Read More About:

Share This Post

J Street was paid by Obama administration to promote Iran deal

Liberal Jewish group received $576,000 to advocate for Iran nuclear deal, belying its ‘pro-Israel’ pretensions.

By Ari Soffer

J Street received more than half a million dollars to advocate for the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran, it has been revealed.

The liberal Jewish group, which bills itself as “pro-Israel and pro-peace” but which critics say takes solely anti-Israel stances, was paid the money by the White House’s main surrogate organization for selling the deal.

The Ploughshares Fund was named in an explosive New York Times profile of Obama aid Ben Rhodes, in which the President’s chief spin doctor listed the central groups responsible for creating an “echo chamber” in order to promote the deal, even when the White House’s official line didn’t jibe with the facts.

According to Associated Press, the group’s 2015 annual report details several organizations which received substantial funds to peddle the official White House line on the nuclear deal.

Among them was National Public Radio (NPR), which received a $100,000 grant to promote “national security reporting that emphasizes the themes of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and budgets, Iran’s nuclear program, international nuclear security topics and U.S. policy toward nuclear security.”

Other grantees included: The Arms Control Association ($282,500); the Brookings Institution ($225,000); and the Atlantic Council ($182,500), who “received money for Iran-related analysis, briefings and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work,” according to AP.

The National Iranian American Council received more than $281,000, while Princeton University received a $70,000 grant to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

But the largest recipient of Obama administration funding was J Street, a group which has been closely cultivated by the current White House and is viewed by many as its mouthpiece in the American Jewish community.

According to The Ploughshares Fund’s annual report, J Street was paid $576,500 to advocate for the deal – something it did ferociously, in spite of the opposition from the majority of the pro-Israel community in the US.

J Street’s dogged support for the Iran deal came despite the fact that the vast majority of Israelis, including those on the left with whom J Street claims to align, were strongly opposed – a fact seized upon by the group’s critics as proof it consistently acts against the State of Israel’s interests.


By Daniel Greenfield

January 7, 2014
There was a reason why J Street’s house congresswoman was picked to head up the Dems. The left hasn’t had as much luck in the Senate, but it’s elevating Anti-Israel congressmen wherever it can.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is closely affiliated with an Anti-Israel and Pro-Iran group funded by George Soros, a Nazi collaborator who described the Holocaust as the most exciting and happiest time in his life.

Unfortunately Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s voters have yet to get the message that she is Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish and exists only to serve the interests and agendas of the left. And those of their Islamist allies in Iran.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) has become a major obstacle to a new bipartisan Iran sanctions measure, according to multiple sources on Capitol Hill and in Florida.

Wasserman Schultz has broken with leading pro-Israel Democrats like New York Senator Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, privately urging her fellow Democrats to follow the White House’s lead by opposing a bipartisan House resolution backing new sanctions on Iran, according to multiple congressional sources close to the debate.

The Iran resolution fell apart in the final days of 2013 after House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) withdrew his support for it following a last minute lobbying campaign helmed by Wasserman Schultz, who sources identified as the “key Democrat” leading the anti-sanctions charge.

Wasserman Schultz’s backroom bid to kill the sanctions measure has angered some Democrats on Capitol Hill and in her hometown of South Florida.

“Debbie has been busy at home telling her constituents she is doing all she can to stop Iran, but in reality it appears she is busy behind the scenes working to scuttle bipartisan action to put increased sanctions pressure on Iran,” said one Democrat on Capitol Hill who is closely tracking the Iran debate.

“Every minute she is publicly silent, or working against bipartisan efforts to pressure Iran, is a minute she is siding with the Mullahs over the American people who overwhelmingly want mounting pressure,” said the source, who asked for anonymity.

“She’s being very careful not to say anything publicly while working hard behind the scenes to jam up the legislation,” said a D.C. Jewish community insider involved in the political debate over sanctions.

Like most prominent leftists in Jewish life, Wasserman Schultz is a coward and a backstabber who doesn’t dare tell many of her older Jewish constituents what she really stands for.

In an interview with Jewish Life Television (JLTV), Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz failed to provide a single reason for Jewish voters to support President Barack Obama other than abortion, which she cast as somehow intrinsic to the values of the Jewish community.

This is typical of leftist activists who will cite abortion or gay rights as a Jewish cause because their only real cause is the left.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II An aspect of the Conservative’s problem with Facebook that was not addressed. (see below)

By Jerome S. Kaufman

I Facebook Political Conclave Called Productive

Redacted from an article By DEEPA SEETHARAMAN

Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2016

Sixteen prominent conservatives met with Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday to air concerns about allegations of political bias at the world’s largest social network, in a session several attendees said was a productive start to a dialogue that should continue.

The political and media leaders met with Mr. Zuckerberg, who wore his typical T-shirt, and other Facebook executives for 90 minutes in a conference room on Facebook’s sprawling campus in Menlo Park, Calif. After the late-afternoon meeting, some attendees took a tour of Facebook’s campus and viewed a demonstration of its virtual-reality technology.

Brent Bozell, president of conservative media watchdog the Media Research Center, described it as a “good, first meeting.” He added: “Nothing was going to be conclusively resolved today, but we were assured that Facebook is taking these concerns very seriously.”

“No one is kidding themselves—everyone knows how left-wing Silicon Valley is. It is a world view that is completely contrary to the conservative world view,” Mr. Bozell said. “That said, it doesn’t mean that one can’t find any way to make this work.”

Mr. Bozell and others declined to be more specific about the discussion, saying participants had agreed not to disclose details.

Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that many view the social network with suspicion.

“I know many conservatives don’t trust that our platform surfaces content without a political bias,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote. “I wanted to hear their concerns personally and have an open conversation about how we can build trust. I want to do everything I can to make sure our teams uphold the integrity of our products.”

Mr. Zuckerberg was joined by Facebook’s most prominent conservative executive, Joel Kaplan, a former aide to President George W. Bush who is now Facebook’s head of global public policy.

The meeting thrust Mr. Zuckerberg into the company’s latest attempt at damage control after a report last week that curators of Facebook’s “trending topics” feature suppressed news about conservative events and from conservative sources. Facebook denied bias, but revealed that curators had more oversight over what appears in this feed than it previously disclosed.

In addition to the meeting with Mr. Zuckerberg, the conservative leaders met with Facebook employees who described the “trending topics” feature, which was introduced in January 2014, and explained the role of news curators. Mr. Brooks said Facebook told participants it would adjust the feature’s algorithm to help address the question of bias.

But Facebook employees have contributed roughly three times as much to Democratic candidates as to Republicans during the current election cycle, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of center data. The Journal looked only at contributions of $500 or more.

At stake is Facebook’s reputation as a forum for freewheeling exchange of ideas for its more than 1.6 billion users.

It risks losing credibility among conservatives, who make up about half its users in the U.S., and are active advertisers in this busy election year. Political advertising is expected to reach $11.4 billion this year, with digital ad spending topping $1 billion, according to Borrell Associates. In 2012, digital ad spending was less than $200 million.

Mr. Kaplan is a key part of Facebook’s overture to conservatives, especially given Mr. Zuckerberg’s record of promoting liberal causes. Under Mr. Kaplan, Facebook has tried to build inroads with Republican candidates and added more conservatives to Facebook’s staff, including Kevin Martin, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

II An aspect of the Conservative’s Problem that was not addressed.

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Editor: Israel Commentary

Unfortunately, evidently, from the report  above, one associated subject was not addressed. I am sure some of you have sites on Facebook on which you post articles favorable to conservative views. And, many times, if you are like me, your site has been blocked from all posting for any number of days, depending upon the  whims of Facebook.

Each time this occurs  I have asked Facebook to please tell me exactly what I am doing wrong that makes it block my publication and I have never received a direct explanation. In addition I advise Facebook that  whatever it is that offends them, I would be happy to stop, especially since they are the ones in the driver’s seat.

Having had absolutely no direct response,  I have come to the conclusion that the most likely thing causing the blocking is the conservative-favorable content of the postings.  But, I really have no way of knowing whether this is true or not.

In any case, If you have had similar experiences, please send a short note to Brent Bozell, President of  the Media Research Center, who seems to have a leading role in the discussions with Mr. Zuckerberg. Perhaps Mr Brozell will find your notes of use to him in his future meetings with Mr Zuckerberg. They might even result in a lessening of the harassment many of us are now experiencing.

Mr. Brent Bozell can be contacted at:

Media Research Center
1900 Campus Commons Drive
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20191

Main tel: 571-267-3500
tel: 800-672-1423
fax: 571-375-0099

Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Milton Friedman, Israel, And The Socialist Jewish Paradox

By: Saul Jay Singer
The Jewish Press

May 6, 2016

The economic theories of Milton Friedman (1912-2006), “the Father of Economic Freedom,” have had broad national and international impact, including a powerful influence on the economic policies of, among others, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Menachem Begin.

Considered by many to be the most important conservative American economist, Friedman became the leader of the so-called Chicago School of Economics, which emphasized the importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation.

Friedman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics (1976) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988), rejected the broadly embraced theories of British economist John Maynard Keynes, who maintained that only through heavy government spending could a nation’s economy prosper. Friedman firmly believed the private sector bears the mantle of responsibility for a flourishing economy and, in that regard, he coined the famous phrase “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Another of his more famous aphorisms is “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither.”

Friedman’s parents, Sára Ethel (née Landau) and Jenő Saul, were Jewish immigrants from Beregszász in Carpathian Ruthenia, Hungary, who both worked as dry goods merchants. As a child, Milton had very strong ties to Judaism, studying in a Hebrew school and, in his words, “obeying every Orthodox religious requirement.” After a stint of extreme piety during the years before his bar mitzvah, he lost his faith and ceased Jewish practice, but he still strongly identified as a Jew and took great pride in both Jewish tradition and his Jewish heritage. After his father’s death he faithfully recited Kaddish for the full eleven months, even traveling to neighboring communities to find a minyan. And he was a devout Zionist who strongly identified with Israel and expressed pride in its achievements.

Friedman first became interested in Israel when, at the invitation of the Israeli government, he visited the Jewish state for the first of many times (1962). After his visit to Israel in 1977, when he was awarded an honorary degree by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem shortly after the Likud came to power, a bizarre fabrication was broadly disseminated to the effect that he had come to Israel to serve as Begin’s chief economic adviser and that, as such, he was uniquely responsible for Israel’s roaring inflation. During his final trip to Israel (1990), at the beginning of the opening of the Iron Curtain which led to the massive wave of Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union, he actively participated in a conference on economic policy by the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, which focused on developing suitable absorption policies and the provision of employment and housing to the new olim.

Friedman, who had a special interest in the role of Jews in society, was mystified by the magnetic pull that socialism seemed to have for so many Jewish intellectuals, particularly since socialism had historically been antagonistic to Judaism and because it was capitalism that had enabled Jews to survive the Dark Ages and to thrive and prosper during and after the Enlightenment.

He was particularly disturbed by the obstinacy of Israeli Jews and their leaders, who continued to support and promote the very socialist economic policies that were causing them the greatest harm while rejecting the adoption of free-market reforms which, given Jewish creativity and work ethic, would send Israel’s economy booming. In a 1972 address, he famously presented the essential socialist Jewish paradox this way:

Here are two propositions. Each of them are validated by evidence, yet they are both incompatible one with the other. The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.” The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.” How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?

Friedman believed that while monopolies and oligarchies are injurious to everybody, these systems are particularly ruinous for Jews and for Israel. He argued that though Jews shared the American respect for individual freedom, Israel’s socialist character was not only exacerbating its greatest social and economic problems but also threatening its very future. (As it does every nation – think European Union) Consistent with his general economic and political philosophy, he maintained that for Israel to be successful, it would have to consign socialism’s reliance upon a paternalistic and coercive government to the trash bin of history and, instead, emphasize self-reliance; implement a competitive financial structure; and adopt policies supporting private enterprise and initiative. And he was more than happy to help the Jewish state however he could; as he stated in a May 31, 1977 interview:

Insofar as I can give any assistance [to Israel], I am delighted to, both because of my general desire to see freedom prosper, and also because I have a very strong personal sympathy and interest in Israel. I am Jewish by origin and culture. I share their values and their belief. I share the admiration which many have had for the miracles that have occurred in Israel.

I corresponded with Friedman on this subject in December 1994, arguing at length (though tongue in cheek) that the trend is such that soon the only two countries with true socialist economies will be Israel and the United States – and this was more than 20 years before self-identifying socialist Bernie Sanders earned broad popular support in his run for the American presidency. In the fascinating December 23, 1994 correspondence on his Hoover Institution letterhead exhibited with this column, he responded as follows:

Dear Mr. Singer:The United States today is more than half socialist as judged by (a) government spending as a fraction of national income plus (b) government regulation and controls over private spending. Israel is perhaps 70 or 80 percent socialist in that sense. I do not believe in simply extrapolating the past and, while I too find the observation provocative and troubling, I too am not sure of its validity. The recent election illustrated in the United States a strong public opinion in favor of a smaller and less socialist government. I believe the same popular opinion exists in Israel. In both countries, it may produce a reversal of trend.

The November 1994 midterm elections to which Friedman refers, which occurred during Democratic president Bill Clinton’s first term in office, was known as the “Republican Revolution,” an epic slaughter of the Democratic Party in which Republicans captured majorities in the House of Representatives (winning an additional 54 seats), Senate (additional 8 seats), and governors’ mansions (an additional 10 seats). As our correspondence demonstrates, Friedman was optimistic that the election results constituted a positive harbinger for smaller government and for the growth of the American economy.

Friedman concluded his letter with sharp analysis in response to my discussion of the correlation between economic freedom and democracy:

Finally, the relation between economic freedom and political freedom is complex. I believe that the growth of economic freedom initially tends to promote political freedom, but the growth of political freedom, of what is called democracy, tends in turn to restrict economic freedom.

 (An astounding statement and associated obvious recommendation and conclusion. Let Americans take note at the on-coming election, Nov, 2016, if they are interested in the reversal of  their current economic problems and abject, Obama-induced political decline)  jsk

Friedman maintained high expectations that Israeli socialists would eventually come to their senses, and he frequently wrote to Israel’s economic and political leaders urging them to adopt free market reforms. For example, he famously wrote to congratulate and encourage Benjamin Netanyahu who, as Israel’s finance minister, adopted significant reforms consistent with Friedman’s own thinking. As he quipped, “Fortunately for Israel, the ancient tradition [as opposed to socialism] is strongly renewable.”

(And the Israel economy has sky rocketed ever since and is the envy of the world.) jsk

Saul Jay Singer

About the Author: Saul Jay Singer, a nationally recognized legal ethicist, serves as senior legal ethics counsel with the District of Columbia Bar. He is a collector of extraordinary original Judaica documents and letters, and his column appears in The Jewish Press every other week. Mr. Singer welcomes comments at

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

By: Patrick Goodenough

The Jewish Press (CNS News)

May 13th, 2016

A lengthy New York Times Magazine profile of Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, portrays him as a spinmeister contemptuous of the foreign policy establishment who fed credulous journalists a misleading narrative to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the American people.

According to writer David Samuels, Rhodes oversaw a “war room” whose task was to sell the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to Congress ahead of crucial votes last fall that failed to kill the agreement.

“In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters,” Samuels wrote.

“We created an echo chamber,” he quoted Rhodes as admitting. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

According to Samuels’s piece, the strategy included the White House’s TheIranDeal Twitter feed. Rhodes used groups like the Ploughshares Fund, which advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons and lobbied for the JCPOA.

“We drove them crazy,” Samuels quotes Rhodes as saying of the opponents of the nuclear deal.

Samuels wrote that Rhodes does not think much of the journalists the war room was using to spread its narrative: “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Rhodes was quoted as telling him. “They literally know nothing.”

According to the article, the administration put out a deliberately misleading narrative about the way the nuclear negotiations came about, linking them to the rise in 2013 of the “moderate” President Hasan Rouhani at the expense of “hardliners,” ushering in a supposedly new political reality in Iran.

In fact in 2012 State Department director of policy planning Jake Sullivan – a close aide of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – began holding talks with the Iranians in Oman and elsewhere, and he and Deputy Secretary of State William Burns drew up the framework of what would eventually become the JCPOA three months before the election that brought Rouhani to office.

Obama was known by insiders to have wanted to make a deal with Iran from the beginning of his presidency in 2009, but the idea that the rise of “moderates” provided the opportunity was “largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal,” Samuels wrote.

Samuels argued that the misleading narrative was useful for the administration.

“By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making,” he wrote.

He characterized the approach as part of a broader strategy – helping the U.S. to extricate itself from existing regional alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey, with the ultimate goal of U.S. “disengagement from the Middle East.”

It’s an objective, Samuels said, that Rhodes – a determined critic of the Iraq war – views with a sense of “urgency.”

The profile depicts Rhodes as being comfortable in spinning the issue to the American people.

“I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote,” Samuels quotes Rhodes as telling him. “But that’s impossible.”

Rhodes holds a dim view of the foreign policy establishment, according to Samuels, referring to it contemptuously as “the Blob,” and including in that grouping Hillary Clinton; Obama’s first defense secretary Robert Gates; and “editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere.”
Samuels also described how Rhodes, on the day of Obama’s last State of the Union address last January, tried unsuccessfully to keep out of the news until after the speech the fact that Iran had detained 10 American sailors in the Persian Gulf.

After predicting that media outlets would start showing “scary pictures of people praying to the supreme leader,” Rhodes quickly decided how the issue would be spun instead: “We’re resolving this, because we have relationships.”

(Secretary of State John Kerry would later tell lawmakers that if it wasn’t for his relationship with his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif the sailors, who were released 14 hours after their capture, likely would have ended up as hostages.)

Leading critics of the Iran nuclear deal reacting on social media to the New York Times Magazine article were scathing – both of Rhodes and his colleagues and of the reporters they used to sell the deal.

“Now [we] know why we worked so hard during Iran debate,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) executive director Mark Dubowitz wrote on his Twitter feed. “Had to do own research & analysis. Create own talking points. No Rhodes to write for us.”

“Rhodes brags of lying to the public & creating echo chambers,” tweeted FDD senior fellow Daveed Gartenstein-Ross. “That’s the work of a propaganda minister, not a deputy nat’l security adviser.”

“White House admits it played liberal media, NGOs, & think tanks for fools to sell Iran deal,” said Hudson Institute senior fellow Michael Doran.

“Hi there journalists,” tweeted Omri Ceren of The Israel Project. “Did you take quotes from Ploughshares at suggestion of WH comms? You got played for chumps.”

And at Rhodes and colleagues, he directed this barb: “This is what happens when you put children in charge of US foreign policy.”


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Following are Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks at the state memorial ceremony for victims of terror, which was held today (Wednesday, 11 May 2016) at Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem:

“Yesterday, a very moving ceremony took place at the Knesset, during which they sang Chaim Nahman Bialik’s wonderful song Take Me Under Your Wing. In this song, he says: ‘People say there is love in the world. What is love?’ And then onto the stage comes, Ahava [love], the young daughter of Dafna Meir, who was murdered by a miscreant in front of her children as she protected them. And little Ahava provided a response, no less wonderful, to what great love is – a mother’s love which Dafna showered upon her, and saturated her in throughout the few years they spent together. This love will help Ahava throughout her life, and will be missed at the significant moments of her life. The pain is immense.

As a son of a bereaved family, I feel your anguish with every fiber of my body. As a citizen of Israel, I share your grief, and as Prime Minister, I stand by you and commend you for your endurance.

We are fighting a national battle. It has been raging for over 100 years. Throughout our history, each generation has suffered under the hands of murderers, and sadly, each generation knew bereavement and orphanhood, despair and grief. Each generation was charged with withstand the test, and all generations survived.

I have been pondering the word hatred. It is not part of our people’s tradition; it is not one of our characteristics. In the history of Israel, the word has been used to describe hatred toward us for religious, social, economic and national reasons. We do not wave the flag of hatred. We raise the banner of brotherhood and extend our hand in peace to the nations of the world and to our neighbors. ‘Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.’ Who wrote that? Who introduced this idea to humanity if not our prophets? And this ideal continues to guide our generation, but our enemies refuse to accept our presence here. They see each and every one of us, whether in uniform or not, Jews and non-Jews alike, as a target. They attack mothers with children, they attack children, adults, the elderly – like the attack that happened only yesterday. They are bloodthirsty as a result of blind hatred and uninhabited incitement.

The terms are different, but the motives are the same. In the past year we have been calling the attacks lone-wolf terrorism, which is a supposedly a new concept in Israel. But terrorist attacks occur and reoccur, they wash over us in waves, and over time they take on a new form. This year too, we lost beloved people, and each incident is a tragedy that breaks our heart. It breaks the hearts of the families first, but the heart of the nation too. A father and son on their way to the celebratory Shabbat before a wedding ambushed and murdered in a shooting attack; a young women shouting for help in an alley in Jerusalem as her husband tries to fight off the terrorist and is eventually murdered in front of her eyes; and a group of Israelis on a tour in Istanbul who also fell victims to fundamental Islamic terrorism, which has no borders.

But it is on this day that – from the abyss of endless sadness, from the depths of darkness – the powers of life within us are revealed. Our mutual accountability is exhibited at the scenes of the attacks, as people hurry to help those being threatened, often with nothing but their bare hands and at great personal risk.

We continue the mission of those murdered, we continue their legacy. We have discovered the exceptional personalities of each and every one of them: nobility, charity, kindness, spirit, wonderful qualities that influenced those around them. I visit the families, I try to visit them all, and hear about these people after their deaths, and I am always amazed by our people. And for that reason, terrorism will persist.

The prophet Micah said: ‘Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy; though I am fallen, I shall arise.’ That is the message. I have fallen and I have arisen. We arise every time, after the Shiva, the week of mourning, and we stand with them. We are increasing our hold on our land; our determination to overcome those who wish to kill us and to get our own on them is undeniable.

My dear brothers and sisters, this is a difficult day. The wounds reopen. I believe, and the entire nation prays, that you will find the strength to heal the wounds and grow new tissue over them.

You are not alone. The love of the nation and its unity is with you. We find comfort in building of our country and in the glimmers of light left by our loved ones. I send heartfelt wishes for a speedy recovery to all the wounded, and may you know no more sorrow.

May the memory of the victims of terror forever dwell in our hearts.”

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Memories of an American Jewess that made aliyah to Israel over 50 years ago. II Donald Trump already knows about Israel!
Trump added “You have hundreds and I guess thousands of missiles being launched into Israel. Who would put up with that? Who would stand for it?” he added.

The miracle of our return to our homeland and heritage

By Yehudit Tayar

A few days ago, we, the Nation of Israel sobbed in memory of 6 million of our people including more than 1.5 million children who perished in the Holocaust.

Next week we will remember our brave defenders who fell and the victims of terror who were murdered – but we do not only remember them then- not the victims of the hatred that led to the murder of so many millions of our Nation- nor our loved ones who fell defending our heritage and our loved ones who were murdered because we are Jewish.

This is something that we live through our entire lives. And the importance of these memorial days directly before the celebrations of Independence Day is not by chance.

The hatred against us is just as intense now and the continued attempts to annihilate us are as motivated and encouraged now as back then with the added lies and propaganda of the media, the UN and so many other sources.

We are blessed to be here in our Land. We are blessed to be able to defend our heritage and we will never stray from this responsibility not only for us here – but for Jews no matter where they are.

We never imagined that we would have the privilege of bearing witness to the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. Those dreams seemed to be unreachable, and yet we have returned to the mountains of Jerusalem, to the ancient site of the City of David, to the path of our forefathers from Hevron to Shechem.

Each of us who lived through 1967 and the excitement of the feeling of awe and disbelief that we actually not only survived this war, but actually returned to reclaim our heritage, will never forget those days. Or will we? Is it only some of us who realize the miracle that we received?

When did Jerusalem become real estate? When did our history become negotiable? When did the governments of Israel begin to ignore our historical heritage and reward the murderers of our people who proclaim their intent to destroy our country?

I, for one, will never forget my first visit to Jerusalem on the first Tisha B’Av (ninth of Av, a day of mourning for the Jewish people throughout our history) following the Six Day War. Back then the Western Wall was almost buried with rubbish, the narrow strip allowing us to approach this part of our once glorious Temple was too small to hold the masses pushing to get closer – to touch – to reach – to kiss the stones, and leave perhaps a small note in the cracks.

Even today after so many years and so many blessed visits to Jerusalem my heart is lifted when I travel the path to the Kotel, when I see the return of our people to the City and to the Cave of Machpela in Hevron. For me it is not something to take for granted but, on the contrary to cherish, love and appreciate the miracle that we have been given; the return of our people to these Holy Sites.

I also am unable to forget the so called “Auschweitz Borders” of Israel as Haim Herzog called the pre-1967 borders of Israel. How can the governments of Israel allow themselves to forget? How can these politicians who are so wrapped up in their own ambitions endanger not only these treasures, but indeed our very existence?

We, the simple people who have returned to the ancient homeland of our forefathers have carved out a new history for our Nation. We have returned to the hills and plains of our Land, built thriving communities, raised families and now the fourth generation is continuing to build and reclaim our Land.

The incredible nerve of politicians to collaborate with the enemy, allow dissidents to roam freely throughout our Land, and on the other hand instruct the police to arrest loyal Jewish citizens for even merely planning demonstrations is not only unbelievable – it is unacceptable.

Our enemies openly sell t-shirts in the Moslem market in the Old City of Jerusalem decorated with the PLO flag and in bold print saying, “LIBERATE PALESTINE”. (Palestine to them is the entire State of Israel.)

This, while Jewish property is destroyed, Jewish residents of Yesha (Judea and Samaria (“West Bank by the Goyim -literal and figurative) are banned from their homes and families and are imprisoned.

What happened here? Where is the backbone of our Nation? Where are our people?
The answer is really more simple than is thought – we, the simple Jews, living in the many communities throughout the Biblical Land of Yesha are the answer. We are not afraid of looking back to our history in order to move on to ensure the future of the Jewish people in our Land.

We and our children are the hope for that future and we have the “emunah” – strong belief – in the absolute right of our people to continue to lay claim to our beloved Land. We are determined, no matter what, to fight for this – with the planting of our trees, building of our homes, educating our children in the direction we know must be taken.

We are absolutely determined because we know that governments rise and governments fall – but the Land stays. Those weak politicians along with our enemies may plan to destroy the miracles we received, but our faith is in the eternal promise given to our people by G-d HIMSELF and we know that it is up to us to ensure the fulfillment of this promise.

No matter how many times we are threatened, beaten, arrested, no matter how many one-sided agreements made by the destructive governments of Israel, we must continue to fight on, and in the end we shall continue to live the miracle of our return to our homeland and heritage. We will not forget the miracle we received and will do all we can to protect this gift forever.

Yehudit Tayar is a veteran spokesperson for the Jewish pioneers in Yesha, lives with her husband Ami and family in Bet Horon Shomron

II Donald Trump catches on quickly: Trump: Israel should keep building West Bank settlements

Republican front-runner rejects construction freeze as precursor to peace talks with Palestinians, blasts ‘devastating’ Gaza rocket fire into Israel

From article BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 4, 2016, 1:53 am 28

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, interviewed by the Daily Mail on May 3, 2016.

Trump wins Indiana, closes in on GOP nominationTrump says he will try to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace deal

Israel should keep building settlements in the West Bank, Republican front-runner

Donald Trump said on Tuesday, linking construction to the continued rocket threat that Israel faces from the Gaza Strip and which has seen it drawn into three wars against Hamas-run Gaza in recent years.

In an interview with the British Daily Mail on Tuesday, Trump said there should be no pause in settlement construction, a position at odds with that of the Obama administration …

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I  ‘Never Trump’ ringleader plots GOP surprise

It’s looking more and more like the Republican elites in Washington will have to be talked down off the ledge, now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the party.

Redacted from an article by Cheryl Chumley

World Net Daily (WND)

March 5, 2016

Donald Trump may have cleared the nomination path of other Republican presidential candidates, but to Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard – and one of the neoconservative movement’s biggest names and loudest voices – the billionaire businessman is still a no-go who ought to be overtaken by a third-party person.

Bill Kristol wrote a letter:

The letter, in part, read:

“TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward … If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together. … [M] voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that ‘although Trump is terrible,’ we ‘have to’ support him, ‘because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.’ This open letter aims simply to ask ‘WHY is that the only choice?’”

In answer to a question about whether Trump could ever win his support, Kristol said: “For me, it’s more a matter of character. I don’t know that you can change your character at age 69, and given the things he’s said even very recently about other people, the way he demeans other people. But I mean, I guess never say never. On the one hand, I’ll say never Trump, and on the other hand, I’ll say never say never and I’ll leave it ambiguous.”

And on CNN, also earlier this week, host Jake Tapper asked Kristol nearly point blank if he’d rather vote for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton than Trump. And Kristol’s response?

“I’m not with Trump, but I’m not with [Clinton], so I’m looking for an independent candidate. I think there – Ben Sasse, Senator from Nebraska, very bright, young, promising senator has said he can’t support Donald Trump and he doesn’t want to support Hillary Clinton. Let Ben Sasse run, he can take Nikki Haley, the governor of South Carolina, who would not accept being Trump’s vice-presidential candidate. Maybe she would like to run with Sasse, they can argue about which order to have the ticket in. So, I’m saying right here on CNN, Sasse, Haley, Haley, Sasse, they’re both fine with me. No, I would like there to be an independent Republican candidate because I can’t support Trump, and I can’t support Clinton.”

II Response to Kristol

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Spiro Agnew, infamous resigned Vice President under Richard Nixon, coined a phrase that I have never forgotten –  “effete intellectual snobs.” He originated that term for those that opposed the Viet Nam war.

Agnew was a staunch defender of the Vietnam War, so naturally he had to take a swipe at the protesters.

He characterized them as people who “overwhelm themselves with drugs and artificial stimulants.”

He went on to say:

“Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim rather than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated in a contemporary antagonism known as ‘The Generation Gap.’ A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Recent “establishment Republicans”  lend a new use to the term “effete intellectual snobs”.

Kristol, of course, qualifies. Then just a couple of days ago, we were treated to Paul Ryan’s  (Republican House leader)  outrageous disloyal politically stupid recent remarks and the comments of other declared establishment Republicans disowning Donald Trump, proudly proclaiming they would not vote for him and would try to find a third candidate.

Ryan too qualifies for Spiro Agnew’s phrase, along with other disenfranchised public figures, desperate defeated politicians and others jealous of Trump’s overwhelming success and fearful of their own little niche in the Republican Party and on the national scene.

Quickly come to mind many of the losers: Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Laura Bush, Presidents Bush 41, 43 choose to remain silent rather the automatic praise presented for the Republican nominee, Chas. Krauthammer, George Will — with no shortage of other effete intellectual snobs.

What exactly are they all doing except presenting their damning spleen, jealousy and supposed defense of a Party that was a complete loser in the last two Presidential elections abjectly failed to stop the relentless march by Obama who deftly engineered American military, economic and  political defeat all over the word.

These people should be ecstatic with the arrival of Donald Trump who has, for the first time in over a decade awakened the American Public and given the Republicans a fighting chance. But, these elitists snobs, offended by Trump’s manners, lack of political correctness, his unimpressed view of the abilities of those opposing him and politicians whose actions have contributed mightily to the demise of the United States are not supportive of Donald Trump.

Never mind all that. These losers are hell bent on snatching defeat from what could be an overwhelming defeat of Hillary Clinton. Hopefully, Donald Trump and American John Q Public are too quick and too smart for them.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment







Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Finally, I went tilt. All these months I have been stomaching the Palm Beach Post —pretending that it is a politically informative and objective newspaper.

In fact, in each daily paper the Post goes so far as to have a specific page entitled Balanced Views. Under that master heading are two different equally sized 1/2 page columns proudly listed as From the Left and From the Right respectively.

How wonderful! Right! Only one problem, the column on the Left is written by dedicated, over the top, card-caring Leftists while those writing on the Right  do not seem to understand  the designation given to them, tongue in cheek, by the Post.

Instead,  those on the Right use their columns to berate the Republican Party with concerted direct attacks on the Party’s  presumptive nominee for President —Donald Trump.

The Post is also kind enough to diligently list those columnists weekly that will appear as Right or Left.

For the Left is listed at the moment:

Paul Klugman – columnist New York Times who has been called, “The Prophet of Socialism who has been consistently wrong.” His March 28 column was titled, Cruz Policies out on fringe – as those of GOP elite.

Mary Sanchez  – Long time columnist for KC Star. On Oct 28, 2014 Columnist Judy Thomas wrote of Sanchez:. In her never-ending zeal to bludgeon the Catholic Church … She is also an ardent feminist that routinely “bludgeons” Donald Trump as arrogant, encourages physical violence and loathes woman — No less than one would expect from a consistent Leftist.

Maureen Dowd – called by columnist Ariel Levy “the most dangerous columnist in America—on her own, very female terms.” She also spends a great deal of her columns ragging on Donald Trump. Her column April 6. 2016 began a hatchet job with the title, Trump keeps on doing things his way and only his way

Thomas Friedman If you really want to despise someone, this guy is a perfect candidate — arrogant, factually distorting and politically manipulative in his reporting. He is also a life-long self hating Jew who invariably takes the Arab side against the Israelis — whatever the dispute.

More on the list of the Post’s dedicated Left-wing columnists include Leonard Pitts, E. J. Dionne Jr and Gail Collins. Is there any dispute as to their political identity?

On the other side of the page are those supposedly on the Right.

What strikes my eye immediately are the names of the renown Chas. Krauthammer and his buddy George Wills. Whatever thinking to the Right these men may have had in the past is now overwhelmed by their intense hatred of Donald Trump. Anyone truly to the right would immediately understand that the alternate to Trump will be Hillary Clinton. Criticizing Trump is thus a path only leading to the continuation of the nationally suicidal policies of Barack Hussein Obama enhanced by the gargantuan personal greed for money and power of the Clintons.

Examples of the Krauthammer/Wills about-face that have appeared in the Post:

Krauthammer’s columns

April 30, 2016 “The World according to Trump is a confusing place”

April 9, 2016 “Trump vs. Cruz has GOP headed for train wreck”


George Will’s  columns are truly astounding for one designated to the Right:

George Will tells Fox News the GOP should nominate Merrick Garland because God only knows “who Trump might put on the Court”

George Will unloads on “coward” Trump:  This Conservative icon calls him “a presidential aspirant who would flunk an eighth-grade civics exam”

George Will May 1, 2016:  Conservatives must fight Trump (and lose the election) With Eye to Future


The other great disappointment supposedly on the Right is Mona Charens.

Charens  seemed to know what is truly going on in the political world.  As a matter of fact, earlier in her career, she was the author of two best-sellers:

Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (2003)
Do-Gooders: How Liberals Harm Those They Claim to Help – and the Rest of Us (2005).

I don’t know what happened since then to Charen except maybe she finds presenting the views of the Left or alternately criticizing the Right is a far better way to increase the number of newspapers carrying her syndicated column and thus a better way to pay the bills. Some of her recent columns in the Post include:

Trump’s vicious character isn’t reflective of a leader.
Why are GOP candidates talking about GW Bush?
Why Trump likes bullies like Corey Lewandowski

The list of other suspect supposedly Right wing columnists featured by the Post include: David Brooks of the New York Times, Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, Ross Douthat of the NY Times. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post. The very fact that these people work at the NY Times and Washington Post is glaring evidence enough of their suspect identity as being on the Right.

As a result of all of the above —The Post, in its carefully delivered approach, has it both ways – Promoters for the Left appear on the Left column and Critics of the Right appear in the Right column! So, where indeed, are the opinions of those really on the Right?

How convenient and effective with the uninformed, naive reader.

Then, let the uninformed reader beware. Become more informed and carefully weigh the source of these confusing conflicting designations before swallowing the bait so cleverly presented.


Redacted from multiple sources

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher
Israel Commentary



Powered by Facebook Comments

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