly to America and stay on message.  If he cannot, then he will lose to a loser and she will take what's left of our republic with her.

Trump was doing fine when he was attacking the establishment because it was general in nature but when he got specific and began attacking individuals he turned off a great many people.

Now he is paying the price according to the polls but he has time to recover if he will continue to make the kind of presentation he did when he spoke about making America Safe. (See 1, 1a and 1b  below.)

Well worth listening to but it lasts a full hour so watch it with a strong drink:

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

+++
Why are blacks their own worst enemy?  They vote for Democrats consistently who treat them as second class citizens and take their grievances  for granted.  They are unemployed and poorly educated, their families have been destroyed  and they riot when an incident occurs destroying businesses thus, eliminating what little employment exists and making it difficult, if not impossible, to attract new capital and insurance coverage.  Their best friend is the local police department which protects them from their own thugs and dope peddlers but now is reluctant to patrol their neighborhoods for fear of being subjected to false accusations and being shot.  How much dumber can they get? How much more self destruction are they going to impose on themselves before they awake to the fact much of their plight is due to the failed liberal programs which made them dependent upon an indifferent government?

While Milwaukee burns Obama is golfing on Cape Cod.
+++
Some facts regarding Israel ,  (See 2 and 2a below.)

Some facts regarding Soros.There is nothing more dangerous than a person who hates and/or denies their own heritage. (See 2b below.)

Brett Stephens speaks out about the snub given by an Egyptian to an Israeli.  My daughter said the Egyptian thought he was competing in a "Jewdo" contest. (See 2c below.)
===
We know, or certainly should, by now ,Hillary is a liar but the problem is most Americans, particularly the younger ones, really do not give a damn so: "What difference does it make now?" The difference is that our nation must recover from the Obama Years and a Hillary Presidency will be the final nail.

Trump is also a risk but he will surround himself with good people, not a cadre of lying sycophants and crooks that serve Hillary, and he is beginning to show he is willing to take advice. (See 3 and 3a below.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Trump’s Anti-Terror Strategy

This is a debate the American public deserves to hear.

Donald Trump made another pivot back to the issues on Monday, this time laying out his strategy to fight radical Islam. As usual it included some good ideas and some bad, but if we’re lucky he’ll stick with the subject long enough to force Hillary Clinton to debate something other than his temperament.

The polls show Mr. Trump still has a slight edge over the Democrat in fighting terror, thanks in large part to President Obama’s eight-year record. Islamic State incubated in the vacuum left by American retreat in Iraq and Syria, and its poison has spread throughout the world. Mrs. Clinton is promising to continue Mr. Obama’s strategy, which gives the Republican an opening.

“The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and the election-driven timetable for withdrawal, surrendered our gains in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS,” Mr. Trump said as he read from a prepared text in Youngstown, Ohio. That’s exactly right, though he should have added Mr. Obama’s decision to let the Syrian civil war rage out of control.

Then again, Mr. Trump has sometimes said the U.S. should stay out of Syria’s civil war because it amounts to the “nation-building” that Mr. Trump again promised to end. That’s a good applause line on the right and left these days, but setting up safe zones in Syria so millions of refugees won’t flood Turkey, Jordan and Europe is a long way from nation-building. The U.S. did that for the Kurds after the first Gulf War, and the Kurdish territory of Iraq is a rare American success in the Middle East.

If Mr. Obama had kept 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011, the critics might have called that nation-building too. But it would have blocked the march of Islamic State and spared us from having to refight the war in Iraq today. Mr. Trump’s caricature of nation-building is closer to Barack Obama’s view than he would like to admit.

The better news is that Mr. Trump seems to be warming to the idea that the U.S. needs coalitions to defeat radical Islam. Most notably, he reversed course on NATO in his speech, praising its role in fighting terrorism. He also called for “an international conference” on fighting radical Islam and he cited Israel, Egypt and Jordan as particular allies in the fight.

Mr. Trump still seems naive in expecting Vladimir Putin’s Russia to assist in this effort, but then so were Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in 2009. Mr. Trump hasn’t seemed to notice that Mr. Obama recently agreed to share intelligence with Russia in Syria over the vociferous objections of the Pentagon. The Republican nominee would have to learn the hard way that Mr. Putin is a hard man who only responds to the logic of hard geopolitical facts.

More welcome is Mr. Trump’s promise to conduct “ideological warfare” against Islamic State, making the analogy to the way Ronald Reagan told the truth about “the evil empire” during the Cold War. He said this will mean speaking out “against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith” in the Muslim world.

Perhaps most encouraging was his pledge that “our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.” This may seem obvious, but Mr. Obama has preferred to play down divisions in the Islamic world lest he offend the Muslim leaders he has courted in Turkey and Iran. Islamic State must be defeated on the battlefield, but it’s good to see Mr. Trump recognize that the West needs to win the battle of ideas too.

Yet on this point he contradicts his strategy by proposing a total ban on immigration from countries “that have a history of exporting terrorism.” Mr. Trump calls it a “temporary” suspension until new screening procedures can be established. But he isn’t clear when or how the ban would be lifted. No screening is fool-proof, and pledges of loyalty or other ideological tests can be gamed.

The sweeping immigration ban might be read as anti-Muslim by the same allies Mr. Trump says we need to defeat Islamic State. Its breadth would also presumably apply to Coptic Christians in Egypt or Syria, Iraqi translators who helped U.S. troops, and perhaps even Israelis since some Israeli Arabs practice terrorism. Mr. Trump is right that Mr. Obama fails to stigmatize radical Islam, but then the Republican shouldn’t stigmatize all refugees as potential security risks.

The best message of the speech is that it means we might get a national-security debate this election year. The Clinton campaign is hoping to disqualify Mr. Trump as a potential President without having to confront the issues or her record as Secretary of State. Mr. Trump has trouble sticking to a message, but this is a debate the American public needs to hear.

1a)


 IF YOU HAD A HUNCH THE NEWS SYSTEM WAS SOMEWHAT RIGGED AND YOU COULDN'T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT, THIS MIGHT HELP YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE. 

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser. 

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications. 

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney 

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama's Deputy Press Secretary 

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama's Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood 

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. 

Ya think there might be a little bias in the news?

1b)  NY Times: Roger Ailes Helping Trump Prepare for Presidential Debates


Former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes is helping Republican Donald Trump to prepare for the upcoming presidential debates, The New York Times reports.

Ailes — who resigned from Fox last month amid sexual harassment accusations from several women — is putting his political strategist skills to work for Trump, the Times reported Tuesday afternoon. It was not clear if he would be paid by the campaign.

The first debate is scheduled for Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

Earlier in his career, Ailes was an adviser to President Richard Nixon's campaign and helped President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush with debate prep.

Ailes also worked for Rudy Giuliani during his failed 1989 campaign for New York City mayor. Giuliani, who later went on to serve as mayor of the Big Apple for eight years, is a strong supporter of Trump and is stumping for him on the campaign trail.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told The Washington Post the Times report is false.

"They are longtime friends, but he has no formal or informal role in the campaign," Hicks said.

Trump praised Ailes during an interview with Newsmax TV last week, crediting him for building Fox News into the leading cable news channel.

"He's a man who has done an amazing job building Fox, an amazing job — but I think he's been given credit for that," Trump told "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth.

"I speak to Roger on occasion now. The job he's done at Fox is probably unprecedented in television history. That's the only thing I know."

The relationship between Trump and Ailes got a bit rocky last year  when Trump called out Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly for what he thought was an unfair line of questioning during a debate. That led to a months-long feud with the network and his decision to skip another debate hosted by Fox.

Last week, Trump told Newsmax TV he will use "veto power" if he does not agree with the person scheduled to host each debate.

"We want a moderator that's going to be fair," Trump told Hayworth. "If we have a fair moderator, then it's going to be wonderful.”

Democrat Hillary Clinton will join Trump onstage at the debates, while the two third-party candidates — Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein — have an outside chance at earning a spot. They have to garner an average of at least 15 percent support  across five national polls to get a debate invite.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SOVEREIGN ARAB STATE IN PALESTINE

By Eli E. Hertz

The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state themselves.

The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow. Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great “Arab nation,” historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria – Suriyya al-Kubra – a designation that extended to both sides of the Jordan River. In the 1950s, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank since the population there was viewed as the brethren of the Jordanians.

The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

And as for Jerusalem: Only twice in the city's history has it served as a national capital. First as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents. And again, in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.

Well before the 1967 decision to create a new Arab people called “Palestinians,” when the word “Palestinian” was associated with Jewish endeavors, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, testified in 1937 before the Peel Commission, a British investigative body:

“There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.”

In a 1946 appearance before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, also acting as an investigative body, the Arab-American historian Philip Hitti stated:

“There is no such thing as Palestine in [Arab] history, absolutely not.”


2a)Ten False Assumptions Regarding Israel

Amb. Alan Baker, August 15, 2016
Institute for Contemporary Affairs
Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

http://jcpa.org/article/ten-false-assumptions-regarding-israel/

Israel is inundated with one-sided international resolutions, declarations, “peace plans,” and advice from governments, international organizations, leaders, pundits, and elements within the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities.

Most of the above rest on widely-held, false and mistaken assumptions regarding Israel, its leaders, government, policies, and positions held by the vast majority of the Israeli public.

These false and mistaken assumptions need to be addressed:

1. “Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank territories (Judea and Samaria) will provide Israel with security and international acceptance.” Wrong.

-Prior to Israel’s entry into the territories in the 1967 war, the Arab states made every effort to attack and weaken Israel militarily and diplomatically.

-The Arab and Iranian attempts today to challenge Jewish history in the Biblical land of Israel and in Jerusalem and the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish state still resonate in the international community, most recently in UNESCO.

-The Palestinians are committed to eventually establishing their state over all of mandatory Palestine and they indoctrinate their children this way.

-The most recent, absurd initiative by the Palestinian leadership to prosecute Britain for issuing the 1917 Balfour Declaration proves the deeply-rooted Palestinian rejection of the existence of Israel.

-From Israel’s establishment in 1948 and up to present day, Israel has been, and continues to be the only UN member state denied its UN Charter-guaranteed right of “sovereign equality.”
-Clearly, withdrawal from the territories now under these conditions would threaten Israel’s security.

2. “Israel’s ‘occupation of the territories’ is illegal and a violation of international law.” Wrong.
-Israel entered the territories in 1967 after being attacked by all its neighbors, acting in self-defense against an offensive and aggressive war.

-Occupation of territory during an armed conflict is an accepted and recognized legal state-of-affairs in international law and practice.

-Israel has committed itself to abide by the international humanitarian and legal norms for the administration of such territories. Israel’s administration of the territories is under strict judicial supervision by Israel’s Supreme Court.

-The territory was never under Palestinian rule or sovereignty, and when it was under Jordanian control there was no intention by Jordan to turn it into a Palestinian state.

-The oft-used term in UN resolutions “occupied Palestinian territories” has no legal basis or validity whatsoever. It is not supported by any legal, historical or other binding document, and its use prejudges the outcome of a still pending negotiation.

-It is an accepted fact that the issue of the future of the territories is in dispute. Israel entertains valid, widely acknowledged and long-held historic and legal claims regarding the territories.
-Signed agreements between the Palestinian leadership and Israel have established an agreed framework for settling the territorial dispute through negotiation of their permanent status.
-Pending agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the permanent status of the territory, no external, third-party political determination or resolution can establish that that the territories belong to the Palestinians.

3. “The Palestinian leadership is united and popularly supported.” Wrong.

-The Palestinian leadership is far from united. There is a total, irreconcilable disconnect between the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, and the Hamas administration in Gaza. The leadership is seen as incorrigibly corrupt. President Mahmoud Abbas is in the 11th year of his four-year term. The Authority lacks internal credibility, accountability, and popular support.

-This situation undermines any confidence in a viable and united governance and representation of the Palestinians. It neutralizes any capacity to enter into and to implement any international commitment or obligation.

4. “The Palestinian leadership is moderate, willing to negotiate and to live in peace with Israel.” Wrong.

-The Palestinian leadership, is far from moderate, by any standard. Even without Hamas incitement, it engages in an officially-sanctioned policy of “de-normalization” vis-à-vis The leadership often praises, memorializes, and encourages Palestinian terrorists.

-The Palestinian leadership refuses to resume negotiations, and refuses to meet or to enter into any dialogue with Israel’s leaders. It blocks contacts between Palestinians and Israelis at the diplomatic, professional, and people-to-people levels. This policy runs counter to Palestinian commitments in the Oslo Accords to encourage development cooperation and “people-to-people dialogues” at all levels.

-The Palestinian leadership initiates and openly supports boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) aimed at the delegitimization of Israel in the international community on international and regional organizations, international tribunals, and the UN and its specialized agencies.
-While Israel has expressed its willingness for the principle of “two states for two peoples,” the Palestinian leadership consistently refuses to accept the concept of Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish People.

5. “Israel’s settlements are illegal and violate international law.” Wrong.

-These allegations are based on a misreading of the relevant international laws and the reciprocal commitments between Israel and the PLO.

-The prohibition on the transfer of population into territory occupied during war, set out in the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, was specifically drafted in order to prevent a recurrence of the mass forcible population transfers that occurred during the Second World War. In the case of Israel’s settlement policy, there are no forced expulsions or coerced settling.

-This has no bearing on, or relevance to Israel’s settlement policy, which enables the legitimate utilization of non-privately-owned land pending the permanent settlement of the dispute. Use of non-privately-owned public land for settlement or for agriculture is fully consistent with accepted international norms as long as the status of the land is not changed pending its final negotiated outcome.

-As such, Israel’s settlements cannot be seen to be a violation of international law. Any determination of such is based on a selective, politically biased viewpoint taken outside the accepted international practice.

-Notwithstanding the divergence of views on the legality of Israel’s settlements, according to the Oslo Accords, this issue is an open negotiating issue between the Palestinians and Israel.
-Pending attainment of a negotiated settlement, the Oslo Accords place no freeze or restriction on either Israel or the Palestinians to engage in planning, zoning, and construction in the respective areas under its control. To the contrary, planning, zoning and construction are specifically permitted.

-Accordingly, arbitrary and unilateral predetermination as to the legitimacy of settlements, and any call for their removal prior to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians are inconsistent with the agreements and constitute prejudgment of a negotiating issue.

-The claim that the settlements are the source of the conflict holds no logic. The Arab-Israel conflict existed long before the establishment of any settlement, with efforts by the Arab states in 1948 to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel and their ongoing efforts since then to bring about its demise.

6. “Jerusalem belongs to the Arabs. The Jews have no rights or claims to it.” Wrong.
-The Palestinian leadership manipulates history and denies Jewish history and heritage in Jewish holy sites in its presentations to international organizations such as UNESCO. They cannot alter the historic fact that Jerusalem has, from time immemorial, been the epicenter of the Jewish religion and heritage. It also plays a major role in the history of Christianity. This is acknowledged in the Quran, the Old and New Testaments and in the writings of historians.
-Attempts by the Palestinian leadership to generate incitement and violence through false accusations regarding the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem have no basis and will not alter the fact that the issue of Jerusalem is an agreed negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians pursuant to the Oslo Accords.

-Any assumption or expectation that the Israeli public may be pressured into supporting demands for a unilateral withdrawal from Arab areas of east Jerusalem outside of a negotiated and agreed-upon framework is misplaced and has no basis in fact.

7. “The Israeli leadership and government are inflexible, extreme and oppose peace.” Wrong.

-The intense hostility towards Israel’s democratically-elected government is misplaced and insulting to the Israeli public.

-The tendency, especially in Europe and in international organizations, to accept outrageous Palestinian allegations against Israel, often old anti-Semitic canards, is nothing more than submission to cynical manipulation. Such allegations deliberately abuse of the bona fides and sense of political correctness prevalent among Western countries and societies.
-This comes at the expense of genuine objective, historic, legal and factual analysis.
-Well-meaning and sincere European and American politicians, community-leaders and organizations together with international and regional organizations appear to feel that they are better-able and equipped, more-so than Israel’s elected leaders and the Israeli public, to know what is in the better interests of Israel.

-The Israeli public, whose voters and their elected officials face the threats of hostility and terror on a daily basis, have deep political awareness and are fully capable of determining the fate of Israel.

-The assumption that international pressure will bring about the downfall of Israel’s democratically-elected government belies the strength of Israel’s democracy and undermines the West’s democratic principles.

8. “The present status quo between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable.” Wrong.
-The present situation of political stalemate between the Palestinians and Israel is not the result of Israeli defiance, as claimed by some Western leaders, governments, and commentators.
-Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness to resume the negotiation process immediately. Israel is committed in the Oslo Accords and has made it very clear that it has no intention of carrying out any unilateral action aimed at changing the status of the territories.

-The “present status quo” is determined by the fact that the Palestinian leadership consistently refuses to return to a negotiating table. It prefers to indulge the international community with its victimhood and to generate negative initiatives aimed at denying Israel’s character as the Jewish State, and delegitimizing Israel.

-Palestinian leadership prefers to conduct diplomatic warfare through boycotts against Israel and legal proceedings against Israel’s leaders in international and national courts.
-The one-sided imposition of politically oriented solutions is not an acceptable mode of changing the status quo.
-In the absence of a viable diplomatic process today, the current status quo is sustainable.

9. “Islamophobia is parallel to anti-Semitism.” Wrong.

-The tendency in the international community to link anti-Semitism with Islamophobia as two equal phenomena of racism is totally wrong. This tendency regrettably emanates from exaggerated political correctness on the part of many Western countries and communities.
-Anti-Semitism has been a tragic phenomenon conducted solely against Jews for thousands of years, causing massacres, pogroms, expulsions, public torture and executions, lynching, forced conversion, destruction of synagogues, enslavement, confiscation of belongings, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust.

-Anti-Semitic themes are a staple of Palestinian and Arab media, school curricula, cartoons, and sermons.

-The aim of anti-Semitism has been to exterminate and bring about the total genocide of the Jewish People as a race.

-Anti-Semitism cannot be compared or linked to Islamophobia, which emanates from the fear of Islam as a result of fanatical Islamic movements and the terror generated by them. It bears no relation whatsoever to any philosophy advocating genocide of Muslims.

-In this context, de-legitimization of Israel is seen by most Western states, as a new version of anti-Semitism.

10. “Israel is a racist state that violates human rights and practices apartheid.” Wrong
-This claim is repeated by Palestinian leaders and left-wing propagandists throughout the world. It was initially advocated by Yasser Arafat and adopted by NGO groups at discredited 2001 UN Conference on Racism at Durban.

-It is indicative of an evident lack of understanding of the racist nature of the phenomenon of “apartheid” and an even further and deeper misunderstanding of the character of Israel as an open, pluralistic and democratic society.

-The comparison of Israel to South Africa under white supremacist rule has been utterly rejected by those with intimate understanding of the old Apartheid system, especially South Africans. The aim of such propaganda, in addition to delegitimizing the very basis of existence of the State of Israel, is to cynically manipulate the international community and to encourage imposition of an international sanctions regime against Israel modeled on the actions against the former apartheid regime in South Africa.

-Israel is a multi-racial and multi-colored society, and the Israeli Arab population actively participates in the political process. Israeli Arabs enjoy complete equality and freedom of expression. They elect their own Knesset members and Arab judges serve in the Supreme Court. Israeli Arabs serve as heads of hospital departments, university professors, diplomats, and senior police and army officers.

-Each religious community has its own religious court system, applying Sharia, Canon, and Jewish law respectively.

-Unlike those Arab and other states in which one religion is declared the state religion, or Western countries where Christianity is the predominant religion, or Moslem countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where certain areas, towns, and roads are restricted to “Moslems only,” and where women are treated as second-class citizens and gay people as criminals, Israeli law regards Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as official religions and constitutionally ensures complete freedom and equality to all.

-Incitement to or practice of racism in Israel is a criminal offence, as is any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or gender. Israeli schools, universities, and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs.

Whether in day-to-day political and social discourse, or whether in the international and local media, the above accusations appear repeatedly and consistently.
======================

Amb. Alan Baker is Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.
view all posts by Amb. Alan Baker →

2b)

DC LEAKS PUBLISHES GEORGE SOROS' FILES SHOWING MILLIONS CONTRIBUTED TO ANTI-ISRAEL CAUSES
By David Israel

George Soros (Photo Credit: Niccolò Caranti)

Jewish Hungarian-American business magnate George Soros, whose company files were hacked by the same outfit that in June hacked the DNC computers, was a major contributor to anti-Israel and anti-Zionist causes, as appears from an archive of leaked documents of the DC Leaks website.

Soros, one of the 30 richest people in the world, is known as “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England” in 1992 with his short sale of $10 billion in British pounds, which made him a profit of $1 billion and brought Black Wednesday upon the UK currency, has a special spot for groups that fight Israel and Israelis on multiple levels.

The list of groups hostile to Zionism and to the Jewish State that received funds from Soros is very long:

Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, received a $400,000 grant in 2014-15 and 14 additional grants since 2001 totaling $2,688,561. The recently released document under the banner of the Movement for Black Lives, labeling Israel as an “apartheid state” and accusing Israel of committing “genocide” against Arabs, is the handiwork of Nadia Ben-Youssef, Adalah’s US representative, which the document lists as an “author and contributor.”

Incidentally, according to NGO Monitor, Adalah’s promotion of BDS directly contravenes the stated policies of its funder, the New Israel Fund (NIF). NIF’s position on BDS states that it “will not fund global BDS activities against Israel nor support organizations that have global BDS programs.” Nevertheless, from 2008-2015, NIF donated $1,975,826 to Adalah.

And, lo and behold, NIF is also listed as a recipient of Soros’ support, 9 grants totaling $837,500 since 2009. One of these grants, for $60,000, was given in 2015 to the Herman Schwartz Human Rights Law Fellowship, to “strengthen the capacities of young Palestinian legal professionals in legal advocacy by undertaking an LL.M. degree in human rights law in the US along with internships opportunities in Israel.”

Talk about Tikkun Olam.

The list of Arab groups operating with funds from Soros continues on and on, and we’ll revisit it and the dubious connection between one of the most nefarious players on the world’s financial scene and the groups whose goal is to eliminate Zionism and the Jewish character of Israel. The organizations listed in the one document JewishPress.com examined on Sunday received a total of $9,591,801 from the Soros foundations between 2001 and 2015:

Adalah, NIF, Women against Violence, I’lam, Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel, Mada al-Carmel, Kayan-Feminist Organization, Mossawa Center, Molad, The Galilee Society, Al-Tufula Center, Ma’an, Injaz, Sidreh, Lakiya, Baladna, Arab Association for Human Rights, National Committee of Heads of Arab Local Authorities in Israel, PILI Foundation.


2c)

The Meaning of an Olympic Snub

The Arab world has a problem of the mind, and its name is anti-Semitism.

By Bret Stephens

An Israeli heavyweight judoka named Or Sasson defeated an Egyptian opponent named Islam El Shehaby Friday in a first-round match at the Rio Olympics. The Egyptian refused to shake his opponent’s extended hand, earning boos from the crowd. Mr. Sasson went on to win a bronze medal.

If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident. It did itself in chiefly through its long-abiding and all-consuming hatred of Israel, and of Jews.

That’s not a point you will find in a long article about the Arab crackup by Scott Anderson in last weekend’s New York Times Magazine, NYT 1.33 % where hatred of Israel is treated like sand in Arabia—a given of the landscape. Nor is it much mentioned in the wide literature about the legacy of colonialism in the Middle East, or the oil curse, governance gap, democracy deficit, youth bulge, sectarian divide, legitimacy crisis and every other explanation for Arab decline.

Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world got rid of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, ruinously expensive wars, misdirected ideological obsessions, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theory and the perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world’s problems are a problem of the Arab mind, and the name for that problem is anti-Semitism.

As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. In a 2005 essay in Commentary, historian Paul Johnson noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed.

Spain expelled its Jews with the Alhambra Decree of 1492. The effect, Mr. Johnson noted, “was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.” In czarist Russia, anti-Semitic laws led to mass Jewish emigration as well as an “immense increase in administrative corruption produced by the system of restrictions.” Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn’t sent Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller into exile in the U.S.

These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Lebanon in 1945. Nor is it accurate to blame Jerusalem for fueling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace. Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Menachem Begin relinquished the Sinai to Anwar Sadat. Among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.

In his essay, Mr. Johnson called anti-Semitism a “highly infectious” disease capable of becoming “endemic in certain localities and societies,” and “by no means confined to weak, feeble or commonplace intellects.” Anti-Semitism may be irrational, but its potency, he noted, lies in transforming a personal and instinctive irrationalism into a political and systematic one. For the Jew-hater, every crime has the same culprit and every problem has the same solution.

Anti-Semitism makes the world seem easy. In doing so, it condemns the anti-Semite to a permanent darkness.

Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious indigenous scientific base, a stunted literary culture. In 2015 the U.S. Patent Office reported 3,804 patents from Israel, as compared with 364 from Saudi Arabia, 56 from the United Arab Emirates, and 30 from Egypt. The mistreatment and expulsion of Jews has served as a template for the persecution and displacement of other religious minorities: Christians, Yazidis, the Baha’ i.

Hatred of Israel and Jews has also deprived the Arab world of both the resources and the example of its neighbor. Israel quietly supplies water to Jordan, helping to ease the burden of Syrian refugees, and quietly provides surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to Egypt to fight ISIS in the Sinai. But this is largely unknown among Arabs, for whom the only permissible image of Israel is an Israeli soldier in riot gear, abusing a Palestinian.

Successful nations make a point of trying to learn from their neighbors. The Arab world has been taught over generations only to hate theirs.

This may be starting to change. In the past five years the Arab world has been forced to face up to its own failings in ways it cannot easily blame on Israel. The change can be seen in the budding rapprochement between Jerusalem and Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, which might yet yield tactical and strategic advantages on both sides, particularly against common enemies such as ISIS and Iran.

That’s not enough. So long as an Arab athlete can’t pay his Israeli opposite the courtesy of a handshake, the disease of the Arab mind and the misfortunes of its world will continue. For Israel, this is a pity. For the Arabs, it’s a calamity. The hater always suffers more than the object of his hatred.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3) A Candidate You Can Trust (to Lie)

By Windsor Mann

Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength—her experience—is also her greatest weakness. Having spent the last four decades in politics, she has prodigious experience in the worst profession that isn’t outlawed—that of lying to people for the purpose of ruling them.

“Public service,” she calls it.

First as an attorney and then as a politician, Clinton has been lying professionally since the disco era. Even before her first election to the Senate, the late William Safire called her “a congenital liar” and “a habitual prevaricator.” These designations can now be scientifically verified.

Recently, Clinton maintained that FBI Director James Comey found her statements regarding her email server to be “truthful”—a claim that The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave“Four Pinocchios,” enough to make it a “whopper.”

More astounding: Asked in February if she has ever lied, Clinton said, “I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will.”

It’s possible she really believes this. After all, this is the same woman who once said, “My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me.” This is the same husband who, after cheating on his wife with Monica Lewinsky, proclaimed on national television, “I misled people, including even my wife.” Misled her, yes, but never lied to her.

Like her husband, Clinton doesn’t lie. Rather, she “misspeaks.” On several occasions she claimed that as the first lady she encountered sniper fire in Bosnia. When this turned out to be false, Clinton backtracked, saying she “misspoke.”

She has a knack for public misspeaking. When she announced that she and her husband were “dead broke” in 2001, she actually meant “alive and filthy rich.” Her bad.

Clinton is a poor liar because she’s an obvious one. She’s like a bald man with a comb-over. Covering up the obvious only makes the obvious more conspicuous.

To be fair, Clinton doesn’t always lie. In 1999, she wrote in a newspaper column that her husband became president “six years ago”—i.e., in 1993. That was totally accurate.

Most of the time, she evades the truth, even when it’s obvious. In her 656-page book “Hard Choices,” the only interesting sentence concerns the “question” of whether she would run for president in 2016. “I haven’t decided yet,” she wrote. As Frank Rich put it, “no one in her right mind would write a fat book this dull, this unrevealing, and this innocuous unless she were running for president.”

Running for president and telling the truth are mutually exclusive. “Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices,” Thomas Jefferson observed, “a rottenness begins in his conduct.” Clinton, who is not a man, has been eyeing the presidency since the 1990s and calibrating her positions accordingly.

Thanks to her efforts, she has her party’s nomination and her country’s distrust. According to a recent CNN poll, 66 percent of voters find her dishonest and untrustworthy. About as many people find her trustworthy as find Bigfoot plausible.

Clinton knows she has trust issues. “You can’t just talk someone into trusting you,” she said in June. “You’ve got to earn it.”

The way to earn people’s trust is by proving yourself trustworthy. That takes time, which Clinton doesn’t have.

What should she do? Simple: Clinton should be honest about her dishonesty.

Here’s what she should say: “People accuse me of dishonesty, and the people, God bless them (and America), are right. That’s my job as a politician. I represent the voters, and the only way to do that is by pretending to share their values.

“Some call this lying. I call it evolution by natural selection. If I don’t adapt to the latest Gallup data, I die politically, which is worse than being assassinated by one of Donald Trump’s goons.

“Yes, I lie. But I lie for the right reasons—for the public good and for my own. I was against gay marriage when everybody hated it. Now that it’s popular, I’m for it. As long as the voters keep changing their minds, so will I. As president, I will speak their minds and misspeak my own.”

Vote for Hillary. She’s a liar you can trust.

3a) Hillary Lied, Makes Case for Pejury Charge

House Republicans are continuing to push for legal action to be taken against Hillary Clinton, laying out a four-point case for the Department of Justice to charge her with perjury.

According to The Hill,  Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Jason Chaffetz of Utah — the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees — found inconsistencies in what Clinton told a House panel last year regarding her use of a private email setup while she served as secretary of state and what the FBI discovered to be true during its investigation.

The pair sent a letter to Channing Phillips, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, with their findings and said there is evidence that appears to "directly contradict"  what Clinton told lawmakers.

"Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton's sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI's findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence," the letter reads, reports The Hill.

Critics were baffled by the FBI's decision not to recommend charges against Clinton despite the fact that it concluded she was "extremely careless" while using a private email network and several email addresses while she worked in the Obama administration.

Goodlatte and Chaffetz, according to The Hill, pointed out four instances where Clinton did not tell the truth when she answered questions from the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October. Those statements were:

• Clinton's claim that nothing was marked classified on her email server.
• Clinton's claim that her lawyers looked at each email before deleting more than 30,000 that were deemed personal.
• Clinton's claim that she gave the Department of State copies of all work-related emails.
• Clinton's claim that she used one email server while she worked in the State Department.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++