Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone…-day-celebration/

Earth Day Dopes

By John Stossel

April 20, 2017

Expect more craziness this weekend. Earth Day is Saturday. This year’s theme: Government must “do more” about climate change because “consequences of inaction are too high to risk.”

They make it sound so simple:

1) Man causes global warming.
2) Warming is obviously harmful.
3) Government can stop it.

Each claim is dubious or wrong.

This weekend at a movie, I was surprised to be assaulted again by former Vice President Al Gore. In a preview, a puffy-looking Gore suddenly appeared, attacking Donald Trump and mocking critics of his previous movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the deceitful documentary that spreads fear in classrooms today. Yes, teachers play it in class.

Now Gore claims “the most criticized” part of the film was his assertion that the 9/11 memorial site would flood. Then, during Hurricane Sandy, it did!
But Gore creatively misremembers his own movie.

He had claimed the World Trade Center would flood because of a permanent 20-foot sea-level rise. Actual scientists called that nonsense. It would take hundreds of years for such a thing to possibly happen. But since the area flooded, briefly, Gore spins that as confirmation of his exaggerations.

This preview was the first I learned that theaters will soon show a sequel to Gore’s film. Google tells us that “An Inconvenient Sequel” got a standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival. Trendy Hollywood is so dumb.
At least critics who’ve watched it gave it poor reviews.

Let’s go back to points 1, 2 and 3:

1) Man’s greenhouse gases contribute to warming, but scientists don’t agree on how much. Of 117 climate models from the 1990s, 114 over-predicted warming.

2) Warming is harmful. Maybe.

But so far it’s been good: Over the last century, climates warmed, but climate-related deaths dropped. Since 1933, they fell by 98 percent. Life expectancy doubled.

Much of that is thanks to prosperity created by free markets. But some is due to warming. Cold kills more people than heat.

Carbon dioxide is also good for crop growth. Even The New York Times admits, “Plants have been growing at a rate far faster than at any other time in the last 54,000 years.”

But what if Al Gore is right? Maybe our greenhouse gases will eventually cause Greenland’s icecaps to melt and flood our cities. Shouldn’t government act now? No, they should not.

3) Nothing we do today will stop global warming. The Obama regulations that Trump recently repealed, horrifying the Earth Day crowd, had a goal that amounted to a mere 1 percent reduction in global CO2. And that was just the goal.

Of course, some think any cut is better than nothing. But cuts are costly. They kill jobs, opportunity. All to accomplish… nothing the earth will notice.
If warming does become a problem, we’re better off if our economy is very strong when the science tells us clearly that action will make a difference.
We should be especially wary of expensive government projects given how often alarmists were wrong in the past.

As Cato’s Pat Michaels says, “I’ve lived through eight environmental apocalypses … overpopulation … resource depletion … Silent spring … global cooling … acid rain … the ozone hole … global warming … the next one is going to be ocean acidification.”

In the ’70s, environmentalist Paul Ehrlich won fame with his book “The Population Bomb.” Ehrlich predicted: “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Oops.

Ehrlich now admits: “When you predict the future, you get things wrong.” But he says there’s a grain of truth in his prediction, because: “If you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They’re having all kinds of problems.”

Give me a break.

Saturday’s Earth Day nonsense will include a “March for Science.” The media will hype it, claiming Trump’s proposed budget will poison the earth. It won’t.

The alarmists claim they’re marching for “science,” but they’re really marching for a left-wing religion.

Instead of celebrating Earth Day Saturday, I’ll celebrate Human Achievement Hour. The think tank behind it, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says Human Achievement Hour pays tribute to “our basic human right to use energy to improve everyone’s quality of life.”

Some ways to celebrate:

—Use your phone or computer
—Drive a car
—Take a hot shower

Good idea! Let’s celebrate progress instead of attacking it.

John Stossel is an American consumer television personality, author, and libertarian pundit, known for his career on both ABC News and Fox Business Channel.

Copyright 2017

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

By Professor of Theology, R.R. Reno

Redacted from an erudite, emotional  article that should be read in its entirety.

The Wall Street Journal April 15-16, 2017

Easter stalks Passover. They arrive together every spring, like the daffodils and magnolia blossoms. This year, Easter Sunday falls as the eight-day Jewish festival nears its end. Over the years, I have come to see that Christianity’s most important day recapitulates Passover. Both holidays face head-on the daunting power of death—and both announce God’s greater power of life.

In March, my wife, who is Jewish, was on the phone, herding her parents, uncles, brothers and cousins. “No, it’s not Tuesday. The first night of Passover is on Monday this year.” She made arrangements for the Seder, the festive meal with a traditional liturgy that retells the familiar story of the Exodus.

Emails and texts were exchanged to sort out who would bring what, and this past Monday night we sang and recited the age-old prayers and set out a cup for Elijah, the harbinger of the messianic era. We ended, as always, with the declaration: “Next year in Jerusalem!”

Now, just a few days later, the holiest days of the year for Christians are under way. As the solitary Catholic in my Jewish household, I’m planning to head to church on Saturday night for the Easter Vigil—where I’ll be celebrating Passover once again…… Put in Christian terms: The Passover Seder recalls and celebrates the resurrection of the people of Israel.

Today we tend to think of slavery strictly as an injustice, which of course it is, and some modern Seders treat the Passover as the triumph of justice over oppression. But this is not the traditional view. In the ancient world, slavery was not just a hardship for individuals but a kind of communal death. An enslaved nation can survive for a time, perhaps, but they have no future. A people in bondage is slowly crushed and extinguished.

The notion of slavery as a form of death is accentuated in the story told in the Passover Seder. The small clan descended from Abraham settles in Egypt. They are fruitful and multiply, becoming numerous and mighty.

The glow of life in the people of Israel arouses Egyptian resentment. Set upon and subjugated, they are ground down by hard labor and harsh oppression. But the descendants of Abraham call out to God—and he raises them up out of slavery, parts the Red Sea, and delivers them from Pharaoh’s murderous anger.

Judaism is realistic. Passover does not promote a dreamy optimism or cheery confidence that God will keep everything neat and nice. Even the chosen people are vulnerable to oppression and murderous hatred. There’s room in Passover for Auschwitz.

In the story of Exodus, the Israelites make it through the split waters of the Red Sea to dry land. But they are not simply safe. God releases the waters, and Pharaoh’s army is destroyed.

So it is at the Easter Vigil. A chant known as the Exultet announces that the darkness shall not triumph. “Be glad, let earth be glad, as glory floods her.” With a haunting refrain, the ancient song links Passover to Easter: “This is the night,” we are told, “when once you led our forbearers, Israel’s children, from slavery in Egypt and made them pass dry-shod through the Red Sea.” And “this is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.”

…Passover does not teach Jews that their oppression is not real and their suffering not bitter. But, the lesson is more powerful. God favors the people of Israel with his Torah and its sweetness outweighs every setback, evil and disaster.

Nor is Easter a simple springtime celebration of life. The resurrection of Jesus reveals something more urgent and shocking. God favors the sons of Adam with a triumphant love in the person of Jesus, the Christ. And that love does not fend off or parry death, but destroys it, just as light overcomes darkness.

The Almighty delivers his people. He unlocks the prison of darkness and shatters the power of death, This is the meaning of Easter, the Christian Passover.

(And, all of the above plus more is why our Founding Fathers used, as the basis of this great nation, the Judeo-Christian ethic.)

Mr. Reno is the editor of the religious journal First Things. He was formerly a professor of theology and ethics at Creighton University.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Amazing and no coincidence:  No sooner does Israel Commentary publish a terrifying, sobering warning from the Bravest Woman in the World – Ayaan Hirsi Ali,  then exactly what she described —Dawa – the deliberate, calculated insidious destruction of Western culture and government by Islamic fundamentalism —shows its ugly face in the state of Michigan!

Meet the ‘next Obama’ groomed to make political history (and again make fools out of Americans. I guess that is not a difficult task and shame on us)

He’s running for Governor of Michigan right now!

Redacted from an article from World Net Daily by Leo Hohmann

April 2, 2017

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 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, 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 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.

Dick Manasseri, spokesman for Secure Michigan, a group that educates Michiganders about the threat of Shariah law, predicts that Sayed will at least win the Democratic nomination for governor.

“It is the exact same thing as Barack Obama in Chicago in the early 2000s,” said Manasseri. “He’s young, attractive, he does not give out a lot of information, he speaks in platitudes about celebrating inclusiveness and diversity.” (The exact Dada format)

Sayed is known as a warrior for environmental justice. He talks about “standing up to corporate polluters,” and how, in his family, he was taught that having “love and compassion” for the vulnerable are “more important than where you’re from.”

“How could any good progressive Democrat vote against that in good conscience?” asks Manasseri?

Sayed is highly educated, a Rhodes scholar who attended Oxford University in 2009 and became a practicing epidemiologist.

“He’s very well packaged,” Manasseri said. “He’s far more accomplished than Barack Obama. Obama was not this accomplished, they connected him to certain foundations and his candidacy took off.”

Sayed is the recipient of several research awards, including being named one of the Carnegie Council’s Policy Innovators. He created and taught the Mailman School’s first-ever course on systems science and population health. He co-edited a textbook on the topic with Sandro Galea published in 2017 by Oxford University Press entitled “Systems Science and Population Health.”

In his new video ad, Sayed says that as health director one of the first big things he did was come up with a government program to purchase eyeglasses for every kid that needed a pair. “Why? Because every child deserves the right to see what’s on the blackboard,” he said in his campaign launch speech.

He pointed to his hand as the map of Michigan to locate Gratiot County, “in the heartland of Michigan,” the place where he was born to Egyptian-immigrant parents and raised by his dad, Muhammad, and his stepmother, a native Michigander.


In his campaign launch on Feb. 25 at Detroit’s Eastern Market, Sayed talked about his dad growing up one of six kids in a one-bedroom apartment in Egypt and coming to America and bringing his diversity of culture to Michigan. It’s all about celebrating multiculturalism, he said, standing at a podium in the market amid supporters holding signs that read “Abdul for Michigan.”

“He would come to this market to buy the foods to make the dishes that would make him feel at home. You see this market for him brought him home, from Alexandria right here in Detroit.”

“Some of my most wholesome memories took place right here,” Sayed said. “And I remember buying those foods… but not only that I remember the diversity of faces that I would experience here, black and white, Asian, Latino. People who are coming together to celebrate something, together: Farmers and truckers and factory workers. Families from up north doing business with families from right here in Detroit. Each of them buying and selling the same exact ingredients that they would take home to turn into the dishes that celebrated their families’ history.”

Sayed promotes what he calls his “rather unusual American story.” He said his proud Egyptian parents, Fattah and Muhammad, emigrated to the U.S. “in search of a better life.”

“When they came here they took a bet on an America that was big enough for them, too. They believed in a country that would give them dignified well-paying jobs, that would educate their children. Where they could pray however they wanted to pray.”

Sayed said his “diverse if highly unlikely family” taught him that, “what you believe and stand for is more important than where you come from, to have compassion and care and respect for those more vulnerable.” He said he was taught that, “Real leaders are those that can stand firm against the powerful, stand strong with the weak, and stand humbly before God.”

At the Thanksgiving dinner table, “Which is a very diverse dinner table,” hosted by he and his wife Sarah, he said his family includes a Presbyterian deacon from Flint, an imam from Egypt and an atheist-Polish uncle who is a professor at Michigan.

“And they share hard conversations about life in American and they don’t always agree, but they respect and love each other…they share a common future that brings them together. And as Michiganders, so do we.”

Manaserri says the Muslim Brotherhood would never support a candidate that didn’t have tons of money behind him and that they did not believe has a real chance of winning.believe

“Any Republican would be afraid to confront him on his Muslim Brotherhood connections or his views on Shariah,” Manasseri said. “He is a devout Shariah-compliant guy, and I would predict that he will be endorsed by the Catholic Church, which is very powerful in Michigan.”

Manasseri points out that a bill supporting American Law for American Courts, widely regarded as an anti-Shariah law, was defeated in the Michigan Legislature when two powerful lobbies — the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR – teamed up to kill it.

He expects the same coalition to form behind a candidate who would make history as America’s first Muslim governor. “So if this guy rises in the polls, I would predict the Catholic Church will support his candidacy,” he said. “Just like with Obama, because we gotta make history.”

“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 the Sunday 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.”


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone


Tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent annually to pay salaries to Palestinian terrorists who murder innocent civilians in Israel.

To prop up the virtually bankrupt Palestinian Authority (P.A.), the U.S. sends Palestinians more than $400 million a year in aid. The P.A., however, spends some $140 million annually to reward jihadists and their families for murderous acts that kill innocent Americans and Israelis.

What are the facts?

“You can’t be a partner in peace when you are paying people to commit terrorist acts.” Senator Lindsey Graham

In June 2016, 13-year-old Hallal Yaffa Ariel was stabbed to death in her bed by a Palestinian terrorist who broke into her family’s home.
In March of this year, 28-year-old Taylor Force, a West Point graduate and two-tour U.S. army veteran from Texas, was killed as he strolled with his wife in Jaffa by a knife-wielding Palestinian.

Hailed as heroic jihadist martyrs by the Palestinian Authority, both terrorists and their families now receive monthly stipends from the P.A.

For more than 20 years, the Palestinian government has openly used aid donations from the U.S. and other countries to motivate and reward terrorists.

Depending on the number of people murdered in a terrorist attack, salaries range from $364 to $3,100 per month. Terrorists with families and who die in the act or are captured and sentenced to 30 years or more receive the highest allowances.

These expenditures—a hefty $140 million per year—make up an estimated 10% of the Palestinian Authority’s total budget.

In addition to financial incentives for terror, jihadists also receive abundant moral support from the Palestinian government. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has said, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood . . . With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.”

U.S. Payments to the Palestinian Authority. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the U.S. since the mid-1990s has contributed more than $5 billion in security assistance and bilateral economic aid to the P.A., and American taxpayers’ current annual commitment is now some $400 million. In fact, Palestinians are the world’s largest per-capita recipients of international aid.

While a 2014 State Department report praised the Palestinian Authority for making “terrorism financing a criminal offense,” the P.A. still has laws on its books mandating payments to terrorists and their families.

In the face of mounting criticism of such hypocrisy from Western nations, however, the P.A. concocted a deceitful shell game, seeking to hide its support of terror by changing what used to be termed “salaries” to “assistance” and shifting distribution duties from the P.A. to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which does not directly receive foreign funding.

So far, this sham seems to have satisfied some of the gullible nations that support the Palestinian Authority.

Time to End U.S. Funding of Terror. At last, members of Congress are introducing legislation to prevent U.S. aid from supporting this culture of jihadist terror. Senators Dan Coats, Roy Blunt and Lindsey Graham, for example, have introduced legislation to end financial aid to the Palestinian Authority until it stops incentivizing terrorism.

Senator Graham has noted that “You can’t be a partner in peace when you are paying people to commit terrorist acts.”

However, both the U.S. and Israel fear that cutting funding to the Palestinian Authority could destabilize the Palestinian government, preferring a duplicitous P.A. to Hamas or Islamic State. Lamentably, those familiar with the corrupt P.A. know that expectations of reforming it anytime soon are fantasy.

But surely funding a Palestinian terror program that kills Americans and Israelis cannot serve the long-term interests of the United States or Israel.

Cutting off aid to the P.A. is a move in the right direction, but it is inadequate, since it doesn’t address the Palestinian culture of Jew hatred and denial of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, both of which beliefs make any notion of peace impossible.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian government perpetuates in its media, mosques and schools the myths that Jews have no rights to sovereignty in the Holy Land and that all non-Muslims, even innocent civilians, are laudable targets for terrorist attacks.

In order to achieve a secure and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, convicted terrorists or who those die while committing terrorism must not compensated by the Palestinian government for these crimes.

It is a travesty that American taxpayer dollars subsidize this hateful practice, and Congress should move urgently to stop it.

FLAME – Facts and Logic About the Middle East

PO Box 3460, Berkeley, CA 94703

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Jean-Marie Le Pen sees vindication

Convicted Holocaust denier watches his National Front party ride a populist wave

By James McAuley
The Washington Post

Sun Sentinel March 26, 2017

ST. CLOUD, France — He is a convicted Holocaust denier but also the patriarch of the party that could soon triumph in France’s presidential election.

These days, Jean-Marie Le Pen, now 88, struggles to walk. But his ideology is on the move: In a once unimaginable scenario, the National Front — the party he co-founded in 1972 and passed on to his daughter, Marine, in 2011 — could win nearly 40 percent of the vote in the French election this spring, possibly even more.

As populist fervor soars in Europe and the United States, politicians and analysts have struggled to explain what has been labeled a dramatic new challenge to the established order. But the National Front is anything but new, and the populist proposals that draw headlines today — returning to the nation-state, expelling immigrants and limiting globalization — are things Le Pen has preached for decades. Now, people are listening. “After all, they can say, ‘Le Pen was right’ he said recently at Montretout, the 11-room mansion he owns in the Paris suburbs.

But conforming to the truth has never quite been the mission of Jean-Marie Le Pen, and this, analysts say, is precisely the power of the revolution he started in the 1970s. He may be a godfather of Europe’s radical and populist right, but for many, his principal contribution to political life has been the establishment of an alternate reality where facts are always fluid.

“He is a precursor of post-truth, of ‘alternative facts’ of  ‘fake’ news,” said Michel Wieviorka, an expert on the history of Le Pen’s party and the author of “The National Front: Between Extremism, Populism and Democracy.” “That is his project.”

Most notoriously, he has been accused of what experts call “soft-core denial” of the Holocaust, the darkest chapter in the history of modern Europe. French authorities willingly collaborated in the Nazi genocide and assisted in deporting some 76,000 Jews to their deaths in concentration camps.

In 1987, Le Pen, speaking in an interview, referred to the gas chambers as a “detail in the history of World War II.” In 1996, he told a news conference in Germany: “If you take a 1,000-page book on World War II, the concentration camps take up only two pages and the gas chambers 10 to 15 lines.”

Since then, he has been convicted of Holocaust denial in French courts and fined tens of thousands of euros — penalties that have failed to discourage him from repeating the idea that the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews and others was somehow a trivial affair.

Such an insistence reflects more than simple ignorance of history, experts say. “He knows the full significance of what happened,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a historian at Emory University and an expert on Holocaust denial. “It’s a way of saying, Those Jews are always complaining. It’s a way of spreading hostility, animosity and prejudice.”

Unlike most of Europe’s current far-right leaders, Le Pen experienced World War II as a teenager. For decades after the war, French leaders played down or denied the extent of their country’s complicity with the Nazis. Eventually they apologized — but Le Pen never did.

Before founding the National Front, he ran a record label that produced albums heralding Nazi war marches and celebrating the poetry of French intellectuals who had collaborated with the Germans.

These days, Le Pen makes no secret of his admiration of President Donald Trump, although he says he has no contact with his administration.

“If I were Marine Le Pen,” he said, “I would run exactly the same campaign as Trump, showing the rejection of the establishment, which I believe is majoritarian in France” In the interview in his study at Montretout, Le Pen said he has never regretted calling the gas chambers a “detail.” He then proceeded to mock the outrage he has elicited over the years.

“When someone criticizes, I say, ‘How would you say it otherwise? What can we say? Is there a truth? This line of defense, for Lipstadt, symbolizes the threat posed by deniers. “This is what Holocaust deniers are trying to do: They take a lie and dress it up as an opinion to be debated,” she said. “But there are objective facts. Not everything is open to debate.”

When National Front voters go to the polls, they will vote for Marine Le Pen, not for Jean-Marie Le Pen. And the younger Le Pen, 48, has run a campaign that has largely sought to erase her father from the party’s public image.

According to the narrative circulated by Marine Le Pen and her aides, she severed ties with her father after April 2015, when he gave an interview in Rivarol, an extreme right-wing journal, once again calling the gas chambers “a minor detail in the history of World War II” and defending Philippe Petain, the leader of France’s Vichy government, which collaborated with the Nazis between 1940 and 1942. Jean-Marie Le Pen suddenly found himself expelled from his own party.

Marine Le Pen could not be reached for comment.

But a National Front official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted that Marine Le Pen’s party is not at all the party her father created and nurtured on the political fringe for decades. “The National Front of Marine Le Pen is not a movement that rejects the Shoah or recycles Mr. Le Pen’s ambiguity on the question,” the official said, using an alternate term for the Holocaust.

In recent days, however, Benoit Loeuillet, a regional National Front official, was exposed on camera, in a documentary on the party, denying the Holocaust. Loeuillet was summarily dismissed from the party, but critics pointed out that he was fired only when his words were made public.

Jewish groups have also accused Marine Le Pen’s campaign of a subtle anti-Semitism. In recent years, Marine Le Pen has stopped at nothing to repudiate her father and his world.

But despite the current candidate’s talk of an “estrangement” from her father, the political lending firm he controls, Cotelec, akin to a super PAC, lent her 6 million euros this year when a Russian bank withdrew on its pledge.


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone


Wall Street Journal
March 23, 2017

New York’s Sen. Chuck Schumer made history this week, in formally declaring his intention to break the U.S. Senate. Add this to the list of Democratic wreckage Republicans may now be obliged to fix.

That’s the best way to process the minority leader’s announcement Thursday that he will vote to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and urge his fellow Democrats to join him. Not even Mr. Schumer denies Judge Gorsuch possesses a singularly gifted legal mind and is eminently qualified for the court. His objection, instead, is that the nominee is “conservative.” This is apparently now a disqualifying attribute for any Supreme Court justice.

Not that Mr. Schumer’s announcement should count as news. In early January, before Donald Trump had even taken office, Mr. Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that it was hard for him to “imagine” any “nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.” He promised to do his best to keep the seat open the entirety of the Trump presidency. Democrats were always going to oppose anyone Mr. Trump picked. The president could have named Mr. Schumer himself to the high court, and Mr. Schumer would have filibustered—on principle.

The slow-rolling nature of the process has nonetheless masked the extraordinary new standard Mr. Schumer is setting, and the damage to the Constitution. He’s saying that every Supreme Court nominee will now require 60 votes to be confirmed. This is a massive shift—a break with the Founders’ vision of advice and consent, and an affront to two centuries of Senate history. It’s a declaration that Democrats will permanently wield the judicial filibuster as a political weapon, robbing the president and the Senate majority of the ability to appoint, and stripping the Supreme Court of a full complement of justices.

What makes the standard suddenly real is that Mr. Schumer can likely enforce it against his members. Never in U.S. history have we had a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. In 1968 a bipartisan group of senators filibustered the proposed elevation of Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice, because he was a crook. The left edged nearer the precipice in 2006 with the attempted filibuster of Samuel Alito, but only 25 Democrats joined.

Since then, progressives have lost any fear of the electoral consequences of playing abject politics with the high court. The American Bar Association unanimously awarded Judge Gorsuch its highest possible rating. He floated through this week’s confirmation hearings. Liberal and conservative colleagues alike have praised him to the stars. Yet not a single Democrat—not even vulnerable moderates such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin or North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp—has publicly supported him. Before this week’s drama had even ended, Democratic senators were queuing to oppose him.

Opposing a nominee is not the same as denying him a floor vote.  And progressive groups are promising that any Senate Democrat who fails to support a filibuster will face a primary challenge. Senate sources tell me there is good reason to believe Mr. Schumer can muster the votes to block the nomination.

Not that red-state Democrats are happy, as evidenced by news that some are floating a “deal” under which Democrats would allow Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to come to a vote in return for Republican agreement to keep the filibuster in place for future Trump nominees. The proposal is proof that some Senate Democrats are worried about being blamed back home for a partisan filibuster of an impeccable candidate.

It’s also ludicrous, because Republicans have no need to make a deal. They already have the power to invoke the “nuclear option”—as Harry Reid’s Democrats did in 2013 for all nominations except to the high court—and get Judge Gorsuch on the court, and they’d be irresponsible to commit to Mr. Schumer’s new filibuster standard going forward. The “deal” is a non-starter.
As to that nuclear option, bear the Schumer standard in mind as Democrats and the media gin up stories suggesting Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is about to do something outrageous. “I would not want to be the person . . . that basically changed the Senate from what the Founding Fathers” intended, Mr. Manchin told reporters this week. (The West Virginia senator was one of only three Democrats to dissent when Mr. Reid went nuclear in 2013.)

These comments aim at pressuring “institutionalist” Republican senators with an attachment to the chamber’s traditions. But it won’t be Mr. McConnell—an institutionalist among institutionalists—changing anything. It’s Mr. Schumer who is destroying the Founders’ principle of advice and consent. It will be Republicans, in exercising the nuclear option, who would return the Senate and Supreme Court to functioning order. It will be Republicans preserving the institution and its rightful powers.

If Mr. Manchin and fellow Democrats want to retain the filibuster for future, justified use, that’s simple. All they need do is refrain from abusing that power against a highly intelligent, perfectly qualified nominee. This is Mr. Schumer’s mess. Either his party can clean it up, or Republicans will do it.

Write to

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

We Won’t Always Have Paris: A Climate “Treaty”

by Dr. Steven J. Allen

Capital Research Center

MARCH 13, 2017

President Trump’s work should start with the Paris Agreement, which went into effect in November aiming to “combat climate change [and] assist developing countries to do so” through the Green Climate Fund, a redistribution operation under United Nations auspices that sends developed countries’ money to poorer countries or, really, to ruling elites in poorer countries.

President Obama ignored the Constitution’s requirement that treaties require Senate approval and unilaterally “ratified” the Paris Agreement, which commits the United States to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Meanwhile, he pledged $3 billion over four years to the Green Climate Fund, where the money will theoretically help developing countries reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. (Of this amount, he was able to transfer $1 billion before leaving office.) This deal gives America the short end of the stick, and lets other countries take advantage.

The Communist Chinese promised to reduce emissions starting in 2030, with 20 percent of the country’s electricity supposed to come from non-carbon sources by that year. Targeted emissions relative to the size of the economy would be reduced by 60-65 percent from the 2005 level, which means that China’s carbon emissions numbers would actually go up until 2030. In essence, China pledged only to achieve changed emissions that were most likely coming anyway.

The U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory already projects that China’s targeted emissions would peak around 2030, notes Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute, while a Bloomberg analysis shows that the reduction by 2030 relative to the size of China’s economy is less than what was expected without the Paris treaty.

The same goes for India, which promised to reduce targeted emissions by 33-35 percent by 2030 relative to the size of their economy. That promise, even if kept, is no more than what would have happened without the Paris treaty. But it didn’t stop the Indian government from claiming that, to follow through, it needs the rest of the world to give it $2.5 trillion—almost $2,000 per Indian, and a sum almost 25 percent larger than India’s entire economy.

Contrast China’s and India’s trifling promises with President Obama’s attempts to shut down the U.S. coal industry and all coal-fired power plants, a self-inflicted wound utterly unmatched in the rest of the world.

As of 2015, there were 510 coal-fired power plants under construction in the world with a further 1,874 planned—a total of 2,384. China accounted for 136 under construction and an additional 639 planned, while India had 177 under construction and 539 more planned. Since 2005, China has seen a 69 percent increase in its artificial carbon dioxide emissions and India’s increase surpassed 50 percent, while the U.S. has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 13 percent—largely due to fracking and the increased use of natural gas.

To what end? According to the Heritage Foundation, a climate model by the National Center for Atmospheric Research indicates that, if the U.S. eliminated all artificial carbon dioxide emissions, the effect on global temperatures would be less than two-tenths of a degree on the Celsius scale. Eliminating all artificial carbon dioxide emissions throughout the entire industrialized world would have an effect of less than four-tenths of a degree.

What is more, if the U.S. abides by the Paris treaty and President Obama’s vision, the ensuing environmental regulations would cost thousands of American jobs.

The Heritage Foundation used the National Energy Modeling System 2015—a computer model created by the U.S. Department of Energy—to project that the Paris treaty would mean a loss of nearly 400,000 jobs (including more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs), cause a hike of 13-20 percent in household electricity prices, and cost the national economy $2.5 trillion by 2035.

That’s a lot of pain for no gain. Renegotiating bad deals starts with the Paris treaty.

Dr. Steven J. Allen is Vice President and Chief Investigative Officer of the Capital Research Center, America’s investigative think tank.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone


Wall Street Journal March 19, 2017
Rep. Keith Ellison ’s selection as deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee is the latest ratification of our party’s turn away from Israel. Mr. Ellison, who complained in 2010 that “United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people,” narrowly lost a bid for DNC chairman, then was chosen by acclamation as deputy.

The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party. President Truman recognized the Jewish state within minutes of its independence in 1948. In 1972 the convention that nominated George McGovern ratified the first major-party platform to support moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The Republicans didn’t follow until 1996.

A lot has changed for the Democrats in 45 years. President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel. He made a nuclear deal with Iran and refused to veto the United Nations Security Council resolution in December that condemned settlements in the disputed West Bank.
Hillary Clinton might have been an improvement, but her commitment to Israel has long been questioned. As secretary of state, she referred to Israeli settlements as “illegitimate.” In 2015 she had to reassure donors to her presidential campaign that she still supported Israel. Even during Bill Clinton ’s administration, pro-Israel Democrats worried that Mrs. Clinton would influence her husband in the wrong direction.

Then there’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, who as a presidential candidate in April 2016 accused Israel of being “indiscriminate” in “attacks against civilian areas” when defending itself against rockets fired by terrorists from Gaza. Mr. Sanders received 43% of Democratic primary votes.

How did this happen? There was once an inexorable link between support for Israel and for the civil-rights movement. Both were responses to invidious discrimination—anti-Semitism and racism. Starting in the mid-1960s, however, an anti-Israel minority emerged in the form of the New Left.

These groups—such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers—saw Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as engaged in a “just struggle for liberation” as Panthers founder Huey P. Newton put it.

In the 1970s elements of the left became steadily more hostile to Israel. A turning point came in 1975, when the U.N. passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. That provided an intellectual and political opening for those who wanted to drive a wedge between supporters of Israel and of civil rights.

An organization called Basic—Black Americans to Support Israel Committee—was formed to condemn the resolution. “We seek to defend democracy in the Mideast, and therefore we support Israel,” the civil-rights leader Bayard Rustin declared. Unfortunately, that was the last time the organized Jewish and black communities worked together.

In 1979 President Carter fired U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, the first African-American to hold that position, for violating U.S. policy by meeting with a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mr. Young’s dismissal led several black leaders to break with their Jewish allies on Israel.

In 1984 Jesse Jackson, who’d publicly embraced PLO head Yasser Arafat five years earlier, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. A Washington Post story about his difficult relationship with Jews quoted him as using the slur “Hymie” and calling New York City “Hymietown.” Mr. Jackson won 3.3 million votes in the primaries. He ran again in 1988 and more than doubled the total, to 6.9 million—another sign of the party’s slow shift.

There are still pro-Israel Democrats, but they are beleaguered and equivocal. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, now the minority leader, described himself in 2010 as the Senate’s protector of Israel: “My name . . . comes from a Hebrew word. It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian.” But how effectively has he played that role?
In 2015 Mr. Schumer was one of four Senate Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama’s Iran deal. But killing it would have taken 13 Democrats, and Politico reported Mr. Schumer phoned Democratic colleagues to “assure them he would not be whipping opposition to the deal.” Mr. Schumer—whose Brooklyn apartment building has been protested by leftist opponents of President Trump —was also an early backer of Mr. Ellison for the party chairmanship.

One reason Democrats have continued the move away from Israel is that Jewish voters haven’t exacted a price for it. Exit polls in 2016 found they supported Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump, 71% to 23%, in line with their historic levels of Democratic support.

There’s still an opportunity here for the GOP. Especially if Mr. Trump delivers on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the Jewish vote could start trending Republican. Unless Democrats reaffirm their support for Israel, many lifelong party members—ourselves included—may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations.

The Author

Mr. Stein, who held elective office in New York between 1969 and 1994, is now a business consultant. Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Clinton, 1994-2000.


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Redacted from an article by Michael Barone

Capital Research Center Monthly
February 2017 Issue
Washington, DC

Which of America’s two political parties is the party of the rich? Many people would say it’s the Republicans. The caricature, common in the 1930s, is that the GOP is the party of the plutocrat in the Monopoly game, complete with top hat and tails. A Pew Research poll found 62 percent of Americans believe the Republicans favor the rich. But the data tell a different story.

First, the story is mixed where votes are concerned. Exit polls in recent presidential and congressional elections have shown that both parties receive substantial support from voters who make over $100,000 annually. And the stereotype falls apart when political contributions are examined: Democrats, in fact, seem to come out ahead of Republicans in raising money from the richest precincts of the nation.

To shed more light on this question, the Capital Research Center (CRC) has conducted a new analysis of political contributions from the most affluent parts of the country during the 2013–14 campaign cycle (the most recent cycle with complete data).

What This Study Measures

The data on political giving are so vast and can be dissected in so many ways that no one study can ever be exhaustive. This particular study emphasizes, not who or what are the most powerful political donors in our system (think of the eternal arguments about the relative powers and influence of unions, corporations, and PACs) but rather, which party’s candidates receive the most contributions from America’s wealthy elites who live in the poshest locales.

In this study of rich donors, CRC has focused on donations by individuals (not by groups) that are given to individual candidates of the two major political parties, not to party committees or to other political actors like super PACs or unions.

It’s reasonable to focus on the individuals who donate and receive these funds, given how many politicians and pundits imply that wealthy Americans regularly “buy” elections for the political party that’s supposedly biased toward the rich.

But even if the parameters of this study were far broader, there’s little reason to believe the outcomes would significantly change. For example, federal spending by Super PACs in this same cycle skewed $196.8 million “for Democrats/against Republicans,” versus $139.9 million “for Republicans/against Democrats,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Political Giving by “the 1 Percent”

As journalists and scholars have shown in recent years, affluent Americans are concentrated in certain neighborhoods to a considerable extent—indeed, to a greater extent than in the past.

Bill Bishop in his 2008 book The Big Sort illustrated how people with similar levels of education, income and wealth, and cultural attitudes have increasingly clustered in places filled with others of similar characteristics. The social scientist Charles Murray in his 2012 book Coming Apart showed how those at the very top of these scales are clustered in zip codes that he christened, “SuperZips.”

CRC’s study asks to which party do such people—who are much more likely than the ordinary voter to be able to afford sizable discretionary spending—contribute their money?

The overall answer is that more money from the top 300 SuperZips in 2013–14 went to Democrats than Republicans, by a significant but not overwhelming margin, if you set aside those contributions over $1 million made by wealthy individuals to their own campaigns. (Which were usually lost, by the way)

Out-of-State Giving

Some observers may argue that partisan contributions are not a fair measure of the party preferences of persons living in elite neighborhoods, because many affluent contributors may simply be donating for pragmatic reasons to state and local officials of the dominant party, which in many metro areas, and the Big Four in particular, is overwhelmingly likely to be Democratic. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, for example, has said he made many of his local donations just to help his business, not because he agreed with the pols who received the money.

This conclusion also proved false. These numbers reinforce the fact that America’s elite across the nation have powerful sympathies toward the Democratic Party. And the more elite their neighborhood is in America’s most powerful cities, the more strongly they lean Democrat.

Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
Democrats $71 million
Republicans $47 million


These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans.

The data also show that Democrats raise a notable chunk of their campaign money in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC Democratic candidates and party officials attending affluent contributors’ fundraisers evidently have to spend a lot of time in airliners or private jets flying coast to coast across the country, while Republican candidates and party officials have to make significantly more fundraising stops, staggered across the giant landmass of America between the two coasts.

Half a century ago, many liberal commentators argued that Democrats, as the party whose policies allegedly represented the interests of lower-income Americans, had an unfair disadvantage in raising money for campaigns, because they couldn’t compete with Republicans for access to the checkbooks of the wealthy. The data presented here make clear that that argument, regardless of whether it was valid then, has no validity today.

A change in rhetoric is therefore indicate  i.e. the retirement of the nationwide claim that” the Republicans are the party of the rich.”  Not so. If either party is the party of the rich, it is the Democrats.

About the author:

Michael Barone is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Some of Michael Barone’s frequent topics: Politics | White House | Campaigns | Obamacare | Demographics | Entitlements | Big Government | Polls | 2014 Elections

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

I See Great Danger Ahead

By Moshe Feiglin – 1 Adar 5777 – February 27, 2017

The Jewish Press.

Editor’s Note: The following is an edited transcript of a recent interview with Moshe Feiglin on Radio Kol B’ramah.

Question: We are hearing very significant encouragement coming from the Likud for the prime minister to build more in Judea and Samaria. Is it possible that we are witnessing a momentum of political change from Netanyahu’s point of view?

Feiglin: Based on my acquaintance with the history of the Israeli Right in general and of Netanyahu in particular, I see very great danger. I see exactly the opposite.

I see a reality that is very, very reminiscent of Sharon and Gush Katif. In other words, I see an Israeli prime minister from the Likud once again under investigations, under great pressure in Israel.

I see a very strong president in the United States with an Israeli prime minister who is manipulating him back to the reality we had with Obama.

Netanyahu caused the embassy not to be moved to Jerusalem and announced even before Trump was inaugurated that he was in favor of the two-state solution. And his defense minister says we won’t build outside of the settlement blocs. (With leaders like these who does Israel need for enemies) jsk
An additional problem that didn’t exist at the time of Sharon is the involvement of the Russians, who are right up on Israel’s northern border, and the warming relations between the U.S. and Russia.

Maybe that explains the prime minister’s position. Perhaps he understands that the Arab world is very dominant and the Europeans are watching every one of our steps — not with a fond eye — and therefore the prime minister is navigating, as he says, between all these drops. Maybe we can rely on him?
Someone who has been scalded with boiling water is wary even of cold water. We’ve been scalded several times by leaders of the Likud, starting with Begin and the Sinai, and continuing with Sharon and the Disengagement. Netanyahu himself has already agreed in the past to retreat from the whole of the Golan and to give it to Assad, up to 10 meters from the Kinneret.

Netanyahu himself has already given away 93-94% of the city of Hebron. Netanyahu and his entire government also destroyed a whole settlement just a couple of weeks ago — let’s not forget that

And with all that, the prime minister is saying, “I will protect the settlements.” No settlement has been evacuated, at least not for diplomatic reasons. Construction, at least in the settlement blocs, continues, and that’s under eight very hostile years from the American government, to say nothing of Europe.

I want to remind you that in all the examples I brought before, there was no problem of a hostile government and no problem of American pressure. The international situation of Israel today is much more comfortable. It is specifically in a reality like this that Israeli prime ministers become like Sharon.

Sharon didn’t evacuate any settlements before he expelled all of Gush Katif. And he said before that that what applied to Netzarim in Gush Katif also applied to Tel Aviv.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for the Israeli Right to stop blindly following leaders who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

They tell the Right what it wants to hear, but in their actions and hints to the Americans, the international community, and our Arab neighbors, they do the very opposite.

Question: Yesterday I heard very senior Likud ministers being very clear on the need for construction in Judea and Samaria and thwarting the possibility of a Palestinian State. And yet, the one who stands at the head of the Likud expresses an entirely different line. How does this happen? What makes a leader — who has the entire party under him — act in clear opposition to the views of his party and voter base?

I’m very happy you asked that question because we need to understand this issue at its source. This isn’t a personal issue. We should not think Begin was weak, and Sharon was I-don’t-know-what, and Netanyahu robs his voters. This is a systemic issue. Every single one of those who come out against Netanyahu and say, “We have to settle!” will act exactly like him if he, God forbid, replaces Netanyahu. It doesn’t matter who.

Once and for all, we need to understand the mechanism that causes us to always elect the right wing but get the left wing. The mechanism is very simple. The Right, the entire Right – the religious and the non-religious — has never presented a clear strategy, a clear vision, a clear objective, against the two-state idea of Oslo. Never.

When Shimon Peres asked the head of the opposition, Benjamin Netanyahu, “What is your alternative?” Netanyahu didn’t answer. And he hasn’t answered up to today, and no one has answered.

The only party that is finally answering what we want, not what they don’t do, is the Zehut Party under my leadership.

Question: There’s also the Jewish Home that says that we need to annex, or sovereignty…

I absolutely disagree with you. The Jewish Home does not say anything. It scatters all sorts of impressions as if it has a statement about some sort of ethereal annexation, which will never happen. It has no organized program or clear objective that says what we want to see at the end of the movie. Nothing. Not a thing.

The Left says exactly what it wants, and therefore the moment it has the opportunity… when Rabin rose to power, he immediately implemented his policies. The Right does not say anything and therefore adopts the same two-state solution.

Q. And you will propose a change, and turn to the voters in the coming elections?

I won’t just propose. I’ve already proposed — in a lengthy, well-formulated, platform of hundreds of pages which will be presented at our convention on February 28 at Hanger 11 in Tel Aviv. Everyone who comes Tuesday night will be able to know exactly what we are proposing.

Moshe Feiglin is the former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. He heads the Zehut Party. He is the founder of Manhigut Yehudit and Zo Artzeinu and the author of two books: “Where There Are No Men” and “War of Dreams.” Feiglin served in the IDF as an officer in Combat Engineering and is a veteran of the Lebanon War. He lives in Ginot Shomron with his family.

(He is also the serious rival that Netanyahu deliberately drove out of the Likud Party  because he was presenting all the hard cold facts that Feiglin presented in the interview above.) jsk

The Day Netanyahu Regained Control of the Likud Party

January 1, 2015


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

The $23 million total doesn’t include nearly 2.9 million stock options valued at $56.8 million that the filing said Ms. Mayer held as of March 8. A spokeswoman said those options all have vested.

(No wonder Bernie Sanders is pissed. This “1 percenter boss “worked” 4 years, was a dismal failure and walked away with 80 Million dollars in compensation! Huh!  What about Bernie’s poor slobs begging for $15 per hour?) jsk

Redacted from an article
Wall Street Journal
March 14, 2017

Yahoo Inc. detailed a golden parachute of $23 million for Chief Executive Marissa Mayer as part of her planned departure from what’s left of the company after it sells its core assets to Verizon Communications Inc.

In securities filings Monday, Yahoo also outlined the leadership of that remaining business, placing board director Thomas McInerney at the helm of what will effectively be a holding company for Yahoo’s sizable stakes in Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Yahoo Japan .

Ms. Mayer will continue as Yahoo’s CEO until the deal’s closing, at which point she will be replaced by Mr. McInerney and step down from the company’s board of directors.

Ms. Mayer’s future with the core operations that will become part of Verizon, which include its digital advertising technology and portfolio of websites like Yahoo News, hasn’t been announced.

She has said she is “planning to stay.” Yahoo previously had said she wouldn’t remain at the holding company, which after the deal closes will change its name to Altaba Inc., derived from a combination of the words “alternate” and “Alibaba.”

Ms. Mayer’s payout includes nearly $3.02 million in cash and about $20 million from restricted stock units she was previously awarded. The $23 million total doesn’t include nearly 2.9 million stock options valued at $56.8 million that the filing said Ms. Mayer held as of March 8. A spokeswoman said those options all have vested.

The sale to Verizon marked a stunning fall for Ms. Mayer, whose efforts to turn around Yahoo since she took over the once-powerful internet giant in 2012 have been closely watched. She failed to deliver pledged cost savings and stem declines in advertising revenue, and Yahoo’s influence in the internet industry continued to wane

Ms. Mayer’s tenure suffered another blow after the Verizon deal was announced in July, with the disclosures that Yahoo had suffered two massive security breaches, one in 2014 that hit more than 500 million accounts and another from 2013 that affected more than 1 billion accounts.

Yahoo said this month that Ms. Mayer wouldn’t receive her 2016 cash bonus or 2017 equity awards after a board investigation found that she and other senior executives failed to “properly comprehend or investigate” the 2014 breach.

Verizon said last month that it would proceed with the Yahoo acquisition, but the two companies agreed to knock $350 million off the deal price, which had been $4.83 billion.

In Monday’s filings, Yahoo said that Verizon early in talks over the impact of the breaches had suggested cutting the price by as much as $925 million. The companies expect the deal to close in the second quarter of this year.

Deepa Seetharaman and Theo Francis contributed to this article.
Write to Joshua Jamerson at

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

By Leo Hohmann
Whistleblower Magazine
February 2017

Americans are shocked by ongoing news reports chronicling growing chaos in Europe, where massive Muslim migration is wreaking havoc on the continent including horrendous acts of mass terrorism, an epidemic of rape and sexual assault against European women, and large, jihadist-rich enclaves where even police are hesitant to enter. Yet, few realize that America is heading down the same suicidal path.

As veteran investigative journalist Leo Hohmann documents in Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad, an international network of mostly Muslim Brotherhood-linked activists has been building its ranks within the United States for more than three decades, aided by a U.S. immigration system seemingly obsessed with welcoming as many unassimilable migrants with anti-Western values as possible.

As a result, largely secret plans for major population changes in hundreds of U.S. cities and towns are already being implemented. As Stealth Invasion reveals, the Muslim Brotherhood has a well-defined strategy for conquering America, not necessarily with violent jihadist attacks although we should expect those to increase but through more subtle means collectively called “civilization jihad.”

According to the Brotherhood’s own documents seized by the FBI, “civilization jihad” involves infiltrating and conquering Western democracies from within. Very simply, civilization jihad calls for changing a nation by changing its people and its values gradually, over time.

Meanwhile, the world is undergoing a historic shift of populations out of the Middle East and Africa, and into Europe, Canada and the United States. Stealth Invasion connects the dots between the problems of growing violence and unrest that have plagued Europe and what is now unfolding across America and blows the lid off a corrupt, fraudulent program that has been secretly dumping Third World refugees, many of them radical, on American cities for three decades.

Readers will meet the people and groups behind this shadowy resettlement network, which starts at the United Nations and includes the White House, the U.S. State Department, some surprising church groups, and corporate honchos involved in everything from investment banking and meatpacking, to Florida vacations and yogurt manufacturing.

In Stealth Invasion, Leo Hohmann reveals how Congress has turned a blind eye to the program since President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Refugee Act of 1980, allowing the United Nations not American officials to select the refugees sent to our cities. As a result, those selected are increasingly coming from hotbeds of Sunni radicalism like Syria, Iraq, and Somalia while a growing population of persecuted Christians are left behind.

The government uses a network of private agencies, most with churchy names tied to Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews and even evangelicals, to do the resettlement work, but the public is shut out of the process from beginning to end. No public hearings, no public notices in the local newspaper asking for their input.

Americans have been kept largely in the dark about the radical plans to permanently transform their nation. Until now.

In Stealth Invasion, Leo Hohmann shows that the breakdown is no coincidence and it hasn’t manifested overnight. It’s been brewing since the 1980s, but is now reaching the point where it is about to metastasize and overtake us all unless it is stopped now.


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

How could the Republicans allow this man to rule over one of the nations 12 Federal Reserve Banks and thus render years of decisions that follow the destructive philosophy of the Democratic Left!

Atlanta Fed Considering Raphael Bostic as Next President

Wall Street Journal

March 7, 2017

Raphael Bostic scheduled to be appointed as president of the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank. It could be announced in the coming weeks, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

If he is appointed to the post,  Raphael Bostic, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, would become the first African-American president of one of the Fed’s 12 regional banks.

A spokeswoman for the Atlanta Fed said the process of selecting a new president “is still ongoing.” A spokeswoman for the Fed’s Board of Governors in Washington declined to comment. Mr. Bostic declined to comment.

Mr. Bostic’s appointment could be announced in the coming weeks, said one person familiar with the discussions. Dennis Lockhart resigned as the Atlanta Fed’s president at the end of February.

The Fed has been under growing pressure from lawmakers and activists to improve the diversity of its leadership. Of the central bank’s 16 governors and bank presidents, 15 are white, 12 are men and 10 have a Ph.D. in economics. None are black or Hispanic.

Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari is the son of Indian immigrants. Three African-Americans have served on the Fed’s Board of Governors in its 104-year history.

Last fall, a group of African-American lawmakers wrote to Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen urging the central bank to consider candidates of diverse backgrounds for the Atlanta Fed post.

Mr. Bostic, 50 years old, served from 2009 to 2012 as assistant secretary for policy development and research at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a position that required Senate confirmation.

He has been at USC since 2001 and is chair of the department on governance, management and the policy process at the Sol Price School of Public Policy. He was director of USC’s Master of Real Estate Development degree program and the founding director of the Casden Real Estate Economics Forecast.

Mr. Bostic worked as a staff economist and senior economist in the monetary and financial studies section of the Fed’s board in Washington from 1995 to 2001, where his work on the Community Reinvestment Act earned a special achievement award.

He earned his Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University and completed his undergraduate studies at Harvard University. In 2012, he was chosen by his classmates to serve as chief marshal for commencement exercises.

At HUD, Mr. Bostic was responsible for helping to implement the Obama administration’s housing-rescue programs and to address the dislocation and overhaul of U.S. mortgage markets.

His academic research has focused on wealth, lending and homeownership, particularly in low- and moderate-income families and minority communities. His research has examined ways in which government regulatory policy has and hasn’t achieved desired goals to improve access to credit and savings for lower-income households.

The 12 regional Fed banks are quasi-private, quasi-government institutions overseen by boards of directors drawn from the private sector. The presidents are selected by the directors who aren’t from the financial sector, and the choice is subject to approval by the Fed board in Washington.

The Atlanta Fed district comprises Alabama, Florida, Georgia and parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee, an area that has sizable minority populations.

The Fed’s 2015 annual report said the Atlanta Fed top position paid $346,600.

Mr. Bostic has served on the boards of mortgage-finance company Freddie Mac since 2015 and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy since 2013. He has been a trustee of Enterprise Community Partners, an affordable-housing nonprofit, since 2012.

Write to Nick Timiraos at

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Is Ball Permanently Dropped?

By Dr. Aaron Lerner

8 March, 2016

Press Release from The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

“The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years.

While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.

As the President has expressed many times, he hopes to achieve peace throughout the Middle East region.

The Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month.”

The above was a prepared statement.

Every word was carefully chosen.

Here is the critical phrase:   “the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders.”

Whose “current borders”?

The “current borders” “of existing settlements”

This wasn’t arbitrary language.

It refers back to the Bush era exchange of letters that provided for construction within the building lines of all Jewish communities located in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank).  This regardless of if the community was part of a “bloc” or an isolated community.

What was the Israeli reaction to the White House announcement?

We didn’t just drop the ball.  We threw it down. (please use the word, “Netanyahu” rather than “we”) jsk

Instead of welcoming this position, we said we were clueless what the Trump Administration wants.

And to make matters worse — we essentially proclaimed that Mr. Trump has a veto on every square inch of construction.

And if we handed Washington veto rights we also put the United States in the complicated position in the world that they are to “blame” for any and every square inch of construction.

Yes.  We consult with our friends.  And Mr. Trump is a friend.  But there’s a world of difference between “consulting” and taking marching orders.

That arrangement doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.

Dr. Aaron Lerner

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA)

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments