web analytics
July 23, 2016 / 17 Tammuz, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

Republicans Officially Embrace New Blockbuster Pro-Israel Plank [video]

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016

Last night the JewishPress.com brought the news that a GOP subcommittee drafted and endorsed a pro-Israel plank that includes every single item on every (truly) pro-Israel wish list, thanks to the hard work of a few lawmakers such as South Caroline State Rep. Alan Clemmons and several pro-Israel organizations, including the Iron Dome Alliance.

But this morning brings more huge news: the full committee endorsed the pro-Israel plank with no changes. And the passage of that adamantly pro-Israel plank was met with a standing ovation by those in the room.

The Republican party ain’t what it used to be, or at least it doesn’t match the anti-Israel party portrait which so many people have tried to peddle.

And what of the Democrats? Jeff Ballabon, chairman of the Iron Dome Alliance, told the JewishPress.com that his coalition has made it very clear that they “would still love for Democrats to accept the same language and will attempt to persuade delegates in light of today’s success but ha[s] little optimism that it would be accepted.”

He said the coalition didn’t want this (strongly pro-Israel) policy to be tied only to one party, “this should be America’s policy,” but the enthusiasm with which the important language was met and embraced by the Republican platform committee speaks volumes.

While rumors have been swirling that the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC has been trying to stop the truly pro-Israel plank from getting out of the station, if they engaged in that effort, it failed.

And if AIPAC did not work to defeat this non-Two State language, it’s a whole new AIPAC world in which Israel is now in control of the best resolution of the various conflicts besieging the Jewish State, rather than bowing its head to dictates from the U.S. It also signals a change in the lobby’s stance regarding the disputed territories, which it has never strongly embraced.

Here is the language of the new Republican Party Platform on Israel:

13606753_10154115885616072_6240522765423193629_n

And here’s the video of Rep. Alan Clemmons speaking to the GOP subcommittee, introducing the pro-Israel plank:

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Shiloh Musings: Republicans Shooting Themselves in The Foot!

Tuesday, May 24th, 2016

In their foolish and completely antidemocratic way, the Republican machine/establishment is going against the will of their people to try to sabotage Donald Trump. Contrary to all predictions from the experts before and early in the campaign, the outsider Donald Trump had no real problem defeating all of the establishment wannabes to win the Republican Presidential nomination.

I’ve written before, and I’m not the only one to say this, that by sabotaging Trump and going contrary to the wishes of potential Republican voters, not only will they be handing the US Presidency to the Democrats, but they are destroying the Republican Party.

One of the principles of American democracy is “winner takes all.” In the United States, unlike Israel, there is no real status to the loser, the “Opposition Leader.” He/she is “history,” has no government role, because even if the loser had been a top senator or congressman, he/she would have resigned to run for the presidency. In Israel the Opposition Leader is the head of the largest party not in the ruling coalition, meaning that he/she is an MK-has a parliamentary seat and all the power, committee appointments and privileges that entails.

By trying to push in a “third party” Republican to run against Trump and the Democrats, they will certainly not only lose the elections, destroy the Republican Party,  and cause major cynicism in those who had once believed in the party’s principles. And they would actually strengthen Trump as a national leader, proving that his antiestablishment ways are truly legitimate.

And back to the image of shooting themselves in the foot. It would be like hitting a major artery and causing fatal blood loss. I doubt they can recover from such an act. They only way to rehabilitate the party is to fully support Trump.

Batya Medad

Shiloh Musings: Republicans More Pro-Israel than Democrats

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

My gut feeling about the antipathy and unreliability of the American Democrats towards the State of Israel is shown in the numbers in this article:

The US may offer Israel the ‘largest single pledge’ of military assistance in US history
Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chris Coons were behind the letter, which was signed by 51 Republican and 32 Democratic senators*.
Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz was one of the signatories, while Sanders was not.

And besides those numbers, don’t forget that POTUS wannabe Bernie Sanders has not shown support for the bill.

I have no doubt that the timing of the bill is connected to the campaign, but the important thing to remember is that the two Democratic frontrunners are extremely problematic when it comes to Israel. It is beyond ambivalence or neutrality. Hillary Clinton has a long history of anti-Israel policies and statements. She also has some gevaltik pro-Israel (or good faker) speechwriters, so listening to Hillary talk, you’d think she’s the epitome of pro-Israel, but it’s an act. As the late President Ronald Reagan was known to say, “I don’t know how someone not an actor can be President.” (Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I haven’t found the exact quotation online.)

And radical Leftist Bernie Sanders has shown and stated much more sympathy and understanding for the Arabs, even the Gazan terrorists, than for Israel and Israelis.

Just because they mantra over and over that they love Israel and are pro-Israel means nothing. It’s just words! Think of abusers who claim “love” as they beat and punish their victims!

One thing, no doubt, is that the Republican frontrunners will be better for Israel than the Democrats, especially since the Bush Machine does not control them. I am very relieved that the grassroot Republican voters defeated the Bush Machine in the early primaries.

*{author’s emphasis}

Batya Medad

American Muslims Speak Out Against ISIS as GOP’s Ted Cruz Calls For Surveillance on Muslims

Sunday, March 27th, 2016

Muslim leaders are starting to speak out against Da’esh (ISIS) terrorism, over fears the backlash will hit their communities instead.

It’s not an unrealistic fear. After the “9/11″ Al Qaeda attacks on America on September 11, 2001, Americans looked at their Muslim neighbors quite differently. Law enforcement also became more aware of the prevalence of radical Islam, how it is spread and where it appears.

One of the biggest populations of Somali Muslim immigrants lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Somali American attorney Aman Obsiye told Reuters that he was, for the first time in his life, “fearful to be a Muslim in America.”

The Brussels attacks last week by Da’esh (ISIS) terrorists prompted a meeting between the city’s Muslim leaders and law enforcement officials, who said they would protect the community against hate crimes.

“I’m not a terrorist,” said Somali American Asthma Jama. “I’m an American citizen. I want to live in peace, just like everybody else.”

Political rhetoric from Republican candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz has been cited by Muslim leaders as being particularly “scary.” They also say that rhetoric is being used as ammunition by terrorist groups in propaganda videos, “big time.”

But not all Muslim leaders think that’s bad. When GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz called for law enforcement last week to increase police presence in Muslim neighborhoods in the wake of the Brussels attacks, at least one Muslim activist agreed.

“We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized,” Cruz said, adding there was no room for “political correctness” in the current environment.

Dr. Zudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), and a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant-Commander, defended Cruz’s stance. In an interview on Fox News last Thursday, Jasser said Cruz was right to encourage law enforce to take a more proactive role in Muslim neighborhoods to prevent radical Islamic terrorism.

“I can’t believe we’re having this conversation a few days after you had a cell that was operating four months apart… were being holed up by an organism of a community that was holding them away from the entire security apparatus of the European Union,” he said. “And yet we’re standing back and saying, ‘We shouldn’t be monitoring communities?’

“I’m not ready to give up any of my civil rights. All I’m saying is that as an American Muslim we patriotically want to help our community, help our country be safe,” Jasser said.

“We want to engage and embrace police, Homeland Security and if we’re going to engage them we need to welcome them into our community and into our mosques — not for illegal wiretaps but rather for engagement and relationship building.”

Cruz said his plan was similar to that used police to raise law enforcement presence in neighborhoods with known gang activity. “I’m talking about any area where there is a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

He also referred to the successful terror prevention program implemented in New York City under the administration of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, involving surveillance of Muslim and other communities. That program faced a lawsuit in 2014, but the case was dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled the program did not discriminate against Muslims.

That program was nevertheless immediately dismantled under the current administration of Mayor Bill DeBlasio.

NYPD communications director J. Peter Donald tweeted in response, “Hey @tedcruz are our nearly 1K Muslim officers a “threat” too? It’s hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement.”

Cruz later clarified that his plan “does not mean targeting Muslims. It means targeting radical Islamic terrorism,” he told CNN. “I am talking about any area where there is a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism.”

Hana Levi Julian

Obama Now Ready to Meet with Netanyahu

Friday, September 11th, 2015

President Barack Obama’s victory in the battle with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Republicans over the nuclear deal with Iran has given him his security blanket for a face-to-face meeting.

President Obama told rabbis in his annual pre-Rosh HaShanah phone call that he plans to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu next month, when the U.N. General Assembly convenes after a summer recess.

Obama said:

Our consultations have already begun with Israeli military and intelligence officials.

My hope is to have a long discussion with Mr. Netanyahu about these issues when he comes to the United Nations during the General Assembly of the United Nations, or immediately after that.

Obama avoided the Prime Minister earlier this year when he addressed Congress, two weeks before Israel’s general elections, which he said precluded a meeting that could be exploited for political purposes.

Now that Netanyahu, if not the United States itself, appears to be the loser in the fight over the nuclear agreement, Obama has not problem meeting him, if no other reason than to gloat.

However, Arab American leader James Zogby wrote an interesting analysis last week in The Huffington Post that shows that although Prime Minister Netanyahu lost the fight to reject the Ian deal, he actually was the winner in the long-term, particularly concerning the Palestinian Authority.

President Obama told the rabbis:

Israel’s long-term security does depend on somehow resolving the Palestinian issue. We’re going to have to work on these issues, and they’re going to be messy and challenging in the years to come.” There’s going to have to be some soul searching in Israel and the American Jewish community because they’re tough questions.

Zogby explained that President Obama will be careful before he pushes his luck with Jewish Democratic Congressmen who supported the P5+1 agreement with Iran.

He wrote:

By throwing what amounted to a political and diplomatic tantrum, the Israeli side succeeded in making itself the center of attention for the Administration and Congress. In the last few months, there were more meetings held, more hours spent, and more effort expended on reassuring Israel and its supporters of America’s ‘unbreakable, unshakable’ commitment, than in any period in our history….

Senators and members of Congress will also now be inclined to make clear their support for Israel. Many Democrats who announced their intention to support the president made sure that their statements declared undying support for Israel. The myth that ‘AIPAC will beat you if you don’t toe the line’ continues to hold strong, and so it can be expected that many members, despite their resentment of AIPAC and Netanyahu’s pressure, will spend excessive time and energy between now and next November playing “make up” by proving their support for Israel.

However, Zogby said that in the longer-term, “The emergence and rapid growth of liberal pro-Israel Jewish groups like J Street and Americans for Peace Now, or non-Zionist Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, or the expansion of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement on college campuses are all evidence “of a shift in American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

He can credit President Obama with having successful weakened the influence of AIPAC by bolstering the prestige of the left-wing groups, but he doesn’t realize that they have gone so far out in left field that they are leaving “mainstream Jewish” support out of the ball park.

Even if they nevertheless one day are viewed as representing American Jews, probably by including 3-4 million people who simply call themselves Jews, it will be too late because the Palestinian Authority by then will have succeeded in making demands that prove that a new Arab country within Israel’s present borders would mean the end of Israel.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

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.”

JNi.Media

Black Republican Ben Carson Running for President

Monday, May 4th, 2015

Retired neurosurgeon and black Republican Dr. Ben Carson has announced he is running to be his party’s nominee for president in next year’s election.

Dr. Carson visited Israel in December, reported here, an unofficial prerequisite for presidential candidates.

The 63-year-old Republican is from Detroit, lived in Baltimore for more than 35 years and now lives in Florida. He was the first black doctor to head the Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery unit.

His lack of both political experience and ties with such factions as the Tea Party offers Republican voters a distinct choice among the growing number of candidates. However, he does not have the organization and political experience of other contenders, the most popular being Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, also from outside the political world, is considering tossing her hat in the political ring.

Dr. Carson grew up in poverty and has the appeal to white voters as their desired image of an America where anyone can achieve success through hard work and without making himself out to be a victim.

He has been a harsh critic of President Barack Obama, whom Dr. Carson once described as someone who “seems to believe more in a utopian view of cradle-to-grave care.”

He has made headlines, for better and for worse, on the issue of same-sex marriage. Below is an interview on CNN in which he maintained that homosexuality is a choice and that each state should decide for itself whether or not to allow marriages of homosexuals. He said in the interview that many people become homosexuals after being in prison.

After harsh criticism, he apologized, and Dr. Carson stated before announcing his candidacy today:

I’ve come to recognize that when you use certain terms, people can no longer hear anything else you say. As you’ll notice in the last several weeks, I’ve been able to get my points across without inflammatory language.

In his visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem in December, Dr. Carson placed a note between the bricks and later referred to King Solomon in an interview with CBN and said he asked God for “Solomonic wisdom on what to do” concerning the race for president.

His stand on Israel is clear, and he told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu,

“Until such time as their neighbors are no longer desirous of their elimination,” Israel’s continued control of the West Bank “makes perfectly good sense.”

Dr. Carson’s strong conservative stand may appeal to Christian evangelists despite his being black.

He said at the national Prayer Breakfast earlier this year that the United States is headed for “moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility.” He also declared:

We have imposed upon people restrictions on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently.

President Barack Obama was sitting a few feet away, and although Carson did not directly blame the president for America’s ills, the White House was upset.

“Within a matter of minutes after the conclusion of the program, I received a call from some of the prayer breakfast organizers saying that the White House was upset and requesting that I call the president and apologize for offending him,” Carson later wrote in his book “One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future.”

Carson added in his book, “I said that I did not think that he was offended and that I didn’t think that such a call was warranted.”

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/black-republican-ben-carson-running-for-president/2015/05/04/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: