web analytics
June 25, 2016 / 19 Sivan, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

100 People Pay $33,000 To Meet Obama At Las Vegas Jews’ Home

Tuesday, August 25th, 2015

President Barack Obama turned up at the home of Las Vegas Sun newspaper owners Brian and Myra Greenspun Monday night, where 104 people each shelled out $33,400 for the privilege.

Greenspun, who was a college classmate of Bill Clinton, is a longtime backer of President Obama and boosted the fundraiser for the state’s Democratic party, Politico reported.

Retiring Sen. Harry Reid asked the president to show up to help pump cash into the campaign for former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to replace Reid in the Senate.

Greenspun took over the paper from his father Hank, who  conducted secret missions to transport military equipment to Israel during the War for Independence.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

MoveOn Members Yank Support From Schumer Over IranDeal

Sunday, August 9th, 2015

The U.S. debate over IranDeal is beginning to get dirty.

Less than 24 hours after Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York announced he would oppose IranDeal, the MoveOn advocacy organization released a statement saying it would withhold major campaign support from the senior senator.

MoveOn communications director, Nick Berning was quoted by The Huffington Post as saying, “We want to demonstrate to those who haven’t made their decision yet that there will be substantial political consequences for those who want to take us to war.”

Schumer announced last Thursday night he will oppose President Barack Obama’s deal with Iran over its nuclear development activities.

“After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote ‘yes’ on a motion of disapproval,” Schumer said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade [other colleagues] that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion,” he added.

The bottom line, he said, was this: “Are we better off with the agreement or without it?”

The answer, he said, was that after 10 years, “If Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.”

The senator, considered the most influential Jewish voice in Congress, explained that he was concerned that after ten years, Iran will still be free to build a nuclear weapon.

Schumer drew instant praise from Agudath Israel of America for his action, however. “Senator Schumer has spoken out consistently and forcefully over the past several years about the grave threat a nuclear empowered Iran would pose to America and its allies, especially Israel,” the group said in a statement issued Friday morning.

The senator was also “courageous.” in stepping out on a limb to make his decision, Agudath Israel noted. “He is the first and thus far the only Senator of his political party to publicly announce that he will be voting against the position of the Administration.

“His high rank among his Democratic Senate colleagues surely created an incentive for him not to buck the leadership of his party. Fortunately, however, as he said in the statement he issued in announcing his intention to vote to disapprove the JCPOA, Senator Schumer made his decision “solely based on the merits … without regard to pressure, politics or party.” For this he deserves our sincere admiration and deep appreciation.”

Obama needs 34 votes in the Senate in order to sustain a veto he has vowed to advance to override the legislation if the motion of disapproval is passed.

Hana Levi Julian

NY’s Senator Schumer and Cong. Engel Will Vote Against the Iran Nuclear Deal

Friday, August 7th, 2015

If there was one member of Congress upon whom all eyes came to rest to see which way he would vote on the Nuclear Iran Deal, it was New York’s senior senator Chuck Schumer.

Schumer, a Democrat who all understand is in line for a leadership role in the Senate, was watched closely for many reasons: He is Jewish, he represents New York State, he is a senior senator, and being pro-Israel has always been a badge he proudly wore.

Still, many of those watching Schumer have been seeing him through jaundiced eyes. No matter which way he decided, he would greatly disappoint supporters who have enormous control over his political future. Would he risk angering the leadership of his party and the man at the top of his ticket? Or would he vote to support the Nuclear Iran agreement and anger many of his constituents?

Those with practiced eyes concluded that Schumer would split his decision, first voting against the agreement in the initial round, but then either not voting to override the veto if the vote was close, or voting to override, but only if the count was such that the veto could not be overridden, not matter how he voted.

But the reasoning Schumer provided in his statement announcing his decision may lock him into voting for the same outcome, both times.

Schumer broke the agreement down into three different categories: the restrictions on Iran in the first ten years of the agreement; the restrictions on Iran after ten years; and the non-nuclear components and consequences of the deal. As his guide for which way to vote, he asked himself whether we are better off with this agreement or better off without it.

The senator explained that he sees various weaknesses during the ten year lifespan of the agreement, such as insufficient inspections access, including the need to obtain a majority of the other parties to agree to an inspection, and a cumbersome snapback mechanism. Schumer said that while there were problems with this portion of the agreement, it was possible to decide either way.

During the period following the sunset clause of the agreement, however, Iran would be stronger financially and “better able to advance a robust nuclear program.” Even more importantly, at the end of the agreement and with Iran as a threshold nuclear state, it would also enjoy the blessing of the world community. In other words, its leap into nuclear weapons capability would be sanctioned by the leadership of the world’s leading nations.

Schumer concluded that we would definitely be better off without the deal than with it, given the scenario at the conclusion of the JCPOA.

Finally, the non-nuclear aspects of the deal gave Schumer the most pause. In his opinion, the infusion of billions of dollars into Iran in the wake of sanctions relief could lead to catastrophic consequences. Unless one believes that Iran will moderate and cease its support for terror across the region, the lack of restrictions on how the money will be used was a fatal flaw.

if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Schumer does not believe that Iran is about to moderate or that it will become more moderate during the course of the agreement.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

Schumer’s decision became public just hours after the junior senator from New York, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, also a Democrat, announced that she will support the agreement.

New York Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-D-16) also announced on Thursday evening that he would oppose the JCPOA.  The reasons he gave were similar to Senator Schumer’s: the limitations on inspections capability, the influx of massive amounts of money in the wake of sanctions relief and the lifting of bans on intercontinental ballistic missiles and advanced conventional weapons.

Engel is the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Clinton’s Big Jewish Donors are Hollywood Leftists

Tuesday, August 4th, 2015

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, her positions on Israel can be determined now by the Jews in Hollywood who are her biggest financial backers.

All of them are leftists with American-based dreams of Arabs and Jews living in peace and love while racism in America goes from bad to worse.

The one exception to the Hollywood Hit List is Haim Saban, who is on the right side of the left. It is not coincidental that he was born in Egypt and lived there 12 years before his family made Aliyah to Israel.

No one understands the Arab culture better than Sephardi Jews who are from Muslim countries. That explains why pure Ashkenazim like Shimon Peres think exactly like “liberal” American Jews who view peace as a handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin.

Among those American Jews are Hollywood moguls Spielberg and Katzenberg, both of whom donate generously to Jewish causes and passionately love an Israel that exists in their dream of a country that allows them to feel comfortable as Jews in the Diaspora.

Soros needs no introduction. He is the sugar daddy for J Street, the self-acclaimed pro-Israel lobby that promotes peace with Hamas and has come out in favor of the nuclear agreement with Iran, coined as the ObamaDeal.

Hillary Clinton has lots of support from Hollywood Jews, among them Barbra Streisand, who warmed the hearts of Jews around the world two years ago with her version of the Aveenu Malkeinu prayer in one of the two-month-long 90th birthday parties for Peres.

She also is a big donator for promoting Arab-Jewish relations, a seemingly lofty ambition that in reality is based on the idea of the American melting pot where everyone destroys their roots in order to be a giant tree without roots.

Is it any wonder why assimilation in the United States is near 70% and Arab-Jewish intermarriages are becoming more commonplace in Israel?

Katzenberg is known to be a very close with President Barack Obama and contributed heavily to his election campaigns.

Spielberg undeniably has promoted Jewish causes but his latest film on the Munich Massacre is making him more of an outcast to anyone to the right of Soros.

The movie described the Mossad agents’ hunt for the Black September terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich in 1972.

The London Guardian reported two months ago:

Although almost nobody has yet seen the film, it has already been criticized by both Israelis and Palestinians fearful of reports about how they are portrayed.

However, the director told Time Magazine that the film is a ‘prayer for peace,’  and that the biggest enemy in the region is not the Palestinians or the Israelis but the intransigence that exists between the two sides.

If Clinton wins the Democratic party’s nomination for president in the 2016 race, it is clear where she will lean when it comes to Israel.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Two Polls Show Most Americans Oppose ‘ObamaDeal’

Thursday, July 30th, 2015

Two separate polls this week reveal that far more Americans oppose  the “ObamaDeal” with Iran than those who favor it, and opposition grew to nearly two-thirds when respondents answered after hearing more argument for and against the agreement,

“Secure America Now” released a poll Wednesday that shows 45 percent of registered voters want Congressman to vote against the deal, an increase of 8 percent from last month, The Hill reported.

An earlier poll this week by CNN/ORC  produced results of 52 percent wanting Congress to reject the deal. Opposition grows with age, and even a majority of  Democrats 35 years old and order said they are against the deal. A small majority – 53 percent – of Democrats between the ages of 18 and 34 were in favor.

The Secure America Now poll included a very significant notation, reported by The Hill:

After hearing additional arguments for and against the deal, the opposition to the deal grew to 65 percent in the poll, indicating that advocates on both sides could have significant influence on the national debate over the coming weeks.

Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who helped carry out the survey, told The Hill, “There’s some real message for Democratic senators here, which is why so many of them I think feel caught, and they rightly should, in between the arguments.”

Only 51 percent of Democrat respondents said that ObamaDeal  “makes America safer and more secure,” and the number dropped to 47 percent after they heard additional arguments from both sides.

Caddell declared that the rise in opposition to ObamaDeal is a trend and “it’s going to get worse.”

 

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Despite Claims of a (Flawed) Poll, American Jews Oppose Iran Deal

Wednesday, July 29th, 2015

A recent poll commissioned and released by the Los Angeles Jewish Journal was the source of dismay to many. That poll allegedly found that American Jews supported the Iran deal negotiated by America and the other members of the P5+1 and Iran more so than do non-Jewish Americans.

But the poll itself, and especially the wording of the questions and the methodology employed, has been widely criticized.

For one thing, the sample size was small, which led to a high margin of error of six percent.

But more importantly, the wording of the key question was loaded in such a way that at least two well respected academic statisticians, concluded it was “flawed to an extent that the conclusions the pollsters drew from it are not bolstered by the evidence,” and that one “cannot conclude anything from that poll, in either direction.”

This is the key question in the Jewish Journal poll: “As you may know, an agreement was reached in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons. Do you support or oppose this agreement, or don’t know enough to say?”

Well, heck. If all you know about the Iran deal is that it will make it harder for Iran to produce nuclear weapons, and none of the flaws in the deal are mentioned, most people would be inclined to support such a deal.

It gets worse, as you can see by looking at the “script” for the poll, which is available online. The question suggests the respondent can choose “I don’t know enough to have an opinion.”  But those conducting the poll were instructed not to offer that answer, and only ask the respondents if they support or oppose the statement.

The two statisticians who spoke with the JewishPress.com, Professor of Statistics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Abba Kreiger, and Professor of Statistics Moshe Pollak of Hebrew University, were both critical of the Jewish Journal poll.

Two other professionals, one the long-time head of a major American Jewish organization and former statistician and the other a historian, were also critical of the Jewish Journal poll.

Mort Klein, before becoming the president of the Zionist Organization of America in 1993, was a statistician and an economist. Klein, who asked Professors Krieger and Pollak to respond with him to the Jewish Journal poll, criticized the poll with a flourish eschewed by the academics.

“This poll is a fraud, is illegitimate and even deceitful,” Klein told the JewishPress.com. He, like the academic statisticians, focused heavily on the way the significant question, reproduced above, was phrased. Klein explained that the type of phraseology is called a “push poll.” It provided certain information that may or may not be true, but which would influence the respondent.

Klein pointed out that the key question asked should simply have been “do you support or oppose the iran nuclear arms deal.” As asked, “the poll’s introductory characterization politically biases the poll question to push people to support it.”

Another problem with the poll is that households in which a Jew was married to a non-Jew was twice as likely to be interviewed, according to Krieger and Klein.

Rafael Medoff, an historian, author and the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, focused on several important, but non-statistical flaws in the poll.

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Medoff pointed out that the timing of the poll, which began on July 16, was immediately after the deal was announced, which was prior to any in-depth analysis critical of the deal had been disseminated. As Professor Krieger also mentioned regarding the timing, the five days of polling included a Shabbat, when observant Jews would not have answered the phones at all.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Meet the 16 Democratic Senators Who Can Scuttle ObamaDeal

Thursday, July 16th, 2015

Opponents to the agreement with Iran are lacking approximately nine Democratic senators to override a Presidential veto of its rejection, but the truth that is an opposition victory might have limited meaning.

Congress cannot strike down the agreement, which was made along with five other Western powers. All it can do is block President Obama’s agreement to lift U.S. sanctions.

Doing so would be very significant, both politically for President Obama and the Democratic party as well as for American’s relations with the other P5+1 countries and Iran.

There are seven undecided Democratic senators, according to a tally by the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips.

If all of them turn against President Obama, it will be easier to convince a couple of others whose positions are not yet known.

The seven undecided Democrats, acceding to Phillips, are:

Michael Bennet of Colorado;

Ben Cardin of Maryland;

Bob Casey of Pennsylvania;

Joe Donnelly of Indiana;

Tim Kaine of Virginia;

Bill Nelson of Pennsylvania;

and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Cardin is one of the most important of the undecided. He attends Baltimore’s largest and wealthiest modern Orthodox Beth Tfiloh Congregation, which is highly pro-Israel.

He told NPR this week:

Israel’s security issues are of major concern. We don’t want to see an arms race in the Middle East, so it is a factor. And it’s a factor that I’m sure we will carefully consider.

Earlier in the week, Cardin told Bloomberg:

There is no trust when it comes to Iran. In our deliberations we need to ensure the negotiations resulted in a comprehensive, long-lasting, and verifiable outcome that also provides for snap-back of sanctions should Iran deviate from its commitments.

The nine Democratic Senators whose positions are not known are:

Cory Booker of New Jersey;

Maria Cantwell of Washington;

Claire McCaskill of Missouri;

Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota’

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota;

Barbara Mikulski of Maryland;

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington;

Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan; and

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.

One of the most pivotal of the “unknowns” is McCaskill. She stated this week:

Preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon is paramount to our national security, and if this agreement accomplishes that goal, it will make the world a safer place for America and our allies. I plan to spend the coming weeks taking a hard look at the agreement’s details to ensure that it will result in a verifiable way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Phillip’s tally shows 43 senators “leaning” to vote against ObamaDeal, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, and only 26 are in favor or are leaning in favor.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/meet-the-16-democratic-senators-who-can-scuttle-obamadeal/2015/07/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: