web analytics
November 26, 2015 / 14 Kislev, 5776
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s ‘Jewish Heart’ Backs Iran Deal

Sunday, September 6th, 2015

Florida Jewish Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the most senior Democrats in the party and Democratic National Committee chairwoman, has come out in favor of the nuclear deal with Iran, the Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Her district includes a large number of Jews, and she has been under heavy pressure to oppose the agreement. Last week, Vice president Joe Biden met with her and with Florida Jews and apparently helped sway Schultz.

Her support is a blow for opponents to the deal, who were given an uplift last week when Maryland Jewish Sen. Ben Cardin finally announced he will vote against the agreement but proposed an alternative.

Schultz issued a five-and-a-half page statement to the Herald, in which she wrote:

I have subsequently come to the conclusion that the agreement promotes the national security interests of the United States and our allies and merits my vote of support…

This agreement is not perfect. But I join many in the belief that with complex, multilateral, nuclear non-proliferation negotiations with inherent geopolitical implications for the entire world, there is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ deal.

Like most other Democrats supporting the bill, she voiced concerns and specifically stated she worries about Iran getting “additional resources to divert to their nefarious activities.”

Schultz added:

Initially sharing those concerns propelled me to thoroughly explore the viability of an alternative agreement… [but] analysts across the academic and political spectrum agree that if the U.S. walks away from this agreement, it will be impossible to maintain a robust sanctions program against Iran.

She expressed little worry about Iran’s holding to the agreement’s requirements for monitoring systems and inspections, saying:

Even if Iran cheats, with this agreement in place it is clear to me that we will know much more about their nuclear program than we do now, which will give us the ability to more effectively eliminate it if that ever becomes necessary

The statement is an incredible admission of one of the plan’s biggest holes because by the time the P5+1 powers “know much more about their nuclear program than we do now,” Iran would already have a bomb. That would make it even more difficult to “effectively eliminate it if that ever becomes necessary.”

Even more worrisome for Jews is her statement that her decision was partly based on her being “a deeply committed member of the Jewish community. Schultz said last week she would announce her decision on the Iran agreement with her “Jewish heart.”

Schultz thinks she is supportive of Israel and stated:

The thorough, pragmatic, and factual analysis I have done and my fervent desire as a Jewish mother to ensure that Israel will always be there — l’dor v’dor — from generation to generation — leads me to the conclusion that this agreement provides the best chance to ensure America’s, Israel’s and our allies’ security today and tomorrow.

One of the mistakes of opponents to the nuclear deal with Iran was focusing on its danger to Israel. Their argument should have centered on the agreement’s being a danger to U.S. citizens, whether they are Jewish or not.

Anyone deciding with a “Jewish heart” to support the deal while maintaining that she or he is committed to Israel’s security has not been able to explain why almost every Israeli leader, including Opposition leader Yitzchak Herzog, is against the deal.

Most Americans also are against it, including those in Florida.

A Quinnipiac poll last month showed Florida voters oppose the pact 61 percent to 25 percent.

Khamenei Tweets Silhouette of Obama Committing Suicide

Sunday, July 26th, 2015

Iran continues to make President Barack Obama look like a used mop while knowingly or unknowingly providing ammunition for wavering Congressional Democrats to decide to vote against “ObamaDeal” and retain American sanctions.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s latest missive to mock President Obama was tweeted on Saturday in the form of a silhouette that shows the President pointing a gun at his own head.

The message above the picture repeats the same disparaging tweet that the Ayatollah sent out a week before and only three days after the United States and the other P5+1 powers signed a nuclear agreement with Iran:

If any war happens, the one who will emerge loser will be the aggressive and criminal U.S.

The U.N. Security Council jumped for joy and almost immediately approved the agreement, leaving the United States as the only possible holdout and whose rejection would only affect American sanctions, while foreign corporations already are lining up in Tehran to stuff Iran’s and their own pockets.

President Obama has not responded to the tweets, the latest have been re-tweeted more than 1,200 times, which might be the best thing for Twitter’s stock since it went public.

However, even the Democrats on Main Street, America do not take kindly to a foreigner mocking their president. Patriotic cloth is part of the American wardrobe that is also worn by Democrats who support senators like Church Schumer and Ben Cardin, both of them key votes in the battle to accept ObamaDeal or reject it by a veto-proof majority.

As much as Schumer, Cardin and other undecided Democrats care about supporting President Obama, they have to keep in mind their ultimate bosses – the voters – if they want their votes come election time.

Khamenei’s making Obama look like a wimp could be just the ammunition the Republicans need to ditch the American side of the deal.


Analysis: The Costly War on the Hearts and Minds of 232 Democrats

Thursday, July 23rd, 2015

(JNi.media) There are 188 Democrats in the House and 44 in the Senate, and over the next two months millions of dollars and unprecedented lobbying efforts will be invested in courting their votes on the Iran nuclear deal.

The math is relatively simple: both Republican-led houses of Congress are expected to pass a resolution rejecting the deal, some time in early September. President Obama will then veto the resolution, which will return to Congress. Starting at that point, Congress will have 10 days during which to try and overturn the veto with a two-thirds majority.

This is when the Democrats in both houses will become the most important people on the planet, because the Republicans cannot overturn the Presidential veto on their own.

And as is often the case in such competitions, the discussion is not so much about the validity of the deal itself—which has both strengths and very obvious weaknesses—but about conflicting loyalties. Many Democratic lawmakers will have to decide between their President and their pro-Israel voters.

And as there are significantly more Jewish voters backing Democrats than Republicans, the President has a serious challenge on his hands.

In this context, it’s important to note that the NY Times, that bastion of pro-Obama politics, is not a big supporter of the deal, regardless of the exclusive access to the President it has enjoyed. This week, the Times published its own version of The Iran Deal for Dummies, or, as they headlined it: “The Iran Deal in 200 Words.”

Here are some of the key assertions in that article—redacted for effect:

Can Iran keep enriching uranium? Yes.

Will inspectors have access to military facilities? The provision is short of “anywhere, anytime,” because the inspectors first need to present evidence.

How can the US be sure Iran won’t cheat? It can’t.

AIPAC’s newly hatched Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, is reported to be spending close to $5 million on an ad campaign in a large number of Democrat-leaning markets. Their first ad, titled “The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?” states a short list of talking points against the deal:

Iran gets to keep its 18 nuclear facilities, its 50 military facilities remain out of reach for inspectors, Iran has cheated the UN 20 times in the past, Iran is the Number 1 sponsor of terrorism.

According to sources cited by The Jewish Voice, AIPAC’s full media buy breakdown for the anti-Iran deal campaign includes:

Baltimore: $167,600; Boston: $263,850; Charleston-Huntington: $56,275; Chicago: $114,675; Dallas: $251,625; Denver: $158,200; Detroit: $222,700; Fresno: $16,965; Hartford: $128,055; Honolulu: $44,605; Houston: $234,750; Indianapolis: $110,735; Laredo: $28,904; Las Vegas: $132,770; Los Angeles: $415,350; Miami: $179,050; New York City: $474,700; Omaha: $66,045; Panama City: $23,960; Philadelphia: $151,400; Phoenix: $181,840; Pittsburgh: $91,500; Portland: $98,818; Providence: $60,105; Richmond: $41,319; San Antonio: $100,575; San Diego: $142,525; Seattle: $202,975; Tallahassee: $26,800; Tampa: $168,240; Washington, DC: $444,900; West Palm Beach: $96,300.

The White House has begun its own, massive media campaign in favor of the deal, with briefings by Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. All three senior officials are also scheduled to appear on Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the first open hearing on the deal.

Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer has been meeting with conservative House Republicans, asking them to “derail the accord,” as the NY Times has put it.

Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) has already called on Democrats to choose “whether to vote to protect the national security of this nation, to stand with our friend and ally the nation of Israel and to protect the lives of millions of Americans, or in the alternative, whether to value partisan loyalty to the White House above the most solemn responsibility each and every one of us has.”

Clinton Losing Ground to Sanders in New Hampshire and Iowa

Friday, June 26th, 2015

Vermont’s Jewish socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders is closing the gap between him and front-runner Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a new poll published by Bloomberg News.

Clinton still holds a huge lead in the two states that are among the first to stage primaries early next year, but she could be in trouble if the her loss in strength is only the beginning of a trend towards Sanders.

Alternatively, Sanders may have gained all the support he can possibly get.

The maverick from Vermont has raised several issues that Clinton has tied to ignore. Sander has clipped six to eight points off the popularity of Clinton, who still has 50 percent support in Iowa and 56 percent in New Hampshire.

Not surprisingly, Sanders fared better than Clinton in the areas of authenticity and a desire to challenge Wall Street.

The race is taking on the appearance of David and Goliath, and right-wing media in the United States have been having a field day revealing new examples that show Clinton as a farce.

“It’s tremendous progress that he is making with voters in the first two states,” Tad Devine, Sanders’ chief political strategist, told Bloomberg. “It’s something we felt on the ground.”

The gender gap is clear, with women supporting Clinton far more than men do, while the opposite is true in the male-female breakdown for support for Sanders.

Purple Strategies’ Doug Usher told the news site:

Clinton remains enormously well-known and well-liked in New Hampshire, a state she won before. She benefits from a gender gap in a primary that will be disproportionately female, and even Sanders’ voters admit Clinton is likely the nominee. As long as Democrats like both candidates simultaneously, Sanders will have an uphill climb.

One of Clinton’s strong points is that she viewed as a stronger candidate to be able to defeat the Republican nominee.

Obama’s Jewish Support Sinks to 50 Percent

Sunday, April 12th, 2015

Jewish voters’ support for President Barack Obama has sunk from 61 percent in January to only 50 percent in March, according to a new Gallup poll.

The gap between approval of the president by Jews and by the national average has narrowed to only 8 percentage points for the first three months and 4 points for the last month.

The emerging deal with Iran and President Obama’s attacks and affronts to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are the reasons for the drop in support among Jews.

Among Orthodox Jews, defined as those who attend synagogue at least once a week, the approval rating is only 34 percent.  Support among Jews who do not have a college degree was only 39 percent compared with 62 percent among those with a higher education degree.

Jewish women approve of President Obama by 11 percentage points more than men over the past 15 months, while the national average is only 6 percent points between women and men.

The question is whether President Obama’s drooping popularity among Jews will be translated into support for a Republican presidential candidate at the polls.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, Jewish support for her is expected to rise sharply.

Republicans should not jump for joy too soon, author Josh Zeitz told Politico.

“As was the case then, today, most American Jews cast their votes as concerned American liberals and moderates, not as foreign proxies for the Israeli government,” he said.

Zeitz added:

But that doesn’t stop the GOP from hoping.

There’s always a place for tradition. Every year during Passover, Jews open the door in expectation of the Prophet Elijah, who will someday herald the coming of the Messiah. And every four years, the pundits await the great Jewish embrace of the Republican Party.

As it was said then, so it is said now: Next year in New Hampshire.

A Big Deal: Bipartisan Senate Panel Investigates Obama Link to Anti-Netanyahu Electioneering

Monday, March 16th, 2015

{Originally posted to author’s website, Liberty Unyielding}

As Israel closes in on the national election scheduled for Tuesday, 17 March, Fox News has come out with an exclusive report.  The U.S. Senate has appointed a bipartisan panel to investigate the use of funds donated from the Obama State Department to the organization OneVoice, which in January partnered with an Israeli anti-Netanyahu group, V-2015 (or V15) to import Obama’s own campaign operatives for the election.  The goal of V15 and OneVoice:  to defeat Netanyahu’s Likud coalition in the Knesset.

That this inquiry has bipartisan agreement is obviously significant.  Senators on both sides of the aisle think something stinks — and that’s just the first-order conclusion.

The Fox story outlines the initial concern of the investigation: the $350,000 the State Department has funneled to OneVoice.  State says the funding is unrelated to the V15 effort in the Israeli election:

One expert told FoxNews.com earlier this month the State Department grants constituted indirect administration funding of the anti-Netanyahu campaign by providing OneVoice with the $350,000 — even though State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election.

Fox quotes an NGO funding expert who considers that a bit disingenuous:

Gerald Steinberg, founder and president of NGO Monitor, which tracks money flows to unmask non-governmental organizations that deviate from their stated human rights or humanitarian agendas, said even ostensibly unrelated grants keep an organization going during periods it is not engaged in political activity.

But there’s another reason to parse the timeline closely here.

The timeline

The story has expanded since late January, with additional evidence that U.S. groups are involved in an effort to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu.  Alana Goodman reported at Washington Free Beacon in early February that a U.S.-based group called Ameinu (motto: “Liberal values; Progressive Israel”) sent out a fundraising memo on 17 December 2014, outlining a very Jeremy Bird-like plan to “get out the vote” and transform the Israeli political landscape.

The December memo cited consultation with “American experts,” including Obama campaign operatives.

We are already in touch with a highly talented combination of knowledgeable Israeli professionals and American experts with experience in similar recent operations, including the Obama presidential campaign.

Ameinu president Kenneth Bob told Free Beacon in February that Ameinu had indeed consulted with Bird and V15, but had since parted ways with them:

[Bob] later said that V15 and Bird’s consulting group 270 Strategies were involved in the discussions early on, but have since parted ways with Ameinu.

“When we first began soliciting funds for GOTV efforts ahead of the Israeli elections, we spoke to a number of entities with projects in mind, including Strategies 270, which ultimately became V15,” said Bob.

But that disclosure, even assuming it’s accurate, puts the State Department’s claim about when its funding for OneVoice stopped in an interesting light.  It’s obvious why the Senate thinks it needs investigating.

The State Department, as cited by Fox News, said its funding for OneVoice stopped in November (emphasis added):

State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election.

The early election in Israel was announced on 2 December 2014, when Netanyahu’s governing coalition was officially dissolved.  That means interested parties – like V15, OneVoice, Jeremy Bird, and Ameinu – were certain, less than a month after the State Department funding to OneVoice stopped, that there would be an election.

That alone means it’s hard to make the case that State Department funding was irrelevant to a OneVoice project decision that could have been in progress no later than 2 December.  OneVoice clearly could have been using, in December – and probably in January and February – money it received from the State Department in November.

But OneVoice and its partners could very well have been eying an Israeli election project before 2 December.  And since we also know that Bird and V15 were discussing an election plan with Ameinu sometime before 17 December, it becomes, at the very least, increasingly unbelievable that the OneVoice funding Bird and V15 ultimately went with was on no one’s radar screen earlier than late January, when Bird and his cohort showed up in Israel.

The big picture

The announcement of an early Israeli election didn’t come out of the blue.  In fact, it had been talked about as a possibility for months, and was publicly discussed as likely throughout the month of November 2014.  From statements by cabinet ministers in September, to speculation in October about the meaning of early Likud primaries (see here as well), to MSM statements in November that the “smart betting” was on an early election, to pointed disclosures in mid-November that Netanyahu was telling Likud leaders to get ready for an early election, the word was out.

November, or even October, was when advocacy groups and full-time political professionals would have been putting their scope on an early Israeli election.

Indeed, the phrasing of Kenneth Bob’s statement about the discussions with Bird and V15 evokes a timeline that probably did start earlier than 2 December 2014 – a bare 15 days before the Ameinu fundraising memo went out with its shaping-the-vote plan.

In that light, the timing of State’s last release of funds to OneVoice – according to State, in November 2014 – might even look like a severance for appearances’ sake.  If the Fox News report conveys the Senate’s concerns accurately, one of them seems to be with the coincident timing of Marc Ginsberg’s resignation announcement from OneVoice.  Ginsberg made that announcement on 11 November 2014.

By 11 November, as the links above illustrate, it was received wisdom in MSM reporting that Netanyahu would call for an election in early 2015.  But 11 November was also less than two weeks after the Obama administration had thrown its infamous tantrum by “leaking” the news that someone in its ranks thought of Bibi as a “chickens***.”  Moreover, 11 November was one week after the Democrats lost the Senate to a Republican wave in the mid-term election, and Obama thus lost Congress for the balance of his presidential term.

At that point, Obama’s actions on more than one front – e.g., executive amnesty; executive restrictions on firearms; ignoring Iran’s violations of the 2013 “nuclear deal” in order to press ahead with ill-advised negotiations – were beginning to show an increasing recklessness and disdain, not only for public opinion but for the prerogatives of Congress.  It would actually have been quite in character for the administration’s post-election agenda to include a strategy to campaign against Netanyahu in the widely anticipated Israeli election.

Congress may or may not be able to turn anything up with this investigation.  The Obama administration is likely to stonewall, as it so often does, and the non-profits involved may be able – ironically enough – to hide behind the IRS in declining to reveal their financial information.  (This although it may well be a violation of IRS regulations for OneVoice to fund V15’s activities in the first place – a point Ted Cruz has twice made official inquiries about.)

Apparent certitude and unity in the Senate

The fact that this is a bipartisan investigation is telling, however.

Senate Democrats aren’t moving to protect the administration from scrutiny.  That may represent fall-out from the administration’s thinly-veiled attack on New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, the Democrat who has opposed Obama on both his Iran and Cuba policies.  In part, at least, Senate Democrats are probably sending a signal of their own to the Obama White House.

But this goes beyond not protecting Obama.  The Democrats could have simply not participated, and thereby split the baby: neither protecting Obama nor helping the Republicans put his officials in the hot seat.

Instead, they’ve signed up for a legitimate inquiry: an inquiry whose outcome will matter.  The Fox story indicates that the investigation has been ongoing, apparently for some weeks before the public heard about it.  It’s possible – even likely – that the senators know things we don’t (not yet, at any rate).  And the Democrats, at least, can’t be in this just for the theater.

It would be remarkable for both parties to undertake an investigation they didn’t think anything would come of.  The opposition party (the GOP, in this case) would still be motivated to try to air improprieties in the president’s administration.  But the president’s own party doesn’t have a motive to involve itself, if it doesn’t expect to achieve anything more than that.

It’s not clear precisely what’s going on.  News of the bipartisan panel has been leaked just three days before the Israeli election.  The Senate is well aware that that, too, is political timing.  Whatever’s going on, it seems to be something big.

Some Democrats Aim Venom, Charge Israeli Prime Minister with ‘Fear-Mongering’

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

In a stunning, nearly unbelievable attack by what has been a traditional base of support for the Jewish State, Democrats gathered Tuesday to attack Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu following his speech to Congress.

A cluster of 56 Democrats boycotted the historic address to the legislators and it is unclear how many of those even bothered to watch a broadcast of the speech.

President Barack Obama himself said he personally was involved in a conference call with “European partners” but had scanned a transcript. No one at the White house watched the speech, according to reports.

None of that stopped a group of Democrats from gathering to launch a fierce media attack on the prime minister as soon as the speech was over.

Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday of “fear-mongering” and called Israel’s top leader a “child” in “Disneyland.”

Netanyahu was likened to “Dick Cheney” and told that Democrats “resented him sharing his views” in what they described as a “condescending manner.”

Reaction by Democrats and Republicans that followed in sites online, however, was swift and equally venomous.

“I wish we had such a leader here in America!” wrote one reader on The Gateway Pundit. “America stands with Israel!”

Another observed, “The oh so tolerant Democrats hate any views expressed that are not their own.”

It’s an odd position for Democrats to be in, particularly Jewish lawmakers who are in a double bind, opposing their commander-in-chief or their natural Jewish constituency.

An “unscientific” survey conducted by the American Jewish Congress over the past week determined that 72 percent of self-identified American Jews believe Netanyahu was right to come and speak to the Congress on Tuesday.

So Democratic lawmakers will also have to take that finding into account when they stump for votes in 2016 as well: most of those polled form their natural constituency.

Now the question is, how many Jewish Democrats have been offended by Democratic disrespect to Israel’s prime minister?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/some-democrats-aim-venom-charge-israeli-prime-minister-with-fear-mongering/2015/03/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: