The Paris Go Green Treaty: A Bad Deal Based on Flawed Logic

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

Democrats Turn Against Israel


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

Which Party Is the Party of the 1 Percent? (The Rich Guys)

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

Former MK Moshe Feiglin questions Israel’s current leadership and fears more self-destructive Likud Party decisions

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

Yahoo’s Mayer to Get $23 Million Golden Parachute! No wonder Bernie Sanders is ticked off.

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

Stealth Invasion of America

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

Obama fellow traveler scheduled to be appointed president of one of the vitally important 12 US Federal Reserve Banks!

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

PM Netanyahu did not “drop the ball.” He threw it down!

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

Mark Levin proves Obama long time illegal government wiretapping, spying and ongoing sabotage of President Trump’s election and political agenda


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu re-iterates his long held concept of a “Two State Solution”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in Australia Feb. 25, 2017.

By Alex Traiman/ (Jewish News Service)

For the second time in a month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has informed the leader of a major Western power that Israel will retain full security control over all of the disputed territories in any future arrangement with Palestinians.

Netanyahu told Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in a closed-door meeting that Israel would never give up its military presence in Judea and Samaria (commonly known as the West Bank), Israel Radio reported. The statement matches comments Netanyahu made in mid-February during his press conference with President Donald Trump.

While laying out his prerequisites for any peace deal, Netanyahu said at the White House that Israel “must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River…because otherwise we’ll get another radical Islamic terrorist state in the Palestinian areas exploding the peace, exploding the Middle East.”

Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), believes Netanyahu’s approach would make full Palestinian sovereignty impossible.

“I can’t possibly see that the same person would think this is a two-state solution. Where is the second state? There is only one state. There is a state and a protectorate, but there is not a two-state solution,” Shikaki told

“But I am sure the prime minister knows fully that this is either a good bargaining position to take at the beginning of negotiations, or that he is obviously not interested in a two-state solution outcome,” he said.

Following the White House summit, rather than focusing on Netanyahu’s comments about retaining Israeli military over all of the disputed territories, most mainstream media chose to focus headlines on Trump’s ambiguous answer when asked if he is “ready to give up the notion” of two states. Trump had answered, “So I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like.”

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization for America (ZOA), said Trump’s comments brought an abrupt end to 16 years of carefully worded support—by both Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama—for a two-state solution.

“It’s because of Donald Trump’s enormously important bully pulpit that he has single-handedly changed the conversation,” Klein told “The issue now is whether we can get to peace, as opposed to whether we can get to a Palestinian state.”

Is a two-state solution practical?
A recent poll by Shikaki’s PSR, together with the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, showed that 50 percent of Israeli Jews and 44 percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank support a two-state solution.

Yet the same study showed that more than 80 percent of Israeli Jews and 72 percent of Palestinians do not believe a Palestinian state will be established in the next five years.

Shikaki explained that, “ The idea of a one-state solution is something that more and more Palestinians are turning to. There is a very strong tendency among Palestinians and Israelis to conclude that the two-state solution is no longer practical. And as a result, they start looking for alternatives. But none of these alternatives seem to garner as much support as there still is for a two-state solution.”

ZOA’s Klein argued that it is easy for Palestinians to support a two-state solution because “Israel is already a state. So when they say they support a two-state solution, what that means is that they support a Palestinian state.”

He contended that the inability of Palestinians to recognize Israeli sovereignty, and their unwillingness for any Jews to live in a future Palestinian state, underscore the dangers of making concessions on Israel’s borders

Klein asserted that Palestinians “say they support a Palestinian state, but ask them whether they support Israel as a Jewish state. Ask them whether they support not allowing any so-called Palestinian refugees moving into Israel. Ask them if they support 800,000 Jews living within the confines of a Palestinian state, and you’ll get different answers.”

Shikaki noted that one past proposal that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have floated for resolving the issue of Israeli settlements is “to ask [Jews in the disputed territories] to live under Palestinian sovereignty if they wish to stay.” He said, however, that the Israeli public has never favored such a plan.

“We no longer have a majority of Palestinians, as we once did, who endorsed the idea of settlers staying under Palestinian sovereignty, but we never had a Jewish majority for that anyway,” said Shikaki.

Yet removing hundreds of thousands of Jews from Judea and Samaria may garner even less public support. In his press conference with Trump, Netanyahu said that “Jews are called Jews because they come from Judea. This is our ancestral homeland. Jews are not foreign colonialists in Judea.”

A one-state solution

By mentioning for the first time the possibility of U.S. support for a one-state solution, Trump has, in Shikaki’s view, “contributed to making the two-state solution less viable, and thereby increasing the demand for the one-state solution.”

“Trump’s mere statement, therefore, has played essentially the same role [in the peace process] as the failure of negotiations, settlement construction, etc. All these things have in the past convinced the majority of Palestinians and Israelis that the viability of the two-state solution is questioned,” Shikaki said.

Israelis may have arrived at the same conclusion, but from a different angle.

While on a recent trip to meet with Israeli policymakers, Klein said he observed that “almost no people are talking about supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state and criticizing Jews that live in Judea and Samaria.”

“My sense,” Klein added, “is that people now understand that a Palestinian state would be a Hamas-Fatah terrorist state and that the reason there is no peace has nothing to do with the Jews in Judea and Samaria.

They now seem to understand that it is because the Palestinian Authority refuses to sit down and negotiate, and because they continue to promote hatred and violence in every element of their culture, and they pay salaries to families who produce killers.”

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Leftist Jews Should Quit Lecturing Trump about Anti-Semitism

From: The American Thinker

February 24, 2017

By Rabbi Dov Fischer

They are my great protectors — leftist Jews, professional Democrat Jews, Jews in Hollywood and on Broadway, Jews in the liberal mainstream media.  For a year and more, they have been in the forefront protecting me from the “anti-Semitism” of candidate — now President — Donald Trump, from Steve Bannon and Breitbart, from the Republican Party.  There they are, yelling “anti-Semitism!” and worrying about me.  And oh how they care for Israel!

They are phony baloney.  They are as false as the Fake News they spread about the President of the United States.  I know.  I am a Jew all day every day.  I wear a yarmulka at home, at work, indoors, outdoors.  I walk an hour to and from synagogue on my Sabbath, replete with yarmulka, engaging society around me.

My clerical colleagues and friends among the Catholic Diocese where I live, among the Protestant pastors and ministers whom I count dearly, among the non-Jews in all walks of my life, all know I am a Jew.

I am not the kind of Jew whose kitchen observes Judaism, while I eat lobster and pork outside.  And I am sick and tired of seeing and hearing these professional leftists — liberals and radical left activists who often are employed and paid well for their left-driven agenda activism — manipulating the happenstance of their Jewish birth to justify hurling vile and baseless accusations of “anti-Semitism” against those in the Trump Administration who actually are philo-Semitic.

If these leftists are so concerned about anti-Semitism, why is it that so many among them never once sought to protect me or Israel from Barack Obama or John Kerry?  When Obama and Kerry combined to imperil Israel by entering into a horrific deal with Iran, they were quiet.

When Obama insulted the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, treating him like a beggar from Jerusalem, forcing Bibi to wait outside while the Obamas dined, they did not complain.

As Keith Ellison, whose anti-Semitic record of back-biting against Israel and Jews has been exposed, rises within Democrat ranks they do not object.

They do not condemn the anti-Semitism of an Al Sharpton, nor challenge why an Obama began his second Presidential campaign by meeting with Sharpton’s organization.  Where were they when Kerry and Obama ambushed Israel at the very end of Obama’s term, refusing to veto an anti-Semitic United Nations Security Council resolution that declared an outright lie: that Jews have no connection to East Jerusalem?

They are not playing with a full deck.  This President of the United States, Donald Trump, is the most philo-Semitic President of my lifetime, perhaps in American history.  That is why he carried the vote of the Orthodox Jewish community of America in overwhelming numbers.

We Orthodox Jews know what anti-Semitism really is, what it sounds and feels like, at work and at play.  We are not cardiac Jews who speak of having a “Jewish heart,” as though Mother Teresa or Father Damian had any less compassion, nor do we manifest our Jewishness solely by using Yiddish words like “chutzpah” and giggling over embarrassments like Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman.

Rather, we live Torah tradition and adhere to Torah commandments, and we synthesize our American and Judaic cultures effortlessly.

Donald Trump — unlike a great many of his liberal Democrat critics among the Jewish “leaders” in the United States and the liberal Democrat Jews in Hollywood, on Broadway, and in journalism — actually has Jewish grandchildren.

By contrast, many of their Jewish lines have been self-severed. His daughter is an Orthodox Jew.  His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is an Orthodox Jew.  Jared and Ivanka do not hide their Judaism; they revel in it proudly, though quietly.

Unlike Hillary Clinton’s Jewish son-in-law, they did not have a Protestant pastor co-conducting their marriage.  Donald Trump did not distance from them; rather, he remains connected with them.

Donald Trump has associated with Orthodox Jews all his life.  He has named an extraordinary attorney, David Friedman, to be America’s Ambassador to Israel.  The Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of the Trump Organization, Jason Dov Greenblatt, is an Orthodox Jew. In January 2017, President Trump appointed him to be United States Special Representative for International Negotiations.

Donald Trump has been a lifelong supporter of Israel.  His father, Fred Trump, donated land for the construction of an Orthodox synagogue — and then donated the money to build it.

When Prime Minster Netanyahu announced, partly in response to the anti-Semitic UN Security Council Resolution that the Obama-Kerry ambush allowed, that Israel now will build more than 6,000 new homes in Jewish communities Judea and Samaria, the Trump Administration broke with fifty years of American policy and did not speak a single word of condemnation.

Days later, President Trump, standing alongside Netanyahu, abandoned the failed and unworkable mantra of the “Two-State Solution,” a formula that never has been realized in fifty years of negotiations because it is fundamentally flawed, and the President instead said America will support any solution — “One State, Two State” — no particular prescribed formula other than what the parties to the situation themselves directly agree to pursue.

Is President Trump perfect?  Hardly.  Does he sometimes cause even his strongest supporters to close their eyes, take a deep breath, count to ten, then count to a thousand, all while taking more deep breaths?  Absolutely.  That is President Trump.

But that same man is a great supporter of Israel with a lifelong record of great philo-Semitism.  And how dare any one, particularly a quasi-Jew on some liberal organization’s payroll, call this man soft on anti-Semitism!

So who are these defenders of mine, these “defenders of the Jews,” who regularly and falsely accuse the man of a vile hatred that is outside his very persona?

The newspaper and television “news” programs and reports somehow find them.  They craft Fake News by quoting the Jews they want.

There is a Steven Goldstein, the director of something called the “Anne Frank Center.”  As an American Orthodox Rabbi of more than 35 years, a former Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America, a member of the Rabbinical Council of America’s executive committee during most of the past decade, and a host of other Jewish organizational affiliations and leadership posts,

I can say unequivocally that this fellow who ranted against President Trump on the same day that the President forcefully condemned anti-Semitism merely is one more professional liberal.

Even as the President said that,  “The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil,” this Goldstein was attacking Trump.

The “Anne Frank Center” that Goldstein heads arrogates the name of a tragic Holocaust victim to advance a leftist agenda.  It is akin to someone forming a “Martin Luther King Center” to sell discount tickets to baseball games and ski resorts.

Goldstein himself comes there straight from a stint as director of a gay rights activist group in New Jersey.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913 amid the horrific era of the Leo Frank lynching in 1915 Georgia, now has been taken over by Democratic Party activists.  With the retirement of its venerable leader, Abraham Foxman, the ADL now is run by Jonathan Greenblatt, who arrived straight from serving in the Obama White House as Special Assistant to President Obama and Director of his Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation.



The Union for Reform Judaism, another regular critic of President Trump, now is run by a hierarchy of liberal reform rabbis marked by their almost-universal fealty to the Democrat Party.


And there is no shortage of liberal Jews at the Huffington Post, Slate, Vox, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream media who are quick to condemn every imaginable manifestation of Trump “anti-Semitism” that their minds can conjure.  If Trump were to say,  “I don’t like juice,” they would be yelling: “Trump said he doesn’t like Jews!”

When a Trump campaign banner attacked Hillary Clinton and used a depiction that included a six-pointed star, a sheriff’s badge, these sorts saw a “Star of David.”  “Anti-Semite!” some yelled.

When a sensitive White House statement memorializing the Holocaust, written for the President by a Jewish aide who himself had lost family during the Shoah, failed to use exactly the right wording, some yelled “Anti-Semite!”

In seeing anti-Semitism emanating from every corner, they even saw a friendly welcoming wave by radio talk show host Laura Ingraham to the crowd at the Republican National Convention as being a Hitler salute.  And yet, after Keith Ellison was exposed for mocking Jews and Israel to a small Muslim group in Minnesota, these “defenders” remained silent.

It is enough already.  I do not need the Jewish professional liberal Democrats to protect me from President Trump.  I need him to protect me from them.

Rabbi Dov Fischer, an attorney and adjunct professor of law, is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California and holds prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He has been Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Honorable Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the National Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America.  His writings appear at

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment