Conservatives Must Not Seek All Low Info Voters

By: Lloyd Marcus

It sticks in my craw that Conservatives/Republicans are leaning toward, in essence, becoming immoral, stupid and un-American to win Low-Information-Voters. Folks, I cannot do that.

Meet Semi. I have more respect for Semi, a stray cat which my wife befriended, than I do for the low-life parasites who voted for Obama because he promised to give them stuff via funds confiscated from others.

Semi has the good sense to value her freedom. A neighbor caught Semi and got her shots and spayed. But for some reason, Semi prefers frequenting our yard.

For years, Mary has fed Semi and tried to move her into our home as her pet. Semi will have none of it. Semi allows Mary to pick her up and even bring her inside our home from time to time. But, if Mary closes the door, Semi wants out.

Semi routinely disappears for days. Displaying more character, backbone and wisdom than many Obama voters, this cat values her independence and freedom.

Meanwhile, bottom-feeding Obama voters gleefully surrendered total control of their lives to government for the promise of free stuff. Had they tuned off TMZ for a moment and did the slightest investigation into Obamacare, they would have realized that it “ain’t” free! http://thechristianrepublic.com/?p=2002 Along with the tremendous monetary cost and government playing God by deciding who lives or dies, it cost voters their greatest birthright – freedom.

Some low info voters get their rocks off just thinking about Obama taxing the rich. News flash idiots, if Obama taxed the rich at 100%, taking every cent of their wealth, it would fuel our economy for less than a month and not affect our debt or economy. Then what? http://www.retakeourgov.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203:taxing-the-qrichq-at-100-wont-balance-the-budget&catid=3:newsflash

A few of you Obama-ites realize this truth, but it does not matter. You sickeningly just want to see the rich get screwed. Obama played y’all big-time, winning your vote by appealing to your sinful class envy. In the end, Obama punishing risk-takers kills jobs, drives up the cost of food and fuel and eventually harms you. Suckers!

I will not sink to pandering to gutter-minded free-loaders and achievement haters. The day a majority of Americans rally around punishing the rich and criminalizing success is the day we die as a shining city on a hill. Some believe this is exactly what Obama wants.

Only ignorant fools hate the rich. Wise men seek to learn what they did to get what they got.

Obama implies that all wealth by Conservatives is ill-gotten or undeserved. He rebuked business owners saying, “You didn’t build that.”

Despicably, some realize business and the rich are not the enemy, but still subscribe to Obama’s “get ’em” attitude. Such people are trash.

Democrats are notorious for appealing to voter’s base instincts. I will not join those seeking to nurture the evil in the hearts of men to win votes.

Master liars and manipulators that they are, Democrats praise fairness and hard work out of one side of their mouth while demonizing achievers and promoting government entitlement dependency out of the other.

Some voters are aware and approve of Obama’s Socialistic agenda. Others are just plain clueless. Their only source of news is sound bites from the liberal bias lying media. They voted for Obama out of ignorance.

As God continues to give me strength, I will work to educate voters to why Conservatism is best for all – offering rich rewards such as dignity, pride and honor.

In our Oprah-ised culture, everyone is a victim of circumstances. But the truth is just as some folks choose to be evil, poor choices lead to poverty. The Bible says the poor you will have with you always (Matthews 26:11). It is not the fault of America, Republicans, the rich or anyone else other than the individual. Upon stating this truth, I am suppose to cower in fear of you calling me dispassionate. Not happenin’, I’ve been homeless.

Conservatism beckons, “If you are poor and seek to become rich, join us! If you celebrate determination, hard work and excellence, join us!

For example: A waiter gave Mary and I remarkable service. Our great appreciation was reflected in our tip. If you believe this exceptional professional waiter deserves to keep his well-earned tip, you are a Conservative. If you believe his tip should go into a tip-jar to be distributed equally amongst the other waiters which include trifling Joey who takes an abusive number of breaks, you’re a Liberal – probably a Democrat. Please do not join us. Stay with your massa, Obama.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American


Cornel West On Sandy Hook: ‘We Can’t Just Shed Tears For Those On The Vanilla Side Of Town’

Hat Tip: BB

Cornel West On Sandy Hook: ‘We Can’t Just Shed Tears For Those On The Vanilla Side Of Town’

So, the old racist commie just had to chime in. Cornel West is a leading U.S. Marxist academic and activist. He is an honorary chair of Democratic Socialists of America. He is the author of “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxism.” I guess when a Marxist speaks, Progressives listen:

Princeton University Professor Dr. Cornel West appeared on the Tavis Smiley radio show on Thursday where he weighed in with his thoughts on how the media and lawmakers are responding to the tragic massacre of teachers and children in Newtown, Connecticut. West expressed his frustration over how eagerly the media demanded a conversation about gun laws after Newtown, but seems unmoved by endemic gun violence in America’s cities where the victims are primarily minorities.

“We can’t just shed tears for those on the vanilla side of town,” West said.” They are precious, but they are no less or more precious than our poor brothers and sisters on Indian reservations — who are killing each other — or be they black or brown or what have you.”

“But it’s a good thing that we now have a discussion on gun control. We need one on drone control. Not a peep, not a mumbling word when black folk get shot,” West added. “But now, Newtown, Connecticut, vanilla side — low and behold we got a major conversation. That’s wonderful. Each life is precious, but it just upsets me when we’re so deferential.”

West echoes a sentiment expressed by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh who, in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, admonished the media for their collective disinterest in urban gun violence.


Gun Control: The illogical logic of liberals.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

I remember reading a political satire many years ago written by Al Capp who said that a Liberal is just a Conservative who hadn’t been mugged yet. Many people don’t have to wait for that mind-altering moment when a thug knocks you to the ground to realize that we should all have the right to defend ourselves. Unfortunately, today, liberals control most of what we watch, hear and read so it would seem that the majority of people (on television, at least) are against the right to self-defense, especially when it involves the use of a gun. Liberals also have the unique ability to say the most profound things and convince themselves how brilliant they are but if a Conservative says the same thing, they are blasted as being so monumentally ignorant.

The two largest teachers unions are emphatically against arming teachers, although some teachers caught up in gun violence in school might disagree. Several school administrators want to allocate more money on school counselors and psychologists. The president of the Brady Campaign said arming teachers sends the wrong message to students. “It’s saying the only answer to violence is more violence. The only answer to guns is more guns,” Gross said.

Duh? Why, yes, Mr. Gross, you are absolutely right, even in your ridicule. When a homicidal maniac is aiming a gun at you, the only way to stop him is to do something violent – like shooting him, or would you prefer that your school psychologist might suddenly appear from his office like some movie super-hero and try to talk the gunman out of it. Recall those famous words from Al Capp, when the gunman points his weapon at you, your liberal views fly out the window and you instantly become a pro-gun conservative and hope and pray you find a way to survive, wishing you had a gun to defend yourself. But hindsight always has 20-20 vision.

When you say it, its smart; when I say it, its stupid.

Breitbart.com /Big Journalism

Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

by John Nolte 21 Dec 2012

Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can’t stop howling ridicule at the NRA’s idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA’s idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media’s going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch.

This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn’t care about securing our schools; they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win.

The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look.

In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking:

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.

The media is not only so driven to ensure Sandy Hook is used to win this round on gun control that they’ve become morally blinded to what really needs to be done to immediately secure our schools; they’ve lost their grip historically and politically.

Think about it: The media is entering a new year attempting to convince parents that their children will be less safe with a policeman in their school.

Off the rails doesn’t even begin to describe it.

The leftist Liberal controlled news media blasted the NRA for daring to suggest placing an armed security guard in every school. While the NRA lost sight of the implication of their suggestion that only the Federal government could provide the answer to the local problem of school safety, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre was absolutely correct in placing the blame on Hollywood and the violent video games that are sold to young people. Hollywood thrives on excessive gore and violence in many of their films. And many teenagers and young adults, especially the socially handicapped, introverted loners, are addicted to these video games often spending countless hours playing them in their alter-ego, roll playing avatars. Other groups agreed.

Christian Science Monitor

Video games and shooting: Is the NRA right?

After a week of silence following the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 first graders and six staff in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association blamed the entertainment industry – specifically the producers of violent video games for inciting what has become a pattern of gun violence in the United States.

In describing the industry, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.”

Mr. LaPierre faulted the news media for failing to report on “vicious, violent video games” such as “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Kombat,” and “Splatterhouse” as egregious examples. He also singled out “Kindergarten Killer,” a free, fairly obscure online game.

“How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?” he asked reporters.

But the U.S. Supreme Court in its moment of cloistered ignorance said that any controls over the video gaming industry would be a violation of the First Amendment. I really think there could have been some common ground agreement on how best to handle this. After all we have minimum ages for drinking and driving and buying cigarettes so why not restrict the age to buying a violent video game until at least the person has matured a bit and not have such a young impressionable mind.

Tech Spot

US Supreme Court strikes down violent video game law

By Emil Protalinski

On June 27, 2011, 1:00 PM EST

The US Supreme Court today sided with the video game industry, in the six-year legal match with California lawmakers who wanted to make it a crime for anyone in the state to sell violent games to kids. In a 7-2 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law does not comport with the First Amendment.

Others joined in dissent as the court found no compelling evidence to state that video games are more damaging to children than other forms of media, such as film or music. This is a huge step for video games, as it should stop the spread of expensive legislation hurting the industry.

California’s argument was that because video games are interactive, they are more problematic because the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The Supreme Court was not persuaded. Here’s what the official decision stated (PDF):

Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech…do not vary” with a new and different communication medium.

Read more at: http://www.techspot.com/news/44429-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-violent-video-game-law.html

Thanks to the successful efforts of the ACLU, mentally challenged people have been afforded the same rights as normal people in our society. With books filled with various psychological forms of mental diseases, many of which have violent tendencies, the mentally ill are allowed free access to our society and there is no database to identify them that could be accessed to perform a background check prior to a gun purchase. The most recent shooting events that received the greatest publicity were committed by persons suffering from some form of mental illness. Jared Lee Loughner, diagnosed with schizophrenia, shot 19 people in Tuscon, Arizona including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six. James Eagan Holmes, suffering from mental illness, shot 59 people and killed 12 in Aurora, Colorado. Nancy Lanza tried to place her son Adam in psychiatric care but before she could her son killed her with her own gun and then went on a killing spree at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut murdering 20 little children and six adults. None of these horrific incidents involved sane people. Yet the news media has put the blame on the guns, not the killers. But the worst possible fallout from all of these shootings is the national celebrity status the news media made of the killers. All of those introverted video game addicts that play the blood-splattered games in the darkness of their bedrooms must be sorely tempted to become wannabe copycats.


Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told WND that despite calls by media and Democrats for gun control, his organization has received strong support from the public, particularly since his well-circulated interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Pratt argued that the way to prevent shootings like those at Sandy Hook is to get rid of laws that prevent people from protecting themselves.

“The feedback that we have gotten from people who were not members of Gun Owners of America was to the effect of it’s about time somebody said that,” Pratt told WND. “It’s been very affirming.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/teachers-on-reading-writing-packing-heat/#HvBrA8tLBVQ7PPsm.99

FOX News

Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease, data shows

Published December 24, 2012

In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support.

But crime trends over the past few decades offer a mixed verdict on whether renewing the ban would reduce the kinds of mass shootings that have spurred calls for its re-enactment in the first place.

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.

Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/history-gives-mixed-grade-to-impact-assault-weapons-ban/#ixzz2G0N32unR

Statistics show that in every civilized country that has prohibited or restricted the ownership and possession of guns the crime rate has escalated. It happened in Australia in 1995 and in Great Britain in 1997 and in both countries that passed these restrictive gun laws the rate of violent crime has exploded. The British newspaper Daily Mail ran this story three years ago. The story points out that, “The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.”

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack
UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2GI1A2dcR

One side note regarding the difference between America and the British Empire also needs to be explained. In the United Kingdom people are subjects of the crown but in the United States we are called citizens. Citizens have rights guaranteed by our Constitution and our government serves at the will of the people. In the U.K. people are subjects, like the serfs in heraldic days and they have permissions granted or denied at the whim of their political leaders, which may explain why they meekly turned in their guns when they were told to do so. The one irrefutable fact appears to be that in any country only law-abiding people obey the laws and when the guns were banned, only those who obeyed the law turned them in. The criminal element, which by their very nature are outlaws, simply ignored the ban on guns.

Another distinction that sets Americans apart from the world, especially Great Britain, is our historic regard for guns as a means to fight tyranny. It was the patriots in Lexington and Concord in 1776 that opposed the British crown orders to confiscate our weapons that set off the American Revolution. And our Founding Fathers wrote that necessity for guns in the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Is there a pattern to the way these events are being handled by our liberal leaders? All or most of the mass murderers suffer from mental illness, all are allowed on the streets, all have no psychiatric background checks to restrict their gun purchases, and the only answer to every event is for leftist politicians and liberal news media calling for a ban on guns. It sure sounds like what the politicians are really after is to disarm America. Yeah, gun control works. Ask the experts.

In 1911,

Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.——————————

In 1929,

the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
About 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.——————————

In 1935

China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and Exterminated——————————

In 1938

Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945,
13 million Jews and others unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.——————————

In 1956

Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977,
one million educated people, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.—————————–

In 1964

Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.——————————

In 1970

Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated——————————

In the 20th Century

56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated
because of gun control.

In the 21st Century, will Americans be next?



Arlene from Israel

Israeli politics, that is. A balagan (confusion). But it’s time for me to take a look at what’s happening. Especially as part of the Israeli electoral circus has made press in the US.

Naftali Bennett is the new Chair of the Habayit Hayehudi (The Jewish Home) party — which has been strengthened via a list merger with National Union (Tekuma faction).

Credit: Wikipedia

He has brought new energy to the party, which traditionally has a religious, nationalist base; with broader outreach, he has been showing well in polls. Although I think Netanyahu fashions his party as somewhat centrist, a good percentage of the Likud faction is solidly nationalist/rightist. And it has been assumed that Habayit Hayehudi would be a natural in the coalition that presumably will be formed after the January 22nd election by a victorious Binyamin Netanyahu.

This has been the case even though there is no love loss between Bennett and PM/Likud Chair Netanyahu. From 2006 -2008, Bennett served as chief of staff to Netanyahu, when he headed the opposition in the Knesset. One gets the feeling that Bennett is fashioning himself a bit as the new and upcoming Netanyahu, capable of appealing to the same voters and ultimately doing it even more successfully . If there is any party head who unsettles Netanyahu, it would be Bennett.


Just a week ago, Bennett gave an interview with the sensation-seeking Nissim Mishal of Channel 2. Many commentators have since said that Bennett should have been on his guard with him, because of his reputation for pushy and provocative questioning. Bennett was not.

Mishal asked Bennett what he would do if he were required, as a soldier, to evacuate Jews from their homes. Replied Bennett:
“If I receive an order to evict a Jew from his home, my conscience will not allow it. I would ask my commander to release me.” He added that he would be willing to serve in prison for this.


Following this, Netanyahu went on the attack. He will not have anyone in his coalition who advises soldiers to disobey orders, he thundered — thereby ostensibly eliminating Habayit Hayehudi from a place in his new coalition-to-be.


Bennett — who served in the elite Sayeret Matkal as a company commander and currently serves as a major in the reserves — then held a press conference in which he said that the prime minister was distorting what he had said. He was only speaking for himself and did not say soldiers should disobey orders.

And, in fact, there is a significant precedent for Bennett’s position. At the time of the vastly controversial (distressful) “disengagement” from Gaza, then prime minister Sharon said that:

“…a soldier must obey orders. And if a soldier feels that the command given him is against his conscience, he personally, and I emphasize — in person — should appear before his commander, tell him so and be prepared to bear the consequences…if he feels he was given a command against his conscience, then he personally — it is not a matter of rebellion — appears before his commander and explains it to him…”

Bennett, it seems, knew whereof he spoke. Either Netanyahu was unaware of this precedent or chose to ignore it.


Bennett then went on the offensive. Why is the prime minister worried about a soldier disobeying orders to evacuate Jews from their homes? he asked. Is he planning on pulling back in Judea and Samaria?

And with this, the entire political dynamic shifted. Others spoke about not serving because of conscience and of the need to keep all those Jews in Judea and Samaria safe and strong.

Most notable was an interview given by Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar three days ago, in which he spoke of his own opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state, and made a point of saying that the “two-state” principle has never been part of Likud’s platform. Sa’ar, a member of Likud, is in the number three slot of the joint Likud-Yisrael Beitenu list.


And so, ironically, in the end, Bennett was the winner and Netanyahu the loser in this exchange. Likud was down in the polls, to 35 mandates, and Bayit Hayehudi up, to 15 — although of course there is still time until the elections.


In the course of all of this, Tzipi Livni was suddenly in the public eye. Livni, who had led the Kadima party in the last election, and then retired from politics when she lost the primary election for head of the party to Shaul Mofaz, has recently re-entered politics. Now she has a new party: Hatnuah, the Movement (“Hatnuah for Tzipi Livni,” more precisely), for which she drew seven members from Kadima, thereby totally demolishing that party.

Livni, one of those politicians who lives in an imaginary alternate universe, has been castigating Netanyahu for not advancing the “two state solution.”

At any rate, this week she twice sent messengers to Netanyahu to discuss inclusion of her party in his forthcoming coalition. Actually, she was apparently seeking information on her chances of once again assuming the post of Foreign Minister, which she held in the Olmert administration.


There is a specific reason why she hopes this might be possible, and I digress here for the last time in this posting to explain.

Avidgor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu (which is now in a joint list with Likud) has been serving as Foreign Minister. Lieberman has had some charges hanging over his head for years. The more serious charges were dropped recently and lesser charges regarding breech of trust — concerning matters such as his improper involvement in the appointment of an ambassador — are being advanced now.

Lieberman recently resigned from his position in the government, but not from his Knesset seat, saying that he wanted to devote time to defending himself and would return. It was obvious that he wanted to be Foreign Minister once again in the new government. Netanyahu, for now, has assumed the position of foreign minister himself. He made it clear that he would welcome Leiberman back but never, to the best of my understanding, promised him that he would have the same position after the election. (If all is well with his situation, Lieberman would have some major position.)

Right now there is some new information regarding the indictment against Lieberman, although no new charges have been added. I do not wish to belabor this here.


At any rate, Livni obviously saw what she hoped was her chance.

Put plainly, Tzipi Livni gives me heartburn. She is bad news — an incompetent, as far as I am concerned. An incompetent who believes we must surrender our land to make the world happy. My clear understanding is that for many years she has given Netanyahu heartburn as well. It is difficult for me to imagine that he would accept her into the coalition with an understanding that she could have this major position.

What is more, Likud faction members to the right of the party have let Netanyahu know that they want Bennett and not Livni in the government.


My own take is that when the dust settles Bennett will be in the coalition.

The way I see Netanyahu is that he is doing a political balancing act, attempting to be all things at the same time in order to attract the maximum number of voters. It’s not enough to win by a narrow margin, but rather, as solidly as possible. The greater the number of mandates his party has, the few other parties need to be in the coalition, and the fewer party leaders he will have to share power with. In a nutshell, that’s it.

His position has moved right because the situation requires this. Whatever one thinks of him as a politician, he does not have his head in an imaginary alternate universe. He knows very well that there is no chance of negotiating with the PLO, and that Hamas looms as a growing threat. He has no intention of pulling out of Judea and Samaria, because to do so would be national suicide. Thus, has his position moved right and become more nationalist. (All of which makes his accusations against Bennett totally moot and fairly silly.)

But to move “too far” right, or to be seen as doing so, would be to risk losing voters in the center. Perhaps it was this concern, at least in part, that motivated his attack on Bennett. And allowed him to be content to lend the impression that he might bring in Livni. He may have been responsible for some leaks on this score himself, I would imagine. (I hope and trust that my intuitive sense that he would not actually do it is correct.)

However, since he shot himself in the foot with his attack on Bennett, he has now shifted to the right again. This is what he sees the electorate wants. And so, yesterday, he met with the mayors of major cities in Judea and Samaria and spoke of his support for building in their municipalities.


Hopefully this has been enlightening to at least some of my readers. I will track the situation in coming postings as it seems helpful, without become too bogged down in the minutiae.

Three and one-half weeks until the election. I did say it was a balagan…