Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me!

On Sunday, May 3^rd an article appeared in my local newspaper, The Record, entitled "Carter calls life in Gaza 'intolerable'."

I reproduce the article below:

Since the clipping is difficult to read I reproduce the text below:

Carter calls life in Gaza 'intolerable'

 Former US president Jimmy Carter said Saturday that eight months after a bloody war in the Gaza Strip the situation there remains “intolerable”. 

 Carter and his delegation were supposed to visit the isolated territory but earlier this week called it off, citing unspecified security concerns. 

 Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Carter said he was still determined to work for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. 

 “What we have seen and heard only strengthens our determination to work for peace,” he said. “The situation in Gaza is intolerable. Eight months after a devastating war, not one destroyed house has been rebuilt and people cannot live with the respect and dignity they deserve.” 

 More than 2,000 Palestinians were killed in the 50-day summer war between Israeli forces and Hamas militants who fired rockets into Israel.  

Earlier in the day, Carter, 90, visited Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and laid a wreath on the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat. 

 Although he brokered the first Israeli-Arab peace treaty during his presidency, Carter outraged many Israelis with his 2006 book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." He's also repeatedly reached out to Gaza's Islamic Hamas leaders, considered terrorists by much of the West. 

 Carter met with a group of Israelis living in towns bordering Gaza and heard about life under the threat of rocket attacks and militant infiltrations from Gaza. 

 He said that he had no interest in meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has ignored him in the past. 

 "This time we decided it was a waste of time to ask," Carter said. "As long as he is in charge, there will be no two-state solution and therefore no Palestinian state." 

On May 5^th the inevitable outrage of anything that is critical of Israel appeared in the Record as a Letter to the Editor. I reproduce it below:

Once again the clipping is hard to read and so I transcribe it below:

Carter’s views show ignorance

 Regarding "Carter calls life in Gaza 'Intolerable' (PageA-l6, May 3)":

So, former President Jimmy Carter asserts not one destroyed house has been rebuilt" In Gaza. Has he ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza or the West Bank have gone or are going?

 The apologist for terrorists will not visit Gaza, citing "unspecified security concerns." From the terrorists he has championed? When has Carter condemned the suicide bombings of innocent civilians or the sheltering of rocket launchers at hospitals and schools ?

 And when has he denounced Hamas' refusal to accept the state of Israel? Yet he castigates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying there will be no two-state solution "as long as he is in charge." The Israeli people put him in charge. So Carter would have him removed? Marginalized?

 Carter is an embarrassment to the office of president of the United States. And yet, again, what is more shameful, our foreign policy leaders, including the current president, Secretary of State John Kerry and members of Congress, do not condemn him for aiding and comforting terrorists and eviscerating the hopes and dreams of people for peace in the Middle East.

 David Molk

This letter produced an immediate reaction on my part prompting me to take pen to paper, or rather fingers to keyboard,  and caused this reply to appear in the Record on May 10, 2015.

Once again its transcription follows:

Carter's work has aided Israel security

 Regarding "Carter's views show ignorance" (Your Views, May 5):

 The writer accuses former President Jimmy Carter of showing ignorance, but instead it is the ignorance of the writer that comes through.

 The writer asks: "Has he [Carter] ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza have gone?"

 Just about a month ago, on April 13, the Jerusalem Post had this headline: "International donors fail to deliver promised aid to Gaza." And besides, the Israeli blockade makes it all but impossible for building materials to be delivered.

 The writer repeats the propaganda of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee by asking if Carter has denounced Hamas' refusal to accept the state of Israel.

 But acceptance is a two-way street. The writer ought to ask when will Israel agree to recognize a Palestinian state or its right to exist? Why should an oppressed people give recognition to their oppressors? The PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist and what has it gotten in return?

Carter probably has done more for the security of Israel than any other person by brokering peace between Egypt and Israel. In return he gets only hatred, because he rightly criticizes Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

 The Israeli people chose Benjamin Netanyahu as their prime minister in the recent election. But in a democracy the people are sovereign. but not necessarily wise, and with Palestinians in the occupied territories unable to vote in Israeli elections, it puts into question whether Israel is, in fact, a democracy.

 Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, May 8

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things

In my last posting to my blog "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)," I shared with my readers the reaction to my posting of two Letters to the Editor, the first of which set forth certain erroneous “facts,” and the second was my responding letter setting the record straight.

Not long after another letter appeared in The Record again setting forth facts, which I found to be erroneous. A transcript of the letter follows:

Obama hurting U.S. prestige

 What is apparent to me regarding the progress of the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are to be "fully" spelled out by June 30, is that the United States' status and perception as a superpower worldwide has been vastly diminished. Iran's quest for regional hegemony has been greatly enhanced.

 There is little doubt that American military and economic strength was unable to secure significant concessions from a low-grade military power and economically stressed nation.

 On this president's watch we have witnessed political chaos in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Tunisia. Need I point out how the president has bowed to the will of Vladimir Putin in his aggressive goals toward Ukraine?

 Jerrold Terdiman 

Woodcliff Lake, April 8

It did not take me long to respond, as set forth below:

The Letter to the Editor “Obama hurting U.S. prestige" (Record April 11) is way off the mark.

It ignores history. Did the US do better under past Administrations in dealing with an even lower grade power, North Korea, which continues to be a greater threat then Iran is, or  will ever be.

Also focusing on the President in office as the culprit when things go wrong is naïve.

As Shakespeare said: “What’s past is prologue”.

Iran is the power that it is as a direct result of our ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Before that invasion Iraq was a counterweight to Iran and fought a long and bitter war against that country. Now it is an ally.

Iran used to be a democratic state, until the Eisenhower Administration overthrew the government, and installed the hated Shah, which led to his overthrow by the present regime.

Reagan strengthened the Ayatollah in the infamous Iran/Contra scandal.

Russian aggression was encouraged when the G.W. Bush Administration did nothing in response to the invasion by Russia of Georgia in 2008.

And of even greater importance are the slanders and the lies that are now directed at Hillary Clinton, and particularly the Clinton family’s great achievements in dealing with a variety of problems both Domestic and International through the Clinton Foundation.

Thus the Right Wing publication The National Review published a smear of the foundation under the heading "The Clinton Foundation Is Not a Charity" and then among its many unsupported and false allegations there appears this:

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

Wow! That’s pretty damning, if that reputable organization had said that, but here is what they in fact did say:

Why isn't this organization rated?

 …this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

 What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

 A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator then goes on the explain:

Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist. Here's why:

 On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

The article also states that:

...in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.

(The link attached to the quote from the National Review about Charity Navigator simply takes you to the National Review website, if you want to see the actual Charity Navigator comments I suggest this link.

What an incredible difference between what the National Review claimed and the truth.

Finally, the reader might ask where did the National Review get this story? it was taken verbatim from an article in the Murdoch-owned New York Post (I assume with permission) but none of it is true, as a quick check with the Navigator site reveals.

And what do we find out about the Clinton foundation. Let us look at Wikipedia.

It has some negative things to say in quoting from the Right Wing lawyers association The Federalist, but it then goes on to say:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) is a global health organization committed to strengthening integrated health systems in the developing world and expanding access to care and treatment for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Organizations such as the Clinton Foundation continue to supply anti-malarial drugs to Africa and other affected areas; according to director Inder Singh, in 2011 more than 12 million individuals will be supplied with subsidized anti-malarial drugs. As of January 1, 2010, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, became a separate nonprofit organization called the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

 CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs. Since its inception, CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/Aids around the world. Its activities have included AIDS care and treatment in Africa, including the brokering of drug distribution agreements. During President Clinton's 2006 trip to Africa, CHAI signed agreements with several new countries. Over the course of the past year, CHAI has expanded its partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium to over 70 including 22 governments, who are now able to purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices.

 CHAI launched the Pediatric and Rural Initiatives in 2005 to focus on bringing AIDS care and treatment to those most often marginalized— children and those living in rural areas. CHAI also negotiated agreements that reduce the prices of second-line drugs and rapid diagnostic tests. In May 2007, CHAI and UNITAID announced agreements that help middle-income and low-income countries save money on second-line drugs. The partnership also reduced the price of a once-daily first-line treatment to less than $1 per day.

 In addition to drug access programs, CHAI also focuses on country operations, with programs that help governments with pediatric care and treatment, improving rural health care and human resources for health and the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT). In 2008, approximately 185,000 children benefited from increased access to infant diagnosis aided by the training of 8,500 health care workers who offered pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART). 2008 also saw six PMTCT country programs launched which ensured that every HIV pregnant woman in the program catchment area was provided with prevention, care and treatment services including counseling, testing and feeding recommendations.

 In the Summer of 2008, CHAI's Executive Vice President, Inder Singh, announced the closing of cost-reduction agreements with several suppliers of malaria medication, which will be extended to CHAI partners as part of its care and treatment program.

Does that sound like an organization that should be criticized and condemned ? Its legitimacy questioned? Why is the media, looking for points of criticism?

Would anyone criticize and condemn it, if it were not associated with the Clintons?

But as is often said: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

One of the leading contributors to this foundation, which is one of many foundations the Clintons support, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)

On April 6th, 2015 I posted a commentary on my blog entitled "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right!" where I re- published a letter that had appeared in the North Jersey newspaper the Record and which, as is so often the case these days, had set forth totally erroneous facts.

I took the letter writer to task and published the incontrovertible facts.

Both letters were re--produced in my post together with transcriptions of their contents. I urge the reader to read, or re-read my post, that can be found here.

After the post was distributed Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia posted a comment directly to my blog and the comment can be found there but to save the reader to trouble of accessing the earlier blog entry I transcribe his comments here:

To describe Mr. Scheller as a "stickler for details" is likely an understatement. Yet, he probably omitted a few additional instances when American presidents lost patience with Israel's refusal to bend to U.S. leadership. ...And then there are the series of incidents involving Israeli spying on the U.S., most recently its alleged spying on the U.S.-Iran negotiations. Just as spying among friends reflects business as usual, Obama and Netanyahu appear to have a realistic assessment of each other, their respective political situations and their views on the Middle Eastern neighborhood. Both Obama and Netanyahu have been faulted mercilessly by critics over their public disagreement with how to proceed with Iran negotiations, but this is highly unlikely to undermine the fundamental working relationship between the two countries.

It's worth noting that the U.S. spent the past month upgrading and testing its arsenal of bunker-buster conventional bombs that, in the present geopolitical context, have only one identifiable target.

I also received a comment from Stephen Baird, MD of Solana Beach, California who made the following observation.

You do have your facts straight.  As a note added in proof, I attended a series of lectures two weeks ago by Dr. Jacob Goldberg, currently a Professor in Israel, who was also an adviser to Ehud Barak when he was Prime Minister of Israel.  Goldberg gives a series of lectures on the Middle East every year at the San Diego Jewish Community Center.  This year he concentrated on the negotiations with Iran over the possible development of a nuclear weapon and on the Israeli elections.  One of the "facts" he noted was that the last five years have represented the best ever in US-Israeli cooperation on matters of security.  The idea that President Obama hates Israel is just mythology.  True, he doesn't like Prime Minister Netanyahu but lots of Israelis don't either.  What Bibi did just before the polls closed by putting out a TV ad noting that Arabs were voting in droves was just despicable.  Perhaps President Obama's antipathy to Bibi is entirely justified.

Additional comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right!

Not long ago a Letter to the Editor appeared in the North Jersey Record. I reproduce it below:

Since it may be difficult to read, as reproduced from the newspaper I set forth the text below:

U.S. needs all the friends it can get

 Two things really trouble me.

 One is that the United States always stood by the mantra of “We do not negotiate with terrorists."

 Iran is a main player in terrorism. Our sanctions are really doing the job. We should stay the course and make them come to us for a deal.

 Also, Israel and the United States shared a great friendship under the leadership of every past president, except President Obama, who seems determined to change that relationship.

 These are very dangerous times with terrorist groups popping up everywhere. We need to keep every friend we have if we are going to win this battle.

 Sam Levine 

Oakland, March 25

Since the facts set forth in this letter were flagrantly erroneous, and since I am a stickler for factual accuracy I dispatched a Letter to the Editor of the Record a reproduction of which appears below.

As I indicated above, the reproduction may be difficult to read and so I reproduce the text below:

U.S.- Iran Negotiations 

 Regarding "U.S. needs all the friends it can get": 

 The letter writer shows ignorance of the relevant facts.

 He writes "Israel and the United States shared a great friendship under the leadership of every past president..." 

 That isn't true. 

 In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower threatened to cut off private donations to Israel, along with other measures, including ending military assistance. In 1975, President Gerald Ford ordered arms deliveries to Israel frozen and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ordered Israel to be put "at the bottom of the list." President Ronald Reagan in 1985 told reporters "the bloodshed must stop," adding, "I lost patience a long time ago." One year earlier, the United States voted to condemn Israel at the Security Council and temporarily blocked the sale of four F-16s to Jerusalem. And in 1991, President George H.W. Bush didn't want to guarantee loans unless the Israelis promised not to build housing over the so-called Green Line. 

 The non-partisan Foreign Policy magazine
 headlined an article two years ago with "Obama has been great for Israel - anyone who tells you otherwise is distorting reality." 

 As for Iran, the writer says, "We should ... make them come to us for a deal."That is exactly what has happened. They have come to us for a deal. Now we need to consummate it, rather than lose the opportunity. Are there any realistic alternatives? 

 Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, March 30 

As usual, comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – Part IX and Conclusion

This is the tenth part in this series, if you count the Discussion post. I recommend that you read or re-read the earlier posts.

Part I is here, Part II is here, Part III is here, the Discussion is here, Part IV is here, Part V is here, Part VI is here, Part VII is here and Part VIII is here:

In Part VIII, I concluded by setting forth the Review of Gerald Walpin’s book by RUTHEE as it appears on the Amazon website.

I now set forth my response as it also appears on that website:

It has been fourteen months since I wrote my negative review of “The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution”, which sparked a lively debate with the author, though now that I return to the Amazon page for this book, I see that all the reviews but mine, have not only been positive, but have been on the rave side.

I wonder why this is? I suggest that that in our hyper-partisan age, it is unlikely that anyone with a view that would not agree with the premise of the book is unlikely to read it. I am the exception.

RUTHEE, whoever that is, since he/she/it does not care to use her real name, came to the book with an obvious pre-disposition to agree with it, and I must say that there are things in the book, that I too, agree with.

But before I get to that I want to comment on RUTHEE’s review.

Ruthee starts out by complaining that while the Constitution is “America's most important document…few have read it” and then demonstrates an ignorance of the Constitution that clearly shows that RUTHEE hasn’t read it either.

How else can one explain the absurd comment that “the primary function of government…is to render security to its subjects? And any mischief menacing that security demands a remedy commensurate with the evil.”

I hope that isn’t a quote from Walpin’s book for it would not reflect well on Walpin’s knowledge of the Constitution.

First of all it is only in a monarchy or a dictatorship that the relationship of the people to their government is that of “subjects”. In a Democracy the people are citizens, not subjects.

Secondly, where did he get the idea that the primary function of government “is to render security to its subjects”? Certainly not from the Constitution, for the Constitution in its preamble states that:

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

Now if Ruthee, and possibly Walpin, had actually read the Constitution, they would have found that the founders did not consider the primary task of government to be “security to its subjects” but rather to “establish Justice” and it should be noted that the founders even chose to capitalize “Justice”. To do Justice, the founders tell us, is the first function.

Now I find no reason why Walpin (if he in fact wrote what RUTHEE claims he did) or RUTHEE, cannot disagree with the founders; they were not Gods. But to claim that this is what the Constitution provides is either ignorance, or deliberate misrepresentation.

RUTHEE then goes on to select as the most outrageous decision of the Supreme Court, Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court. Now, I happen to agree that this decision was misplaced in interpreting the 5^th amendment, but wouldn’t it be nice if RUTHEE had bothered to quote the relevant portion of the Constitution in criticizing the courts interpretation of it. Or is the language of the Constitution of no consequence in RUTHEE’s mind, and only the result is what counts. Has RUTHEE really ever read the Constitution?

The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment reads:

…nor shall (any person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, …

This is a very short and concise statement. It, like most provisions of the Constitution, is subject to different interpretations.

We could, for instance, make a case that it means only that torture may not be used to coerce confessions, or other forms of evidence that might be harmful to the defendant, but that, a refusal to testify may be used by a jury as evidence of guilt.

But on this point the Supreme Court as early as 1893, in Wilson v. U S, 149 U.S. 60 said: “… clearly recognize their constitutional privilege, … their neglect or refusal to testify shall not create any presumption against them.”

Now if there is a constitutional right to be silent, is it such a huge step to insist that a defendant in police custody must be told of this right. Certainly, we can disagree with this conclusion, as at least three judges did, but is it such a clear deviation from the Constitution as to provoke outrage.

Now RUTHEE goes on to say: “Failure to adhere to this (giving the Miranda warning) will result in dismissal of the case even against hardened and dangerous criminals.” But this is patently untrue! Failure to give the Miranda warnings will, under the Supreme Court decision, make the confession inadmissible, not lead to dismissal of the case.

RUTHEE then goes on to quote Justice O’Connor: “The failure of police to administer Miranda warnings does not mean that the statements received have actually been coerced…” No, but neither does it proof that they have not been coerced, and when a person’s liberty is at stake, shouldn’t the proof have to be that they were not coerced?

Justice O’Connor is also quoted as saying, ”when the admission is not coerced… (it is) highly probative evidence”. Did Justice O’Connor base this on evidence? Was there a record before the court to support this assertion? Isn’t that what courts, and particular Supreme Court Justices, are supposed to do? Base their opinions on evidence?

So let us look at the evidence! The non-partisan Innocence Project uses DNA evidence to determine a person’s guilt. On this basis they have proven to the satisfaction of American Courts that 324 people were wrongfully convicted, and that in 27% of those cases “False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions”. What does that say about O’Connor’s comment about confessions being “highly probative”, or for that matter about RUTHEE’s or Walpin’s approving quote of O’Connor. See here.

One of the foundations of American jurisprudence, as most lawyers know, is Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s. In it he puts forth the principle: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Apparently, Walpin, RUTHEE, and O’Connor have lost sight of this principle, which finds its genesis even in the bible:

“Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake." (Genesis 18:23-32)

Aside from the damning statistics of the Innocence project, has RUTHEE paid any attention to the tragic story of the Central Park 5? The newspapers trumpeted the glory of their convictions on the basis of their confessions, supposedly freely given and with the Miranda warnings. But the confessions were false. Clearly, the Miranda warnings don’t go far enough!!! I urge anyone who cares, to read the story in New York Magazine, “Central Park Revisited.” 

There is something wrong with a society that incarcerates more people per capita than any other Democratic state, by far.

I urge the reader to look at this graph.

Sadly, this graph doesn’t tell the whole story. According to Wikipedia’s “List of countries by incarceration rate" the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world except for Seychelles, and North Korea. It, by far, exceeds China, Cuba and Russia.

Yes, maybe we can all agree that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and that rulings that drastically limit or overrule previous decisions, or lower court decisions, may not be made by a bare majority of 5-4.

But allow me to point out that in the Miranda decision the majority five were not all appointed by Presidents of one party. Two, Warren and Brennan, were appointed by Eisenhower, Republican, and among the dissenters one, White was appointed by Kennedy (Democrat). Contrast that with today’s decisions where the Supreme Court Justices break consistently along the lines of whether they were appointed by Republican or Democratic Presidents. In other words the Court has become completely politicized.

Just how politicized can be garnered best by the completely partisan decision of Bush v. Gore. The Justices in the majority were Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia, appointed by Reagan, Thomas, appointed by Bush, G. H.W. Republican Presidents appointed all of them.

Dissenting were Souter appointed by Bush, G. H.W, Stevens appointed by Ford, and Breyer and Ginsburg appointed by Clinton. Thus this majority of Justices that came to their posts through Republican Presidents, chose the next President of the US to be, guess what, a Republican.

They did this in a decision that they declared would have no precedential effect and went against all precedents (stare decisis) in substituting its interpretation of Florida laws for that of the highest state court. For an in depth discussion of the decision see Alan Dershowitz's “Supreme Injustice” and other books on the subject.

Ever since we have seen this partisan divide on the court, only worse, and when that divide is consistently 5 to 4 along party lines, we have good reason to put an end to such 5 to 4 decisions, which take the court out of evenhanded justice and into political partisanship.

That this is not good for the nation is something we should be able to agree upon.

And so I once again I ride into the night. For the foreseeable future there will be no new posts, while I devote my time to writing my memoirs.

However, if there should be any:

Comments, questions, or corrections they are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.