web analytics
July 29, 2016 / 23 Tammuz, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

Clinton Slams Staffer Sidney Blumenthal’s Anti-Zionist Son’s Putdown of Elie Wiesel

Thursday, July 7th, 2016

On July 5, when the rest of the Jewish and gentile world (with the exception of Islamist Jihadis) were still mourning the demise of Holocaust author and Nobel Prize Peace Laureate Eli Wiesel, Max Blumenthal, son of the senior member of the Hillary Clinton campaign Sidney Blumenthal, published a piece titled “In the face of increasingly unspeakable crimes against Palestinians, Wiesel counseled silence.” This was MB’s take—while the body was still at room temperature—on Wiesel’s statement, “I must identify with whatever Israel does—even with her errors.”

“Wiesel’s unwavering commitment to Israel undoubtedly influenced his vocal support for President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq,” MB wrote. “He went on to demand American-orchestrated regime change in Syria, Libya, and Iran. ‘To be Jewish in this world is to always be concerned,’ he told an audience on Capitol Hill, endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s push for a US attack on Iran. Wiesel’s support for successive assaults on Middle Eastern countries—always on the grounds of defeating ‘evil’—made him a key asset of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists alike.”

MB also wrote that in July 2014, when “Israel embarked on its most lethal operation to date against residents of the besieged Gaza Strip, destroying or damaging some 100,000 homes and killing over 2,200 people, including 551 children” — apparently for no reason, “At the height of the assault, a shockingly Islamophobic full-page ad appeared in the New York Times under the banner of [Rabbi Shmuli] Boteach’s World Values Network non-profit, which has received substantial funding from [Sheldon] Adelson.”

The ad declared: “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’s turn,” or, as MB’s Palestinians-can-do-no-wrong version went, the ad was “Hammering on the common pro-Israel myth that Palestinians do not value their children’s lives as much as Israelis do, the ad denigrated the besieged residents of Gaza as ‘worshippers of death cults indistinguishable from that of the Molochites.'” Never mind the fact that this theme of “we love death while the Jews love life” was practically a Hamas slogan that year.

It turns out that the “offensive” ad “concluded with the signature of its author, Elie Wiesel, the man who would be eulogized by fellow Nobel Prize-winner Barack Obama as ‘one of the great moral voices of our time.'”

“With Wiesel’s death,” MB noted, “the elites who relied on him for moral cover leapt at the opportunity to claim his legacy.”

Jake Sullivan, senior policy advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign, slammed Max Blumenthal’s article, which marked a new low in demonizing Israeli and Jewish values by the American left in general and the father and son team of Sidney and Max Blumenthal in particular: “Secretary Clinton emphatically rejects these offensive, hateful, and patently absurd statements about Elie Wiesel,” Sullivan said in a statement. Referring to Clinton’s views on the anti-Israel activists who attempted to vilify Wiesel after his death, Sullivan said, “She believes they are wrong in all senses of the term. She believes that Max Blumenthal and others should cease and desist in making them.”

Well, if this means Sidney Blumenthal’s clout in the Clinton camp has lost some of its shine, too, then the entire scandal was well worth it. As Rabbi Shmuli Boteach wrote in January, “What is truly concerning is that Sidney Blumenthal has not only failed to ever condemn his son’s anti-Israel writings, but has actively advocated for and defended the warped, outrageous ideas conveyed therein.” And as Ron Kampeas wrote back in October, “Clinton takes Blumenthal seriously and likes his anti-Israel son’s work.”

David Israel

Analysis: Trump’s Praise for Saddam Challenges GOP Presidents Who Took him Down [video]

Wednesday, July 6th, 2016

“He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what? He did well. He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. Over,” Donald Trump said at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina Tuesday. In comparison, Trump said, “today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist, you go to Iraq. It’s like Harvard. Okay? So sad.”

That assertion may be challenged by Israelis, as Clinton’s senior campaign adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN, “In reality, Hussein’s regime was a sponsor of terrorism — one that paid families of suicide bombers who attacked Israelis, among other crimes.”

Then Sullivan added that “Trump’s cavalier compliments for brutal dictators, and the twisted lessons he seems to have learned from their history, again demonstrate how dangerous he would be as commander-in-chief and how unworthy he is of the office he seeks.”

Not necessarily so. In retrospect, after the violent collapse of the “Arab Spring” everywhere but in Tunisia, Trump’s assessment of what the Arab world requires to keep it stable is not necessarily democracy. Back in October, 2015, Trump said he believed Iraq and Libya would be more useful in forging a stable Middle East if ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi had not been terminated by a succession of American presidents.

“If you look at Iraq from years ago,” Trump said in October, “I’m not saying [Hussein] was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It’s all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what’s going on.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rushed to the defense of both Bushes and Obama, telling Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that Saddam Hussein “was one of the 20th century’s most evil people. He was up there. He committed mass genocide against his own people using chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.”

Yes, but, in the immortal words of FDR, when someone asked him about the wisdom of supporting Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, “He may be an SOB but he’s our SOB.” Back in 1979, when Iran’s Shah was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, giving way to an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which drove the US out of Iran (and kept hundreds of American hostages), only Saddam Hussein was able to limit the spread of Iranian influence in the region. The Iran–Iraq War lasted from September 1980 to August 1988, exacting millions of victims in the service of Western interests in the region. No Arab democracy (an oxymoron if ever there was one) could have stopped Iran. The only force able to facilitate Iran’s yearning for regional hegemony were presidents Bush I and Bush II, followed by Obama.

On July 25, 1990, US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie held an emergency meeting with Saddam, who attacked American policy with regards to Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Saddam complained bitterly: “So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the UAE and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.”

Saddam was referring to his neighboring oil sheiks “drilling sideways” into Iraqi deposits. Saddam viewed the entire concept of there even being a country named Kuwait to have been a conspiracy of British Petroleum and Her Majesty’s government to steal oil-rich Iraqi land. Saddam felt that in light of his service to the US, he should receive its support in his conflict with the Kuwaitis.

Ambassador Glaspie replied that the US would rather see the conflict resolved through peaceful means, but in the end, “…we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”

And so, after his ultimatum to the Sabah ruling family of Kuwait had failed, Saddam invaded Kuwait, believing the US was going to take a neutral position on his move. But his move frightened the Saudis, whose Ambassador under both Bush administrations had his own desk in the Oval office, and they pressured Bush I to start what is now a 26-year program of completely destabilizing the Middle East, complete with attacks on US soil, lingering civil wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, two worldwide Islamic terrorist armies, one of them a Caliphate wannabe blowing up half of Europe. All of which could have been avoided had the Bush I and certainly Bush II administrations been more accommodating to the monstrous dictator who used to be our monstrous dictator.

The Democratic and Republican establishments insist on presenting Trump as an admirer of dictators, which he may be — but that was not the case Trump has been making for boosting rather than unseating dictators, such as Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Trump has a much clearer view regarding US foreign interest than do the establishment politicians on either side of the aisle, and it ain’t about spreading the spirit od democracy and goodwill to all mankind.

JNi.Media

Huckabee: Hillary Clinton Would Be a Disaster for Israel

Thursday, June 16th, 2016

“Hillary Clinton will be a disaster for Israel,” former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told Walla on the sidelines of the 2016 Herzliya Conference Wednesday. Huckabee, an early dropout in the GOP presidential race, suggested Clinton would continue President Obama’s policy regarding Israel. “And I don’t think anyone would say that Israel-US relations have been good under his leadership over the last eight years,” he commented.

In his address to the conference, Gov. Huckabee said that “every friend of Israel is a friend of the United States and every enemy of Israel is an Enemy of the United States.” He also suggested that “America is looking into the mirror and sees Israel.”

Huckabee noted that the greatest common foe facing Israel, the US and the free world was “radical Islamic ideology that takes us back to the 7th century.” He then reiterated: “We have a common enemy and that enemy is radical Islam that wishes to destroy civilization itself and wishes to turn the clock back to centuries ago.”

Mentioning the past week’s two acts of terror, one killing four in Tel Aviv, followed by the mass shooting in Orlando, Fl. that killed 49, Huckabee said that the argument about whether the Orlando shooting was a terror attack or hate crime is “ridiculous. All terror is based on hate.” He said that he feared that sometimes people were afraid “to call out the common enemy of radical Islam in case we offend someone,” but went on to state that he was offended when “innocent people were murdered in the name of an ideology that wishes to destroy all semblance of peace.”

He referred to the “Ill-fated and tragic deal to trust the Iranians,” saying that “here can be no deal with those who believe its okay to murder people” because of their race, religion or ethnicity. “It’s impossible to enter into any agreement with the present leadership of Iran… I hope and pray that it will be rescinded.”

Focusing on the Israeli-Arab conflict and the talks about a two-state solution, Huckabee said that the idea is naïve and cannot be realized “unless both sides agree that the other side has a fundamental right to exist.” He said that until there were no longer schools in Judea, Samaria and Gaza celebrating the death of Jews, there could be no solution. He added that there was no magical formula for the issues but that the basic issue of radical Islam and one people wanting to destroy another and celebrating every time someone on the other side was killed had to be solved first. “This is not a conflict about land, or about power, but about existence,” he asserted.

“Neither Israel nor the United States is perfect but we do have a system of laws that we insist are abided by… we do not name streets after or make heroes out of terrorists.”

Huckabee also focused on the issue of Jerusalem, saying that “the notion that Jerusalem should be divided is nonsense…. Only one nation in the world every claimed it as its capital… it is never even mentioned in the Quran… At some point we have to come to grips that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not because it has been since 1948 but because it has been for 3000 years and it has to be accepted.”

Returning to his original point, Huckabee concluded, “We have to recognize that if it’s good for Israel then it’s ultimately good for the United States and if it’s good for the United States then it’s ultimately good for Israel… the similarities between the two countries are just too glaring to ignore… our alliance is too precious.”

He said that Israel’s sovereignty, safety and security had to be protected because Israel was just the first “domino” and the United States would follow. “Anyone who comes after you is after us next,” Huckabee said.

David Israel

Advice to Clinton: Don’t Try to Placate Sanders’ Hard Left Voters

Thursday, June 9th, 2016

Even following Hillary Clinton’s historic victory in the primaries, there are some among the most radical Bernie Sanders supporters—let’s call them Sanderistas—who would actually like to see Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Their “logic” is as follows: If Clinton wins, Sanders becomes just another loser. The Sanderistas become marginalized. And their leader’s quest for a political revolution ends with the election of yet another centrist, “establishment” Democrat.

However, if Trump beats Clinton, Sanders will claim to become the titular leader of the Democrat party, pointing to early polls showing that he would have beaten Trump, though these polls signify little about how he would have done in an actual head to head contest. (In my opinion, he would have suffered a devastating defeat comparable to those suffered by other left-wing candidates such as Mondale and Dukakis, though nothing is predictable with Trump as the Republican nominee). Moreover, were Clinton to lose, Sanders’ influence would increase within the party—and around the country—because the Sanderistas will take credit for Clinton’s defeat and insist that without them the Democrats can’t win a general election.

Other Sanderistas have put forward a more destructive rationale. As one of Sanders’ most prominent surrogates, the actress Susan Sarandon explained “[S]ome people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Sarandon, who made the same case for Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election (and look how that turned out), is not the only Sanders supporter who feels that a Trump presidency could be the catalyst for the leftist political revolution promised by Sanders and his surrogates.

These hard left radicals, just like their anti-establishment counterparts on the extreme right, believe that the nomination system is rigged if they do not get their way. Ultimately, it’s unsurprising that Trump has seized on that sentiment and invited them to join forces in the quest for a revolution: “To all of those Bernie Sanders voters who have been left out in the cold by a rigged system of super delegates, we welcome you with open arms.”

As she struggles to unify the Democratic Party, however, Clinton should be wary: any effort to embrace the Sanderistas will backfire. They won’t vote for her anyway, unless she goes so far left as to fall off the political cliff. As CNN recently reported, “Sanders has inspired a movement, but it’s unclear whether he can control it. Or if he wants to… [M]any [of his supporters] insist they will not fall into line behind Hillary Clinton… They are taking seriously Sanders’ call for a political revolution, complicating any hope for quick unity with Clinton.” One such Sanderista is quoted as saying, “You can’t expose the corruption of the political system and then expect us to get behind that same political system.” Another threatens that “[i]f Bernie Sanders does not walk out of that thing as the nominee, we can guarantee you from that point on we’ll start the de-registration of the Democratic Party. They have a choice to make.”

Even if some Sanderistas were to rally to Clinton, their votes in swing states would not be enough to have a meaningful impact on the general election, especially in comparison to the support she would lose in the political center, which has little appetite for revolution. Moreover any appeasement of the far left will be welcomed by the Republican Party, who now fear that its centrist wing will defect in large numbers, and vote for Clinton, because they regard Trump as something of a kook. If Clinton embraces the Sanderistas, these voters will view the election as a contest between the kooky right and the equally kooky left. Given that choice, they will prefer their right wing kook to the left wing kook.

This is not to say that Clinton should not consider supporting reasonable programs just because they were advocated by Sanders. She already has, and should continue, to talk about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor, raising the minimum wage, rethinking trade agreements, holding Wall Street accountable, making college more affordable and other domestic economic fixes. She staked out that territory in her speech on Tuesday night and she should continue to try to appeal to reasonable Sanders voters, especially among the young.

However, there are two particular areas where the Sanders program would endanger Clinton’s electoral prospects. The first is domestic: she should not adopt Sanders economics of spending more that a reasonable budget would permit. Adopting some pie in the sky proposals that would add trillions of dollars to the budget and dramatically increase our national debt would be a gift to Trump. Americans don’t want to be debtors who mortgage their children’s future. We want reasonable spending that we can afford.

The second gift to Trump would be in the area of foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. Were Clinton to move away from support for Israel, it could hurt her electoral chances in several swing states. Americans in general admire and support Israel. They don’t want a president who would parrot the views of radical anti-Israel haters such as Cornel West and James Zogby, who falsely accuse Israel of being an apartheid state that sets up concentration camps and aims to annihilate Palestinians. Even many of Sanders’ young supporters, some of whom are critical of certain Israeli policies – especially with regard to the settlements – do not want the U.S. to adopt the West-Zogby anti-Israel approach. Sanders received his support from young people for his domestic policy, not his foreign policy (about which he knows little). He wandered into the morass of Mideast politics only to satisfy his hard left supporters who think in absurd packages: if you support the environment and higher minimum wages, then you must oppose Israel. That’s not the way centrist and independent voters think, and Clinton must reject that kind of radical “intersectional” thinking if she is to beat Trump in the fall.

So let Hillary be Hillary and not become Bernie. Let her look for guidance to the successful centrist politics of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, rather than the failed revolutionary screeds of Bernie Sanders, Cornel West and Susan Sarandon. We are a centrist nation that has thrived without the turmoil that extremes– both left and right– bring to politics and governance. We don’t want to emulate Europe and South America, which often alternate between socialist and nationalist regimes– between the Red and the Brown. If she gets too close to the hard left politics of Sanders most extreme “Bernie or bust” zealots, she may get burned in the general election – and so will our nation.

Alan M. Dershowitz

Bill Clinton: ‘I Killed Myself to Give Palestinians a State’ [video]

Saturday, May 14th, 2016

Campaigning on Friday for his wife, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, in Ewing Township, NJ, former president Bill Clinton told his audience “I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state,” Politico reported.

When a person in the audience yelled, “What about Gaza?” Clinton responded, “She and the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt stopped the shooting war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.”

“She said neutrality is not an option,” the person in the crowd yelled back, meaning the US would always be on israel’s side.

“Depends on whether you care what happens to the Palestinians, as opposed to the Hamas government and the people with guided missiles,” Clinton said.

“They were human beings in Gaza,” the same audience member said.

“Yes, they were,” Clinton replied. “And Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel, they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools, in the highly populous areas, and they are smart. They said they try to put Israelis in a position of either not defending themselves or killing innocents. They’re good at it. They’re smart. They’ve been doing this a long time.”

The audience responded with cheers to the Clinton comeback.

Then Bill Clinton said, “I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza.”

And then some.

David Israel

Bible Code Predicts Clinton Win

Friday, May 6th, 2016

We urge you to consume the following article with a good size grain of salt, but, according to Kikar Hashabbat, a Haredi scholar who went looking for biblical codes that would offer a coherent clue about the US elections found something. In fact, he discovered that when reading the Torah with at regular intervals—giant intervals at that, starting with a verse from the story of the binding of Isaac (Gen. 22:4) and the commandment to execute mediums and necromancers (Lev. 20:27), the resulting letters combine to form the phrase: Hillary Ne’siah (Hillary President).

The Bible codes, or Torah codes, is a purported set of secret messages encoded within the Hebrew text of scripture. This hidden code is a method by which specific letters from the text can be selected to reveal an otherwise obscured message, which is often relevant to the narrative of the same verses. Bible codes have been popularized in modern times by Michael Drosnin’s book The Bible Code and the movie The Omega Code, and one can purchase computer programs that hunt for coded messages in holy texts.

One such tireless hunter is D Chen, the Haredi scholar who approached Kikar Hashabbat with his discovery. He said that as soon as it became clear that Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, he plugged varieties of his name in Hebrew into his program, but the program yielded nothing. Then, just to make sure, he entered Trump’s arch rival and discovered that the Torah sides with the Democratic party this election round.

Chen said he was truly surprised by the discovery, because he had honestly expected Trump to be the chosen candidate, seeing as his meteoric rise to the top, without the benefit of any experience at all in public service, made his race appear to be divinely guided.

“I read the news and I’m interested in the race for the US presidency, but I don’t personally favor either candidate,” Chen said. “I’m neutral, but these are the results I found.”

JNi.Media

A First: Rasmussen Gives Trump 2-Point National Lead Over Clinton

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

For the first time this primary season, a mainstream polling service, Rasmussen, on Monday gave Republican contender Donald J. Trump 41% in the national poll, against Hillary R. Clinton’s 39%.

Rasmussen Reports have been criticized since its founding, in 2003, for being a “conservative-leaning polling group.” Renowned pollster Nate Silver, who studied and wrote about the Rasmussen polling methods and results, concluded that they were biased to the right by about 1.5 points, compared with the rest of the mainstream services. Rasmussen polls are more likely to detect new trends in rightwing voter behavior than others, so much so that The Washington Post has reported that Rasmussen’s polls “set off alarm bells inside the Oval Office.”

With that in mind, it should be noted that the Rasmussen results Monday are significantly different from the other recent polls, which all show Clinton with a lead over Trump. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3-point lead over Trump: 47.4% to 40.1%.

Trump leads Clinton 48% to 35% among men but trails her by 44% to 34% among women.

Clinton gets 71% of the black vote, 45% from other minority groups, but only 33% of whites. Trump gets only 9% of blacks, 33% of other minorities and 48% of white voters.

It should be noted that a week ago Rasmussen showed Clinton and Trump tied in the national poll with 38% each. In that poll, 6% said they intend to stay home if Hillary and the Donald are their choices; 16% said they would vote for some other candidate, and 2% were undecided.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15% would like to see some other candidate; 5% are undecided. Also, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that Trump now has the support of 73% of Republicans, while 77% of Democrats back Clinton. But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats, while only 8% of GOP voters prefer Clinton.

Among unaffiliated voters, Trump leads 37% to 31%, but 23% like another candidate. 9% are undecided.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 27-28, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

David Israel

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/a-first-rasmussen-gives-trump-2-point-national-lead-over-clinton/2016/05/02/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: