Displaying posts published in

August 2016

‘Pollstress’ Conway Brings Trump Campaign Experience With Conservative Edge New manager made her name with Republican candidates who tried to oust former Speaker BoehnerBy Michael C. Bender and Beth Reinhard

The woman tasked with turning around Donald Trump’s Republican presidential campaign has toiled extensively in the party’s antiestablishment conservative lane during the past decade, working for House members who tried to overthrow former Speaker John Boehner and Senate candidates whose stumbles helped delay the takeover of that chamber.

Kellyanne Conway, a longtime Washington-based pollster, was installed this week as manager for the New York billionaire’s insurgent campaign. A New Jersey native with a knack for snappy sound bites, Ms. Conway made her name in Republican circles by surviving in a space occupied by few females: overseeing opinion surveys for some of the party’s most conservative politicians.

A self-described “pollstress” who includes Trump’s running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, as a former client, Ms. Conway leveraged her status to help sell herself as an expert on marketing candidates to women. Despite a mixed record of success, she has now secured senior-level positions supporting the presidential bids of the last two Republicans standing this year: Mr. Trump and his last serious rival, Senator Ted Cruz. Those jobs have earned her company more than $1.2 million in the past two years, according to Federal Election Commission records.
“She understands women better than anyone in America,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who gave Ms. Conway one of her first political jobs in the early 1990s. “She understands how to talk to them better than Donald Trump does. She combines polling and communication, and that’s a gift in a campaign that’s really been struggling with message.”

In an interview, Ms. Conway indicated that she also intends to narrow and sharpen the campaign’s focus. While Mr. Trump has talked about competing in a broad range of states, including California and Connecticut, that haven’t supported a Republican candidate for decades, Ms. Conway, 49 years old, said the campaign would focus on “seven or eight states.” “If things go well there, then we’ll look at expanding,” she said.

In a statement, Mr. Trump said that “Kellyanne has a great vision for politics and tremendous spirit.” He called her “a wonderful person, whom I trust and respect.”

Ms. Conway, who once lived in Trump World Tower in Manhattan, was elevated this week as part of an attempt to reset Mr. Trump’s campaign. He has trailed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in nearly all major public polls since her party’s convention three weeks ago, in part because of his struggles with female voters.

In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News nationwide poll, Mr. Trump trailed Mrs. Clinton by 16 percentage points. In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost women by 11 percentage points to President Obama.

Comey’s FBI Double Standard To view Hillary’s FBI file, lawmakers must go to a secure room under lock and guard.Kimberley Strassel

As for the suspicion that there is one standard for the Clintons and one for everyone else, witness the FBI’s interaction this week with Congress over Hillary Clinton’s agency file. The G-men are back to being G-men—at least now that the Democratic nominee is off their hook.

FBI Director James Comey gets credit for agreeing to Congress’s demand for documents related to the bureau’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server. The FBI shares such files only on the rarest of occasions. Yet given the cloud surrounding this affair, not to mention Mr. Comey’s stated interest in “transparency,” he would have been hard-pressed to deny Congress’s request.

It’s the manner in which lawmakers are getting access to the documents that is more interesting.

Bear in mind what the FBI investigation revealed: We know that Mrs. Clinton for years emailed top secret information willy-nilly over a home-brew server that lacked security. We know that this classified information leached into the private email accounts of those with whom she communicated. We know that she cavalierly used her private email while in hostile countries, making it possible that those countries gained access. We know that Mr. Comey nonetheless chose not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for her “extremely careless” behavior.

Compare that standard with the one the FBI is now imposing on Congress, where the Clinton files are being guarded at a level that brings to mind the Vatican Secret Archives. Aides from an array of House committees described to me the extraordinary limits that have been placed on who can see the files and under what circumstances.

The FBI has provided just one set of Hillary files to be accessed by both the majority and minority members (and their staffs) of the House Oversight, Appropriations and Judiciary committees. That’s a single set of documents for hundreds upon hundreds of people. The files are being held in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) underneath the Capitol, a secure room reserved for viewing the highest-level secrets. That room is under lock, key and guard, and viewing is by appointment only.

Many of these lawmakers and aides hold some of the highest clearances available to Congress, yet they are nonetheless barred from examining vast portions of the record. The FBI in some cases redacted entire documents, presumably at the request of various intelligence agencies, and to protect national security. Initially, visiting congressmen and staffers were not allowed to take any notes. After intense negotiations, the FBI on Thursday relented, but only on the condition that all notes remain behind in the SCIF.

Some of this is as it should be. These are, after all, national secrets. Yet the process highlights not only the absurdity of Mrs. Clinton’s claim that her server was no big deal, but also the irresponsibility of the FBI’s decision not to prosecute. Duly elected members of Congress are traversing layers of security and guards, clearances in hand, to view a few top-secret documents. Ask Mr. Comey why what is demanded of them was not demanded of Hillary.

The Temple Mount and UNESCO by Denis MacEoin

The attempts to deny any ancient and ongoing Jewish presence in Jerusalem, to say there was never a first let alone a second Temple and that only Muslims have any right to the whole city, its shrines and historical monuments, have reached insane proportions.
Is this really what it boils down to? The Islamic State rules the international community? Including UNESCO?
The world is outraged when it sees the stones of Palmyra tumble, or other great monuments of human civilization turn to dust. But that same world is silent when the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters Islamise everything by calling into question the very presence of the Jewish people in the Holy Land.

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is known throughout the world for the many places it designates as World Heritage Sites. There are more than one thousand of these, distributed unequally in many countries, with Italy at the top, followed by China.

The largest single category of sites consists of religious sites, categorized under the heading of cultural locations (as distinct from natural ones). Within this category, UNESCO has carried out many dialogues with communities in order to ensure that religious sensitivities are acknowledged and guaranteed. UNESCO has undertaken many measures in this field.

In 2010, the organization held a seminar on the “Role of Religious Communities in the Management of World Heritage Properties.”

“The main objective of the [seminar] was to explore ways of establishing a dialogue between all stakeholders, and to explore possible ways of encouraging and generating mutual understanding and collaboration amongst them in the protection of religious World Heritage properties.”

The notion of dialogue in this context was clearly meant to avoid unilateral decisions by one nation or community to claim exclusive ownership of a religious site.

Alleged or actual claims to multiple ownership of religious sites are not uncommon. A collection of essays entitled, Choreographies of Shared Sacred Sites: Religion, Politics, and Conflict Resolution, examines such disputes over shared religious sites in Turkey, the Balkans, Palestine/Israel, Cyprus, and Algeria, providing powerful analyses of how communities come to blows or work reconcile themselves in a willingness to share shrines and other centres. Sometimes people come to blows over these sites, and sometimes one religion can cause immense pain to the followers of another, as happened in 1988 when Carmelite nuns erected a 26-foot-high cross outside Auschwitz II (Birkenau) extermination camp in order to commemorate a papal mass held there in 1979.

A more famous example of an unreconciled dispute is the conflict over the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, India, a mosque originally built in 1528-29 on the orders of Babur, the first of the Mughal emperors. According to Hindu accounts, the Mughal builders destroyed a temple on the birthplace of the deity Rama in order to build the mosque — a claim denied by many Muslims.[1] The importance of the site is clear from a Hindu text which declares that Ayodhya is one of seven sacred places where a final release from the cycle of death and rebirth may be obtained.

These conflicting claims were fatefully resolved when an extremist Hindu mob demolished the mosque in 1992, planning to build a new temple on the site. The demolition has been cited as justification for terrorist attacks by radical Muslim groups.[2] The massacres at Wandhama (1998) and the Amarnath pilgrimage (2000) are both attributed to the demolition. Communal riots occurred in New Delhi, Bombay and elsewhere, as well as many cases of stabbing, arson, and attacks on private homes and government officers.[3]