Read More About:

Share This Post

By Monica Crowley

The Washington Times – April 13, 2016

As to the lyin’  “documentary” on Clarence Thomas

In its war for America, the left never rests, sometimes falters but rarely allows itself to fail. It works tirelessly to “fundamentally transform the nation” and smashes anyone and anything that gets in its way.

Consider the pitched battle it has waged against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over the past quarter-century. Instead of celebrating and honoring a black man who rose from grinding poverty in the segregated South to sit on the nation’s highest court, the left sees an existential threat: a black pro-life, pro-gun conservative who has spent his life crushing leftist orthodoxy. He must, therefore, not simply be opposed, but destroyed, regardless of how long it takes.

The left’s latest attack is “Confirmation,” a “dramatization” of his tumultuous 1991 confirmation hearings, premiering April 16 on HBO.

Key players in the real-life drama, including Senators. Al Simpson and John Danforth as well as a White House lawyer on Judge Thomas‘ team, Mark Paoletta, have called drafts of the script they had seen “dishonest” and a “seriously distorted” version of the actual events.

Anita Hill, who accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment, has re-emerged to refresh her egregious claims of victimhood. And Justice Thomas must endure yet another round of character assassination and ideological demonization.

In October 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee was expecting an easy confirmation process for Justice Thomas, who as a top Reagan administration official, had been previously vetted by the FBI and confirmed by the Senate four times.

Once Ms. Hill’s charges were published, however, the committee was forced to extend the hearings to include a public discussion of her allegations. This, of course, was central to the left’s plan to torpedo his nomination, the way it succeeded in doing four years earlier to Judge Robert Bork. Once it had Judge Bork’s scalp, its appetite was whetted for another.

The inquiry into Ms. Hill’s charges became a defining moment for the Senate institutionally, for “women’s issues” culturally and for the abortion issue politically.

Having created that synthetic moment, the left then followed its standard modus operandi: use a pretext, in this case “sexual harassment,” to smear and destroy. It tried to discredit a brilliant, accomplished and decent man in order to attack his conservative ideology, which it could not permit to be represented on the court by yet another justice.

As the hearings proceeded, an unflattering portrait of the accuser emerged. She appeared to be a woman of uneven temperament, with left-wing political biases, a history of cavalierly charging sexual harassment, and a reputation for dishonesty and dissembling.

Once it became apparent that her story didn’t add up, the left tried to fuzz up the hearings with irrelevancies and chaos. At one point, Mr. Thomas, the best witness for his own defense, described the proceedings as “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks,” a brutally honest summation of his persecution as a pawn in a great power struggle.

On Oct. 14, the day before the vote, Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden stopped two of Justice Thomas‘ witnesses outside the hearing room and told them that he believed him, not Ms. Hill.

The American people agreed with him. By a two-to-one margin in most polls, the public, which watched the hearings unfiltered by the liberal press machine, overwhelmingly believed Justice Thomas over Ms. Hill. They determined that she failed to provide evidence to support her claims, and they separated the facts of this particular case from sexual harassment as a general issue.

Mr. Thomas went on to be confirmed by the full Senate and continues to serve with distinction on the court.

The venom of the left’s assault lingers, however. The hearings triggered a national discussion about sexual harassment when they should have also alerted the American people of the extent to which people and institutions were being laid waste by the vicious ideological war waged by the left.

The leftists lost the battle over Justice Thomas, but they wasted little time before they regrouped and planned for future orchestrated clashes. The Thomas spectacle would presage their relentless battles against President George W. Bush, support for the fierce leftism of President Obama, and the radical activism of groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

They fight a ceaseless war against the Constitution, free-market economic principles, traditional values, limited government and individual freedom. It is a war to destroy the very pillars of American exceptionalism and replace them with those of collectivism, command economics and rule by the privileged vanguard.

Justice Thomas happened to be caught in the ideological crossfire. The fact that leftists continue to attack him reminds us that their memories are long, their political ammunition is always fresh, and their battle never ends.

• Monica Crowley is editor of online opinion at The Washington Times.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

III See below and … Megyn Kelly is voting for Trump!!

Exclusive: Joseph Farah deflates argument that Clinton will crush GOP front-runner

Whistle Blower Magazine from World Net Daily

March 27, 2016

I continue to be amazed by those pundits who suggest Donald Trump can’t beat Hillary Clinton.

There are three principal reasons for such faulty conclusions:

These folks are working under the strictures of an old paradigm. That is the one that says Democrats start out with a base of unlosable states and electoral votes and need only to win two or more swing states.

Polls taken  before the Trump-Hillary campaign began

.Trump’s high negatives.
Let’s look at one big reason none of these factors will come into play after the conventions.

The success of Trump’s earth-shaking bid for the presidency to date is actually unprecedented in America’s modern political history.

Try to think of any figure in the last 100 years who burst onto the scene, having never sought political office, and made such an immediate impression – winning the passionate support of Republicans, independents and Democrats and so many primaries in diverse states to become the front-runner for the nomination of his party.

Immediately, some might say, “Well, he’s a billionaire who is self-funding his campaign!” That’s true. But it literally has nothing to do with his success. Why? Because he really hasn’t needed to spend any serious money to accomplish his objectives. In fact, several candidates who have dropped out of the running spent far more. You can’t point to a single victory by Trump in any state in which he spent more than his opponents.

Trump’s money simply hasn’t been a factor in his success. He hasn’t needed to spend it. That may be the most astonishing and revealing fact of this historic campaign so far. In other words, he’s saving it for Hillary!

Given what Trump has accomplished in what we call “earned” media, which is all free, what do you suppose he could do with $1 billion of his own money? Personally, I can’t even imagine.

But I can imagine the kind of legitimate attack ads that can be put together on Hillary. So far, she has not faced any real adversity except from her left flank. And she’s still floundering. There’s no enthusiasm for her. She can’t turn out crowd, and she can’t turn them on. Compare that to what Trump has mustered – record crowds, long voting lines, excitement and domination of the news delivered by people who despise him.

That’s the new paradigm I refer to above.

There’s simply never been a candidacy like this – deserved or not. And, remember, I say this as a Ted Cruz supporter.

That’s why the polls matching up Hillary versus Trump are meaningless today, as I’ve pointed out before. Just look back at the Ronald Reagan landslide of 1980 for the precedent. He was far behind Jimmy Carter in the polls at this stage of the campaign and won 44 states that year, including New York and California.

Trump has also demonstrated the ability to attract new voters – people who long ago dropped out of politics altogether because they were fed up with the choice between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. He has demonstrated his ability to win over die-hard Democrats. He has demonstrated his ability to win independents.

What about his high negatives?

Look at Hillary.

She is seen as dishonest. She is not likable. She has no accomplishments – in or out of politics – to cite. She’s not even scoring high among women.

The Trump versus Hillary matchup will be a very tough campaign. Who do you think is better positioned to slug it out? Has Hillary demonstrated an ability to win a national campaign? In 2008, she had everything going for her. The entire Democratic establishment was behind her then, too. But she couldn’t beat a new face with bigger promises. This year, she has struggled against Bernie Sanders, heretofore seen as a fringe old face.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Should Trump win the nomination, he will be positioned for a landmark drubbing of his opponent. It could be 1980 all over again.

II Yes, Donald Could Beat Hillary

Conventional wisdom says he has no chance. But what if he blows up all the old rules?


The Wall Street Journal
March 28, 2016

Leave it to Al Sharpton to come up with the most compelling analogy for Mr. Trump: another New York promoter.

“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” Mr. Sharpton told Politico earlier this year.

Mr. King, of course, was the wild-haired boxing promoter who put on epic fights that included the 1975 “Thrilla in Manila”—the third and final time Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali met in the ring. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. King was accused of links to organized crime, invoking the Fifth Amendment in a deposition to Senate investigators when asked. Like Mr. Trump too, Mr. King has been sued by a number of his former associates, including Mr. Ali.

Before Barack Obama, Mr. King even supported George W. Bush.

For years Mr. King dominated his industry by combining an outsize personality with a willingness to blow up the rules. It is a similar brashness and defiance of convention that make Mr. Trump such a wild card today, which also suggests why it’s probably premature to write him off for November—assuming he will be the Republican squaring off against Hillary Clinton.

Let’s run through the arguments:

• Mr. Trump has high negatives. Notwithstanding the manifest enthusiasm of Trump voters for their man, they often fail to appreciate that he may turn off more voters than he turns on. Real Clear Politics puts the average of his negatives at 63.2% That would help explain his failure thus far to break 50% in any Republican primary, and it justifies worries about how he’d fare among, say, Latinos and women come November.

But Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives too. Her own RCP average is 53.9%.

Whom would the voters regard as the lesser of two evils? A candidate who is dishonest and untrustworthy at a political moment when distrust of government is ascendant? Or a candidate who is crude and inexperienced at a time when the terrorists we face are organized and sophisticated.

David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign, has been warning Democrats not to take a Clinton victory for granted in the event Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee.

He has also consistently reminded Democrats that the coalition that sent Mr. Obama to the White House—including women, minorities and young voters—is not one Mrs. Clinton can take for granted. She needs to earn their support, he says. Right now the Bernie Sanders wins are highlighting some of her soft spots, including with young women.

• Mrs. Clinton will use her knowledge and experience to make Mr. Trump look like an ignorant yahoo. Maybe. But again there are two caveats.

First, presidential match ups do not score like Oxford Union debates, and Mr. Trump plays his own game. For example, when Mrs. Clinton was readying the sexist meme against him, Mr. Trump took it away from her by bringing up the Bill Cosby-style allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against hubby Bill Clinton.

Who’s to say he won’t do the same in the debates? (“Did Goldman Sachs pay you to say that, Hillary?”) No one can know how Mr. Trump would debate Mrs. Clinton—or how voters would react.

Equally to the point, though pundits give great weight to candidate debates, plainly voters do not. In 2004 John Kerry demolished George W. Bush in the first debate, and the next two were generally given to him on points. But he still lost the election.

• Mrs. Clinton is a formidable candidate. The truth is, we don’t know how Mrs. Clinton would fare in a no-holds-barred debate with a tough challenger—because she’s not faced one in this primary. From the way the Democratic super-delegates have been awarded, to the number and timing of debates, the entire primary season has been orchestrated to serve Mrs. Clinton’s interests by a party that is mostly in her pocket.

This is why the last man standing is an angry, white-haired socialist. And yet the former first lady still can’t put him away. What does it say about large dissatisfactions within the Democratic Party that this cranky old guy continues to pull out victories?

In the long stretch between now and Election Day, many events could affect the outcome. More terror attacks à la Brussels or San Bernardino. More setbacks in Iraq or Syria. More belligerence from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And of course maybe even a Hillary indictment. Does anyone think any of this will help Mrs. Clinton?

Sure, it’s possible the GOP front-runner will implode, just as it’s possible all those polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a double-digit lead over Mr. Trump will indeed come to pass. But some of us who never thought he would get this far are a little more reluctant to be so categorical about an election that is still six months away.

III Donald Trump Votes May Set This New Record
By Joe Scudder April 28, 2016

The number of Donald Trump votes is in reach of shattering Republican records.

The number of Donald Trump votes in the primaries is… (forgive me) HUGE.

With his five blowout wins Tuesday night, Donald Trump has passed Mitt Romney’s popular vote total from four years ago and is on a trajectory that could land him more Republican votes than any presidential candidate in modern history – by a lot.

Trump surged to more than 10 million votes, according to totals that include Tuesday’s preliminary results across the Northeast. That’s already about 250,000 more than Romney earned in the entire 2012 primary season and 153,000 more than John McCain earned in 2008.


That presents an uncomfortable reality for anti-Trump forces: they’re attempting to thwart the candidate who is likely to win more Republican primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years, and maybe ever.
Meanwhile, Democrat voter turnout is low. It has been declining over the last eight years.
The question facing conservative voters who oppose Trump is, as I wrote yesterday, should we hope all these voters are overruled at the Republican Convention in Cleveland, in favor of a candidate who does not draw as many votes?

A few days ago, Mitt Romney’s niece spoke to Megyn Kelly about why she, as a delegate, plans to stay loyal to Donald Trump. Notice her reasoning. Because there were record-setting numbers voting for Donald Trump in her state she doesn’t want to disenfranchise voters.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Somehow I found it incongruous that the sudden death of Prince, a long recognized drug addict was investigated so thoroughly with an immediate autopsy and numerous experts on the scene to determine the cause of death while Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s  death under somewhat unusual circumstances, did not warrant such an autopsy?

Dr. Judy Melinek, a renown forensic pathologist commented immediately upon this lack of a Scalia autopsy in an article redacted below.

I Justice Scalia’s unexamined death points to a problem

By Dr. Judy Melinek

Dr. Judy Melinek is a forensic pathologist who performs autopsies for the Alameda County Sheriff Coroner’s Office in California

February 20, 2016

“When my husband called and told me the news that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died, the first question that came out of my mouth was, “Where?””Texas,” he said. I said,  “Oh no.”

Conspiracy theories surround Scalia’s death

I have been called to testify as a forensic pathology expert in many legal cases in Texas. I know about the laws that govern death investigation in that state.

It came as no surprise to me that Justice Scalia, found cold and pulseless in bed with a pillow “over his head,” was declared dead of natural causes without an autopsy being performed.

I was not shocked to hear that a Texas county justice of the peace agreed to issue the death certificate without visiting the death scene or seeing the body for herself!

When President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the local medical examiner, a trained and experienced forensic pathologist, wanted to perform an autopsy.

He was thwarted by the Secret Service, which followed the wishes of the President’s widow and flew the body out of state for an autopsy at a naval facility.

Even the Warren Commission report and thoroughgoing congressional hearings never put to rest the speculation that still surrounds John F. Kennedy’s death — and that death was indisputably a homicide, with an autopsy.

Scalia’s unexamined death will add to the conspiracy theory industrial complex. It didn’t need to be so, especially since Scalia’s pre-existing medical conditions make it likely that his death was a natural one.

Why is it that in a nation with the best medical technology in the world, we are still allowing a law enforcement official and a judge on the end of a telephone line to declare someone dead and pronounce the manner of death as natural without an autopsy?

It is the one and only scientific method for definitively determining the cause and manner of death. Even if this decedent weren’t a controversial and powerful national figure, he should have had an autopsy.

Why? Because whenever someone is dead in bed at a private residence with a pillow over his head, there is the possibility that the death was not a natural one.

Yes, Scalia had underlying medical conditions, but he did not have a known terminal illness. He was not expected to die at any moment.

His demise was, by definition, a sudden and unexpected death, and those are the types of deaths that fall under a coroner or medical examiner’s jurisdiction.

Though John Poindexter, the owner of the ranch and the man who found Scalia’s body, later stated that the pillow was against the headboard and “not over his face,” there still should have been a death scene investigation by trained personnel.

And there should have been an autopsy by a board-certified forensic pathologist. Instead, we have a marshal and the property owner calling up a justice of the peace, and everyone agreeing that there must have been “no foul play.” Even if there was no foul play, the lack of an autopsy still leaves too many open questions.

Had Scalia died in an urban center with a medical examiner’s office, he would have had a thorough and complete death investigation, including an independent review of his medical records, and an examination at the death scene.

His body would have been brought to the morgue, and at the very least, an external examination would have been performed by a licensed forensic pathologist.

Now that a murky, rushed death certification has marred the passing of one of the very highest legal figures in the United States, shouldn’t we do something about it?

II This lack of an autopsy on Justice Scalia quickly linked me to an article that I recently published in Israel Commentary, April 14, 2016 called:

A Startling Parade of “Fortuitous Coincident events” that ended with Barack Obama becoming President of the United States. Hmm…

This is no space to re-list all these events. Please read the article. Any one of these ‘coincident events’ when taken singularly appear to not mean much, but when taken as a whole, a computer would blow a main circuit if you asked it to calculate the odds that they have occurred by chance alone.

Please read this list of events and then maybe wonder if Justice Scalia’s sudden uninvestigated death is another “Fortuitous Coincident event” in the ongoing legacy of Barack Hussein Obama.

Scalia had been a thorn in the throat of Obama since Obama, immediate to his ascent into the Presidency, flagrantly ignored the separation of powers between the Supreme Court,  the US Congress and the Presidency. As far as Obama has been concerned there is no separation. There is only Executive Power that supersedes the others with no debate required

Supreme Court Justice Scalia opposed virtually all of Obama’s executive actions. The effect of his loss is incalculable. The Court is now in a 4/4 decision making mode that makes many of the actions Scalia had initiated mute. We have already seen this disaster unfold.

III  There are the key cases facing the Supreme Court after Scalia’s death

By Robert Barnes February 14, 2016

Four cases that could re-shape the country will be heard when the Supreme Court meets this term without Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia consistently expressed conservative views when reviewing court cases. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia casts a cloud of uncertainty over a Supreme Court term filled with some of the most controversial issues facing the nation: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

An eight-member court could split on all of those issues. If the court ties in deciding a case, the decision of the appeals court remains in place, without setting a nationwide precedent.

Pending a new justice, the court now has three consistent conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and Anthony M. Kennedy, like Scalia a Reagan appointee but one who often sides with the court’s liberals on social issues, such as same-sex marriage.

The court has four consistent liberals: Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

III Unfortunately, Justice Scalia had numerous Left Wing enemies besides Barack Obama.

Wm. Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard  discusses:
Scalia and His Enemies

FEB 29, 2016

In January, The Scrapbook was privileged to be in attendance at a speech Antonin Scalia gave to a small audience at Catholic University. We can’t claim to have known the man or even to have met him for more than a handshake, but Scalia was such a presence that even being in the same room with him was a thrill.

His written words were surpassingly impressive, but his boisterous and gregarious delivery only added to the impression that one was in the presence of greatness.

One did not have to agree with Scalia to appreciate his personal qualities, to say nothing of his legal acumen. Nonetheless, as soon as Scalia died, the knives were drawn.

After Georgetown Law School sent out a press release noting the school was mourning his death (he received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown and was the 1957 valedictorian and a champion debater there), two of the school’s longtime professors, Gary Peller and Louis Michael Seidman, issued a public dissent saying that many at Georgetown’s community “cringed at .  .  . the unmitigated praise with which the press release described a jurist that many of us believe was a defender of privilege, oppression and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic.

There’s a great irony in Peller’s disdaining Scalia’s prodigious intellect as “simplistic.” Peller’s own specialty is in critical race theory and critical legal studies, which are hardly summits of academic rigor. As the Daily Caller put it, a “major part of Peller’s work is denying the very existence of objective knowledge or the value of concepts like rationality, on the grounds that knowledge is just ‘a function of the ability of the powerful to impose their own views.’ ”

Fortunately, more than a few honest liberals testified to the truth of who Scalia was. Cass Sunstein, a former Obama administration official and respected legal scholar, wrote a glowing remembrance for Bloomberg.

He recalled that in 1994 after Bill Clinton swore in his second liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, “Justice Antonin Scalia came up to me, put his arm around my shoulder, and said with a bright, mischievous smile, “First Ruth [Bader Ginsburg], and now Steve? Cass, it’s almost enough to make me vote Democrat.”

Still, the number of supposedly respectable liberal voices attacking Scalia is positively dispiriting. But we take comfort in the fact that Scalia was an indisputably great man. It’s not his life and work that are on trial. Those taking the occasion of his death to attack the man’s legacy are only indicting themselves.

IV Conclusion:

Where then is the autopsy? Was the death from natural causes or not. Is it one more episode in the “Fortuitous Coincidence” of Obama’s success story with his opponents taking a fortuitous exit or is it just another conspiracy theory!

All that could be clarified with a simple autopsy by a reputable forensic pathologist. Or, is that exactly what the present Administration with undoubtedly one of the most crucial, sea changing presidential election before us, does not want to determine?

Jerome S. Kaufman
Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post



The Brotherhood now sponsors an annual ‘Muslim Advocacy Day’ on Capitol Hill targeting U.S. members of Congress.

But some critics are saying the day was misnamed. It should have been “Muslim Brotherhood Day.”

That’s because the organization behind Muslim Advocacy Day is a front for the Brotherhood, an extremist Islamist group known for establishing scores of fronts – including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR – that fool the establishment media and many politicians.

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, penned an op-ed in the Hill that shined a light on the shadowy political group that sponsors the day of lobbying and activism for U.S. Muslims. It’s the United States Council of Muslim Organizations, or USCMO.

Gaffney said most congressmen were likely oblivious as to who is behind the USCMO and National Muslim Advocacy Day.

“The USCMO is the latest in a long series of front organizations associated with, and working to advance, the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States,” Gaffney writes.

The website for the USCMO suggests “advocacy issues” that Muslims should take up with their members of Congress. They were encouraged to talk to their elected leaders about condemning “Islamaphobia,” the website states.

A second suggestion is addressing concerns about a Homeland Security program known as Countering Violent Extremism, which President Obama introduced last year with an emphasis that seems to focus more on “right wing militias” than Islamic terrorists, but the Brotherhood is still worried about the program. Perhaps it feels it could be turned against Muslims under a future President Ted Cruz or Donald Trump?

The Brotherhood’s agenda is laid out in a document introduced into evidence by federal prosecutors during the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation in 2007-08. Obama’s former Attorney General Eric Holder abruptly ended the trial despite its success in shutting down a prime funding source for Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

During that trial, a document written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, and entitled “The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America,” was presented into evidence. It was one of dozens of pieces of evidence that ended up sending more than 100 Muslim Brotherhood operatives to jail. CAIR, the Muslim Student Association and the Islamic Society of North America were among the groups outed during the trial as Muslim Brotherhood fronts. They remain unindicted co-conspirators in that case.

It clearly states the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America as “destroying Western civilization from within … by [the infidels’] hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

There are two other important facts legislators should know about Akram’s memo, Gaffney states.

“First, the document helpfully attaches a list of 29 groups under the heading ‘Our organizations and organizations of our friends: Imagine if they all march according to one plan!’ A number of the identified Muslim Brotherhood fronts — and many others that have come into being since 1991 — are members of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations.

“Representatives and associates of such fronts will be among the Islamists in congressional offices on Monday,” Gaffney writes.

Second, the memo describes the Muslim Brotherhood’s favored technique for accomplishing its stated goal of destroying Western civilization – “civilization jihad.”

This kind of jihad is perfectly suited to a liberal Western democracy, Gaffney says.

“This sort of jihad involves employing stealthy, subversive means like influence operations to penetrate and subvert our government and civil society institutions,” he writes.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has been studying the Muslim Brotherhood agenda and tactics for years. Her warnings while in Congress were met with mocking derision.

“The Muslim Brotherhood together with its myriad fake front groups, like a demon, first charms then disarms, then contorts itself into a seemingly friendly face,” Bachmann told WND. “Once it’s beguiled its unsuspecting victim, it mercilessly unleashes death and destruction upon its unwary victims, like a viper.

“Congress has a constitutional duty to protect America against this intentional attack.”

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is vice president of the Family Research Council, is also seeing red flags in the Muslim Brotherhood’s all-out lobbying assault on Washington, D.C. Boykin, in an interview with American Family Radio, said Americans should not be fooled by the Brotherhood’s assertion that it speaks for all U.S. Muslims.

Boykin said Muslim Advocacy Day attempts to make Americans reluctant to stand up to the very groups that are attempting to change the culture and, in some instances, engage in terrorist acts. The strategy has already been very successful. In San Bernardino, California, a group of construction workers saw the unusual activity of Middle Eastern men coming and going from terrorist Syed Farook’s house, and the constant deliveries of supplies, but they said they were afraid to report the activity to police for fear of being labeled “anti-Muslim.”

You will remember that Farook and his jihadist wife, Tashfeen Malik, entered a Christmas party in December and shot to death 14 Americans.


Robert Spencer, author of the JihadWatch blog for the David Horowitz Freedom Center and of several books about Islam, said there is no “Islamophobia” in America. A “phobia” is defined as an irrational fear.

He said there is nothing irrational about seeing and believing the Brotherhood’s plan for America, as stated in its own words. The Brotherhood should be banned in this country as a terrorist organization, he said.

Legislation has been introduced recently in Congress that would do exactly that, but so far it hasn’t gotten much traction under the GOP leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations says its second annual National Muslim Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill today is ‘designed to connect national, regional and state Muslim organizations, community members with their elected representatives in Congress,’” Spencer said. “However, the ties that some of the foremost organizations making up this coalition have to the Muslim Brotherhood reveal the sinister aspect of this agenda – and underscore the necessity of passing S. 2230, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.”

Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Bahrain and Jordan have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, and the group’s motto would seem to be a self-incriminating statement as to its objectives, Spencer noted.   (Unfortunately, many in the Congress don’t seem to be aware of this obvious warning alert).

Their motto states: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at CSP, said the group can wrap itself in the American flag all it wants, but the USCMO is still “openly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist organization dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization from within.”

Linking its agenda with the Black Lives Matter movement doesn’t much help its image either, Lopez said. The Muslim Association of America, at its annual conference in December, openly called for U.S. Muslims to join as revolutionary comrades with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Israel Commentary

Source: The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching!

The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching!



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Source: The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching!



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching! –


Have to copy and paste to your own search engine: Google, Yahoo, Firefox whatever


Honest Injun!





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(Communicated by the Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Media Advisor)

At the weekly Cabinet meeting, today (Sunday, 17 April 2016), which was held at Maaleh Gamla, on the Golan Heights, in honor of the 34th Government’s first year in office:

1. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks:

“We are here, on the Golan Heights. This is the first time that the Government of Israel has held an official meeting on the Golan Heights in the 49 years that they have been under Israeli rule. The Golan Heights have been an integral part of the Land of Israel since ancient times; the dozens of ancient synagogues in the area around us attest to this. The Golan Heights are an integral part of the State of Israel in the new era. During the 19 years that the Golan Heights were under Syrian occupation, when they were a place for bunkers, wire fences, mines and aggression, they were for war. In the 49 years that the Golan Heights have been under Israeli rule, they have been for agriculture, tourism, economic initiatives and building. They are for peace. In the stormy region around us, Israel is the stabilizing factor; Israel is the solution, not the problem.

I must tell you that many countries in the region have already recognized this and the trend of understanding and cooperation with them is strengthening. Israel will continue to act in order to maintain its security and the quiet on our northern border and opposite the Gaza Strip. The quiet has been maintained as a result of the defensive and counter-terrorist operations of the IDF and, if need be, certainly if we are attacked, of the understanding by our enemies that we will respond against them in very great strength.

I chose to hold this festive Cabinet meeting on the Golan Heights in order to deliver a clear message: The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands. Israel will never come down from the Golan Heights. The population on the Golan Heights grows year by year; today it numbers approximately 50,000 and there are thousands of families due to join them in the coming years. We will continue to strengthen the residents, the communities, the industry and the agriculture however we can, including through the decisions that we will make at this meeting.

While what is happening on the Israeli side of the Golan Heights is clear, one cannot say this about what is happening on the Syrian side. I spoke last night with US Secretary of State John Kerry and I told him that I doubt that Syria will ever return to what it was. It has persecuted minorities, such as the Christians, Druze and Kurds, who are justly fighting for their future and their security. But it also has terrorist elements, especially Daesh, Iran and Hezbollah, and others, that want to impose radical Islam on Syria and the region, and from there continue to impose it throughout the world.

I told the Secretary of State that we will not oppose a diplomatic settlement in Syria, on condition that it not come at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, i.e. that at the end of the day, the forces of Iran, Hezbollah and Daesh will be removed from Syrian soil. The time has come for the international community to recognize reality, especially two basic facts. One, whatever is beyond the border, the boundary itself will not change. Two, after 50 years, the time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israel’s sovereignty permanently.”


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Chronicling the collapse of Syria and the rise of the Islamic State.


The Weekly Standard
APR 11, 2016

It is an ordinary summer day in northern Syria, in 2013. No barrel bombs filled with shrapnel that indiscriminately kill all living things; just a few artillery shells that no one pays much attention to.

Suddenly a bomb hits close to a house where members of the Free Syrian Army are drinking tea. The men are thrown violently to the ground. Then they begin to laugh.n“They never stopped laughing, these men,” writes Samar Yazbek in The Crossing. “It was as though they inhaled laughter like an antidote to death.”

Yazbek, an outspoken critic of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, was forced into exile from her homeland in 2011, only to make several clandestine trips back to war-torn northern Syria in 2012 and 2013. Her language is personal and powerful. She describes acts of horror that are almost too unbearable to process: corpses, crippled children, survivors clustered in shacks and hovels, constant airstrikes from the sky.

“The only victor in Syria is death: no one talks of anything else,” she writes. “Everything is relative and open to doubt; the only certainty is that death will triumph.”

This is a powerful, moving, and often poetic account of a peaceful uprising that began with much promise only to descend into bloodshed. She conducts long interviews with warlords, men from the Free Syrian Army as well as representatives of the Islamic State.

The armed people’s resistance brigades, as she calls them, trying to defend their communities, were not strong enough and, ultimately, lacked antiaircraft missiles to protect the civilian population against Assad’s relentless bombing campaign. When better-armed and better-funded Islamic extremists moved in, their influence over villages and towns grew, and northern Syria gradually fragmented into independent areas controlled by different rebel groups.

By the time ordinary Syrians realized what was happening, it was too late. By 2012, a power vacuum had spread across the northern part of that country. It was quickly filled by the Islamic State and groups such as the al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, which set up a network of local informants and sharia courts to control the population.

On December 6, 2014, a year and a half after Yazbek’s last trip to Syria, the 74-year-old German journalist, publisher, and former Bundestag member Jürgen Todenhöfer traveled from Turkey to territory claimed by the Islamic State. He was the first Western journalist allowed into areas controlled by the Islamic State, and his journey is meticulously described in My Journey into the Heart of Terror.

Todenhöfer’s book, like many other first hand accounts from inside authoritarian regimes, has its limitations: It is not always clear if the story unfolds through the eyes of the author or the jihadists that are all too eager to serve as his guides.

He travels with a guarantee of safe passage from the office of the caliph, which is dominated by ex-officers from Saddam Hussein’s army and security services. At every checkpoint, before every interview, he flashes the letter and animosity quickly turns to camaraderie. It is all a bit too convenient.

In fact, it is hard not to suspect that Todenhöfer is (or allows himself to be) taken in by his jihadist hosts, who pose with their M16s, sport Bayern Munich jerseys, play video games, and drink Pepsi. But thanks to the courage and commitment with which he reports from deep inside Islamic State territory, the reader is treated to some rare and intimate encounters with Islamists.

A car trip through IS-controlled territory with Jihadi John as driver and Abu Qatadah—also known as Christian E., a sandy-haired former IT specialist from the Ruhr—as tourist guide is a surreal experience.

Todenhöfer asks Abu Qatadah if IS has anything to do with religion, and quotes the verse from the Koran saying that whoever kills a person unjustly has killed all mankind.

Abu Qatadah calmly explains that all infidels must die, and Shiite Muslims, as apostates, are no exception. “If they do not convert,” he says, “then they must die. It sounds crass, but we do not care about numbers. We have no borders, only front lines. The goal is world domination.”

At the Syria-Turkey border, Todenhöfer watches as trucks filled with new recruits arrive every 20 minutes. “I just could not believe the glow in their eyes,” he writes. “They felt like they were coming to a promised land, like they were fighting for the right thing.” The would-be jihadists are carefully documented and screened:

What are their weaknesses? Who can be blackmailed into remaining with the group? Which addictions can be exploited? The Islamic State operates like any other well-organized intelligence agency during wartime, with informants placed in strategic locations.

In Mosul, the largest city occupied by IS, Todenhöfer meets many Europeans. These are young men and women who, frustrated with life in the West, have been lured to the Middle East by promises of adventure and the good life. (Recent research shows that the vast majority of people who join IS and other jihadist groups are recruited by family and friends; radicalization hardly ever occurs in mosques.)

Todenhöfer paints a picture of a vibrant city full of life, where a curious sense of normality reigns. The stores are open; the streets are full of people; father and sons enjoy raisins, ice cream, and coffee as they stroll around the ancient streets. It is like any Western city—except that 1.5 million people are brutally controlled by no more than 15,000 jihadists.

At the end of his journey the façade starts to crumble. Todenhöfer tries on a suicide vest; but when he examines the trigger, the young fighters standing around him quickly put an end to the demonstration. Fear overcomes bravado.

These are two very different firsthand accounts from behind the borders of the Islamic State. Above all, Samar Yazbek bears witness: The Crossing is a personal account of her devastated homeland, a chronicle of how Syria has systematically been “hanged, drawn and quartered.”

Jürgen Todenhöfer’s reportage is, at times, tediously admonitory but provides a fascinating account of people little understood in the West. He sets out to understand life among the jihadists and returns with a stark warning:

The Islamic State is “much stronger and much more dangerous” than the West realizes. And regardless of who is dropping the bombs, the civilian population is suffering unimaginable horrors.

Kip Eideberg is a writer and consultant in Washington.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Any one of these ‘coincident events’ when taken singularly appear to not mean much, but when taken as a whole, a computer would blow a main circuit if you asked it to calculate the odds that they have  occurred by chance alone. Unfortunately, by no coincidence his time table corresponds exactly with the impending demise of the United States as a world power.

Do we want a successor that promises to continue his agenda?

Read below and  ponder the Obama-related ‘coincident events’, that  superimpose the bigger picture  i.e., Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the National Security Agency revelations with Hillary Clinton.

(Who surely deserves a carefully outlined summary of “fortuitous coincident events” of her own)

Barack Hussein Obama:
just happened to know 60s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father
just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who
just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who
just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who
just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama
just happened to choose as his closest White House adviser, and who
just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which
just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which
just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which
just happened not to properly maintain the housing which eventually
just happened to require demolition.  Not to mention that this is the property that would have been the grounds that hosted the Olympics, had Obama’s efforts been successful.


Valerie Jarrett also
just happened to work for the city of Chicago, and
just happened to hire Michelle LaVaughan Robinson (later Mrs. Obama), who
just happened to have worked at the Sidney Austin law firm, where former fugitive from the FBI Bernadine Dohrn also just happened to work, and where Barack Obama
just happened to get a summer job.


Bernardine Dohrn:

just happened to be married to William Ayers, with whom she
just happened to have hidden from the FBI at a San Francisco marina, along with Donald Warden, who
just happened to change his name to Khalid al-Mansour, and Warden/al-Mansour who
just happened to be a mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and a close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and al-Mansour
coincident events just happened to be financial adviser to a Saudi Prince, who
just happened to donate cash to Harvard, for which Obama
just happened to get a critical letter of recommendation from Percy Sutton, who just happened to have been the attorney for Malcolm X, who
just happened to know Kenyan politician Tom Mboya, who
just happened to be a close friend of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who
just happened to meet Malcolm X when he traveled to Kenya .
Obama, Sr.


just happened to have his education at the University of Hawaii paid for by the Laubach Literacy Institute, which
just happened to have been supported by Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, who
just happened to be a friend of Malcolm X, who
just happened to have been associated with the Nation of Islam, which was later headed by Louis Farrakhan, who
just happens to live very close to Obama’s Chicago mansion, which also
just happens to be located very close to the residence of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who
just happens to have been occasional baby-sitters for Malia and Natasha Obama, whose parents
just happened to have no concern exposing their daughters to bomb-making communists.


After attending Occidental College and Columbia University, where he
just happened to have foreign Muslim roommates, Obama moved to Chicago to work for the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization that
just happened to have been founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul the Red Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who
just happened to be the topic of Hillary Rodham Clintons thesis at Wellesley College, and Obamas $25,000 salary at IAF
just happened to be funded by a grant from the Woods Fund, which was founded by the Woods family, whose Sahara Coal company
just happened to provide coal to Commonwealth Edison, whose CEO just happened to be Thomas Ayers, whose son William Ayers
just happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund, along with Obama.


Obama also worked on voter registration drives in Chicago in the 1980s and
just happened to work with leftist political groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Socialist International (SI), through which Obama met Carl Davidson, who
just happened to travel to Cuba during the Vietnam War to sabotage the U.S. war effort, and who
just happened to be a former member of the SDS and a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which
just happened to sponsor a 2002 anti-war rally at which Obama spoke, and which
just happened to have been organized by Marilyn Katz, a former SDS activist and later public relations consultant who
just happened to be a long-time friend of Obamas political hatchet man, David Axelrod.


Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), whose pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fiery orator who

just happened to preach Marxism and Black Liberation Theology and who delivered anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American sermons, which Obama
just happened never to hear because he
just happened to miss church only on the days when Wright was at his most enthusiastic, and Obama
just happened never to notice that Oprah Winfrey left the church because it was too radical, and
just happened never to notice that the church gave the vile anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.


Although no one had ever heard of him at the time, Obama
just happened to receive an impossible-to-believe $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations, which he
just happened to fail to write while using the cash to vacation in Bali with his wife Michelle, and despite his record of non-writing he just happened to receive a second advance, for $40,000, from another publisher, and he eventually completed a manuscript called Dreams From My Father, which
just happened to strongly reflect the writing style of William Ayers, who
just happened to trample on an American flag for the cover photograph of the popular Chicago magazine, which Obama
just happened never to see even though it appeared on newsstands throughout the city.


Obama was hired by the law firm Miner, Banhill and Galland, which
just happened to specialize in negotiating state government contracts to develop low-income housing, and which
just happened to deal with now-imprisoned Tony Rezko and his firm Rezar, and with slumlord Valerie Jarrett, and the law firms Judson Miner
just happened to have been a classmate of Bernardine Dohrn, wife of William Ayers.
In 1994 Obama represented ACORN  and another plaintiff in a lawsuit against Citibank for denying mortgages to blacks (Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank), and the lawsuit
just happened to result in banks being blackmailed into approving sub-prime loans for poor credit risks, a trend which
just happened to spread nationwide, and which
just happened to lead to the collapse of the housing bubble, which
just happened to help Obama defeat John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.


In 1996 Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate and joined the New Party, which
just happened to promote Marxism, and Obama was supported by Dr. Quentin Yong, a socialist who
just happened to support a government takeover of the health care system.


In late 1999, Obama purportedly engaged in homosexual activities and cocaine-snorting in the back of a limousine with a man named Larry Sinclair, who claims he was contacted in late 2007 by Donald Young, who


just happened to be the gay choir director of Obamas Chicago church and who shared information with Sinclair about Obama, and Young
just happened to be murdered on December 23, 2007, just weeks after Larry Bland, another gay member of the church
just happened to be murdered, and both murders
just happened to have never been solved. In 2008 Sinclair held a press conference to discuss his claims, and
just happened to be arrested immediately after the event, based on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who
just happens to be the son of Joe Biden.


In 2003 Obama and his wife attended a dinner in honor of Rashid Khalidi, who
just happened to be a former PLO operative, harsh critic of Israel , and advocate of Palestinian rights, and who Obama claims he does not know, even though the Obamas
just happened to have dined more than once at the home of Khalidi and his wife, Mona, and
just happened to have used them as occasional baby-sitters. Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at the decidedly anti-Semitic event, which William Ayers
just happened to also attend, and the event Obama pretends he never attended was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network, to which


Obama just happened to have funneled cash while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers, and one speaker at the dinner remarked that if Palestinians cannot secure a return of their land, Israel will never see a day of peace, and entertainment at the dinner included a Muslim children’s dance whose performances
just happened to include simulated be-headings with fake swords, and stomping on American, Israeli, and British flags, and Obama allegedly told the audience that Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine and there has been genocide against the Palestinian people by (the) Israelis, and the Los Angeles Times has a videotape of the event but
just happens to refuse to make it public.


In the 2004 Illinois Democrat primary race for the U.S. Senate, front-runner Blair Hull


just happened to be forced out of the race after David Axelrod just happened to manage to get Hulls sealed divorce records unsealed, which just happened to enable Obama to win the primary, so he could face popular Republican Jack Ryan, whose sealed child custody records from his divorce
just happened to become unsealed, forcing Ryan to withdraw from the race, which
just happened to enable the unqualified Obama to waltz into the U.S. Senate, where, after a mere 143 days of work, he
just happened to decide he was qualified to run for President of the United States!


And now you really do know some of the rest of the story…..Perhaps you know someone else who also might like to read it, especially  before the forthcoming  Presidential, Senatorial and House elections


II  Since this article was written another unusual fortuitous coincidence occurred – The sudden death of Right Wing stalwart Supreme Court Chief Judge, Antonin Scalia and …

For some reason Antonin Scalia’s family waives autopsy after justice is found with pillow over his head; death certificate will say ‘natural causes’


Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”
Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.“How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”
Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara said she declared Scalia dead via telephone based on what cops and marshals at the scene told her — that there were no signs of foul play.
“How in the world can that Texas judge, not even seeing the body, say that this is a heart attack?” Ritchie wondered. “A US marshal can’t tell you. You need a medical professional. If this was Joe Blow, you say OK, 79 years of age, health problems, maybe natural causes. But this is a sitting justice of the Supreme Court!”


Subscribe Israel Commentary:


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Geert Wilders, Leader of Dutch Party of Freedom – Islam’s War against the Free World  (Jews and the State of Israel)

Looking in vain for glasnost in Tehran.


The Weekly Standard,  MAR 14, 2016
Barack Obama and his tireless secretary of state, John Kerry, sold the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in part as a means to reinforce Iranian “reformers,” “moderates,” and “pragmatists.” They were always quick to add that the atomic accord stood on its own technical merits. Yet the non-nuclear dimension of the deal was no small part of the sugar that made the JCPOA more appealing.

A more temperate Islamic regime, which gave first priority to the well-being of its people, would be less likely to abuse the JCPOA’s weaknesses. And the accord has serious limitations: Within 8 years, the Islamic Republic can start producing advanced centrifuges; within 15 years, clerics will be free to construct as many centrifuges and enrich as much uranium as they wish.

The unorthodox inspection regime that the White House agreed to, which at the suspect Parchin facility restricted the International Atomic Energy Agency to remote, robotic sampling, also suggests that the administration really hopes to see the Islamic Republic moderate over the next decade.

The 2016 Iranian parliamentary elections ought to be viewed as one more sign that the overarching political premise of the deal made no sense. (Just as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocably warned before the US Congress, March 3, 2015 — much to the anger of arch-narcissist Barack Obama) The new parliament voted in at February’s end is composed of—and again the Western nomenclature is far from ideal—radical hardliners, hardliners, conservatives, and a few tepid, nervous reformers.

Real reformers, Iranian politicians and intellectuals who want to change radically the governing structure of the Islamic Republic and convert a theocracy into a democracy, were silenced, imprisoned, exiled, murdered, and banned from politics when the pro-democracy Green Movement was stamped out after the fraudulent presidential election in 2009.

What we have left in the Islamic Republic’s theocratically managed democracy, in which parliament has no real power, are regime-loyal laymen and mullahs who are all Islamic revolutionaries but differ, at times strongly, on who should lead the cause and how the country’s economic system should be structured.

Anyone who isn’t a member of the third-world-loving-please-don’t-let-America-bomb-Iran-stop-the-warmongering-neoconservatives movement and has studied the Islamic Republic knows that when parliament chairman Ali Larijani, a highly intelligent, dissent-crushing, women’s-rights-loathing, supreme-leader-loving, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, allies himself with President Hassan Rouhani and his followers, the latter aren’t seeking to change fundamentally the Islamic Republic.

Many Westerners want to believe that Rouhani’s economic preferences, which would reduce the state’s heavy hand in commerce and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s monopolizing role in industry, will sooner or later lead to greater political and cultural freedom. The power of Adam Smith will triumph over Islam, so to speak.

Hassan Rouhani and his former mentor, the clerical major-domo Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, liberalized Iran’s economy in the 1990s when Rafsanjani was president and the de facto co-equal of Ali Khamenei, whom he had elevated to supreme leader in 1989 upon Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s death.

Rafsanjani eased up a bit on cultural expression and didn’t blow a gasket when middle-class and affluent Iranian women started to add a bit of color to their clothing and push back the scarves covering their hair. Rafsanjani made a personal pitch to successful Iranian expatriates to come home and invest. Rafsanjani and his aide-de-camp Rouhani especially tried to attract European money to Iran.

As Rouhani put it in 1994, “Because of the fierce competition between Europe and the United States, we must expand our relations with Europe and counter America’s conspiracy.” The two clerics tried—and failed—to check the growing economic and political power of the Revolutionary Guards.

However, Rafsanjani, with Khamenei, could come down brutally on those who politically or culturally pushed the envelope too far. Many intellectuals, at home and abroad, were assassinated during Rafsanjani’s presidency by officers and agents of the ministry of intelligence. Rafsanjani and Rouhani, who’d been the driving forces behind that ministry’s creation and had men closely aligned with them serving in its highest ranks, were unquestionably culpable for this terrorism, as they were also undoubtedly “in” on the attack at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, which left 19 Americans dead and 372 wounded.

Some Iranian students believed that Mohammad Khatami, a complicated cleric who sincerely wrestled with the collision of Western and Islamic ideas, would usher in an age of reform after he succeeded Rafsanjani in 1997; Rouhani’s deeply felt antipathy toward them exploded during the 1999 student protests. Rouhani, then secretary of the supreme national security council, gave a fire-breathing speech threatening the students with death.

Clerics do change. There are many Iranian mullahs who were once die-hard believers in theocracy and the Islamic Revolution who have grown disenchanted. Most of them have been harassed, some even tortured and exiled for their growing doubts. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that Hassan Rouhani or the vast majority of his supporters who won parliamentary seats in Tehran are what we might call discreet evolutionary mullahs and laymen. There is no reason to believe that the Iranian president has even a smidgen of the reflection and self-doubt that Mikhail Gorbachev did when he attempted to save communism through glasnost.

Foreign policy analysts and grand strategists don’t have to be slaves to history and read meticulously every speech and book of foreign VIPs, but they can’t ignore them and gainsay the obvious. Mutatis mutandis, Rouhani is the same man he was in 1999. That he might look better than he did then is only because the Iranian political system has moved so far “right” since the halcyon days of the “Islamic Left” in the 1990s, when reformist clerics and laymen tried peacefully and democratically to introduce change into Iranian society and politics. The only ones who’ve really changed are the fallen heroes of Khatami’s brief period of reform. They’ve become forlorn, desperate to see hope even in men who once literally gave the orders to jail and beat them. It is an Orwellian irony.

Regardless of what happens inside Iran, President Obama and his supporters will continue to embrace the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. They will never accept the argument that a nuclear agreement that enhances the power of Islamic revolutionaries is so politically counterproductive as to negate the logic of the deal itself. The truth: Since the second Iraq war became politically unpalatable, the vast majority of American progressives haven’t cared that much about what happens inside the Islamic Republic, whether hardliners rise and moderates fall.

Liberals may cite, with the greatest of reverence, Iranian dissidents who are praying that Rouhani 2.0 won’t be as nasty as Rouhani 1.0; that his enmity towards the Revolutionary Guards will spill over into civil society and at least create buffers between their demurrals and the guards’ rapacity. But for the American left, what really matters is that the United States isn’t going to war over the Iranian nuclear issue. As long as that is true, Rouhani is a moderate. The Iranian people just need to be patient. The arc of history is on their side. Crony capitalism will eventually set them free.  (as will elephants eventually fly)

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a contributing editor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By the brilliant Rabbi Berel Wein

Parsha TAZRIA,  Torah portion of the week

From: Leviticus (Vayikra), the Third Book of Moses, The Hebrew Bible

The ritual of circumcision has been one of the basic institutions of Jewish life since the beginnings of our familial and national existence. It is this covenant of our father Avraham which has always been a testament to the eternity of the Jewish people, to its heritage and identity.
As in the case of Avraham circumcising his son Yitzchak on the eighth day after the infant’s birth, the Torah emphasizes this matter in this week’s Torah reading. The eighth day always has significance in Jewish thought and life. It is a day of action and of looking forward, of the future and not merely of the nostalgic past. The ritual of circumcision consecrates the boy to a life of service and holy purpose.

It channels the life giving force that lies within him to nobility and circumspection, in avoidance of wanton lust and dissolute behavior. It is the covenant that is inscribed in our very flesh that constantly marks our identities as Jews and signals our loyalty to our faith and tradition. That is why the ceremony of circumcision is always a joyous one marked with a festive meal and a gathering of friends and family.

The prophet said twice: “In your blood shall you live.” One of these instances refers to the blood of the infant at the moment of his circumcision. It is the blood of life and hope, of purpose and of uniqueness.

Throughout the ages, the Jewish ritual of circumcision has been under attack. The Greeks thought it to be a mutilation of the human body, which to them was their temple of worship. The Romans banned it because to them it was a symbol of the Jewish nationalism that they endeavored so mightily to crush and extinguish forever.

Much of the Christian world, in separating itself from its Jewish roots, objected to and ridiculed the practice of circumcision. They could not refute its biblical origin but claimed that its time had passed, with the coming of this “new” faith completely replacing the “old” one. But the Jews steadfastly maintained their practice of circumcision for their infant boys and for those males who wished to convert to Judaism.

This characteristic Jewish stubbornness continually angered the Christian world with many a blood libel and pogrom caused by the insistence of Jews to circumcise their male children. In the modern era in the western world where Christianity waned and weakened, the attack on Jewish circumcision practices nevertheless continued though in a different form.

Now these attacks took on a “humanitarian” coloration, supposedly protecting the helpless infant from the pain and discomfort of circumcision. The banning of circumcision by legislative action became the favorite tactic of those who wanted to rid their societies of Jews and Judaism.

And this struggle against the covenant and people of Avraham continues today throughout parts of Europe. Some of this is still a legacy of the communist ideology of the Soviet Union that banned circumcision in its “workers’ paradise” for many decades until its own collapse. But behind all attempts to discredit and attack circumcision lies the unreasoning hatred of the Jewish people. It is an age-old battle.

Shabbat shalom

Rabbi Berel Wein

Berel Wein (born March 25, 1934) is an American-born Orthodox rabbi, lecturer and writer. Rabbi Wein and his wife moved to Israel in 1997. They settled in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. He has authored several books concerning Jewish history and popularized the subject through more than 1,000 audio tapes, newspaper articles and international lectures. Throughout his career, he has retained personal and ideological ties to both Modern Orthodox and Haredi Judaism. His numerous works and blog are readily available on the Internet.

PS  Coincidentally, I just received notice that a few days ago,  six immigrants to Israel were awarded the Nefesh B’Nefesh Bonei Zion Prize and one of them  was Rabbi Berel Wein, founder and director, The Destiny Foundation.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from an excellent, in-depth 5 page article that must be read in its entirety.



December 2015 (No, nothing has changed since December – worse if anything with Bernie or Hillary in the leadership)
President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran survived a congressional challenge in September 2015, despite its extreme unpopularity with the American people. With very few exceptions, Democrats in the House and Senate rallied to the president’s side and (in the case of the Senate) refused to allow even a token vote to be cast in opposition. This was a turning point, for the deal formally recognizes the eventual right of Iran to become a nuclear power—a right that places Israel in profound existential jeopardy.



Supporters of Israel will continue to claim that the Jewish state is a bipartisan cause in the United States, but as the Iran vote has made painfully clear, this assertion has become more hope than reality. When it came to the most important vote for Israel in a generation, Republicans in both the House and the Senate unanimously opposed the agreement, while an overwhelming majority of Democrats backed it.
Though many Democratic activists and voters remain ardent backers of Israel, those making up the liberal base of the party are not. On issues such as Iran and the conflict with the Palestinians, Democrats are, at best, split, with their left wing increasingly speaking in open opposition to the Zionist cause. More to the point, much of the Democratic Party has followed President Obama’s lead in seeking to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. They claim they are acting out of “tough love” rather than disdain, and that they are acting in Israel’s best interests in contravention of the views of Israel’s own lively and disputatious electorate.


Those claims ring increasingly hollow, but until now they have proved sufficient for a strong majority of Jewish voters and a great many financial backers of Jewish origin in the Democratic Party. It seems that while Republicans actually compete with one another to demonstrate their pro-Israel bona fides, Democrats no longer have to bother.John F. Kennedy was the first American president to meet with an Israeli prime minister and became the first to sell arms to the Jewish state. But a U.S.-Israel relationship did not really take off until Lyndon Johnson succeeded him. Johnson’s “green light” to Israel to defend itself against Arab aggression just prior to the outbreak of the 1967 war was a critical moment in the development of the alliance between the two countries.


It was only after Israel had triumphed in that war and gained the strategic depth it needed to be less vulnerable to annihilation that American leaders began to think of Israel as an asset to the West in the Cold War, not a mere irritant to relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.


Jimmy Carter’s thinly disguised disenchantment with Israel led to a record-low Jewish vote for a Democratic presidential candidate when he ran for re-election in 1980—and Carter’s unyielding bitterness about that was a key motivation for his emergence as an unmistakably anti-Israel voice in the decades following his humiliating defeat.


Carter’s four years in office featured near-constant strife with Israel and the Likud government led by Menachem Begin, who took office in 1977. It was the first rightist government Israelis had elected in the state’s 29-year history. Though Begin’s supposed intransigence was blamed for the trouble—an intransigence belied by the accords that were Carter’s only foreign-policy success—the real issue was Carter’s sub-rosa hostility toward Israel, a factor that would not be fully understood until he left office.


In 1979, UN ambassador Andrew Young took it upon himself to meet secretly with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization, then correctly designated as a terrorist group. The strength of pro-Israel sentiment among Democrats was such that Carter faced enormous pressure to fire Young, who later resigned at Carter’s request. But the incident became a flashpoint, as black leaders hotly protested Young’s departure in an intra-party split that foreshadowed future problems for Israel with left-wing Democrats.


Carter’s thinly disguised disenchantment with Israel led to a record-low Jewish vote for a Democratic presidential candidate when he ran for re-election in 1980—and Carter’s unyielding bitterness about that was a key motivation for his emergence as an unmistakably anti-Israel voice in the decades following his humiliating defeat.


Many Americans had fallen in love with a pioneer Israel governed by the socialist Labour Party and represented by the romance of the agricultural and social collective known as the kibbutz. For liberal Democrats, the full-throated nationalism of Begin’s Likud Party proved disquieting, as Likud’s voting base was made up not of Jews of European origin like them but of Sephardic Jews to whom they felt little connection. Though his policies were little different from those of his Labour predecessors when it came to security issues, Begin was demonized in the press and disdained by Jewish liberals following the lead of disgusted Ashkenazi Israelis astonished to find themselves out of power for the first time.


Begin had retired by the time the first Palestinian intifada broke out in 1987. By this point, media depictions of Israel as an imperial force dominating a captive populace could no longer be blamed exclusively on Likud. The country was then led by a coalition government, and the task of putting it down fell to none other than the former Labour prime minister and future peace-process martyr Yitzhak Rabin, who oversaw a response he himself called “might, power, and beatings.” The Palestinian attempt to pose as the underdog in the conflict with Israel was assisted by a liberal mainstream media that viewed the Palestinians as the new David to Israel’s Goliath.


Arafat responded to Camp David by launching the terror war known as the Second Intifada. Nonetheless, many Democrats clung to the idea that the Jewish state had not taken enough risks for peace. The peace process itself had ironically bolstered the fallacious notion that Israel was the possessor of stolen goods rather than the administrator of disputed territories to which it also had rights.


But as the intifada continued, any concerns that liberals might be abandoning their support for Israel were entirely overshadowed by concerns about the first President George Bush. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker was as openly hostile to Israel as Carter had been. At one point, Bush refused to give Israel loan guarantees to build housing for Russian Jews because of a dispute over West Bank settlements. Democrats railed against Bush’s treatment of Israel and reaped the benefits in 1992 when Jewish support for Bush in his failed reelection bid reached a modern low of 11 percent.
Bush’s replacement by Bill Clinton seemed to further solidify the Democratic Party’s standing as the preeminent pro-Israel party. Clinton’s affection for the Jewish state was genuine, and his hosting of the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat on the White House Lawn earned him applause from most of the pro-Israel community.



Soon enough, the “peace process” created new problems for Israel among Democrats. With the Oslo process already failing in 1996, Israelis again turned to the right and elected Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister. Netanyahu proved willing to continue negotiating with the Palestinians in spite of their violations of the accords. But the liberal disaffection with him was unmistakable, and it fed off the idea that the dark face of Israel had been unmasked at the moment that Yigal Amir assassinated Yitzhak Rabin during a pro-Oslo rally in 1995.


Arafat responded to the Camp David Accords  by launching the terror war known as the Second Intifada, which should at least have demonstrated to all honest observers that the Palestinians were more interested in pursuing their quixotic goal of eliminating Israel than in a two-state solution. Nonetheless, many Democrats clung to the idea that the Jewish state had not taken enough risks for peace. The peace process itself had ironically bolstered the fallacious notion that Israel was the possessor of stolen goods rather than the administrator of disputed territories to which it also had rights. In the view of a growing number of liberals, the rationale for Israel’s existence depended on giving up this land no matter the consequences for its security.


Israelis across the political spectrum lost faith in the peace process owing to both the Second Intifada and the conversion of Gaza into a terror state after Ariel Sharon withdrew every settler, soldier, and settlement in 2005. But their concerns had no impact on many Democrats who still claimed to be friends of Israel.


By the time of Barack Obama’s election as president in 2008, the leader of the Democrats was a man who made no bones about representing himself as someone who was hostile to Israel’s Likud Party even as he claimed unconvincingly to be sympathetic to the country itself. And unlike his recent predecessors, Obama believed that creating more “daylight” between Israel and the United States was the key to the peace process.


But unlike presidents who had picked fights with Israel before, Obama seemed able to do so without getting significant pushback from his own party. He could consistently rely on the backing of most Jewish Democrats in his constant quarrels with the Netanyahu government.


Obama then maneuvered worldwide the Iranians recognition for their nuclear program and the end of sanctions, Obama began getting tough with both Israeli critics of his policy and Democrats who were stepping out of line.


This struggle proved to be the culmination of the Democratic Party’s long march away from Israel. In early 2015, opponents of a nuclear Iran thought they could still count on overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats for an effort to head off a bad deal. Bipartisan majorities had backed toughened sanctions on Iran over the president’s objection before, and there was hope that a new sanctions bill could pass as well. But at this point, Obama started to treat improved relations with Iran, and a consequent cooling of ties with Israel, as his foreign-policy priority.


The Iran-deal vote must be understood in the context of a Democratic Party whose base is now comfortable explicitly articulating its opposition to the Jewish state. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, pro-Israel motions were omitted from the party platform. Democratic leaders sought to correct the mistake during the proceedings and were visibly shocked when a large majority of those responding to a voice vote on pro-Israel measures expressed their opposition.


Changes in American Jewish life are having an additional impact on the decline of pro-Israel Democrats. The 2013 Pew Survey also points to marked decline in a sense of Jewish peoplehood and pro-Israel sentiment among a group that comprises disproportionately loyal Democratic voters and donors. . As that segment of voters became less connected to Jewish identity, so, too, the influence of the pro-Israel community declined among Democrats. Jewish liberals were never single-issue voters obsessed with Israel. But as Israel’s image was battered by wars and the disdain of Obama, it slipped even lower on their list of priorities.
In Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, pro-Israel voices have been marginalized. That marginalization might not be permanent. The next generation of Democrats might come to understand that Obama’s foreign policy—a set of actions that have led to the rise of ISIS, the growing strength of Iran, and “daylight” between the United States and Israel—has made this country and the world more unstable and more dangerous. In American politics, the centrifugal pull of the center ultimately shifts both parties back to moderation on key issues.


That dynamic is the last best hope we have for a pathway back to support for Israel on the part of a Democratic Party that has lost its way.


(And, it sure won’t find the way back via either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. That fact is a given) jsk


Jerome S. Kaufman
Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency

First posted in a political forum hosted by the website One Political Plaza on November 14, 2015.

“They will kill him before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.  (Hashem Forbid)

Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.

It’s about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all and all for one. It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.

Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It’s because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.

These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there’s one man who isn’t beholden to anyone. There’s one man who doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher’s union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.

Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.

Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to de-fund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?

  • First, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. 
  • Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
  • Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.
  • Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
  • Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
  • But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump. Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university.

Now, he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He’s questioning our relationship with Mexico; he’s questioning why the border is wide open; he’s questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he’s questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he’s questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he’s questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question! I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.

Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?

Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant. Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate.

Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama’s records, the game is over. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money. Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.

Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

Yes, it’s become open season on Donald Trump. The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses, and, if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can’t silence him. And they sure can’t intimidate him. The more they try, the more the public will realize that he’s the one telling the truth”.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:


Twitter: @israelcomment

II  Retraction:

An Israel Commentary reader just pointed out to me that the web site declared that Bill Bennett did not write the above article.
I am sorry for the “Incorrect Attribution” but I had no part in developing the theory or writing the article.

In any case, the facts presented as to the hate laden direct attacks on Trump by both Democrats and Republicans are indisputable. As to an assassination theory, I believe the concept tongue in check and allegorical. I can’t believe that Trump generates a level of hatred that would lead to assassination, G-d forbid.

Jerome S. Kaufman


Bill Bennett: They’d Kill Trump Before They Let Him Be President –Incorrectly Attributed!
Summary of eRumor:

Conservative commentator William J. Bennett has an “interesting take on trump” and speculates, “They would kill him before they let him be president.”

The Truth:

Bill Bennett isn’t behind the “Interesting Take on Trump” assassination theory.
An essay titled “Interesting Take on Trump” was first posted in a political forum hosted by the website One Political Plaza on November 14, 2015. The person who posted it said they’d received it via email. From there, the “Interesting Take on Trump” essay was posted on other message boards and quickly went viral.

These posts and chain emails claim that William J. Bennett, the host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America Show, has speculated that someone — either Democrat or Republican — would conspire to assassinate Donald Trump rather than let him be president.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(One more Lefty Justice would make it 5/4 vote  for at least the next two generations. It would destroy the once proud United States of America. Maybe they would allow us into the defunct European Union which by then had become the Iranian/Islamic State Empire. Of course, we would have to pay the  dhimmi tax until coerced into our new Muslin identity and the great beauty of Sharia Law.) jsk

We Oppose Judge Garland’s Confirmation

He is a friend of big labor and regulators, not small businesses.


The Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2016
President Obama formally nominated Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court. After studying his extensive record, the National Federation of Independent Business believes that Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members we represent, the NFIB opposes Judge Garland’s confirmation.

In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers. Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.

In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius. We fear that as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, Judge Garland could apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else.

In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties. What worries us is that Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In fact, in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB. (Obama’s National Labor Relations Board)

With more than 320,000 members, our organization is the country’s largest advocate for small-business owners. When we asked members on Wednesday whether they wanted to fight the Garland confirmation, the response was overwhelming. More than 90% urged us to take action.

It is especially important that we get involved now because this year and in future sessions, the Supreme Court will hear cases in which NFIB is a plaintiff. We are challenging the Waters of the United States rule, an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s power to regulate water. The Clean Power Plan, another massive expansion of federal power that we are challenging, threatens to drive up energy costs for consumers—and for small businesses.

Given Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court, is there any question about which side he would take in these cases? When it comes to big government versus small business, we know where he would stand.

Garland is so bad that, This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee. As the plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, our members know the power that a single Supreme Court justice can wield. We cannot support his elevation to the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments