web analytics
December 7, 2016 / 7 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘election’

What the US Election Tells us About the Past, Present and Future

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016

The recent election ended in a virtual tie, as did the election of 2000. Approximately half of the voters selected each of the two major candidates. According to the New York Times, Clinton may have received as much as two million more votes than Trump. This may turn out to be an exaggeration, but she certainly won the popular vote. Trump received more electoral votes. If 70,000 more of Clinton’s popular votes had been cast in Pennsylvania, 120,000 more in Florida, and 15,000 more in Michigan, she would have had more than the 270 needed to win the presidency.

That’s how close the election was. I predicted an unpredictably close vote back in August when Clinton was way ahead in the polls.

This is what I wrote in my e-book, Electile Dysfunction: “Think about the vote on Brexit. Virtually all the polls including exit polls that asked voters who they had voted for – got it wrong. The financial markets got it wrong. The bookies got it wrong. The 2016 presidential election is more like the Brexit vote in many ways than it is like prior presidential elections. Both Brexit and this presidential election involve raw emotion, populism, anger, nationalism (Britain First, America First), class division and other factors that distort accuracy in polling. So anyone who thinks they know who will be the next president of the United States is deceiving themselves.

“To be sure, the Electoral College vote is sometimes less difficult to predict than the popular vote, because it generally turns on a handful of closely contested critical states, such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. But in this election, there could be surprises in states that are usually secure for one party or the other. So even the electoral vote will be more difficult to predict than in previous elections.

“One reason for this unique unpredictability of the unique unpredictability of Donald Trump himself…. Hillary Clinton is more predictable, but her past actions may produce unpredictable results. …A final reason why this election is so unpredictable is because the voter turnout is unpredictable.”

In an election that was as unpredictable as this and that turned out to be a toss-up, any one of many factors may have determined the outcome. FBI Director James Comey’s ill-advised letter to congressional leaders on October 28, telling them, and the voters, that new emails had been discovered that might be “pertinent to the investigation,” may have made the difference.

In a series of TV appearances, I had urged Comey to do what he eventually did: “The FBI knows how to work that fast. They should get 100 FBI agents working 24 hours a day for three days… and in 72 hours at least release something the indicates whether there is anything, whether there is even probable cause. If there is nothing the public has to know that.”

I worried that Comey may not have considered the unintended consequences of his letter: “What if his statements about the emails produce a victory for Trump and it then turns out that there was nothing of significance in them? Or that they were merely duplicates of what had already been produced?” And I’ve urged him to explain the scope of his investigation: “Silence is no longer an option for Comey… He can’t any longer by silence allow his last statement to influence this election. Look how close it’s becoming since that statement was made. To have the FBI influence the outcome of an election and then nothing turn up would be an absolute disgrace to democracy.”

On Sunday’s CNN Tonight Don Lemon credited me with predicting what Comey would do: “Alan. To you. You hate to say I told you so, but you told me and everyone who would listen last week that this would happen. That Comey would have to speak out before the election.”

Comey did finally speak out, but it may have been too little, too late. Millions of votes were cast between Comey’s two statements. Those votes – based on a misperception that the emails were “pertinent” to the investigation – may have made the difference between a Clinton or Trump victory. No one can ever know for certain, but the election was so close, it is highly probable.

So Trump’s narrow victory doesn’t tell us much about the past or the present. Even if Trump had lost by a narrow margin, the fact that he got nearly 60 million votes would still be significant – as significant as his narrow victory – in telling us about the current mindset of the American people.

But the fact that Trump won tells us a great deal about the future, because a Trump presidency promises to be very different than a Clinton presidency would have been.

A Clinton presidency – coupled with a Republican Senate and House – would have been subject to the checks and balances of our constitutional system of separation of powers. A Trump presidency will not be subject to those constraints. There will be less gridlock, although the Senate filibuster may impose some constraints on President Trump’s expressed desire to pack the Supreme Court with “Scalias.”

Just as it was impossible to predict this election, it is impossible to predict the precise dimensions of the Trump presidency. If he is smart, he will reach across the aisle, as well as across genders, ethnicities and religions. A successful president must be different than a successful candidate. Only time will tell whether Trump acts on this historic truth.

In the meantime, the loyal opposition must remain both loyal and opposed to policies and appointments that are inconsistent with our values. We must cooperate when cooperation is warranted, but when it is not, we must use all available lawful options – political, judicial, media, academic and economic – to serve as checks and balances on a president who tries to exceed his authority. This is not the time for liberals or Democrats to become immobilized with despair, nor is it the time for violence or unlawful actions. It is a time to become energized and proactive.

Alan M. Dershowitz

Jews and Golden Calf: The 2016 Presidential Election

Monday, November 14th, 2016

According to a New York Times exit poll 70% of American Jews for Hillary Clinton while only 24% voted for Donald Trump. The huge differential is larger than the margin of Jews that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 (30%). This is bewildering from a pro-Israel standpoint. In an attempt to understand the confusing nature of Jews, non-Jewish friends of mine ask me how can so many Jews seemingly always vote for a candidate and a party against their people’s apparent own self-interest.

In 2016, to believe it still has anything to do with Truman or FDR, one is deluding oneself about the place where Israel stands in modern Democrat party politics. The booing of the United Jerusalem platform during the 2012 Democrat convention, the Israel flag burning outside the 2016 Democrat convention, the sea of “Palestine” flags within their convention hall and the swell of pro-BDS Muslim voters in the Bernie camp has to make one wonder why Jews would vote for a party that elevates these dangerous fringe elements? Why did Hamas-funded BDS supporters clamor around Bernie? Why does Hillary have the Huma Abedin, the daughter of the editor of a Saudi pro-Muslim Brotherhood newspaper as her closest confidant and whisperer? Why reject Donald Trump whose vows to tear up the Iran Deal, embraces Israel, and vows to defund the UN for their blatant support for Hamas and the anti-Semitic UNESCO?

In the last 20 years we have seen the rise of strong, prominent, popular non-Jewish New York Republicans who are ardent Israel supporters such as Al D’amato, Rudy Giuliani, Peter King, Donald Trump, George Pataki, while defiant Jewish Democrats such as Steven Israel, Jerald Nadler, Diane Feinstein, J street and others followed in lock step behind Obama during his march to force through the lie known as the Iran Deal?

Many will say that many American Jews fear Republican pro-Zionist Christians as a fake ally in disguise whose real motivation is mass conversion of Jews at some future “come-to-Jesus” time point. One would think that the radical global justice alliance of the Black Lives Matter movement with the violent BDS/Students for Justice in Palestine, who are both openly anti-Semitic and attack Jewish students on American campuses, would finally open the eyes of Jews who may equivocate in party affiliation. The Radical left constitutes the current grassroots of the Democrat party and will be its future. It is a cadre of groups such a Code Pink, ANSWER, SJP, Students and Graduate Activists, Students for a Democratic Society, LUPE, Legalization for All Network, and dozens of others that openly lend support to de-legitimization of Israel and Zionists as racists, usurpers, and murders. Dinosaurs such as Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein consistently haul in millions of Jewish Democrat dollars into a party that nurtures this growing anti-Semitic poison much akin to Rosemary’s baby, an evil that was nurtured dim- wittedly to maturity.

Ironically, I believe the answer lies in a 2013 Pew Research poll that states that only 40% of American Jews believe that G-d gave the Land of Israel to the Jews, while 82% of white evangelicals believe so, and even 54% of black evangelicals do. What is the matter with American Jews and their lack of fealty to their own religion and history? The answer is the corrupting socialist justice movement which has entranced a majority American Jews into thinking that godless universal secularism and global suffrage of “oppressed peoples” are the solutions to collective acceptance by the same radicals. The newly freed Israelites were hard worn to shake their old Egyptian ways, and when egged on by the trouble making Eruv Rav, rejected G-d and created a man-made idol, to worship and replace that G-d, even after the massive miracles of the Exodus and the Red Sea crossing.

In our time, we must return back and embrace G-d and His miracle in our time, the rebirth of Israel as the enormous first step towards Jewish renewal and reunification towards the time of Moshiach. We must renew our love for G-d and His gift of the Land of Israel, as commanded in His Torah, for us to inherit it, though we must fight for it like Joshua if we are to possess it. We must reinvigorate Zionism, and fight and defend our Birthright, otherwise when the wheels come off the cart for American Jews one day, many of us will wake up to the ugly reality of the assimilated German Jews in the 1930s- a repudiation by the society that they tried so hard to embrace. For now, and nothing lasts forever, the best friend of the modern day miracle of the fruit of Zionism, the State of Israel, is the evangelically based-Christian Zionist Republican party of Donald Trump, and Jews would be wise to embrace such as friend of the Jewish people. As we know, good friends are hard to come by.

Matthew Karlovsky

The Day After the Election

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

With the world’s attention focused on the presidential election, some attention must be devoted to the problems we will continue to face the day after the election, regardless of who is elected. Here are some of these problems:

  1. Following the election, President Obama may try to tie the hands of his successor, regardless of who it may be. During the lame-duck period, when presidents can act without political accountability, he may foolishly send the Israel-Palestine conflict to the United Nations. This would mean the end of the peace process. Palestinians would be dis-incentivized from entering into the kinds of direct negotiations without preconditions that the Israeli government continues to offer, which is the only realistic road to peace. The only hope of stopping this counterproductive move would be for the president-elect to insist that her or his hands not be tied by the lame-duck president.
  2. The problem revealed by FBI director Comey’s ill-advised statements over the past four months will not end with the election. Comey is a good man, but he has demonstrated an inability to control himself and his agents. The problem of unlawful FBI leaks has become pervasive, and it must be addressed by the new administration. Replacing Comey will not be enough; the entire culture of the FBI must be changed and it must be restored to its rightful position as the silent investigative arm of the Justice Department. Indeed, even more fundamental structural changes are now required. The entire DOJ, of which the FBI is one component, has become too politicized. In most other western democracies, there is a sharp division between the minister of justice, who is a political aide to the president or prime minister, and the director of public prosecution, who is a civil servant completely removed from politics. Only the director of public prosecution decides whom to investigate and who to prosecute. The political minister plays no role in such decisions. But, in the United States, we merged these two distinct roles into the job of Attorney General.  This must change if our system of justice is to be de-politicized.
  3. This election has exacerbated the long-standing problem of criminalizing policy differences. We are quick to confuse differences in policy with charges of criminal behavior. During this election, both sides accused the other of criminal conduct — Trump more so than Clinton, but even some Democrats were quick to cry “crime.” I have long railed against this development, whether it involved accusations against Democrats like Hillary Clinton, or Republicans like Congressman Tom Delay and Governor Rick Perry. The criminal law must be reserved for willful deliberate and clearly defined crimes.  We are moving away from that understanding and toward a dangerous expansion of the concept of crime in the context of political differences.
  4. Finally, the healing process must begin the day after the election. Lincoln’s words should be our guide: “With malice toward none, with charity for all.” It is unlikely that either the winners or the losers will be able to avoid malice and extend charity following this most contentious of elections, but it is essential that the loser accept the result and that the winner be gracious. Both Richard Nixon and Al Gore provide somewhat different models of appropriate responses.

This election revealed that there are deep divisions within the American electorate. Some of these divisions are reasonable and indeed desirable. These include differences over economic policies, foreign policies and other political issues  But this election revealed that there are divisions across impermissible lines: racial, ethnic, gender, religious, class and a willingness to resort to violence. These divisions will be much harder to heal. But the process must begin on the day after the election

Alan M. Dershowitz

Phantom Nation – The US Deserves This Election [audio]

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

The candidates reflect a culture in decline.

Phantom Nation 07Nov – SHOW

Israel News Talk Radio

South American Illegal Immigrants Rushing To Cross Border Before Election Day

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s blogsite, The Lid}

AP and CBS News are reporting a surge of Illegal Immigrants  Criminal Alien Trespassers, rushing to come into the United States via our southern border before election day.

Immigrants have been streaming from Mexico through the streets of McAllenTexas on a daily basis, according to CBS News. And it’s not just adults and families. The flow of unaccompanied minors at the U.S. border is up nearly 50%.

Border Patrol Agent Chris Cabrera says, they’ve been seeing “mass spikes” in  crossings of illegal immigrants criminal alien trespassers via the U.S.-Mexico border, thanks in part to the election. Apparently the illegals trespassers believe that Hillary Clinton is going to win the election and they want to make sure they are in the U.S. early enough to be granted amnesty by Clinton.

“The smugglers are telling them if Hillary [Clinton] gets elected, that there’ll be some sort of amnesty, that they need to get here by a certain date,” Cabrera said. “They’re also being told that if [Donald] Trump gets elected, there’s going to be some magical wall that pops up overnight and once that wall gets up, nobody will ever get in again.”

Cabrera added that they’ve encountered up to 1,000 immigrants along McAllen’s stretch of the border some days.

“We’re getting mass spikes of people crossing and turning themselves in,” he said.

Experts told CBS News the number of immigrants crossing the border won’t drop after Election Day.

The people smugglers are correct, although there is probably no rush. Part of a Clinton speech given to a Brazilian bank in May 2013 was included in one of the  Wikileaks releases. The speech included Hillary’s desire for open borders:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Even if she doesn’t get the open borders she desires, the Center for Immigration Studies’ Steve Camarota has projected that, based on the minimal figures Clinton has put forth thus far, Clinton could add 10 million new immigrants to the U.S. during her first term alone – in addition to the 11 million illegal immigrants Criminal Alien Trespassers Clinton has said she plans to amnesty within her first 100 days in office.

On the other hand Donald Trump opposes any legal status for immigrants in the U.S. illegally. In his plan, they would have to return to their home countries and apply for legal entry should they wish to come back.

Also interesting is that the Illegals Criminal Trespassers are turning themselves in—they know that Barack Obama will not enforce U.S. immigration law.

Watch the video report below:


Jeff Dunetz

Press Bias in a National Election

Tuesday, November 1st, 2016

What does it take to rig an election? According to the media, an election is fair if neither party stuffs ballot boxes in all fifty states. Believe otherwise and you’re a nut. Or a racist. Or anti-democracy. Or maybe all three. The media need to insist on a standard like that because it’s the only way to pretend that the 2016 election is fair. By any reasonable standard, however, America’s leading press outlets are playing an outrageous role in ensuring that the 2016 vote is the least fair American election in living memory.

The press has long had a pronounced double standard cutting against Republicans. The mainstream media’s messianic coverage of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign accepted his nomination as “the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” and the end of racial strife. Meanwhile, the same media directed attacks against Trig Palin, an infant with Down Syndrome whose mother was running for Vice President. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s magical powers to cause cancer via corporate restructuring provided a nice contrast to Obama’s planet-healing abilities. And of course, Al Gore and John Kerry were geniuses compared to the imbecilic George Bush, who nonetheless somehow managed to earn more impressive academic credentials at elite Ivy institutions.

Every Republican expects this type of treatment. Until 2016, however, most prominent media outlets and personalities at least attempted a facade of objectivity. When it comes to Trump, they’re not even willing to pretend. The New York Times ran a front-page article in August announcing that it had no interest in objectivity; its goal in reporting on the election was to ensure Trump’s defeat. The advertorial-style pseudo-journalism that has followed demonstrates its commitment to the cause. The Grey Lady has plumbed new depths to become perhaps the most reliable purveyor of regime propaganda since Pravda’s Soviet heyday.

America’s “paper of record” is hardly alone. The country’s entire establishment—media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, left, right, and center—has united as never before. They have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to guarantee that Donald Trump is not our next President. To their bewilderment and chagrin, however, many of the things that Trump has said or done to make him radioactive in establishment eyes have done little to sour voters on him; he remains neck and neck with Clinton. Shocked by the masses’ inexplicable acceptance of a candidate so self-evidently odious to them, the media have moved into a new phase. For the past few weeks, the establishment media simply ignores Hillary Clinton’s manifest flaws, censors newsworthy investigations and blockbuster leaks, and lies baldly about Donald Trump.

Were the press anything other than a propaganda outlet for the progressive regime, America might appreciate that though Clinton’s CV includes numerous positions from which she could have made a positive impact on America and the world, she can point to no positive foreign policy achievements. To the contrary, her fingerprints are all over the collapse of the Middle East into anarchy, a nascent nuclear arms race, a Caliphate whose terror has already reached America, and the resurgence of an aggressive and hostile Russia.

When asked why she should become President, Clinton really has only two answers: she has earned it through long years of service; and she would be the first woman to hold the office. Neither is compelling and she knows it. The former argument, of course, gave us the presidencies of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain (among others). Whatever sad relevance the latter argument once had was lost when gender became a matter of preference; today any man can identify as female.

So it’s no surprise that Hillary Clinton and her allies remain laser-focused on lying about Donald Trump. When Trump told a room full of veterans that the VA scandal was unacceptable, that soldiers returning home suffering from PTSD deserve more help than they get, and that as President he would provide that help, the press insisted that Trump had labeled veterans with PTSD “weak.” When Trump said that Mexico’s best and brightest were not the folks flowing across the border illegally, but rather that Mexican criminals saw it as an escape route, the press claimed that he had called all Mexicans rapists. When Trump echoed Justice Sotomayor’s notion that a judge of Latino heritage might bring that background to bear in reaching decisions distinct from those that non-Latino judges might reach, he was universally pilloried as a racist.

Members of the establishment grimly agree that Trump’s complaint that the system is rigged, his willingness to call out the press for its obvious pro-Clinton advocacy, and his observation that Democratic opposition to voter ID laws seem tailored to promoting fraud, constitute a threat to the republic. Actual press bias and voter fraud, on the other hand, do not distress them at all. Nor, for that matter, does anyone in the establishment seem concerned that repeated Democratic accusations—from Clinton on down—that Vladimir Putin is employing Russian hackers in an attempt to hand Trump an unearned victory are at least as disturbing signals of their own pre-emptive delegitimization of a Trump victory. Perhaps they fail to take that possibility seriously because they have already decided that Trump will not be allowed to win.

The American establishment is committed to blocking Trump’s election. Are the 2016 elections rigged? You bet they are—no matter how many ballot boxes do or don’t get stuffed come November 8.

Bruce Abramson and Jeff Ballabon

The Jewish Press Conspiracy to Protect Hillary Clinton and the Rigged Elections [audio]

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

The Observer wrote a fascinating article about the tape from an interview given by Hillary Clinton to The Jewish Press back in 2006.

What makes it so interesting or “relevant” to the public right now is that in the interview, Clinton explicitly talked about the mistake she felt the United States made by not rigging the Palestinian Authority elections to ensure that Hamas didn’t win – which it did, winning 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 seats on the Palestinian Legislative Council, and then eventually taking over Gaza by throwing Fatah officials off the roofs of Gazan buildings.

Clinton didn’t use the word “rig” but it is clear that this is what she meant.


The Observer found it odd that the story was no longer available on JewishPress.com, and we discovered that the antisemitic conspiracy theorists on the Internet are trying to create an entire backstory as to why The Jewish Press (and the Jews) censored, suppressed and hid an interview where Clinton discusses rigging an election, in light of Trump’s accusations against her in the current US elections.

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, the answer is simply a technical one.

When we rebuilt the JewishPress.com website in 2011 and migrated it over to a new platform, that article was one of several that didn’t survive the migration process due to some odd character codes in the text.

But the article wasn’t lost.

Thanks to the technology of the WayBackMachine, the original article was preserved and archived on the Internet, untouched by human hands, odd � characters and all.

Last night, we republished the Hillary Clinton interview back onto the JewishPress.com website.

For those that believe The Jewish Press hid the entire story about Clinton wanting to rig the Palestinian Authority elections, they can now actually see for themselves that this was, in fact, her first answer that was posted in the original article.

The Jewish Press: Israel recently concluded its war against Hizbullah in what many consider to be a stalemated position. How do you see things right now?

Sen. Clinton: First, I don’t think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. If we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win instead of signing off on an electoral system that advantaged Hamas.

Original copy of the interview with Hillary Clinton as preserved on the WayBackMachine.

Original copy of the interview with Hillary Clinton as preserved on the WayBackMachine.

Nothing was hidden. Back in 2006, Hillary Clinton did talk about desiring to rig an election of a foreign government, a government with no democratic traditions, but with a rather strong history of supporting terrorism, and we published it.

Without delving into the politics of it, some might even find the idea of ensuring that radical Islamic terrorists don’t take charge of an already moderate-terrorist laden government to be a commendable goal – unlike when the US State Department, under President Obama, funded OneVoice and V-15 in an attempt to manipulate democratic Israel’s recent elections.

Stephen Leavitt

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/the-jewish-press-conspiracy-to-protect-hillary-clinton-and-the-rigged-elections-audio/2016/10/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: