Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Here is my last shot at obtaining your vote for Trump. An investigative journalist wrote 25 pages of well documentary article with complete bibliography outlining the many awful things – theft, likely murder, stealing of gov’t funds, traitorous acts favoring our worst enemies Clinton has done through her entire career to get millions of dollars, power for herself, family, Clinton Foundation, etc.

Oh, yeah I know you think you know all that and are unimpressed but please read the article and take another look before you vote.

The author builds the article around the phrase that applies directly to Trump-Never people and uses it many times, for effect. I have eliminated the phrase many times to shorten the very long article.

The repeating phrase after each terrifying disclosure of her pathological history is:

“But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape.. And all her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And, she, of course, respects women deeply. In fact, she respects all people, including the 315 million American whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs Clinton willfully allowed top-secret information and national wealth to wind up in the possession of our country’s most hostile enemies around the world.”

And then there is the criticism as to Trumps inappropriate responses and the conjectured mind-set implied.

And, to that right or wrong observation, the author above would also respond the quoted paragraph, “But, hey who cares …..
thus noting the complete imbalance between the sins perpetrated.

The article is at Please read completely and if you can still vote for her in all honesty, throwing your personal long held ideology aside, I would be surprised.

Jerome S. Kaufman

The Hillary Clinton Record – A devastating exposé of the most unfit and undeserving individual ever to seek the American presidency.

Read More About: Yes Trump has foot in mouth disease but I sure will vote for him vs. a complete liar/thief that has always put the welfare of this nation secondary to her insatiable greed for money and power.

October 14, 2016

By John Perazzo

(The numbers at the end of paragraphs refer to a bibliography to which there is link at the end of this article)

Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.

In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is a woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect. To make matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed criminal without a shred of personal virtue. Truly it can be said that never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving, run for president. Never.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

October 14, 2016

By John Perazzo

David Horowitz Freedom Center

(The numbers at the end of paragraphs refer to a bibliography to which there is link at the end of this article)

Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.

Clinton’s Private Email Server & the Espionage Act

Throughout her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton never acquired or used a government email account. Instead, she transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official correspondences via a private email address that traced back to a secret, private, unsecured server that was housed at her New York residence.1

And immediately after those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, Clinton instructed a team of her advisers to unilaterally delete, with no oversight, almost 32,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in question.2

Clinton claimed that her reason for having used only a personal email account, rather than both a personal and a government account, was that she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”3

It was eventually learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton in fact had used no fewer than 13 mobile devices to access emails on her private server, but the FBI was unable to obtain any of those devices in its investigation, in some cases because Clinton aides had been instructed to smash them with a hammer.4

Clinton originally assured Americans that not even one piece of classified material had ever been transmitted via her unsecured, secret, personal server. But now it is known that at least 2,079 emails that she sent or received via that server, contained classified material.5

As the eminent broadcaster and legal scholar Mark Levin has made plain, each of those 2,079 offenses constituted a felonious violation of Section 793 of the Espionage Act.6

And each violation was punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years.7

In January 2016, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “the odds are pretty high” that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised Clinton’s unsecured email server.8

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. (I would like to know how anyone in their right mind could compare these political sins. One is bad taste, manners while  the other is traitorous self-serving greed and power grabs)jsk And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she of course respects women deeply. In fact, she respects all people, including the 315 million Americans whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs. Clinton willfully allowed top-secret information to wind up in the possession of our country’s most hostile enemies around the world.

The Clinton Foundation Scandals

In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”9

As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10

Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon;11

the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12

the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13

a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14

and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15

Even during Clinton’s tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.
Bill Clinton earned a total of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees during his wife’s term as secretary.16

In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton’s 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation.  AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with TheMrs. Clinton.17

In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.18

But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for needy people around the world, doesn’t it? Well, according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and “other expenses.”19

In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.

Clinton’s Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal

Vowing that Mrs. Clinton will “prevent[t] Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” the Clinton presidential campaign website assures Americans that “Hillary will vigorously enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran.” Is this a good thing? Consider that the agreement’s key provisions were as follows:
Iran was permitted to keep more than 5,000 centrifuges.

Iran received $150 billion in sanctions relief.
Russia and China were permitted to supply Iran with weapons.
Iran was given the discretion to block international inspectors from its military installations, and was promised that it would receive 14 days’ notice for any request to visit a given site.
Only inspectors from countries that had diplomatic relations with Iran would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites; thus there would be no American inspectors.
An embargo on the sale of weapons to Iran would be officially lifted in 5 years.
Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program would remain intact.
The U.S. pledged that it would provide technical assistance to help Iran develop its nuclear program and protect its nuclear facilities, supposedly for peaceful domestic purposes.
Sanctions would be lifted on critical parts of Iran’s military.
Iran was not required to release American prisoners whom it was holding on trumped-up charges.21

As a result of this nuclear deal that Mrs. Clinton so enthusiastically supports, Iran is guaranteed of having a near-zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the scores of millions of women in the U.S., Israel, and elsewhere, whose very lives have been placed in irreversible peril as a result of this deal.
Clinton Helps Russia Gain Control of 20% of All U.S. Uranium

In 2007-08, a Canadian named Ian Teller, chairman of a South African uranium-mining company called Uranium One, funneled millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. In June 2010, the Russian government made an extremely generous offer to Uranium One’s shareholders. If the offer were to be accepted, Russia would gain a 51% controlling stake in the company.

But because Uranium One controlled one-fifth of all U.S. uranium reserves — and uranium, a key component in both nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry, is considered a strategic asset with implications for American national security — the deal with Russia could not be permitted without the approval of the American government. Specifically, that approval could be granted only by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is composed of several of the most powerful members of the cabinet — the Attorney General as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Treasury, Homeland Security, Energy, and State. (The latter, of course, was Hillary Clinton.)22

Without the approval of these seven Obama administration officials, Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One could not have taken place. All seven, including Hillary Clinton, gave their go-ahead for the deal. As a result, the Russian government took control of fully 20% of all uranium production capacity in the United States.23

In June 2010 — the very month in which the Russian acquisition of Uranium One was approved by the CFIUS — Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow for the astronomical sum of $500,000. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. And Mr. Clinton’s speaking fee was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.24

But hey, who cares? At least Hillary Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless millions whose safety has been placed in jeopardy by permitting American uranium to be gobbled up by a hostile, fascist Russia.

The Benghazi Debacle, and Clinton’s Role in Arming Jihadists in Libya and Syria

Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in the city of Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. American personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Clinton State Department for increased security provisions during 2012, but all of these requests were either denied or ignored.25

On the night of September 11, 2012, a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi with great violence 26
In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

For weeks thereafter, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration continued to characterize what had occurred on September 11 in Benghazi not as a carefully orchestrated act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video.

For the administration, it was vital to continue putting forth this false narrative because, with the presidential election only a few weeks away, nothing could be permitted to puncture the Obama-Clinton talking points: “Al Qaeda is on the run” and “Osama bin Laden is dead.”27

In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and that the YouTube video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.28

On January 23, 2013 — fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi — Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she knew about the incident. At one point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked her whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including Syria. Clinton replied, “I do not know. I have no information on that.”29

But a March 25, 2013 New York Times story subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to Syria, since early 2012. And another Times article described Mrs. Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the Syrian rebels (who were fighting Syrian President Assad) in precisely that manner.30

In other words, Clinton had lied in her congressional testimony to Rand Paul.
It should be noted that the Syrian rebels whom Clinton and Obama were aiding consisted of Islamic jihadists, many of whom were affiliated with Al Qaeda. In July 2016, Julian Assange of Wikileaks revealed that a batch of hacked DNC emails contained information proving that Clinton, contrary to what she had said in her congressional testimony in 2013, knew as early as 2011 that the U.S. was sending arms from Libya to jihadists in Syria.31

And in October 2016, a Fox News report indicated that Obama and Clinton had also arranged for the provision of weapons to radical jihadists in Libya.32

In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed — in the basement of the State Department’s headquarters — a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton’s deputy chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the Benghazi attacks.33

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including: (a) the Libyan and Syrian women whose lives were destroyed by the jihadists whom Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported, and (b) the wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of the four Americans who were slaughtered by jihadists in Benghazi.
The Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton’s Closest Aide
Hillary Clinton’s closest aide for many years has been Huma Abedin, whose late father, Syed Abedin, was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA grew out of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.”34

Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a prominent member of the Muslim Sisterhood — the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women. She is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, a pro-Hamas entity that is part of the “Union of Good,” which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization. Saleha once wrote an article blaming America for having provoked the Islamic “anger and hostility” that led to the 9/11 attacks.35

From 1996-2008, Huma Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who once served as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a vehicle by which the Muslim Brotherhood promotes the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Naseef also had ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, with whom he communicated.36

Abedin was the assistant editor of IMMA’s in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence in the IMMA.37

It is vital to note that the IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is designed, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”38

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she respects women, including the hundreds of millions of women in Muslim nations who are oppressed by the very same Sharia Law that is promoted by the organization to which Huma Abedin devoted 12 years of her life.
The Deadly Consequences of Clinton’s Absurd Fictions About Islam & Terrorism
In 2011 the Obama administration, in which Mrs. Clinton was obviously a major player, decided to purge, from the training materials and curricula of all federal intelligence and criminal investigators, every single item suggesting that “jihad” or “Islam” were in any way related to terrorism.39

Instead, the new objective would be “countering violent extremism,” improving “cultural competency training across the United States Government,” and promoting “cultural awareness.”40

All told, the FBI removed more than 1,000 presentations and curriculum items that were deemed “offensive” or “Islamophobic.”41

The FBI’s decision to change its training materials and interrogation methods went on to have deadly serious, real-world consequences. A particularly noteworthy case involved jihadist Omar Mateen, who in June 2016 entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and murdered 49 people while wounding 53 others. The FBI had investigated Mateen extensively for 10 months in 2013 because he had family connections to Al Qaeda, he was a member of a Shi’a terrorist organization, and he had issued terroristic threats on a number of occasions. But eventually, the FBI canceled that investigation because, in accordance with the tenets of its revised training materials, it concluded that Mateen posed no threat to anyone; that his biggest problem was the psychic pain he was suffering as a result of “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” As a result of this absurd line of reasoning, 49 innocent people from Orlando are now lying in their graves.42

Hillary Clinton agrees completely with the notion that it is both counterproductive and morally unjustified to suggest any connection between Islam and terrorism — the same delusional, preposterous mentality that enabled the Orlando mass murder to take place.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women and homosexuals, including the 49 people who were slaughtered in the Orlando nightclub.

Clinton’s Role in the Rise of ISIS and the Stratospheric Growth of Worldwide Terrorism

ISIS, which evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), grew into the most powerful, well-funded horde of bloodthirsty barbarians in world history, right under Mrs. Clinton’s nose, and precisely during her watch as secretary of state. While ISIS launched its campaign of mass rapes, beheadings, slaughters, and tortures of unimaginable brutality — and gained control over enormous portions of Iraq and Syria — Clinton and President Obama did absolutely nothing to thwart it.43

Moreover, the rise of ISIS coincided with the expansion of terrorism to unprecedented levels all over the world. According to the Global Terrorism Index, fatalities caused by terrorism increased from 3,361 in 2000, to 11,133 in 2012, to 18,111 in 2013, to 32,658 in 2014. More than half of the 2014 killings were carried out by ISIS and Boko Haram, the latter of which has pledged allegiance to ISIS.44

In other words, worldwide terrorism has spiraled out of control under Obama, Clinton, and Clinton’s successor, John Kerry.

Clinton’s Role in Squandering America’s Victory in the Iraq War
ISIS’s meteoric ascent to power occurred as a direct result of President Obama’s decision to rapidly withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq — against the advice of experienced military leaders — in 2011. Retired Army General John M. Keane, the last American commander in Iraq, had recommended that 23,000 U.S. troops be left in place to secure the U.S. war victory.

But Obama, wanting to be remembered most of all as the president who ended wars rather than fought them, left no forces behind. Beaming with pride, he frequently took credit for bringing American military involvement in Iraq to a formal close.45

Of course, when ISIS later grew into a genocidal monster, Obama tried to claim that his withdrawal from Iraq had been forced upon him by a December 2008 deal in which President Bush and Iraqi president Maliki signed a “status-of-forces” agreement stipulating that all U.S. troops must leave Iraq by December 2011.46

But status-of-forces agreements are often amended and renegotiated, based on evolving security concerns. Obama left no U.S. forces in Iraq for one very simple and obvious reason: he didn’t want to. As Obama himself stated during a 2012 debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney: “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops [a far cry from the 23,000 recommended by General Keane] in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”47

It is vital to remember, moreover, that Iraqi president Maliki would have been quite willing to accept a new status-of-forces agreement in 2011, had it stipulated that the U.S. would leave behind a contingent of troops large enough to effectively secure the peace. But when Obama and Clinton proposed to leave a mere 2,000 to 3,000 troops in Iraq, Maliki had no choice but to refuse. As National Review explains: “[T]he problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence.”48

When Obama was deciding to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Hillary Clinton was in 100% agreement with him. As Fox News reports: “Clinton was a leading and outspoken supporter of the Obama administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq…. Clinton touted the United States’ commitment to Iraq in 2011 and said the Obama administration has ‘a plan in place’ to ensure Iraq’s security.”49

Instead, Iraq turned into a beehive of jihadism, terrorism, and mass murder.

Clinton’s Horrible Judgment Regarding Another Terrorist Enemy
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Clinton opposed President Bush’s January 2007 decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in a military “surge” designed to turn the tide of the Iraq War — which had devolved into a bloody quagmire — back in America’s favor:
In December 2006, when Bush was still contemplating the surge, Clinton said: “Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq.”50

In January 2007, Clinton complained that the surge was “taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success.”51

In August 2007, Clinton said: “The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so…. It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.”52

When General David Petraeus issued a September 2007 report on the remarkably successful results that the surge was yielding, Clinton obstinately told Petraeus that his assertions required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”53

Contrary to Clinton’s erroneous predictions and dispiriting rhetoric, the troop surge proved to be a monumentally important strategy that finally enabled the U.S. to crush the Iraqi insurgency. Prior to the surge, it had not been uncommon for 3,000 or more Iraqi civilians and security-force members to die at the hands of terrorist violence during any given month. By May 2008, the monthly mortality figure stood at 19, and it fluctuated between 7 and 25 deaths per month over the ensuing 14 months.54

In his 2014 memoir, Robert Gates — who had served as Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama — wrote that Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the troop surge had been based on how she thought her own political fortunes would be affected by taking that position. For example, Gates described a “remarkable” exchange that he had witnessed, where Clinton, speaking retrospectively, “told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary” and could not afford to be perceived as pro-war.55

Clinton’s Empty Talk Regarding Russia and China
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign website boasts that in 2010 Clinton “worked to ensure ratification of the New START treaty, which will make the world safer by reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to their smallest size in 50 years.”56

The New START agreement with Russia limited each country’s long-range nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,500.57

But while both the U.S. and Russia agreed to these limits, only America promised to freeze its technology.58

As the late constitutional scholar Phyllis Schlafley wrote of the treaty: “It reads like it was written by the Russians and has nothing good in it for the United States…. The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads…. This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles…. Russia explained that … it will stick with New START ‘only if the (U.S.) refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.’”59

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the 150+ million women in the U.S. whose security was instantly and permanently compromised by the terms of the New Start Treaty.
Clinton’s Reprehensible Treatment of Israel

In 2010, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said that during the first two years of the Obama-Clinton administration, “Israel’s ties with the United States” had reached “their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions.”60

Some may recall how Mrs. Clinton betrayed Israel in the aftermath of an infamous 2010 incident where terrorist members of a Turkish organization known as the IHH — which has ties to Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood — participated in a six-ship flotilla of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activists who sailed to Gaza for the purpose of breaking Israel’s naval “blockade” there. (That “blockade” was, in reality, a policy whereby Israel insisted on examining all imports passing through Gaza, so as to prevent the ruling Hamas government, which has sworn its permanent allegiance to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews, from importing weaponry from abroad).

The flotilla’s lead ship was owned and operated by IHH. When its crew refused to comply with repeated Israeli demands that it submit to an inspection of its cargo, Israeli commandos boarded the vessel and were violently attacked by IHH terrorists. In the melee that ensued, nine IHH members were killed, and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded. Thereafter, Clinton, by her own telling, “spent … literally years trying to get the Israelis to finally apologize to the Turks on the flotilla! ”61

In the summer of 2014, Israel engaged in a massive military operation designed to weaken the destructive capacity of Hamas terrorists who were launching more than 100 potentially deadly missiles per day from Gaza, deep into Israel. Before long, Israel discovered that Hamas, in recent years, had constructed a massive network of at least 60 underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels throughout Gaza.

A number of those tunnels extended, underground, into Israeli territory — for the purpose of facilitating terror attacks, murders, and kidnappings against unsuspecting Israeli citizens. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Hamas had spent between $1 million and $10 million to build each of those tunnels, using as many as 350 truckloads of cement and other supplies per tunnel.62

Then, in a bombshell revelation in August 2014, Dennis Ross, who had served as Secretary of State Clinton’s senior Mideast policy adviser, revealed that Clinton had personally assigned him the task of pressuring Israel to ease up on its military blockade of Gaza. “I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,” said Ross. “They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.” As one analysis aptly puts it, “Ross’s admission shows that it was [Clinton] who sent her personal envoy to push for a policy that ultimately enabled Hamas to build the terror tunnels.”63

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of Israeli Jews whose lives were placed in peril by Hamas’s underground tunnels and illegally imported weaponry.

Clinton Turns Libya into a Terrorist Hell Hole
During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pushed hard for the U.S. to take military action designed to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya.64

According to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under President Obama, Clinton played a major role in convincing Obama to lead a protracted NATO bombing campaign against Gaddafi in 2011 — a campaign that lent support to opposition rebels consisting of ISIS, Ansar al-Sharia, and other local militant groups. In other words, Clinton and Obama — in their quest to unseat Gaddafi — were aiding murderous jihadists in Libya.
What is remarkable about this, is the fact that Gaddafi at that time no longer posed any threat to American national security. Indeed, just prior to the Al Qaeda-led uprising that Clinton and Obama supported, Libya was providing the U.S. with important intelligence data. Moreover, it was a prospering, secular Islamic nation that had a national budget surplus of 8.7% and was producing 1.8 million barrels of oil per day. By the time the Obama-Clinton bombing campaign was finished, Libya’s economy had shrunk by 42% and was operating at an annual deficit of 17.1%; oil production was down by at least 80%.65

According to Foreign Policy In Focus, the Obama-Clinton strategy “plunged” Libya “into chaotic unrest” and “turned [it] into a cauldron of anarchy.”66

Today Libya is a nation teeming with jihadists, and ISIS is becoming increasingly powerful there.67

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions in Libya who are now drowning in a tsunami of terrorism.
Clinton’s Plan to Import 65,000 Syrian Refugees into the U.S. As Quickly As Possible

“We have to stem the flow of jihadists from Europe and America to and from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan,” says the Clinton presidential campaign website.68

While this sounds like a grand idea, it begs a very obvious question: Why has Hillary Clinton explicitly called for bringing at least 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible,69

even though ISIS has vowed to deploy terrorist operatives to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees heading to Western nations?70

more than 1,500 terror-linked refugees, asylees and migrants entered the U.S. in 2014 alone?71

more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015?72

Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism unit, has made it clear that it is virtually impossible to screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees and coming to America?73

FBI Director James Comey has said that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct reliable background checks on the Syrian refugees, and has warned that “there will be a terrorist diaspora [from Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East] sometime in the next two to five years like we’ve never seen before”?74

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that the U.S. will not “know a whole lot” about the refugees it accepts?75

CIA director John Brennan has said that ISIS “is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including in refugee flows …”?76

As a direct result of the policy that Mrs. Clinton herself has spelled out, scores of thousands of people from the very seat of ISIS’s power will soon be streaming into the United States at a record pace.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless American women whose lives may be imperiled by an influx of Syrian terrorists posing as refugees.

Taking a long-range view of American migration and refugee policy, Mrs. Clinton understands that eventually, when these Syrian refugees and their relatives, and then their descendants, become registered voters, they will vote heavily Democrat, as the vast majority of immigrants from the Middle East have always done.77

And if some Americans have to get murdered along the way by terrorist infiltrators, so be it. To Mrs. Clinton, that is simply one of the costs of doing (political) business.
Immigration: Clinton Explicitly Favors Amnesty, Sanctuary Cities, and “Open Borders”
“Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office,” says the Clinton presidential campaign website.78

Mrs. Clinton pledges that if she is elected president, she will extend President Obama’s two major executive orders on immigration, which protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation.79

She vows to do this despite the fact that Obama himself, prior to issuing his executive orders, frequently acknowledged that such actions went far beyond the proper limits of presidential authority.80

Speaking to a group of illegal immigrant high-school students in 2015, Clinton said: “I want to do everything we can to defend the president’s executive orders … As president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further.”81

Moreover, Mrs. Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. As such, these policies defy the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that Congress passed twenty years ago to require that local governments cooperate with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).82

Sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places. Of the 9,295 deportable aliens who were released after their arrest in sanctuary jurisdictions during the first eight months of 2014 alone, some 2,320 were subsequently re-arrested, on new criminal charges, soon thereafter. And before their initial release, 58% of those 9,295 aliens already had felony charges or convictions on their records, while another 37% had serious prior misdemeanor charges.83

But Mrs. Clinton’s commitment to sanctuary policies is unshakable. As Xochitl Hinojosa, the Clinton presidential campaign’s director of coalitions press, said in 2015: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”84

In a speech she delivered at Banco Itau, a Brazilian bank, on May 16, 2013, Mrs. Clinton stated: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders….”85

You read that correctly: “open borders.”
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the many whose lives and safety are imperiled by open borders and sanctuary policies.

Clinton’s Opposition to Gun Rights
Lamenting that “too many families in America have suffered — and continue to suffer — from gun violence,” Mrs. Clinton has stated that crime victims should be allowed to sue firearm manufacturers and retailers who lawfully produced or sold a gun that was used in a crime.86

This is a way to eliminate the Second Amendment “without firing a shot,” so to speak, as it would inevitably cause the firearms industry to disappear.87

At a New Hampshire town hall in 2015, a man asked Mrs. Clinton whether she would consider supporting a gun buyback measure similar to the one that had been implemented in Australia: “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that?” Clinton replied: “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”88

In other words, Mrs. Clinton is eager to explore creative ways of eliminating the Second Amendment.
But hey, who cares? At least she never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including those who, in the absence of the Second Amendment, will no longer be able to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and other assailants. They will no longer be among the hundreds of thousands of individuals who, each year, use guns for defensive purposes to repel or frighten away would-be attackers.89
Clinton’s Plans to Expand Obamacare into a Government-Run, Single-Payer System
Stating unequivocally that she plans to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act” (ACA),90

Mrs. Clinton contends that Obamacare has thus far been a great success. Let’s look, for a moment, at how successfully Obamacare has helped to cut the cost of insurance premiums. When the law was being debated and formulated, President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that under his plan, the average family would save up to $2,500 per year in annual premiums.91

The reality has been somewhat different: A 2014 study by the Brookings Institution found that “premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed … [existing] trends.”92

The S&P Global Institute found that between 2013-15, the average market medical costs per individual increased by 69%.93

Premiums for ACA-compliant Qualified Health Plans that were sold to individuals on the Obamacare exchanges, were $2,300 more expensive than premiums for non-Qualified Health Plans, i.e., plans that were in existence before 2014 and did not comply with the mandates of the ACA.94

In 2015, premiums for the lowest-cost plans across all tiers — bronze, silver, gold and platinum — increased by a median of 10-13%.95

By September 2016, fully 16 of Obamacare’s 23 state exchanges had gone bankrupt, with another one — the Tennessee exchange — “very near collapse.”96

It is expected that by the end of 2016, UnitedHealth Group will have exited 31 of the 34 Obamacare exchanges in which it has participated, while Aetna will have left 11 of its 15 state exchanges.97

Meanwhile, Obamacare’s insurance policy deductibles are skyrocketing in almost every state. As National Review reports: “Average deductibles for silver plans — which accounted for nearly 70 percent of the exchanges’ 9.3 million enrollees [in 2015] — now average $2,994. The second most popular Bronze plans have average deductibles of $5,629…. Paying $3,000 or $5,600 before their insurance kicks in simply isn’t an option for most families …”98

Hillary Clinton proposes to address the financial implosion of Obamacare by implementing a “public option”99

i.e., a government-run insurance plan that would “compete” with private insurers. Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes explains how disastrous such a measure would be: “By drawing on taxpayer dollars, this public option would be able to out-price almost every private insurer in the country. Unable to compete, private insurers would be ‘crowded out,’ leaving Americans with just one choice: a government-operated health care plan that brings the entire health sector under government control.”100
But that, in a nutshell, is Mrs. Clinton’s ultimate, long-range goal: to have a “single-payer,” “universal” healthcare system that is run entirely by the federal government. Her presidential campaign website candidly states that she “has never given up on the fight for universal coverage.”101

And what does the empirical evidence show, regarding the effectiveness of universal healthcare systems in countries around the world? It’s actually quite clear. As the Cato Institute puts it, “In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.” By contrast: “[T]hose countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. In other words, socialized medicine works — as long as it isn’t socialized medicine.”102

So Hillary Clinton wants to implement a healthcare system that has failed miserably in country after country, confident that she’ll get better results because she’ll put smarter bureaucrats in charge of it.
But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she respects women and girls deeply — even the 150+ million females whose lives and health will be placed in peril by the expansion of Obamacare and the pursuit of a single-payer system.

Rejecting School Vouchers for Poor Minority Children in Failing Urban Schools

Professing to have spent her entire adult life “fighting for children,”103

Hillary Clinton dogmatically opposes the implementation of school voucher programs104

which would enable the parents of low-income, mostly-minority children who attend failing, inner-city public schools, to send their youngsters instead to private schools where they might actually have a chance of succeeding academically. Why would anyone reject such programs, if he or she actually cared about poor minority kids?

As always, if you want to find out what motivates Mrs. Clinton, you have to follow the money. Together, the two largest teachers’ unions in the United States — the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) — have given tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to political candidates since the early 1990s, and more than 95% of that money has gone to Democrats.

If we also count the massive expenditures that teachers’ unions make on politically oriented initiatives like television ads and get-out-the-vote efforts, the numbers become almost unfathomable. From 2007-12, the NEA and AFT together spent more than $330 million to influence elections in favor of Democrats.105

The leading objective of both the NEA and AFT is to maximize employment opportunities for dues-paying members of their unions. This is highly significant because mandatory dues constitute the very lifeblood of those unions. And voucher programs, which would siphon students as well as money away from the public schools, don’t promote union membership or union dues. So Hillary Clinton rejects voucher programs because her union benefactors oppose them.

But hey, who cares? At least she never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women — even impoverished, inner-city minority women who have no choice but to send their children to public schools that are beset by academic failure and violence of monumental proportions.

“Criminal Justice Reform”: Going Soft on Crime, and Filling America’s Graveyards
Hillary Clinton tells us that Americans everywhere “are crying out for criminal justice reform” because “families are being torn apart by excessive incarceration,” and “children are growing up in homes shattered by prison and poverty.”106

How does Mrs. Clinton know that our country’s current levels of incarceration are excessive? What, exactly, would be the right number of people in prison? How would we arrive at that number?
Consider some highly noteworthy facts:
In 1990, when there were about 1,149,000 prisoners in penitentiaries nationwide, there were 1,820,130 violent crimes committed that year, including 23,440 murders.107

In 2014, when there were 2,208,000 inmates in penitentiaries nationwide, a total of 1,197,987 violent crimes were committed that year, including 14,249 murders.108

So, even as the population of the United States grew by 28% between 1990 and 2014, the incidence of violent crimes declined by 46%, and the incidence of murders fell by 39%.

These numbers suggest that putting more criminals in prison has helped to spare at least a million people per year from being victimized by violent crimes, and to save at least 9,000 people per year from being murdered. If we look at the numbers from this perspective, incarceration suddenly doesn’t look like such a bad thing, does it?

And indeed, Mrs. Clinton herself inadvertently admitted this when she recently said, while railing against “mass incarceration,” that “the numbers [of prisoners] today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.”109

Poor Hillary Clinton. She opened her mouth in an unscripted moment and accidentally told the truth.

But hey, who cares if she supports policies that result in more death and destruction? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she deeply respects women, including the ones who, under her criminal-justice “reform” policies, would face a far greater likelihood of being abused, violated, or slain by criminals who really belonged in prison.

Fighting Voter ID Laws As “Racist” Schemes to Disenfranchise Minorities
At an August 2013 meeting of the American Bar Association, Mrs. Clinton lamented that “more than 80 bills restricting voting rights” had been “introduced in 31 states” during the first eight months of that year. These were generally bills that sought to institute Voter ID requirements at polling places, shorten early-voting periods, eliminate same-day voter registration, prevent the arbitrary extension of voting hours, and carefully regulate the use of absentee voting. All of these proposed measures were designed to reduce the likelihood of voter fraud, but Mrs. Clinton called them “voter suppression” efforts that were part of a racist scheme to “disproportionately [disenfranchise] African-Americans, Latino[s] and young voters.”110

On another occasion, Clinton said that Voter ID laws are emblematic of a racist form of “fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud.”111

Is Mrs. Clinton correct? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself:
A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that 24 million voter registrations — one-eighth of all registrations nationwide — were either invalid or inaccurate, including more than 1.8 million dead people who were still registered.112

A 2014 study found that two years earlier, some 155,692 registered voters in North Carolina alone had first and last names, birth dates, and final-four Social Security Number digits that matched those of voters who were registered in other states.113

The same study also found that 35,570 people who had actually voted in North Carolina, had first names, last names, and birth dates that matched those of voters who had cast ballots in other states.114

In 2008, Democrat Al Franken won a highly controversial U.S. Senate race in Minnesota by just 312 votes. It was later discovered that 1,099 felons — all legally ineligible to vote — had cast ballots in the election, almost exclusively for Franken.115

A 2006 study found that 77,000 dead people were listed on New York’s statewide database of registered voters, and that as many as 2,600 of them had somehow managed to cast ballots from the grave.116

In Milwaukee in 2004, approximately 5,300 more ballots were cast, than voters who were recorded as having shown up at the polls.117

In 2008, election officials nationwide had to discard at least 400,000 bogus voter registrations submitted by ACORN,118

the now-defunct criminal operation masquerading as a “community organization.” (Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, Mrs. Clinton said: “I thank you for being part of that great movement, that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.”)119

In 2011, a Colorado study found that of the nearly 12,000 non-citizens who were illegally registered to vote in that state, about 5,000 had taken part in the 2010 general election.120

In ten Colorado counties in 2012, voter registrations outnumbered the total voting-age population by between 4% and 40%.121

The foregoing examples represent only the barest tip of a colossal election-fraud iceberg. And Hillary Clinton knows all about it. She really isn’t dumb enough to believe what she says about election fraud and voter ID. She’s just counting on voters being dumb enough to believe her.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she deeply respects women — even the ones whose votes are nullified by the ballots of people who are legally ineligible to participate in elections.

Clinton’s Affiliation with Al Sharpton & Black Lives Matter
In April 2007, Mrs. Clinton spoke at an event held by Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, where she stated that her own presidential bid was possible only because of the dedicated work of longtime civil-rights leaders who, like Sharpton, had fought on behalf of those traditionally excluded from power positions in American life. “I have enjoyed a long and positive relationship with Reverend Al Sharpton and National Action Network,” said Clinton, “and I don’t ever remember saying ‘no’ to them, and I intend to remain their partner in civil rights as I clean the dirt from under the carpet in the Oval Office when I am elected President.”122

And nothing whatsoever has changed in Mrs. Clinton’s estimation of Sharpton, perhaps the most repugnant racial arsonist in contemporary America, in the years since then. In April 2016, for instance, Clinton again spoke at a National Action Network event where she lauded Sharpton and his organization for steadfastly working “on the frontlines of our nation’s continuing struggle for civil rights,” and “in a million ways lift[ing] up voices that too often go unheard.”123

Speaking of repugnant racial arsonists, in August 2015 Mrs. Clinton held an impromptu, videotaped conversation with three Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists who were complaining about the “mass incarceration” of African Americans. In response to them, Clinton said: “This country has still not recovered from its original sin [slavery] … Your analysis is totally fair. It’s historically fair, it’s psychologically fair, it’s economically fair…. All I’m suggesting is, even for us sinners [white people], find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives.”124

A bit of background information about BLM is in order here. Founded by Marxist revolutionaries in 2013, BLM depicts the United States as a nation thoroughly awash in racism, sexism, and homophobia. Demonstrators at BLM events commonly smear white police as trigger-happy bigots who are intent upon killing innocent, unarmed black males. The protesters also taunt, and direct obscenities at, uniformed police officers who are on duty. Their principal hero is the Marxist icon, former Black Panther, convicted accomplice in a cop-killing, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur. At all BLM events, demonstrators invoke a quote by Shakur that includes an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.125

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, of course, it goes without saying that she respects women deeply. Oh, so deeply.

Clinton’s View of the Supreme Court and Its Purpose

When Mrs. Clinton was asked, in an October 2016 presidential debate, to articulate what would be her chief considerations when appointing Supreme Court Justices, she never once mentioned fidelity to the Constitution, which is in fact the principal duty of the Court. Instead, Clinton alluded to the idea that Justices should try to balance the proverbial scales of power in favor of people who lack wealth and influence: “I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand the way the world really works … [and] actually understand what people are up against.” In other words, Clinton prefers Justices who seek to enforce her particular vision of “social justice,” rather than an ideal of blind, unbiased justice.

Mrs. Clinton then proceeded to explain that she would nominate only Justices who share her public-policy preferences vis-à-vis certain hot-button, litmus-test issues:
(1) “I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics.” (Citizens United was a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that left intact the federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making campaign contributions to politicians, but nullified a provision barring such entities from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns—on grounds that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from censoring any entity’s right to engage in, or to fund, political speech.)

(2) “I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are a big problem in many parts of the country. That we don’t do always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise.” (In other words, Mrs. Clinton would appoint Justices who oppose Voter ID laws, favor extended early-voting periods, support voting rights for convicted felons, and endorse universal voter registration — all measures that would make it significantly easier to commit voter fraud.)

(3) “I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.”
(4) “I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality” (i.e., same-sex marriage).

Clinton Supports Partial-Birth Abortion
On March 12, 2003, Hillary Clinton went to the Senate floor to speak out against legislation that proposed to ban the procedure commonly known as “partial-birth abortion” — where the abortionist maneuvers the baby into a breech (feet-first) delivery position, permits its entire body to exit the birth canal except for its head, and then uses scissors to puncture the baby’s brain and kill it while the head is still inside the mother. Defending the legality of this procedure and condemning Republicans for trying to outlaw it, Clinton argued that any attempt “to criminalize a medical procedure” would compromise American liberty.126

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she respects not only women, but girls as well — even the female babies who are subjected to atrocities like the one described above.

For Hillary Clinton, abortion is a civil liberty that should be funded not by the biological mother herself, but by all taxpayers. Indeed, Planned Parenthood — to Clinton’s delight — receives more than $520 million per year in government funding, and much of that is used to pay for abortions.127

Moreover, Mrs. Clinton has vowed to repeal what is known as the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 law that has traditionally prohibited federal funding for abortions.128

Apparently, for Mrs. Clinton “it takes a village”129

to produce enough cultural and moral rot to fully destroy a civilization.

Clinton’s Personal Persecution of a Young Rape Victim. While the Clinton presidential campaign website touts “Hillary’s plan to end campus sexual assault,” it laments that “many who choose to report sexual assault in the criminal justice system fear that their voices will be dismissed instead of heard.”130

But Mrs. Clinton herself took part in one of the most repulsive exhibitions of cruelty to a rape victim ever seen in an American courtroom.
The year was 1975, and attorney Hillary Clinton was defending Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping and beating a 12-year-old girl named Kathy Shelton. So brutal was Taylor’s assault, that the victim spent five days in a coma immediately afterward; then several months recovering from the physical thrashing that accompanied the rape; plus, more than 10 years in psychotherapy.131

Mrs. Clinton knew for certain that Taylor was guilty of this crime, as she made clear years later when she discussed the case in a 1980s interview with Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. “He [Taylor] took a lie detector test!” Mrs. Clinton recalled. “I had him take a polygraph test, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”132

Notwithstanding her certitude regarding the man’s guilt, Clinton negotiated a plea bargain for Taylor by taking advantage of a prosecutorial error — the prosecutors had cut out and examined the blood-covered section of Taylor’s underwear that proved his guilt, but then discarded the fabric, making it impossible for the defense to examine it. Because of this misstep, Clinton, confident that the prosecution would be unable to prove Taylor’s guilt, pushed for a plea bargain.133

In the aforementioned 1980s interview, Mrs. Clinton laughed as she recounted how the polygraph results were clearly erroneous, and how a forensic scientist from New York was prepared to testify that Taylor could not be convicted if the underwear fabric was no longer available. When Reed asked Clinton about the outcome of the case, she replied, nonchalantly, “Oh he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months.”134

Subsequent to the Taylor trial, a Newsday examination of court files and investigative files revealed that Mrs. Clinton had also attacked the young victim’s character during the trial by calling into question her motives, her honesty, her temperament, and her ability to perceive reality — even though she knew with 100% certainty that her client was guilty.135

In a highly emotional June 2014 interview, Kathy Shelton accused Mrs. Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents and going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape. “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” Shelton said. “She lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys [Taylor and an accomplice] did it or not. Them two guys should have got a lot longer time [in prison]. I do not think justice was served at all.”136

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus, she deeply respects females, even young girls whose known rapists she defends in court, and whose trials she later recalls with self-satisfied bellows of laughter.

This, then, is Hillary Clinton: a woman who is wholly, unequivocally unfit to serve as anything more than an inmate in a federal penitentiary. She has demonstrated, time and again:

that she cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted with national security or state secrets;

that she treats the paper on which the Espionage Act is written, with no more reverence than she would give to a strip of toilet paper;

that she treats with similar disregard the paper on which the U.S. Constitution is written;

that her judgment in matters of international conflict, diplomacy, and terrorism is an abomination;

that she routinely uses her “charitable foundation” as a money-laundering operation designed to enrich herself under the guise of helping the needy;

that she will gladly sell out her country, and everyone in it, in exchange for material riches and political dominion;
that she is intent upon using the most irresponsible refugee and immigration policies imaginable to import countless millions of people from hostile, impoverished nations across the globe for one core purpose: to permanently transform the American population into one that will vote reliably Democrat from now until the end of time;

that she fully intends to purge the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights;
that she unequivocally plans to expand the disastrous, failing Obamacare debacle into an even more monstrous, government-run, single-payer healthcare system;

that she favors soft-on-crime policies that have repeatedly been shown to cause violent crime rates to skyrocket;

that she is perfectly willing to institutionalize massive, ubiquitous voter fraud because she believes that it will ensure additional power for her political party;
that she views white Americans as a whole, as inherently, “implicitly,”137

and “irredeemably”138 racist, and therefore in constant need of an all-powerful government to restrain their bigoted impulses;

that despite her professed aversion to racism in general, she is quite happy to ally herself with “politically correct” racists like Al Sharpton and the Black Lives Matter movement; and

that she opposes the imposition of any restrictions whatsoever on abortion rights, or on the government’s power to force taxpayers to fund abortions.

In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is a woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect. To make matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed criminal without a shred of personal virtue. Truly it can be said that never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving, run for president. Never.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times – October 6, 2016

Barack Obama will soon be gone, banished to a smaller house down the street from the mosque, and peace, alas, will not be upon him. The anti-war president leaves behind a world with more war than it had when he first moved into the White House.

Mr. Obama had hardly got his socks-and-underwear drawer organized when he got a call from Oslo that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He told his speechwriters to write a speech recognizing, in a nice way, that the award was the work of giddy European intellectuals who had reduced the Nobel Prize to something like one of those offers of a weekend in Florida to anyone who would sit still for a pitch for condominium shares.

Nobody thought the award had much to do with peace, and everyone agreed that Mr. Obama certainly didn’t deserve the prize, cheapened as it had become by politics. Nearly eight years later the president has become something of a maker of war, not peace, which is the usual lot of any man or woman elected, like it or not, leader of the world.

“I don’t think he would have been in the speculation of the Nobel committee now, in 2016, even if he had not already won [before],” Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo and a close watcher of the machinations of the Nobel committee, tells The Associated Press. “Obama has been stuck in the old paradigm,” he says.

Indeed, it’s those naughty old paradigms that eventually make every president miserable. Mr. Obama consoled himself by blaming everything on George W. Bush until reality overtook him.

The world is a far more dangerous place now. Radical Islamic terrorism, which the president still dares not call by its name, has become the new normal everywhere, gruesome death of innocents in the name of a prophet dead for centuries.

The world hasn’t measured so many deaths in battle since the end of the Vietnam War, and refugees from war and terrorism have washed over Europe in numbers to remake the map, and threaten now to overwhelm the culture in America.

If, in the words of the Statler Brothers, “life gets complicated when you get past 18,” life gets impossible for presidents once they get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, beware.

Mr. Obama has still not learned the lesson taught by the poet Bobby Burns, to see himself as others see him, a president engaged in more wars big and small than his predecessor.

He should apologize to George W. He has pulled more than 100,000 soldiers out of Iraq, enabling the success of ISIS in taking vast territory for its so-called Islamic State, and now he has to begin the painful and embarrassing task of sending some of them back. He abhors conventional war, but dispatches drones to kill the guilty and innocent alike.

He assisted in the invention of a crisis over “climate change,” as if the climate hasn’t been changing since the first thunderstorm ruined Eve’s garden party in Eden.

He rewarded Fidel Castro and the old men of the Cuban revolution, eager for the comforts of capitalism as they lie dying, but he is unable to do anything but draw imaginary red lines in the sand, like a child with his coloring book, to prevent the destruction of the Syrians.

But the president’s peacemaking legacy will be the sweetheart deal he made with the mullahs in Iran, preserving their dream of an Islamic bomb, which the mullahs promise to use to make a second Holocaust of Israel.

Mr. Obama said in 2012 that he would give the mullahs an opportunity to “take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program” or face an American president with lots of options. The world learned that the options were a stream of concessions to keep the Iranian nuclear-weapons program alive and on the way to the bomb.

Hillary Clinton goes along with the president’s cynical assurance that against emerging evidence he has halted the development of the Iranian bomb.

We saw the Democratic celebration of the myth in the debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence.

Whether manufacturing peace or disarming Islamic terror, Barack Obama and his protege have demonstrated incompetence all but unique in the history of the American presidency.

And Hillary Clinton wants America to reward the incompetence with four more years. PLEASE VOTE NO THANKS.

• Wesley Pruden is editor-in-chief emeritus of The Times.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Video: Huma Abedin —Hillary Clinton Supreme Confidante, companion, daughter of radical Islamic Leaders. Why is she privy to top US Security and Military Classified information? Makes Wiki email leaks look like kindergarten game child play.

II SICKENING truth about FBI’s Hillary investigation exposed

By Matt Palumbo

October 14, 2016

When FBI Director James Comey let Hillary Clinton off the hook at the conclusion of the investigation into her private email server, many of us had the impression it wasn’t what he truly wanted. After all, he read off a number of facts that proved Hillary to have been a liar on numerous occasions when she gave a defense of her actions and cited copious evidence of her “extreme carelessness.”

So why did the investigation turn out the way it did? While I had assumed that Comey was the one facing political pressure to not indict Hillary from the rest of the FBI, it turns out that most of the FBI thought otherwise.

Via Louder With Crowder:

We learned a thing or two about the decision since then. The latest development confirms that tons of FBI and DOJ agents had a strong case against Clinton. So when they found out they wouldn’t be prosecuting? It didn’t go over too well…To quote from the video: “The decision by Comey and Loretta Lynch (Obama’s hand picked head of the Dept. of Justice …  the investigative team left dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys to investigate the case.”

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working on the case agreed – it was a top-down decision,” said the source… “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked. The vast majority felt she should be prosecuted.”

“Loretta Lynch simply wants to stay on as [AG] under Clinton, so there is no way she would indict. (Remember she had a little private conference at the airport in her private plane with Bill Clinton who just happened to be there  just before the decision was made in Hillary’s favor. What a coincidence! Every agent and attorney I [spoke] to is embarrassed and has lost total respect for James Comey and Loretta Lynch,” the source said.

We’ve also learned from an email released in the Wikileaks dump that Clinton’s team may have had access to Justice Department employees during the investigation that helped her and her staff receive favorable treatment.

The FBI is now investigating the hack that allowed for that Wikileaks dump to occur — though I’m pretty sure they’ll be able to do their jobs in that investigation.

[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II  “Wet Works”: Podesta Email Makes Assassination Reference Days Before Scalia Death
by Adan Salazar | | published on October 14, 2016

Fourth Mysterious Death connected to the Democratic National Committee in less than one month!

Victor Thorn – (from Much of the Internet was abuzz in early August 2016 over a report that Victor Thorn, a “prominent Clinton researcher,” had committed suicide, as reported on the American Free Press web site:

Prolific author, AMERICAN FREE PRESS writer and seasoned Clinton researcher Victor Thorn was found at the top of a mountain near his home, the apparent victim of a gunshot wound. Family and some close friends contend Thorn took his own life on his birthday, August 1. Thorn would have been 54. At the peak of his writing career, the author of some 20 books and 30 chapbooks, Thorn had reported for this newspaper for over a decade, writing thousands of articles on myriad subjects from conspiracy to health-related topics.

Best known for his investigate research on the Clintons, Thorn wrote the Clinton trilogy—three definitive works that delved into the history of the power couple including their sordid scandals, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults of multiple women, and the drug running out of Mena, Arkansas while Clinton was governor of the state.

Shawn Lucas  In August 2016, rumors began circulating that Shawn Lucas had died unexpectedly; Lucas was known to many frustrated Democrats as the young man who served the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with a lawsuit in early July 2016 charging that the DNC had committed “fraud” in favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary process.  Lucas’ death may have been connected to his role as the process server for the DNC lawsuit.  (from

Seth Conrad Rich, (from age 27, On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich’s tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down.

John Ashe (From: Political Insider) UN official died suspiciously the day before he was set to testify as a top official against the Democratic National Committee on June 22, 2016 There are major questions being raised about the suspicious death of former United Nations (U.N.) official John Ashe. Was foul play involved? A bombshell report shows that Ashe, who was found dead last week, supposedly due to a heart attack, is having the reason for death brought into question.

Police officers in the city of Dobbs Ferry, New York have claimed he instead died by a crushed throat in a “workout accident.” Ashe was scheduled to testify in court today, along with Ng Lap Seng – a Chinese businessman and co-defendant – who received more than $1 billion during his term as president of the U.N. in donations. Sing also found ways to illegally funnel money to Democrats during President Bill Clinton’s term in office.
Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. (Ng was not charged with any crime.)

One source told me, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.” Police in Dobbs Ferry village are keeping the investigation open pending an autopsy by the Westchester medical examiner.
Via NY Post
WorldNetDaily Aug 21, 2016 -presented a  list of 33 people associated with the Clintons who have died mysterious and often violent deaths. It is very clear that being deeply connected into the Clinton political world can be hazardous to your health.

How coincidental can this all be? Who were the killers? What were the circumstances? Were the crimes thoroughly investigated and by whom — the Justice Department? Don’t make me laugh with Loretta Lynch directly in the pocket of Barack Obama and the Clintons. Maybe Bill Clinton had a chance to get on Lynch’s private airplane, by coincidence, of course, to discuss these minor issues, too. And how exactly was FBI Director James Comey threatened? Was he shown pictures of the men listed above as a subtle hint? What about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and his complete collapse on Obamacare. How did that happen? What was the threat?

And, then my favorite peeve —the death of Justice Anthony Scalia — a major thorn in the side of Obama and the Left. How could they ever get any of their off the wall, unconstitutional projects past him and the Supreme Court with him as a major force on the court? Where was the investigation of his death? And why no autopsy?

Coincidently at exactly the same period, Prince the well known entertainer who was known by his inner circle as a multi-drug addict,  had five or six autopsies! I will never understand the contrast. The Scalia’s family did not want the autopsy argument has no merit, especially when a political figure of that magnitude suddenly dies under unusual, out of the way circumstances. Were Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch involved in this convenient death? I have no idea but I would still like an objective, non-partisan autopsy done.

Who ordered all those hits listed above and tens more either directly or indirectly? Doesn’t this at least raise a question on what’s happening to our country? How coincidental can this all be?

Could this be Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party silencing people who “know too much?”

Is this the government you want? One governed by coercion in one form or another. Are we that far from Nazi Germany right now if even a fraction of the information above is true?

Compiled from multiple internet sources by Jerome S. Kaufman


II  “Wet Works”:  Podesta Email Makes Assassination Reference Days Before Scalia Death
by Adan Salazar |  |  published on October 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta used a term known to reference assassination in an email sent to a lobbyist days before Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s mysterious death.
The email, an exchange between Podesta and D.C. lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, appeared in a trove of documents dumped by the organization WikiLeaks Wednesday.

“Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard,” Podesta says in the February 9 email under the subject line “Thanks”.
“I’m all in,” gay lobbyist and Hillary delegate Steve Elmendorf replies. “Sounds like it will be a bad nite, we all need to buckle up and double down.”
Justice Scalia was later found dead in a hotel room in Texas on the night of February 12 – three days after the email exchange took place.

Read more at 1776 Coalition:



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Foot in his mouth Trump continues to make damaging statements that have nothing to do with our real problems.

Read More About: You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self-destruct course, but look beyond Washington and listen to the masses.

I  Sorry, I have to re-print Don R. Ivey’s  letter. But, foot in his mouth Trump continues to make damaging statements which have nothing to do with the important subjects he should be addressing like our terrible economy, our lack of real job growth, the deliberate crippling of our military, the alienation of all our world allies, the pre-occupation with and use of Global Warming as Obama’s and Hillary’s straw man while they kill our real energy sources and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, the promotion of the Islamic State.

Our only hope is that you will try and fix all those things Trump because we know Hillary will not and we have to vote for you. So can you please address the issues that matter and not allow Hillary to bait you into more garbage.

Jerome S. Kaufman

II This email reflects how many people feel today about Donald Trump

I am now in my 70’s.
Recently I received a questionnaire and request for money from the Republican Party and strongly agree with every question, as I have since Obama was elected.

Unfortunately the one question that was missing is: What have the  Republicans done for the American people?

We gave you a majority in the House and Senate, and you never  listened to us. Now you want our money, my money, more money. You should be more concerned about our votes, not our money.

You are the establishment which means all you want is to save your jobs and line your pockets.

Well guess what? It’s not going to happen.

TRUMP has asked for very little until now when Hillary’s millionaire lefties are overwhelming the TV with destructive lies.

You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self-destruct course, but look beyond Washington and listen to the masses. Nobody has achieved what he has, especially in the state of New York.

Here’s why I want Trump. Yes, he’s a bit of an ass; yes, he’s an  egomaniac; but I don’t care.

The country is a mess because politicians suck.

The Republican Party is two-faced and gutless, and illegals are  everywhere.

I want it all fixed!

I don’t care that Trump is crude.

I don’t care that he insults people.

I don’t care that he has changed positions.

I don’t care that he’s been married 3 times.

I don’t care that he fights with Megan Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell.

I don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslim terrorist.

Our country has become weak, and bankrupt.

Our enemies are making fun of us. We are being invaded by illegals.

We are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hassid is a special group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in,


And Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what We The People want and need.

I’m sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, the  Republican Party, and sick of illegals. I just want this thing fixed.

Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn’t have lobbyist money controlling him; he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him; all you know is that he has been very successful; a good negotiator; he has built a lot of things; and, he’s also not a politician.

And, he says he’ll fix it. And, I believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.

I don’t care if the guy has bad hair.

You are welcome to pass this on, or not.

Thought for the Day  “No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive!”

Don R. “Dick” Ivey, PhD

P.S.  No Borders, No Language, No Culture = No Country.

I sure hopes this goes to everyone.
III Thank you for the confirmation
Please “Like” and encourage your readership to “Like” the Israel Commentary Fan Club
Fan Club:
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Obama’s shameful eulogy for Shimon Peres, given at Mt. Herzl’s National Cemetery in Jerusalem, Israel’s Capitol


Redacted from an article by Caroline Glick

US President Barack Obama’s eulogy of Shimon Peres at Mount Herzl was a thinly disguised assault on Israel. And he barely bothered to hide it.

(And probably it was the only motivation for him coming to the funeral in the first place — To further the goals of his Muslim compatriots. Yes,  I also question his birth certificate  as do many expert document investigators, but that is unfortunately, water under the bridge)  jsk

Throughout his remarks, Obama wielded Peres’s record like a baseball bat. He used it to club the Israeli public and its elected leaders over and over again. Peres, Obama intimated, was a prophet. But the suspicious, tribal people of Israel were too stiff necked to follow him.

In what was perhaps the low point of a low performance, Obama used Peres’s words to slander his domestic critics as racist oppressors .

“Shimon,” he began harmlessly enough, “believed that Israel’s exceptionalism was rooted not only in fidelity to the Jewish people, but to the moral and ethical vision, the precepts of his Jewish faith.”

You could say that about every Israeli leader since the dawn of modern Zionism.

But then Obama went for the jugular.

 In a startling non sequitur he continued, “‘The Jewish people weren’t born to rule another people,’ he [Peres] would say. ‘From the very first day we were against slaves and masters.’” We don’t know the context in which Peres made that statement. But what is clear enough is that Obama used his words to accuse the majority of Israelis who do not share Peres’s vision for peaceincluding Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who was sitting in the front row listening to him – of supporting slavery.

This libelous assault on Israel was probably the most unhinged remark ever directed at the Jewish state by an American president. What does the fact that Obama said this at Peres’s funeral tell us about Obama? What does it tell us about Peres? Obama was not merely wrong when he accused Peres’s detractors of support for slavery, he was maliciously wrong.

Due to Peres’s Oslo Accords, since 1995, all the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria have been governed by the PLO. Israel hasn’t been in charge of any aspect of their daily civic existence. 

And they have only suffered as a result. Between 1967 and 1996, when the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria were governed by the military government, the Palestinians were free. They only became “enslaved” when the PLO took over.

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians enjoyed far more expansive civil rights than they have since we left. The PLO transformed their lives into chaos by implementing the law of the jungle, enforced by mob-style militias. Their property rights were trampled. Their civil rights have been gutted.

 The fact that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies delayed their municipal elections indefinitely the day after Peres’s funeral is yet another testament to the absence of freedom in the PLO as opposed to Israeli-ruled areas.

But really, Obama couldn’t care less. He didn’t come here to tell the truth about Peres. He came here to use Peres as a means to bludgeon the government the people elected.

 Obama began his attack as he often begins his political assaults on his opponents. He created a straw man.

 Peres’s critics on the Right, he said, “argued that he refused to see the true wickedness of the world, and called him naïve.”

In other words, as far as Obama is concerned, Israelis are prisoners of their dark view of the world. Unlike Peres the optimist, his countrymen are tribal pessimists.

 Peres, whose vision for peace rested on giving the outskirts of Tel Aviv and half of Jerusalem to terrorists, wasn’t naïve.

He “knew better than the cynic.”

 He was better than that. He was better than us.

 This brings us then to the paradox of Peres’s life’s work. Over last quarter-century of his life, we, the people of Israel wanted to feel empowered by Peres’s superstar status. We wanted to get excited when Hollywood stars and A-list politicians came to his birthday bashes at the President’s Residence and the Peres Center.

But every time we tried to see Peres’s success as our success, some visiting VIP would smile before the cameras and kick us in the shins. 

The higher Peres’s star rose in the stratosphere of celebrity stardom, the worse Israel’s global position became. The international A-listers who showed up at all of Peres’s parties always seemed to view him as their guy, not our guy.  He was one of them – and above the likes of us.

How did this happen? How did the last surviving member of Israel’s founding generation become a prop for Israel’s chorus of international critics? The most extraordinary aspect of Peres’s long life is that he packed two full – and contradictory – careers into one lifespan.

 Peres’s first career began with Israel’s founding.

It ended with the Likud’s victory in the 1977 Knesset election.
Over the course of that career, Peres used his formidable diplomatic skills to build and strengthen Israel’s defenses. He cultivated and expanded complex strategic relationships with the French and the British. Those ties led the two major powers to fight at Israel’s side in the 1956 Suez Campaign. They led to France’s decision to help Israel build its nuclear program and its arms industry. In the 1970s as defense minister, Peres was able to rely on his warm ties to foreign leaders to shield the country as he established the Jewish communities in Samaria and Hebron. They empowered him to oversee the hostage rescue mission at Entebbe.

(Hurray, as usual, Caroline Glick below, comes out with the truth about this Paper Hero of the Left, Shimon Peres, who has been a disaster to Israel and caused Israel nothing but trouble since he snuck his abominable Oslo Accords past PM Yitschak Rabin (who referred to Peres as the Grand Deceiver or words to that effect) and an uninformed naive Knesset). All the eulogies from Israel’s enemies are testimony to who Peres ended up being and make me sick. Do you think a genuine Israeli patriot would be honored by Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton?) jsk

But following the Likud’s rise to power, Peres changed gears. Ever since 1981, when he almost managed to scuttle the air force’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Peres used his diplomatic talents and ties to foreign leaders to advance his own agenda, regardless of whether that agenda was aligned or contradicted Israel’s national agenda, as set out by its elected leaders.

Time and time again, on the backs of the public that failed to elect him and of the politicians the public elected instead of him, Peres cultivated and used the relationships he enjoyed with foreign leaders to press his own policies. Each attempt to derail the policies of the government expanded Peres’s chorus of supporters abroad.

Peres’s second career reached its high water mark in 1994 when along with Rabin and Yasser Arafat he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Oslo process. The world embraced and celebrated Peres for his peace deal that brought neither peace nor security to his people.

 And the public rejected him for it. Between 1977 and 1996, Peres stood for election five times. He lost all five races along with a primary battle against Yitzhak Rabin for leadership of the Labor Party.

Contrary to Obama’s assertion, Peres’s critics on the Right didn’t oppose his Oslo process because they saw “the true wickedness of the world.” They opposed the Oslo process because they saw the reality on the ground. 

Ahead of the 1996 election, where Peres ran against then-opposition leader Netanyahu, the Palestinians launched an onslaught of bus bombings that killed 60 people in eight days.

After the second bus bombing in Jerusalem, a television crew stuck a microphone in front of a teenage boy who had just seen the bus blow up.

 Standing amid the wreckage, he let out a primal wail and called out, “Peres, what is wrong with you? We are Jews! They are murdering us!” The next week, then-US president Bill Clinton arrived in Jerusalem to campaign for Peres, whom he extolled as a brilliant statesman. But to no avail. 

Netanyahu won.

 It was reality, not cynicism, which dictated the outcome.

Peres’s second career left its deepest mark on the Foreign Ministry. As foreign minister during the heady days of Oslo, Peres told Israel’s diplomats to stop talking about PLO incitement and anti-Semitism.

 The best hasbara, he said, was peace. Israel needed no other policy. 

Beyond the obviously destructive implications of tethering Israel’s diplomatic standing to the fortunes of a peace process with a terrorist group, Peres’s directives forced our diplomats into passivity.

Why bother defending Israel when the status of the peace process alone would determine our standing? Why bother using the diplomatic tools of carrots and sticks when whatever hostility Israel suffered from would be magically erased the minute Israel concluded a peace deal with the PLO?

A few weeks ago, it was reported that Netanyahu rebuked the diplomatic corps. It isn’t sufficient for you to simply send in reports about what is happening in your host countries, he reportedly said. I want you to actually do something to affect the situation for the better.

 In other words, Netanyahu ordered Israel’s diplomats to abandon the legacy of Peres’s second career and embrace the legacy of his first career.

He effectively said: Use whatever tools you have – just as Peres used the little leverage Israel had in its first 15 years of independence – to advance Israel’s position.

 That is your job. I can read about current events in the newspapers.

This brings us back to Obama and Peres’s other foreign admirers who descended on the country Friday morning in their private jets and limousines. 

A few hours after the funeral ended, the White House published a correction to the original text it had released of Obama’s eulogy. The correction related to the dateline. The original version had the dateline as “Jerusalem, Israel.” 

The revised, corrected version had a line going through the word Israel.

As far as the Obama White House is concerned, Jerusalem – along with Mount Herzl, the Knesset, and all the rest – is not in Israel.

It was a petty, puerile thing to do. And it revealed a breathtaking animosity for Israel.

 Any moderately sane observer knows that Israel won’t transfer sovereignty over its national war cemetery to a foreign power in exchange for peace.

 The “correction” wasn’t about advancing the cause of peace. It was about venting hostility toward the members of a primitive tribe who prefer their darkness to the optimistic vision of their spurned prophet.

Obama did get one thing right in his speech. In his round about, condescending way, Obama noted that due to their rejection of Peres’s vision of peace through appeasement, some Israelis have forgotten the important role Peres played in his first career in building the architecture of national defense on which Israel has successfully defended itself throughout the years.

 And he is right, that with Peres’s passing, we should remember the tremendous good he did for the country in his first career, when he was working for us.

 We should embrace that Peres legacy and cherish it always.

(Sorry, I cannot do that last  part. I have too good a memory of Peres second “career” as the lethal architect of the Oslo Accords and the instigator of the awful situation Israel is in right now.

May Hashem continue to save us from our own self-destruction, the likes of Shimon Peres and those that naively vote for Hillary Clinton, another one of our unsung enemies, in the coming election)  jsk

Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:
Twitter: @israelcomment
Fan Club:



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The Vice Presidential Debate Oct. 4, 2016

Hillary’s Junk Yard Dog

Immediately upon watching the ugly performance of VP Candidate Sen. Tim Kaine relentlessly interrupting and mindlessly attacking Gov. Mike Pence, I could only think of the term, Hillary’s Junk Yard Dog.

And, from almost all reports, most of the TV audience felt much the same way. It is obvious that the Hillary crowd has absolutely nothing of substance to offer in the way of Obama/Clinton accomplishments over the last 71/2 years —Quite the contrary.

As a result the only thing left is to attack the numerous gaffs of Donald Trump. Unfortunately for the Democrats in no way can that detract from the basic facts – the terrible damage Barack Obama has done to this country with Hillary as his willing enabler and heir apparent.

They are on exactly the same page and there should be no voting dilemma for an informed, patriotic American.

Jerome S. Kaufman
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:
Twitter: @israelcomment
Fan Club:




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from an eye-opening pre-Vote article By David Kupelian on why Dems support a candidate who belongs behind bars

Whistleblower Magazine

September 2016

Of all the astonishing and historic aspects of the 2016 presidential election, perhaps the most vexing is the fact that something like half of America’s voters seem content to elect a pathologically lying career criminal as president.

How can this be? Has the electorate grown stupid? Or morally dead?

In some cases, yes, but many more are just abysmally ignorant, as revealed by an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll showing almost two-thirds of Americans cannot name the three branches of the federal government. Millions are just not paying attention.

Contributing to this massive reality-deficit are the “mainstream media” who, so absurdly biased toward Hillary Clinton that they’ve abandoned their former lame pretense of objectivity, have been successful protecting their favored candidate from public exposure despite her three-decades-long record of crime, corruption and sleaze.

Even more inexplicable than the millions of low-information, left-of-center voters ignorantly favoring Clinton despite her lifetime of corruption are the “NeverTrump” Republicans, some of whom actually claim America would be better off under a Hillary Clinton presidency than under Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, repeated polls show fully two out of three American voters, including many Democrats, believe Hillary Clinton to be dishonest and untrustworthy. It is likewise undisputed that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is a serial sexual abuser. Yet these appalling aspects of the Clintons’ record seem to be, as Democrat pundits say, “old news” – and already “baked in” to the way many people regard the Clintons.

There is, however, something else that tends to blind many voters from seeing the Clinton crime family for what it really is.

‘Bigger than Watergate’

Dishonesty, deceitfulness, demagoguery – traits typical of so many politicians – are things the public understands. Lying they understand; politicians lie. Liberal versus conservative, pro-abortion versus anti-abortion, socialism versus capitalism, amnesty versus deportation, sexual anarchy versus biblical values – they understand that candidates hold vastly different views on these crucial issues and they support or oppose them on that basis.

However, actual criminality – the kind that lands people behind bars – is something else, and the reality of Hillary and Bill as career criminals hasn’t truly penetrated the public mind.

We’re simply not used to outright criminality in our top leaders, at least not in our presidents. Governors, yes. Four out of Illinois’ last seven governors – Rod Blagojevich, George Ryan, Dan Walker and Otto Kerner – went to prison for corruption. But on the national level, big-time criminality – such as blatant violation of U.S. espionage laws – doesn’t quite register with millions of us. It’s just too dark; we prefer to imagine some other explanation, or else that it’s not really that serious, or that “everyone does it.”

They don’t – not this.

The stunning, decades-long record of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s criminality and corruption is a matter of public record: While occupying the White House during the ’90s, they illegally turned the IRS into their own private “gestapo” to use against their political “enemies.” Bill sexually abused multiple women, and Hillary not only covered up her husband’s crimes, she actually defamed and targeted his victims, further victimizing them!

Then there were all the “gate” scandals:

“Filegate” (obtaining FBI files on their GOP “enemies”),

“Chinagate” (sale of high-tech secrets to China in return for campaign contributions),

“Travelgate” (firing loyal staffers and falsely accusing them of crimes so the Clintons could hire their Arkansas cronies)

“Pardongate” (selling presidential pardons for mega-cash).

“Whitewater” (Hillary’s cattle futures trading that magically netted her a 10,000 percent profit. On and on it went until,

“WhiteHousegate “ (When their time as “co-presidents” was finally over, the Clintons famously walked off with about  $130,ooo worth of property from the White House. They were later made to return that amount in returned property  according to

Believe it or not, it gets worse. From the time she became Obama’s secretary of state until the present time, Hillary has outdone herself, with cascades of new crimes ranging from her:

Unlawful use of a private email server, which has unquestionably endangered America’s national security,

She and Bill’s creation and exploitation of the Clinton Foundation “charity” as part of a gigantic self-enrichment and pay-for-play scam.

Thanks to her shockingly illegal use of an unsecured private email server, Hillary Clinton sent and received the most highly classified government communications, making them easily hackable by enemy powers and others. Former federal prosecutors have publicly claimed she is guilty of violating U.S. espionage laws, plus more than a dozen other federal code violations, including bribery, conspiracy, false statements, obstruction of justice, perjury, disclosure of confidential information, unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, concealment of government records, attempt to evade or defeat a tax, attempts to interfere with administration of Internal Revenue Laws, and more.

After making a damning case that Clinton was guilty of multiple crimes, FBI Director James Comey controversially recommended against indicting Hillary, prompting lifelong Comey colleagues, prosecutors and other legal experts to speculate aloud as to what pressures could possibly have caused the FBI director to cave on a clearly indictable case.

Be that as it may, the email scandal is in danger of being eclipsed by more recent revelations of the sensational pay-to-play scheme involving the Clinton Foundation, which almost the entire media now recognizes is essentially a giant money-laundering operation. So obvious is it, in fact, that establishment, pro-Clinton media organizations from the Washington Post and USA Today to the New Yorker and the Boston Globe are all calling for the Clinton Foundation to be entirely shut down. Even openly leftist media outfits like the Daily Beast and the Huffington Post have joined the shut-it-down chorus.

Veteran mob prosecutor and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani calls the Clinton Foundation scandal “bigger than Watergate.”

Again, let’s understand that normal people – meaning the vast majority of American voters, whether Democrat or Republican – do not have criminal minds. However realistic or deluded their political worldview might be, most Americans simply do not harbor secret desires to control millions of people, are not chameleons capable of instantly changing their views at will, are not constantly “grasping” for ever more wealth and power at the expense of others, and don’t dream of permanently and irreversibly transforming America’s traditional center-right Judeo-Christian electorate into an anti-capitalist, government-dependent super-bloc of voters by importing ever more Democrats into America at breakneck speed.

Bill Clinton is just as crooked as Hillary, but even more transparently so, being a lifelong sexual predator. Think about it: To Bill Clinton, women are not actual people with souls, and he has no regard for their well-being, just uses them to gratify himself, regardless of the trail of tears left behind. This is the mindset of the predator – the sociopath – the conscienceless person who has “learned” how to simulate a caring demeanor and personality. But it’s all a put-on. In reality, other people are merely “resources” – like vehicles or furniture – things to use. This is the classic portrait of the sociopath, who pretends to care about you, but underneath is just an exploiter, a user – a criminal.

This mindset was on full display on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi massacre, when, with the bodies of the slain American heroes in their caskets at Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary Clinton looked the grieving parents right in the eye and lied to them. It doesn’t get much colder than that.

Patricia Smith, mother of diplomat Sean Smith, said at the GOP convention, “When I saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony, just days later, she looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible.” The media shamefully did everything possible to ignore or demean this Gold Star mother’s speech. But another Benghazi parent, Charles Woods, father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, says Hillary told him the exact same lie – that a nasty Internet video was responsible for his son’s death.

In fact, Woods revealed during an interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer that he always carries a little calendar book and makes sure to “write down the important things that happen each day.” Here’s what Woods wrote immediately after his encounter with Clinton: “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.”

The animus to lie and deceive at a sacred moment like this is way beyond the usual political truth-bending. This is sociopathy; this is a criminal mind at work.

So, what would America be like with a criminal mind steering the ship of state for the next four years? Recently, I made an in-depth comparison between Hillary Clinton and the notorious “Nurse Ratched” in Ken Kesey’s “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” At the end, I offered this chilling prediction of what America will become under President Hillary Clinton:

If Hillary wins in November, the sheer revulsion of the great American middle class over having to endure Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House – this time with the viscerally unlikable Hillary in charge – at such a uniquely crucial time in our history will result in many bad things:

First of all, just having to listen to Hillary will fry the circuitry of many Americans’ minds. We don’t fully comprehend the high stress level involved in being ruled over by someone who is literally lying to us all the time, whose whole life is a pretense, an act, a calculated manipulation – someone who never strikes any familiar chords within our souls of genuine decency, humanity and heartfelt shared values. This alone will create a baseline of constant pain, conflict and anger.

The middle class will likely sink into a state of depression, both economically and emotionally. Suicide will increase, and not just because suicide rises with unemployment and Hillary is incapable of improving the economy or creating (non-government) jobs, but because public rage will multiply as people realize they have re-elected the delusional Barack Obama in the form of a corrupt, deceitful, power-mad old woman. The urge to chemically relieve pain will dramatically increase, and the current epidemic level of drug addiction – whether the drug source is a doctor or a dealer – will continue to skyrocket. Millions will drop out of politics in disgust, essentially abdicating rule of the country to the progressive left. Checkmate.

Disgust and open rebellion will overtake the U.S. military, leading to a mass exit. Same with the FBI, particularly among the over 100 agents who worked diligently on the investigation of Hillary’s private email server and her outrageous disregard for America’s national security.

In an age when evil is increasingly portrayed as good, and good as evil; when disordered and immoral behavior is imposed on the rest of society as normal and moral, and dissenting Christians are persecuted and even jailed; Hillary Clinton’s presidency will mark the ultimate reversal of values. Whereas once America was blessed with a moral and legendarily honest “father of our country” named George Washington, in Hillary Clinton we’ll have an immoral and legendarily dishonest “mother of our country.”

Most important is the message that will be transmitted to America’s youth, whose values and worldview are still being formed, by having two people with a long criminal history, and who regard themselves as absolutely above the law, occupy the White House.

What will reverberate deep in the minds and souls of the young will be much the same as the toxic message ghetto youth absorb when they observe criminals, drug dealers and pimps in their midst becoming “successful” – getting all the women, hot cars, money, power and fame they want. It’s the message of the sociopath predator: There is no law but the jungle. Lying and stealing are no problem to me, because everyone – including the president – does it. Sexually taking whatever I want from others is fine, too – Bill Clinton proved that. Laws are for other people, and morality is whatever I want it to be. I’m gonna get what’s mine, take care of me and my friends. If a crime family like Hillary and Bill can get into the White House and be honored by the whole world, I can ignore the law too and take whatever I can get.

For those more sensitive and deeply moral souls, many will drop out of society and live in their own world. The more troubled of these will lose themselves in drugs, addictions and suicide. America, beneath its civilized, high-tech sheen, will increasingly resemble a mental ward.

But this is the predictable outcome of elevating as a leader someone who pretends to want to take care of others, yet who secretly has contempt for them, indeed whose power is rooted in their very dependency, dysfunction and submission to her. This is the cuckoo’s nest run by Nurse Ratched, and America under the rule of Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary – who by all rights should be in prison for her many crimes – does become president, powerful forces of rage, revulsion and revenge will be unleashed in American society, and a level of pathology and madness we have never before witnessed will arise. And everyone will ask, “Whoa, where in the hell did this come from?” Now you know. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

David Kupelian is an award winning journalist, vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily, editor of Whistleblower magazine and widely read columnist. He is also the bestselling author of “The Marketing of Evil” (2005), “(How Evil Works” (2010) and ” The Snapping of the American Mind (2015)

II You really must purchase this September 2016 issue of WHISTLEBLOWER magazine. It is chock-full of articles that will help clarify your Presidential decision.

Included in this list are:

“Hillary Clinton: Poster girl for post-Christian America” by Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D.,
“Lots of smoke here, Hillary” by Patrick J. Buchanan,
“Trump, Clinton and the ‘lesser evil’ deception” by David Kupelian,
“The Republican turncoats” by economist Stephen Moor
“Hillary’s top aide may be a Saudi plant – Huma Abedin ” by Leo Hohmann
“A Clinton presidency would be the political equivalent of an extinction-level event” by Don Feder
“How Trump will be blamed for O’s failures” by Larry Elder
“Yes, the system is rigged” by Patrick J. Buchanan
“How Trump can break Dems’ chokehold on blacks” by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
“Never-Trump fools: Wake up!” by Wayne Allyn Root
“Learn the lesson of ‘the snake'” by Phyllis Schlafly
“6 reasons Hillary is dangerous” by Dr. Gina Loudon
“Trump: The great unifier!” by Ann Coulter


Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:
Twitter: @israelcomment
Fan Club:


For a limited time, subscribe to Whistleblower, renew or give a gift subscription for one year and you’ll get $10 off the already discounted rate (pay only $39.95 instead of the usual $49.95), plus you’ll receive TWO free gifts:

First, you’ll get a FREE copy of Jerome R. Corsi’s powerful new book, “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit.”

Second, you’ll get a copy of the very special and timely Whistleblower issue, “HOW THE LEFT PLANS TO WIN IN 2016.”

If you wish to order by phone, call our toll-free order line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).


PS October 5, 2016 Tuesday’s Vice Presidential Debate

Did not correct any of these Hillary-Career Problems. How could they? These are the facts. The debate was just irrelevant commentary.






Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

This message from Wendell Sconiers, Vice President of -Operations for McDonald’s USA

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:12 AM

This email message was sent to all U.S. owner/operators, McOpCo ops managers, McOpCo area supervisors, McOpCo deployment leads, field communications and NABIT deployment teams. All McDonald restaurants

Attention – Please lower your flags

By proclamation of the President of the United States, as a mark of respect for the memory of Shimon Peres, former President and Prime Minister of Israel, all U.S. flags are to be flown at half-staff until sunset on Friday, September 30 (tomorrow).

II Response to Mr. Sconiers:

What a beautiful gesture by the Mc Donald Corp lowering their flags to honor the passing of Israel’s President, Shimon Peres!

Peres was a lifetime advocate for peace all over the world and never tired of making that effort to the very moment of his death.

Hopefully one day all his efforts will ultimately obtain success.

And, thank you so much to McDonald’s for opening kosher restaurants in Israel and becoming such an important part of the Israeli economy both by example and now honoring the death of Israel’s President.

May you continue your  great corporate success world-wide,

Jerome S. Kaufman, Publisher/Editor Israel Commentary

Past President Michigan Zionist Org. of America and National Secretary Zionist Organization of America

Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:
Fan Club:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

VIDEO : Debate Bombshell! Moderator Lester Holt Caught Using an Illegal Earpiece. Who was feeding him information, questions?
The Federal Election Commission specifically said NO EARPIECE for the debate moderator. Period. There was not “exception” to that rule. No earpiece. Period.…

And,  why should we be surprised? Holt works for anti-Trump. Liberal, MSNBC. Maybe Trump will insist on no pro-Clinton Moderators at next debate? I hope so. The system is rigged as he has said right along.

Results/Commentary: The long anticipated Trump/Clinton Debate Sept. 26, 2016

Moderator Lester Holt, well known Left wing commentator, began with two outrageous Left wing lies that, as planned, put Donald Trump on the defensive immediately. Holt stated that:

“There have been 6 straight years of job growth and new census numbers reveal that incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation.”

Fact check with the US Bureau Statistics revealed the following statistics of which the American work force is unfortunately well aware.

Employment Situation Summary
September 2, 2016

The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 7.8 million in August, and the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent for the third month in a row. Both measures have shown little movement over the year.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.0 million in August. These individuals accounted for 26.1 percent of the unemployed.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed at 6.1 million in August. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time

As to Holt’s statement that “incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation” – another gargantuan lie as stated below. Somehow a miserly 1.1% increase in Gross Domestic Product obtains a record rate in incomes!

United States GDP Growth Rate  1947-2016

Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 1.1 percent in the second quarter of 2016, according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.22 percent from 1947 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 16.90 percent in the first quarter of 1950 and a record low of -10 percent in the first quarter of 1958. GDP Growth Rate in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

With this totally false launching pad, Holt then introduced Hillary Clinton for her opening statement and what did she say? Who is she?  She made that quite obvious to anyone with  open ears.

1. Build a working force for everyone – not just those at the top.

2. Invest in you and your future. No specifics here but government subsidy obvious MO.

3. Create more infra-structure. How often did Clinton’s mentor, Obama use this ploy, obtain billions from the Congress and no building of infra-structure occurred. But, somehow, there sure was a lot more money spent on “entitlements” and social welfare programs.

4. Advance manufacturing and innovation – whatever that means?

5. Clean renewable energy. Oh, Oh! There it is — more sunlight and windmills to satisfy the Environmental Protection Lot. Never mind it does not work. The Democrat administration already wasted billions of dollars on start up sunshine and windmill companies that just don’t do the job. The cost is gargantuan and the energy yield comes no where near that of coal and oil. Even worse, the supposed environment improvements are dubious with the rest of the world doing exactly what they please.

6. Additional aid to small business. My daughter and her husband happen to be in a small business under Hillary’s mentor Barack Obama. And thanks to his Obamacare and Minimum Wage increase and hundreds more mindless regulations that increase exponentially legal fees, accounting fees and the basic cost of doing business to the point that they are about to give up.

7. Then of course guaranteed equal pay for women, which sounds like a fair idea. In all these promises and declarations I hear nothing about pay for service, pay for achievement, pay for success, pay for excellence and demonstrable service to the United States of America

8. More funds to families trying to balance their work schedule and taking care of their home and kids. Let’s have paid family leave

And how are we going to pay for all  this. That’s easy – just tax the rich and have them pay  their “fair share”

Clinton neglects to mention the current “fair share”

Top 1% pay nearly 50% of federal income taxes –

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax – WSJ

So, who is this Hillary Clinton? She is just another demagogue, another liar, another social reformer, another Social engineer, another “Liberal” or “Progressive” — Whatever the current politically correct term for LIAR is. And, most important this system has never worked. As Margaret Thatcher so elegantly stated, ” The trouble with socialism is you run out of other people’s money.”

Furthermore, Clinton has an underlying objective. She desperately wants to bring over the Bernie Sanders people that did not vote for her initially because she did not promise quite as many or as much give-aways. She has to remedy that.

Is that really who you want in the White House? Barack Obama has not already maneuvered enough “Progressive” programs that have killed our economy, astronomically raised our national debt to 19 Trillion dollars where we will soon have a problem paying our debt service, weakened our armed forces to the point that Russia, China. Iran, Northern Korea are laughing at us, taunting us and taking over previously American  protected waters and territory.

Do you really want that or do you really have to take a chance on Donald Trump whether or not he was the best liar or had the slickest manner at the debate?

Jerome S. Kaufman

II Further commentary on Lester Holt and the Debate

Breitbart News

By Joel B. Pollak Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News.

NBC News’ Lester Holt had his “Candy Crowley” moment at the first debate of the 2016 presidential election on Monday night, bowing to pressure from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the liberal media by “fact-checking” Republican nominee Donald Trump on the question of his support for the Iraq War.

Again and again, Holt asked Trump tough questions that were straight from the Clinton campaign’s talking points, and which were obvious set-ups for Clinton to attack:
Here are the five worst examples.

Tax returns. Holt never asked Clinton about her e-mail scandal, about Benghazi, or about the Clinton Foundation and its dubious dealings. But he did ask Trump about his tax returns, arguing — not asking — that there might be questionable information in them that the American public deserved to hear.

Birther conspiracy theory. Holt never asked Clinton about her past record of racist statements, including her “super-predator” remarks as First Lady, or her explicit appeal to “white Americans” in her 2008 primary campaign against Obama. Yet he asked Trump about the Birther conspiracy theory and cast it as racist.
Stop-and-frisk. After an exchange between the candidates over the policy of “stop-and-frisk,” Holt interjected to bolster Clinton’s point by stating, erroneously, that stop-and-frisk had ended in New York because it had been declared unconstitutional by a court. Trump countered, correctly, that the new mayor had canceled the policy before the litigation was over.

“A presidential look.” Towards the end of the debate, Holt asked Trump about what he meant by saying Hillary Clinton did not have “a presidential look.” He did so after noting that Clinton had become “the first woman” to be nominated for president by a major political party, thus setting Trump up as a sexist. As Trump answered, Holt interrupted him, then gave Clinton a chance to respond with her talking points about Trump’s past comments on women.

Iraq War. The question of whether Trump supported the Iraq War or not has been widely debated. What is beyond doubt is that Hillary Clinton voted for it. Holt only represented one side of the debate about Trump, and never asked Clinton about her own vote.

In addition, the audience repeatedly interjected — almost always in Clinton’s favor — and Holt did not stop them, though it was against the rules. He only stopped the audience when there were cheers for Trump calling for Clinton’s emails.

Bow again, Lester Holt. You did your job.
Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman
Publisher/Editor Israel Commentary




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from article by Paul Sperry appearing  in the Washington Post

September 4, 2016

How the FBI went easy on Hillary Clinton     ( You may remember Bill Clinton, by happenstance, walked over to US Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s private US government plane for a chat at the Phoenix airport while Hillary Clinton’s  emails were  the subject of multiple investigations and lawsuits. Hillary Clinton’s aides had already given depositions in one legal challenge  just before the head of the FBI, James Comey,  was to appear before the Congressional Investigation Comm.

Shortly afterward,  Comey appeared before the Congressional Committee and proceeded to lie through his teeth, exonerating Hillary Clinton from criminal prosecution while ruining his whole career of respectability in desperate fear of Clinton retaliation.) jsk

The FBI interviewed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the final steps in the ongoing criminal investigation into alleged mishandling of classified information. Clinton was interviewed for more than three hours. Top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were interviewed earlier this year. Former Clinton staffer Brian Pagliano, who was hired to set up the private server in Clinton’s home, was given immunity by the FBI and has been cooperating. During a separate deposition conducted by Judicial Watch, Pagliano plead the Fifth more than 125 times. More than 2000 pieces of classified information, including top secret information, have been found on Clinton’s server.

Yet despite signs that Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills obstructed efforts by investigators to obtain Clinton’s emails, the FBI invited Mills to attend Clinton’s interview at FBI headquarters as one of her lawyers.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.

“The FBI saw massive document destruction and clear intent to withhold material evidence,” he added, “and they just ignored that obstruction, and even let her sit in on the interview.”

The smoking gun is on Page 16 of the FBI’s 47-page report. It details how Mills ultimately made the determinations about which emails should be preserved before she and Clinton decided to delete the rest as “personal.” Clinton conducted both government and personal business using a personal email account — — tied to an unsecured server set up in the basement of her New York home.

The FBI makes clear the procedure Mills used to sort out the emails was suspicious.

For starters, Mills was the one who ordered the server host to move the emails from the server to a laptop where she could screen them. She told investigators she could “not recall” if emails with non-gov addresses were included in the transfer. It’s unlikely they were, because an aide who helped her search told the FBI she only screened for emails sent to or from Clinton with .gov and .mil — not .com — addresses.

That means messages involving government business between Clinton and her then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin — the only aide who had an email account on the system— were not likely captured. Nor were messages sent between Clinton and Mills and other aides using personal email addresses.

Correspondence between Clinton and Abedin (who regularly emailed her boss from and is crucial, Fitton says, because Abedin acted as the go-between on requests for access to Clinton from shady foreign Clinton Foundation donors. He says the mushrooming “pay-for-play” scandal is the real reason the former secretary of state set up a private email system in the first place.

“The whole thing was designed to keep Clinton Foundation emails away from investigators,” he said.

And Mills may have been a key player in the game of hide-and-seek.

Indeed, the FBI said Mills “shredded” any copies of emails she “deemed not to be work-related” before they were turned over to State in response to requests for information from Judicial Watch, the media, Congress and the FBI. The laptop hard drive was later wiped clean using a computer program called BleachBit.

The FBI said it was “unable to obtain a complete list of keywords or named officials searched,” because Mills asserted that such information was “privileged.” In fact, when agents pressed her, Mills stormed out of the room and ended the interview. Curiously, the FBI honored her claim of privilege and did not pursue the matter.
Clinton claims she didn’t know emails marked ‘C’ were confidential

As participants in the activities under investigation, Mills and Samuelson should have been key FBI targets, yet both appeared at Clinton’s FBI interview with her phalanx of lawyers, allowing them insights into the investigation.

Paul E. Sperry is an American author, political commentator, and investigative journalist. He was a media fellow at the Hoover Institution. Sperry has previously been the Washington Bureau Chief at Investor’s Business Daily and WorldNetDaily.

(Information above compiled from multiple sources readily available on the Internet)  Jerome S. Kaufman

Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:

Fan Club:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The Torah Portion:  Parshat  Ki Teitzei,  D’Varim (Deuteronomy) 21:14

By brilliant Rabbi Berl Wein


One of the more sobering and poignant prayers in this season of reflection, is the one that states: “Do not throw us away in our time of old age; as our physical strength wanes, do not forsake us.” That stark prayer pretty much dispels the notion of the “golden years.” Humans are created and born into toil and challenges and these do not diminish – in fact they usually are exacerbated in one’s advancing years. It is not only the realization that we are not as physically dexterous and perceptively alert as we once were but it is also the fact that times have changed dramatically.

The newest technology only serves to confuse us – I even long for a good old telephone that does nothing but make and receive phone calls. Jewish tradition and the Talmud teach us that our father Yaakov prayed to God that he age gradually and gracefully. Apparently, until that time, the end-of-life was abrupt and usually sudden.

Aging gradually and gracefully is an enormous blessing. It allows for contemplation, planning, wise assessments and an ability to impart advice and wisdom, experience and overview to the coming generations. Therefore, the prayer that I mentioned above, asking not to be “thrown” into old age suddenly and violently takes on additional meaning and substance. Sudden shocks, whether physical, mental, emotional or societal are all dangerous occurrences that create an imbalance in our lives and behavior. A gradual transition is negotiated much more easily and positively.

Statistical data informs us that the lifespan of humans has appreciably increased over the past century. In certain respects, it has almost doubled. Therefore there are numerous adjustments to be made regarding the accepted time of retirement, for example, from one’s work and profession. What to do with the added time and years that we are now granted is one of the problems that baffle much of our society.

We all had pursuits that we wished to engage in in previous years but were unable to do so because of the pressures of our work and careers. However, most people find it difficult to pursue those interests later in life with any degree of accomplishment or enthusiasm.

The Talmud suggests that the study of Torah can play a vital role in one’s later years. However, in most cases that pursuit and outlet is pretty much reserved for those who had engaged in Torah study on a fairly regular basis even during their earlier years. One should never despair of becoming a competent Torah scholar at any stage of life. However, it is never an easy task and as the years advance the task becomes ever more difficult.

There are many methods, organizations and ideas present today to help one overcome these difficulties and readjust one’s attitude towards a more positive view of regular Torah study. I have found that such study provides refuge, albeit even if it is only temporary and fleeting, from the problems of aging. It transports one from the world of the here and now, with all of its pain, frustration, worry and challenge to another world of intellectual stimulation and spiritual serenity. If one can achieve that world then one is truly blessed.

The great holy man of the Talmud, Choni Hameakel, emerged from a sleep of seventy years. He found a different world than the one he experienced when he first laid down to sleep. He found that his entire society, his friends and acquaintances, the mores and behavior of others had all changed or disappeared completely. In the new world that he now surveyed he saw no place for himself. He asked that if his familiar world could not somehow be restored so that he would be able to function in a positive manner, then the Lord should take him immediately to his eternal rest.

There is something tragic in outliving one’s generation. Creating a correct society that can successfully absorb an aging population is an imperative. As the aging and aged society continues to increase numerically greater efforts must be devoted to the welfare of those individuals and of that general society as well. We are witness to the strides made in this direction over the past half-century.

Maybe Choni would have had an easier time adjusting to his new situation in our time rather than in his time. Though, I suspect that the deep loneliness that he expressed is probably incapable of being assuaged by any human endeavors. In any event, may we all age gracefully and positively in good health and spirits.

Berel Wein (born March 25, 1934) is an American-born Orthodox rabbi, lecturer and writer. He 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. He and his wife made aliyah to Israel in 1997.

Fan Club:

Twitter: @israelcomment

Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The Jew may have left the shtetl but the shtetl mentality followed him along right to his own homeland. Israel should be putting itself in a position of independence from the US whenever possible while, of course, maintaining their status as staunch allies. It so happens the US, in many ways, needs Israel just as much, unless the  US plans to depend upon the Saudis, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Russia as their allies in the Middle East. Are you kidding me?

Jerome S. Kaufman

U.S. and Israel Reach Agreement on 10-Year Military Aid Package 

By Carol Morello and Ruth Eglash

The U.S. and Israel signed a 10-year military aid agreement on Wednesday, expected to give Israel as much as $3.8 billion a year over 10 years, the State Department said Tuesday. Israel agreed to phase out a special arrangement in place since the 1980s that has allowed Israel to spend 26% of U.S. aid on defense research, development and procurement in Israel. The new agreement will run from 2019 through 2028 and replaces a memo of understanding that will end in 2018. (Washington Post)

Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at:

Fan Club:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments