Read More About:

Share This Post

Then maybe she might have re-worked the speech to conform with the facts or maybe even give up the speech altogether?

Clinton Cash: Documentary on Hillary and Bill Clinton Released on Breitbart News’ Website

Based on Peter Schweizer’s book, the documentary traces how the Clintons amassed their reported net worth of over $150 million after leaving the White House. It premiered on Breitbart Saturday and is mind-boggling.

See the whole film right here — if you can stomach it. How could anyone with any sense of humanity, deliberately leave thousands of people completely destitute without shelter, without food so that they could continue to feed their insatiable need for power and stolen money. Sick, Sick, Sick. Do you really want her in the White House?

Jerome S. Kaufman

 

 

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Video+Clinton+Cash
Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , , ,

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

By Sean Savage

The Jewish Press, July 22, 2016

After a selection process that more closely resembled a reality television show than the usual political appointments, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Friday tweeted that his choice for vice president is Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who beat out flashier contenders such as former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

For the pro-Israel community, Pence is viewed as a strong advocate for the Jewish state who can bolster Trump’s sometimes shaky relationship with Jewish leaders. Although he has taken on a strongly pro-Israel tone in recent months, Trump had previously raised concern in pro-Israel circles by saying he would take a “neutral” approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Pence, an evangelical Christian, has noted that his strong support for Israel is rooted in his faith.

“Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel,” Pence said in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2009, while he was serving in Congress.

Many analysts believe Pence can boost Trump’s standing among social conservatives and strengthen his campaign in other areas such as executive experience, foreign policy, and navigating the political scene of Washington, DC.

Pence served in the House of Representatives from 2001-13, including on the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he advocated for robust military defense aid for Israel. As governor of Indiana, Pence has continued his steady record of support for Israel. He visited Israel in late 2014 and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Hoosiers have cherished our relationship with the people of Israel for generations. As we look ahead, deepening our ties with the people, businesses, and state of Israel remains a commitment that will empower us as partners. Grounded in our shared values and our hope for the future, today our friendship is highlighted by a remarkable entrepreneurial spirit shared between our two nations,” Pence said in a statement ahead of that 2014 trip.

David Brog, a member of the board of directors at Christians United for Israel, which helped sponsor Pence’s visit to Israel, praised the Indiana governor as one of the Jewish state’s “most steadfast supporters.”

“We have known and worked with Mike Pence for years. His faith and worldview have made him one of Israel’s most steadfast supporters, both in Congress and as governor,” Brog told JNS.org. “He would be yet another powerful pro-Israel voice on Donald Trump’s team.”

In addition to his support for Israel, Pence, like Trump, favors an American foreign policy that is centered on robust military strength. He has repeatedly called for large increases in military spending and has criticized Democrats for not using the term “Islamic extremism” when describing jihadists.

Pence had also been a vocal critic of the Iran nuclear deal. In 2015, he joined 14 other Republican governors in signing a letter to President Barack Obama expressing their opposition to the deal.

Pence’s stance on the nuclear deal contrasts with his potential vice presidential opponent, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who is rumored to be among presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s finalists for the job.

In 2015, Kaine was among a number of Democratic senators who boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress about the nuclear deal. Nevertheless, Kaine defined himself as a “strong pro-Israel Democrat” in an interview with The Forward, and also told the Washington Jewish Week following a visit to Israel in January 2016 that Netanyahu “is a key partner” that the U.S. must work with.

In Indiana, Pence signed into a law a bill that formally opposed the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer called the Indiana measure the “toughest anti-BDS legislation in the nation.”

Elliot Bartky, president of the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana, who worked closely with the Indiana State Assembly and Pence in crafting the anti-BDS legislation, said he feels the governor is an excellent choice by Trump.

“Governor Pence has had a long and distinguished track record advocating for Israel and the Jewish people as a congressman and then governor of Indiana,” Bartky told JNS.org. “We fully expect that if elected vice president, Governor Pence will continue to lead the nation with the type of sorely needed moral clarity and courage on this issue that has typified his career to this point.”

Despite his state’s relatively small Jewish community, Pence has promoted economic ties between Israel and Indiana.

“Israel and Indiana share many concerns that Hoosiers cherish,” Pence said last month at the second annual Indiana-Israel Business Exchange. “As our nation’s strongest and most important ally in the Middle East, Israel is also a key partner in our state’s economic growth.”

 

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

A sad day for Mr. Comey and the FBI

His decision leaves the impression that Hillary is ‘too big to jail’

WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
July 6, 2016

James B. Comey obviously had little taste for a head-on collision with Hillary Clinton, despite the remarkable bill of particulars he presented with his announcement that there will be no prosecution of the lady who is expected to be the Democratic nominee for president. Even more remarkable, he acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton may be too big to jail.

“To be clear,” he said, “this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity [like Mrs. Clinton‘s] would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

He so far offers no explanation for how he came to this conclusion, leaving it to the public to decide whether it’s Hillary position, her prominence, or her candidacy that puts her beyond the reach of the law. It’s a sad day for the republic, for Mr. Comey and his seriously damaged reputation, and for the credibility of the FBI.

For almost 150 years, the United States avoided establishing a national police force. When the Founders adopted the Bill of Rights as the first amendments to the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and the Virginians pushed for the adoption of the 10th, to reserve all rights and prerogatives not specifically named as federal functions, to the states.

More than a century later, President Theodore Roosevelt established the first federal “investigative service,” reporting to the attorney general. Gen. Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a Baltimore descendant of the Little Corporal, organized it after Congress had denied the president the authority to combine other federal policing agencies for fear of creating a secret police.

The new agency’s first major assignment was to pursue enforcement of the 1910 Mann Act against involuntary prostitution, popularly called white slavery. The FBI took on vigorous life with enforcement of Prohibition two decades later, and its name was officially changed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

J. Edgar Hoover, an astute veteran of Washington political infighting, built its reputation and directed the agency for a remarkable 48 years. Mr. Hoover’s FBI made its bones with the pursuit of urban criminal syndicates of the 1930s. After Pearl Harbor in 1941, the agency took on a new role in investigating lapses in national security, continuing after the terrorist threat arrived with 9/11 and the Patriot Act.

The FBI’s modern mandate derives from Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 533, which authorizes the attorney general to “appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” Other federal statutes give the FBI responsibility to investigate specific crimes.

The director’s 10-year appointment, unlike any other federal appointee, has encouraged the effort to make it an independent agency, even if quartered in the executive branch under the president and his attorney general.

James B. Comey Jr. became director in 2013 for a full 10-year term after a distinguished career as a federal prosecutor and deputy US attorney general. Mr. Comey’s greatest test was the investigation of Hillary and her freelance emails.

There’s another Clinton episode coming — such episodes seem never to end — about the issue of the Clintons’ family foundation, repository of millions of dollars worth of “charitable” contributions, some of them from foreign donors. They’re all fast friends now, and it’s not yet clear what all the donors bought with their dollars.

II  On Hillary emails, Comey’s evidence clashes with Comey’s conclusions

By Charles Hurt
The Washington Times
July 11, 2016

So it turns out that while you can indict a ham sandwich, indicting our top diplomat for “extremely careless” handling of national secrets at a time of war against the most determined and diabolical enemy we have ever faced — well, that is just a waste of time. Inconvenient. Awkward.

The Democratic National Committee may not have publicly listed FBI Director James B. Comey on the schedule for its upcoming convention in Philadelphia, but the party gave him the highest-profile, prime-time speaking gig of the entire convention.

Heck, his speech Tuesday officially kicking off Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President Obama’s third term was the highest-profile convention speech for either party in modern political history.

What Mr. Comey delivered was stunning in its brassy disdain for justice and for the hard work of his dedicated agents, even as his stated logic behind the decision not to indict was utterly confounding.

Literally, as a drone-like Mr. Comey delivered his mystifying political haiku to reporters, Air Force One was being gassed up and prepared for liftoff, and a fleet of Marine helicopters began revving their rotors to pick up President Obama and ferry him and his hopeful successor — the unindicted Hillary Clinton — to their first joint event of the 2016 campaign.

By his own account, Mr. Comey’s investigation “looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on” Mrs. Clinton’s illegal bathroom server. Almost immediately, things got complicated when he explained that, in truth, it was “several” illegal servers the FBI had to scour, and most of them had been scuttled or somehow otherwise destroyed.

Still, they were able to determine over 100 emails contained “classified information at the time they were sent of received.” Eight were “Top Secret at the time they were sent.”

Some additional 2,000 were of such a sensitive nature that anyone with then-Secretary of State Clinton’s security clearance should have known that they should not have been sent over an unsecured email system.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail,” Mr. Comey said.

The FBI uncovered even more messages that were clearly marked classified among emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over.

And this is where things start to get really strange with Mr. Comey.

The FBI director said there is “no evidence,” however, “that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
OK, so they were unintentionally deleted, or they were intentionally deleted, but not in an effort to conceal them? They were deleted in an effort to be transparent? Deleted in order to make them public? We are just having a hard time following here, Jimmy.

In addition, Mr. Comey said, there were even more emails that may have contained more secrets that were sent over the illegal bathroom server that FBI agents could not find. Those unseen emails “are now gone” because the Clintons deleted everything and their “lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” Again, all in an effort by the Clintons to be transparent or something.
As for “hostile actors” who spend every second of every day trying to gain access to America’s secrets, Mr. Comey said his agents found no “direct evidence” of a breach but also determined that they would not even be able to detect such a breach at this point. But given Mrs. Clinton’s reckless disregard for email security and flagrant use of unsecured servers even while traveling abroad, “It is possible that hostile actors gained access” to her classified emails.

Yet out of all of this, Mr. Comey found “reasonable confidence” that there was no effort to conceal emails from investigators and determined that that,that,  “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring any charges against Mrs. Clinton.

‘I am starting to think that maybe Mr. Comey has a skewed idea of what is “reasonable.” I guess that depends on what the definition of what  “is” is.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama arrived in North Carolina, and the president — Mr. Comey’s boss — declared that he was “fired up” and “ready to go.”
Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

In theaters July 22!

Hillary’s America, the latest film from the creators of America: Imagine The World Without Her and 2016: Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping journey into the secret history of the Democratic Party and the contentious rise of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

In Hillary’s America, New York Times #1 best-selling author and celebrated filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza reveals the sordid truth about Hillary and the secret history of the Democratic Party. This eye-opening film sheds light on the Democrats’ transition from pro-slavery to pro-enslavement; how Hillary Clinton’s political mentor was, literally, a cold-blooded gangster; and how the Clintons and other Democrats see foreign policy not in terms of national interest, but in terms of personal profit.

Hillary’s America will uncover how their plan is to simply steal America.

II  National Review of Hillary’s America — A Two-by-Four Bashing Democrats – A thorough review not the Left’s predictable knee jerk dissing of everything D’Sousa 

By JOHN FUND July 18, 2016

D’Souza links progressives’ sordid, racist past to the Clintons’ current corruption. Dinesh D’Souza, the social commentator who shook up Hollywood with the $33 million earned by his Obama 2016 film, is back with Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. The film is his response to constant Democratic attacks on Republicans as racist, greedy, and callous toward minority interests.

Hillary’s America takes a two-by-four to the racist, greedy, and callous episodes in the Democratic party’s past. He then links this history to Hillary Clinton’s progressive values and to her tutelage under radical community organizer Saul Alinsky. It is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie.

The film is intensely patriotic, and D’Souza told me at the movie’s premiere at the GOP convention in Cleveland that it is a must-see for Americans. He believes Democrats this election year are trying to — in President Obama’s words — “fundamentally transform” America into something the Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize.

This isn’t just rhetorical overkill. Glenn Thrush reported this week in Politico on Obama’s agenda in the waning days of his presidency: Obama’s ultimate goal in his final year has been strikingly ambitious, according to those I spoke with: not only blocking from office the birther who questioned his legitimacy as president, but preserving the Democratic Party’s hold over the presidency during an era of anti-establishment turbulence. Obama, always one to embrace a grand goal, talks in terms of creating “a 16-year era of progressive rule” to rival the achievements of Roosevelt-Truman and to reorient the country’s politics as a “Reagan of the left,” as one of his longtime White House advisers put it to me.

In 2014, D’Souza pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations in a case that may well have involved selective prosecution. He donated $20,000 to a Republican friend from Dartmouth, Wendy Long, who was running a sure-to-lose senatorial campaign against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, though he never told Long he’d donated the money and he received nothing in return.

D’Souza told me that his searing eight-month experience in a federal halfway house led him to draw his own conclusions about the ultimate goal of Hillary and Obama. The film re-creates what he said he learned in federal “public housing.” He established a rapport with some of the thugs and con artists there and asked them how the gangs to which they belonged consolidated power.

A fellow inmate named Rock told him that the con games the gangs practice involve promising people something for nothing, then cheating them while at the same time making them dependent on the gangs for protection. This eerily resembled the way the Democratic machines operated, D’Souza realized. But Democrats also had a broader ideological agenda: “What if the goal of the Democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing this world ever produced?” That would be the republic the Founding Fathers have handed down to us.

The film then shows D’Souza leaving his confinement and researching the history and methods of the Democratic party. In the film’s least convincing re-created scenes, he visits “Democratic Headquarters” and sneaks his way into a basement records room adorned by a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the openly racist president who was the founder of the Democratic party. While rummaging through the secrets of the records room, D’Souza learns that Jackson’s expulsion of the Indians to reservations in the 1830s was opposed by Republican congressman Davy Crockett; that northern Democrats were instrumental to slavery’s survival in the pre–Civil War era; that Democrats after the war voted against civil rights for blacks at the federal level; and that, after losing that fight, they managed to impose Jim Crow laws against blacks in the South.

How the Clintons Got Rich Off of Poor Haitians D’Souza then shifts his research to the office of Carol Swain, a black law professor at Vanderbilt University, who is a scholar of Democratic-party history. Swain is soft-spoken but devastating in her recitation of the facts. “It’s a sordid story,” she told me at the Cleveland premiere of the film. “Democrats have long practiced plantation politics while blocking economic opportunity for minorities.”

She tells the story of Ida B. Wells, a brave black journalist who fought lynchings and challenged President Woodrow Wilson in the White House over his racist resegregation of the federal work force. Wilson ignored her entreaties and proceeded to host a White House screening of D. W. Griffith’s infamous film Birth of a Nation.

Hillary’s America also explores Franklin Roosevelt’s decision not to pursue anti-lynching laws and notes that it was Democrats who tried to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congressional Republicans supported it in greater percentages than Democrats did. D’Souza takes on the defense that modern Democrats typically call forth when confronted with their party’s racist roots: They claim that the two parties reversed positions on race, with northern Democrats becoming more progressive and southern Democrats simply becoming Republicans.

Onetime segregationist Strom Thurmond did switch parties, D’Souza concedes, but he notes the fact that fewer than 1 percent of Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights followed Thurmond in joining the GOP. The rest remained Democrats until they exited politics. ‘Democrats have long practiced plantation politics while blocking economic opportunity for minorities.’ — Carol Swain

D’Souza then extensively interviews National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, asking him about the connections he has drawn — in his book Liberal Fascism and elsewhere — between the Democratic party, Wilson, and birth-control advocate and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (the film shows Hillary Clinton lavishly praising Sanger). Goldberg was at the movie’s premiere and noted that it will no doubt receive abundant criticism. “You get the most flak when you are over the target,” he told the audience, to great cheering.

The film then takes a rather abrupt turn from history to focus on Hillary Clinton. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he notes, were acolytes of the great left-wing “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. D’Souza is the first filmmaker to mine the rich material showing the radicalism of Alinksy, who was personally tutored by Al Capone’s deputies in the tactics of the mob and whose most famous book,

Rules for Radicals, begins with this epigraph to the most famous Machiavellian: Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

In Hillary’s America, the young Hillary Rodham is shown as she’s led from her roots as a “Goldwater Girl” into campus radicalism through meetings with Alinsky. Later, she would use her senior thesis at Wellesley to paint an admiring portrait of Alinsky. In a meeting with Alinsky, she chastises him for trying to pressure the establishment only from the outside, saying that some of his followers need to take over the government: “Then we can push from the inside.”

But Hillary’s success on the “inside” seems to have brought her and her Clinton Foundation tens of millions in personal wealth rather than any substantive policy accomplishments. The film then plunges into what it calls the more troubling aspects of the “Clinton partnership,” portraying Bill Clinton as a sexual predator surrounded by women in black dresses slinking out of cars and hotels.

The real red meat comes as Hillary is portrayed as throwing things around the White House and generally enabling Bill’s behavior, which possibly includes rape. D’Souza ends his roasting of Hillary by denouncing her for her “hateful rhetoric” and labeling the Clintons “depraved crooks” who will “turn all of America into a plantation” if they get back in the White House.

The Dirty Business of the Hillary Machine, Again At this point the film is definitely downbeat, but in ends with a stirring rendition of patriotic songs, beautiful shots of patriotic themes, and an original song from the Gatlin Brothers. The audience that streamed out of the Cleveland premiere felt energized rather than depressed by the film. Bob Unruh, a relative of the legendary California Democratic boss Jesse Unruh, told me: “The movie told it like it is. Machine rule is at the heart of the modern Democrats.” Several viewers said they took away the message that America is worth saving, and that we have the tools to do so in our DNA, if only we have a large voter turnout in November.

John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

III Read:  Black Female Law Professor, Carol Swain, Vanderbilt University says “Obama is Destroying the Nation”
AUTHOR Cyrus Massoumi
DECEMBER 5, 2013

Black Female Law Professor Says Obama is Destroying the Nation

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

Redacted from an article by Moshe Feiglin
The Jewish Press
June 10, 2016

“Pushovers don’t die, they are simply replaced by new pushovers,” says the Israeli adage. But in Israel’s Right, the pushovers don’t die and they aren’t even replaced by new pushovers. The Right always celebrates its political victory and in the blink of an eye, its leaders become tools in the hands of the Left.

Menachim Begin surrendered the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and destroyed Yamit and an entire settlement bloc.

Yitzhak Shamir subjected Israelis to the national indignity of sitting in rooms with plastic covered windows and doors, (trying to appease the US with President H. W. Bush in the first Gulf War) waiting for the Iraqi missiles to explode, instead of allowing the proud and extremely capable Israeli Air Force to protect its own turf and summarily knock down anyone that dare intrude into Israeli air space.

For the first time in Israel’s history, Shamir left the State’s security in the hands of the US
(And, what was the thanks from HW Bush in political capital or greater military capability?  NADA)

Benjamin Netanyahu hugged Yasir Arafat and gave him (almost the entire city of) Hebron.

Ariel Sharon destroyed Gush Katif opening up all of Gaza to Hamas

And now Avigdor Lieberman,  Israeli Defense Minister, is already making more leftist declarations than his predecessor, Moshe Ayalon.

What is wrong with the Right? Why is it that when the Left is in power, it rules and leads the nation according to its principles, while when the Right is in power, the Left continues to rule and lead according to its principles? And it rules by means of the elected officials of the Right, with virtually no opposition.

Why does that happen time and again?

Usually, the Right attempts to answer this question on the basis of faulty character traits: “Begin was weak, Netanyahu is spineless, Sharon was always a leftist and Lieberman is simply corrupt…” But that is ridiculous.

Every leader has his strong and weak points. The above elected leaders of the Right are no less worthy than the leaders of the Left. On the contrary, they are more talented than most. The answer does not lie with their character traits. It goes much deeper:

The Israeli Right does not really have an alternative agenda to the Left. The distinction between Right and Left (between nationalism and universalism) does not revolve around questions of peace and security; it revolves around the question of identity: Is Israel a Jewish State or a state of all its citizens?

Zionism built Israel as a state of all its citizens. The Knesset (with the exception of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee) is the Knesset of the state of all its citizens. The IDF is the army of all its citizens (at least all those citizens who are not considered “Nazis”…) the media are the media of the state of all its citizens, the justice system, academia, culture – Israel is a state of all its citizens. And so, when the Left rises to power — it is “all systems go” for the political actualization of the state of all its citizens principle.

And the Right? The Right has never attempted to formulate a policy that revolves around the Jewish identity of the State of Israel.

After newly minted Defense Minister Lieberman destroys Amona, releases terrorists, opens roadblocks and freezes construction in Judea and Samaria, Israel will go to elections.

At that point, he (and, with different nuances, the rest of the Right) will issue some belligerent declarations about the Arabs and will once again rake in the votes of the pushovers who never die and never need to be replaced.

In order to change the entire paradigm and bring true peace and security to Israel, our state must connect first and foremost to its Jewish identity and identify itself as a unique, liberty-based Jewish State.

 

Moshe Feiglin

 
About the Author: Moshe Feiglin is the former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. He is the founder of Manhigut Yehudit and Zo Artzeinu and the author of two books: “Where There Are No Men” and “War of Dreams.” Feiglin served in the IDF as an officer in Combat Engineering and is a veteran of the Lebanon War. He lives in Ginot Shomron with his family.

 

II Enough is enough.

The Jews need a proud Jewish State where the first order of business is defending its Jewish citizens and any others who are genuinely loyal to the Jewish State. And, their rights will be diligently and honestly protected — unlike the Jew’s experience as a minority, over the centuries, in the lands of others.

Let the Right assume its implied nationalistic identity without apology and direct its institutions accordingly.  Begin by demolishing the self administered arrogance of the far Left Israeli Supreme Court that has chosen the obscene, false narrative of the Left and acted as  a dagger in the side of Israel’s Jewish citizens.

Ultimately make the world understand there is absolute no room in this small strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River for two states, especially when one is designed to be another Arab terrorist state dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

Wake up Prime Minister Netanyahu, master politician. What we need is a master, pro-Israel statesman who understands all of the above and advises the rest of the world accordingly and defends with all his might, Israel’s sovereign right to make exactly that decision.

 

Jerome S. Kaufman

 

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

Here we see the powerful input of Donald Trump on the Republican Party’s platform on Israel. Republicans now stand solidly behind Israel and assures the Jewish State we will be with it through thick and thin, unlike the Democrat Platform Committee that welcomed in such overt Israel haters as James Zogby, Keith Ellison and Cornel West, all close advisors of radical Bernie Sanders. Sanders’ large voter-following will force the Democrat platform to accommodate Palestinian causes.

The feeling among the Left is that Jews will still vote the Party Line and ignore (at their peril) the Jew hating forces now in control of The Party. The National Jewish Democratic Council had the chutzpah to scream out that “the Republican Party is overcompensating in support of Israel. ”

My goodness! This group should change its name to the National Anti-Jewish Democratic Council in order to more clarify its stance and at least show some semblance of honesty.

Please read the piece below on the Republican platform and pass it on to your Liberal minded friends, relatives and neighbors who still believe that FDR is alive and well.

Alan Bergstein

GOP draft platform sidesteps (deliberately) two-state solution

Ahead of party convention, party doubles down on Jerusalem, offers implicit criticism of Obama administration

Redacted from an article BY REBECCA SHIMONI STOIL

Times of Israel
July 12, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party platform committee held its first meeting Monday in Cleveland in advance of the party’s nominating convention, reviewing a draft platform that doubled down on the party’s support for Israel, while avoiding explicit support for a two-state solution.

(Which makes more sense than the self-destructive Israelis choose to do in allowing, even the possibility, of yet another Arab terrorist state two minutes away!)

The Republican draft platform restores language recognizing Jerusalem “as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state,” as well as explicitly calling for the American embassy “to be moved there in fulfillment of US law.”

The change marked a dramatic departure from the wording of the 2012 platform, which did not discuss the indivisibility of Jerusalem or any move to enforce the embassy legislation – which has been in place for over a decade.

The platform draft seemed to roll back recognition of Palestinian nationhood, with key clauses neglecting mention of two states for two peoples. The 2012 platform stressed that the party supported “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states — Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine — living in peace and security.”

On Monday, CNN reported, the subcommittee reviewing the platform specifically rejected language affirming the party’s commitment to what is known as the two-state solution.

This distinction was further strengthened where the draft echoed a sentence used in 2012 – that “the US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US, without the imposition of an artificial timetable.

Essential to that process will be a just, fair, and realistic framework for dealing with the issues that can be settled on the basis of mutually agreed changes reflecting today’s realities as well as tomorrow’s hopes.”
In the 2016 draft, the same sentence – that “the US seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East” – described the process as one “to be negotiated among those living in the region.”

While perhaps offering a nod to Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s emphasis on scaling back some US overseas involvement, the draft seems to favor an approach that would accommodate additional regional actors.

The 2016 draft also warns that the party “oppose[s] any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and call for the immediate termination of all US funding of any entity that attempts to do so” – a possible reference to repeated attempts by the Palestinian Authority to introduce and pass resolutions regarding the conflict in the United Nations.

The 2016 draft also stressed that “our party is proud to stand with Israel now and always” – a statement entirely absent from the 2012 platform.

In addition, the draft includes language condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, describing it as an “alternative form of warfare” and emphasizing that the party “reject[s] the false notion that Israel is an occupier, and specifically recognize[s] that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (‘BDS’) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel.”

The draft went on to call for legislation “to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.”

While some anti-BDS initiatives have gained traction in Congress, the current administration has expressed reluctance regarding clauses that include “Israeli-controlled territories,” with leftist groups arguing that such language normalizes Israel’s presence in areas Israel conquered in 1967, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights.

Many of the changes to the platform language seemed to reflect either a tightening of the party line regarding support for Israel, or an implicit criticism of the current administration that may signal a desire to use a fight over Israel policy as ammunition in the 2016 election campaign.

“Beyond our mutual strategic interests, Israel is likewise an exceptional country that shares our most essential values. It is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are found,” the draft reads. “Therefore, support for Israel is an expression of Americanism, and it is the responsibility of our government to advance policies that reflect Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel.”

The last line was likely an implicit reference to President Barack Obama, who reportedly said in a closed-door meeting with US Jewish leaders in 2009 that under former president George W. Bush “there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

Christians United for Israel, a right-wing group which boasts some 3 million members and defines itself as “a national grassroots movement focused on the support of Israel,” backed the current language on Jerusalem, as well as the description of the BDS movement as “anti-Semitic.”

Supporters of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton staved off a push by runner-up Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to include language criticizing Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. The Democratic platform committee held its final meetings over the weekend, approving a platform that also condemned BDS, but offered explicit support for a two-state solution.

The National Jewish Democratic Council (Think the abominable Debra Wasserman Schultz and now the Far Left, approaching-senility,  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg)  accused the Republican platform committee of tone-deafness and trying to “over compensate” on Israel.
“When it comes to Republican rhetoric on Israel, they can’t even find themselves to be inline with the rhetoric of the prime minister of Israel when it comes to a two state solution,” the organization responded in a statement.

Rebecca Shimoni Stoil is the Times of Israel’s Washington correspondent.

(It always amazes me that my Gentile friends and Evangelists, in particular, have a far better understanding as to what is “Good for the Jews” and Israel including its Prime Minister,  than the Jews themselves. So, what else is new?) jsk

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Newt Gingrich: We Are At War with Radical Islamism
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529407/newt-gingrich-war-radical-islamism

Voters :

As we go into Memorial Day and remember those who have payed the ultimate price to keep this country safe and secure, it might be an appropriate time to reflect on the prescient speech given by Newt Gingrich in 2012 when he was addressing members of the Iowa caucus about the threat of radical Islam. For 17 minutes forget whether you are a Democrat or Republican and just listen with an open mind to his comments. His ability to articulate the threat(which has grown expotentially greater after the disasterous Iran deal and the rise of ISIS) is worth listening to in my opinion.

Memorial Day here is an opportunity to get an extra day off and go to the beach for way to many. We should take time to reflect and pay our respects to every member of the armed forces who have fought, been injured or payed the ultimate price so that we an live in the greatest country that has ever been created. God Bless America- and all those who serve.
This is truly an outstanding presentation. It lasts 17 minutes and it is worth every minute.

II Repeat plea from Israel Commentary

Dear Mr. Trump, Please Nominate Newt Gingrich to be your VP

No one else comes close and to nominate some regional person for election purposes is nonsense. You must look at the bigger picture and nominate a nationally known respected professional

www.israel-commentary.org
July 5, 2016

Dear Mr.Trump,
Please do yourself and the whole country a huge favor and nominate Newt Gingrich to be your running mate. There is no one even close to him in knowledge, brains, political experience and know-how with speaking and debating ability, presence, confidence. He will destroy anyone the Democrats use against him, especially both Clintons.

He will enhance your ticket immeasurably and bring all the above to your side and add to your own expertise and give you the knowledge and background to deal with any political or international problem that will come your way.

No one else comes close and to nominate some regional person for election purposes is nonsense. You must look at the bigger picture and nominate a nationally known respected person that has been on the political scene for years with a demonstrated wealth of knowledge, experience, good judgment and an American patriot.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher

www.israel-commentary.org

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Newt Gingrich: We Are At War with Radical Islamism
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529407/newt-gingrich-war-radical-islamism

The smug establishment still doesn’t get what’s happening

By Pete Hoekstra

The Washington Times, June 27, 2016

How can someone possibly succeed in politics by telling grass-roots America that he understands their anxieties and intends to do something about them? The Beltway crowd has for years conditioned the country to expect lofty platitudes followed by failure and inaction.

When the presumptive Republican nominee for president speaks, large constituencies hear a straightforward message. Then official Washington — in all of its contempt for voters — anatomizes and reads between the lines until they have grossly distorted his words.

For example, Mr. Trump’s policy of “America First” says that he will place U.S. interests at the top of the agenda when he negotiates with his contemporaries on the world stage. The D.C. establishment runs to the history books and find similarities with the isolationists of the 1930s. So, Mr. Trump must be an isolationist, right?

Wrong. Mr. Trump is telling hardworking Americans that he will fight for their jobs and prosperity in trade deals and other international agreements. He appreciates their frustration with political figures who appear more concerned about accommodating multinational grievances than the future of their own countrymen.

For years, free-trade deals have been anything but free. They are complex documents that run thousands of pages long and pick winners and losers. The U.S. citizenry believes that they are too often the losers. They feel that they are the patsies in global economic affairs that require the United States to open its markets to foreign competitors while foreign markets remain largely sealed.

As a businessman, Mr. Trump recognizes that everyone involved must benefit under such accords. Americans become excited by the prospect of a leader who will actually represent their concerns and needs.

He talks about building a wall at the border with Mexico, which enrages the D.C. aristocracy. It’s impractical, cruel and outrageous, they say. Meanwhile, they have only blown hot air about fixing immigration for 20 years and have allowed the problem to fester into nearly uncontrollable proportions.

The grass-roots intuitively know that a nation governed by laws cannot exist with an open southern border where illegal workers, drug runners and terrorists walk across with relative ease. They know that a nation of laws must enforce all of its laws without prejudice if it is to survive.

Mr. Trump talks about the troubles associated with radical Islam, including Muslim immigration. They witness the massacres in Paris, Brussels and now Orlando. They see nearly unregulated European borders and the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. Americans sense that something is wrong, and that their leaders don’t confront it. America is looking like Europe.

Immigration is a very sensitive and delicate topic in the United States because it requires balancing core American humanitarian concerns with very real existential dangers. Mr. Trump has clearly touched a nerve with voters.

Americans don’t hate Muslims. They recognize that they have nothing to fear from much of the Muslim community. Neither are they blind. They’ve seen the beheadings and the genocide of religious minorities in the Middle East and Africa, as well as the savagery in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Paris, Brussels, London, San Bernardino and Fort Hood.

The current commander in chief responds by refusing to acknowledge that Islam plays any role in the threat from Islamic terror. The White House has prohibited talk of radical jihad, even going so far as to edit official transcripts and recordings. It has instead become “workplace violence” and “man-caused disasters.” Orlando is “terror” and “hate,” but not jihadi or Islamic terror. “What exactly would using this label accomplish?” he asks.
Americans know that the approach isn’t honest and it’s not working. Orlando proves it, again.

Mr. Trump will, at a minimum, engender a discussion about the most pressing national security matter of our time. Orlando makes it more urgent.

Sometimes he stumbles into areas he shouldn’t, as with his criticism of a judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University.

Mr. Trump speaks bluntly and often abrasively when he addresses the issues, but he hears the grass-roots when they say they are sick and tired of political correctness and the inability to accomplish anything.

Congress can’t even pass a budget. Does anyone honestly believe that Washington’s continued “kick the can down the road” approach will return the republic to greatness anytime soon?

The smug culture of polite talk and ineffectiveness has not solved many of the problems that plague the United States.

The voters have concluded that an honest broker and aggressive personality might finally get something done in Washington. President Obama and the left built the foundation for the Trump campaign by their intolerance.

By trashing every Republican as an intolerant, racist warmonger, they removed all opportunity for a thoughtful discussion on national security. Does anyone doubt that Hillary Clinton would not have deployed the same attacks if any of the other candidates had won the nomination?

The political establishment should not feign so much indignation over the rise of Donald Trump, especially when it created the conditions necessary for his success.

Pete Hoekstra is a former chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Hillary Clinton statements vs. Testimony of James Comey

www.israel-commentary.org

 FBI Chief Jim Comey’s Clinton Standard

He shows how she broke the law and then rationalizes his own unconscionable failure to indict  “Lyin’ Hillary”

For our money, the most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi. We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.

***
Mr. Comey spent nearly all of his media appearance laying out the multiple ways in which Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for official State Department business had violated official policy and jeopardized America’s secrets. Yet at the end he declined to recommend prosecution because her behavior was merely “extremely careless” rather than “grossly negligent” as the law requires. This is a rhetorical distinction without a difference that deserves to be mocked.

Mr. Comey’s facts grossly—if we may use that word—belie his conclusion. Of the 30,000 work-related emails Mrs. Clinton turned over to State, 110 contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight email chains contained information judged to be Top Secret. The FBI also found three emails containing classified information among emails that Mrs. Clinton had deleted (rather than turned over to State)—but which the FBI was able to find through forensic analysis.
The FBI chief’s statement also had the effect of exposing the many lies Mrs. Clinton has told about her emails.

• Mrs. Clinton claimed she “did not email any classified material” over her private email. Mr. Comey refuted this with precise numbers.

• She said her private server was permitted under State policy. Mr. Comey said “none of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”

• She said the emails she sent or received weren’t “marked” classified. Mr. Comey said that, marked or not, “participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

• Mrs. Clinton said she used personal email merely for the “convenience” of using one device. Mr. Comey revealed that she had “used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain” as well as numerous servers.

• Mrs. Clinton claimed she turned over all work-related email to State. Mr. Comey said the FBI found “several thousand” work-related emails that were not turned over. He also dropped the astonishing news that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers hadn’t even read her emails when deciding what to turn in. They relied on “header information” and search terms, and then “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

• Mrs. Clinton claimed her email was stored in a safe and secure manner, and not hacked. Mr. Comey said “hostile actors” had accessed the private account of “people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” Her personal email was known about and “readily apparent.”

He said she “used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Therefore, he added, “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Despite this list of indictable particulars, Mr. Comey concluded that none of it warrants a criminal prosecution. His justification is that her behavior didn’t meet the standard of “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Yet the recent State Department Inspector General report disclosed emails showing that Mrs. Clinton and her staff were warned by State officials that her private email was vulnerable to hackers. She willfully and intentionally ignored those warnings. Mr. Comey knows that many federal employees have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information despite no evidence of ill intent. They were prosecuted merely for recklessly handling secrets. (See Michael Mukasey nearby.)

By a reasonable person’s standards, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to use a private server, to give her aides access to it, to email classified information on it, to fail to secure it, and to use it in hostile territory was grossly negligent. We can’t wait for the next minion prosecuted for mishandling secrets to invoke the “extremely careless” defense.

***
Mr. Comey justified what he called his “unusual statement” in the name of political “transparency.” But by declaring that no prosecutor should indict Mrs. Clinton, he also hurt the cause of political accountability. The decision to indict or not rests with prosecutors, not the FBI, as Mr. Comey noted. But now prosecutors can merely point to Mr. Comey’s public statement to justify taking no action. He could have passed on his evidence quietly, but instead he acted like a prosecutor while denying that he is one.

It is true that prosecutors must consider the context when deciding whether to press charges. But we wonder if Mr. Comey and the FBI would have shown the same forbearance had the target of their probe been someone less prominent or loved by the Washington establishment. Mr. Comey’s bosom friend, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor he named to pursue Scooter Libby, showed no such restraint.

Most distressing is what this episode augurs for another Clinton Administration. Mrs. Clinton deliberately sought to evade the Federal Records Act, recklessly flouted laws on handling classified information, spent a year lying about it, and will now have escaped accountability. This will confirm the Clinton family habit, learned so painfully in the 1990s, that they can get away with anything if they deny it long enough and are protected by a friendly media and political class.

The rule of law requires its neutral application. We almost wish Mr. Comey had avoided his self-justifying, have-it-both-ways statement and said bluntly that he couldn’t indict Mrs. Clinton because the country must be spared a Donald Trump Presidency. It would have been more honest and less corrosive to democracy than his Clinton Standard.

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

 

July 5, 2016

Dear Mr.Trump,

Please do yourself and the whole country a huge favor and nominate Newt Gingrich to be your running mate. There is no one even close to him in knowledge, brains, political experience and know-how with speaking and debating ability, presence, confidence. He will destroy anyone the Democrats use against him, especially both Clintons.

He will enhance your ticket immeasurably and bring all the above to your side and add to your own expertise and give you the knowledge and background to deal with any political or international problem that will come your way.

No one else comes close and to nominate some regional person for election purposes is nonsense. You must look at the bigger picture and nominate a nationally known respected person that has been on the political scene for years with a demonstrated wealth of knowledge, experience, good judgment and an American patriot.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher
www.israel-commentary.org

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

An interview of Elliott Abrams by Algemeiner
JUNE 23, 2016

Elliot Abrams, former deputy national security adviser to president George W. Bush, currently Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Despite claims by Barack Obama that his support for Israel has been greater than that of all presidents throughout American history, a possible White House decision that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) — highlights his hypocrisy, a prominent foreign policy expert told The Algemeiner on Thursday.

Elliott Abrams — senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush — was reacting to reports that Obama is seeking to stop subsidizing Israel’s defense sector.

More specifically, according to a column by Eli Lake in Bloomberg View on Wednesday, the president wants to remove the “offshore procurement” provision that has been unique to Israel’s aid package. Israel, Lake wrote, “is not only the greatest beneficiary of US defense assistance, but also the only one allowed to spend a portion of that assistance on weapons and equipment from its own industry. Everyone else has to buy American.” Israeli and American officials say, according to Lake, that “Obama would like to phase out the agreement that allows Israel to spend 26 percent of US annual aid at home” — something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been objecting to as a renewal of the package is being discussed.

“In one respect this is surprising,” Lake said. “Obama and his supporters like to tout US military aid to Israel as an act of the president’s unprecedented generosity. The US has given Israel nearly $24 billion under Obama, more than any other US president. At the same time, Obama’s insistence on ending the US subsidy for Israeli defense items reflects a growing unease among many US defense companies that America’s cold war client state is now a competitor in the international arms market.”

Abrams told The Algemeiner that he doesn’t see much irony in Obama’s reported reversal in policy, because his claims of unwavering support for Israel “have always been baseless.”

“While military-military and intelligence relationships with Israel are very good, they are also largely invisible. The political relationship, which is entirely visible and critical for Israel’s security, is awful,” he said.

Furthermore, he said, “We know from recent comments by [former US Defense Secretary] Leon Panetta that Obama has never been a supporter of maintaining Israel’s QME. This is another fact that undermines the claim that he’s so great for Israel’s security. It should be obvious that undermining Israel’s defense sector undermines its security.”

Abrams also said that Israel is not the only country affected in this way by the current administration in Washington. In fact, he said, most US allies — including the Gulf states, Japan, Korea, Australia and Poland — “feel less safe today than they did when Obama entered office.”

Where Obama’s attitude towards the Jewish state is concerned, Abrams said, “The record of his seven years is one of constant battles with the government of Israel. He has a lack of sympathy and a willingness to blame Israel for the stall in peace talks, when we know full well it is [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas who has refused to talk.” Furthermore, he added, Obama’s “successful fight to legitimize a nuclear weapons program for Iran — delayed a decade,” greatly endangers Israel.

“That is not a record of support for Israel’s security,” he said.

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

www.israel-commentary.org

The Real Reason for Brexit

By Ilan Berman

U.S. News & World Report

June 27, 2016

Last week’s vote by England to formally leave the European Union has touched off nothing short of a political earthquake, both in Europe and in the United States. In the aftermath of Thursday’s referendum, which saw a slim majority (52 percent) of Britons vote in favor of “Brexit,” there has been no shortage of recriminations from the chattering classes on both sides of the Atlantic, which have been quick to label Britons as both xenophobic and foolish for their choice.

None of that is true. Rather, Brexit reflects a different sort of calculus on the part of British voters.

Ahead of Thursday’s referendum, commentators and financial institutions alike had warned of potentially catastrophic consequences should Britain leave the EU, ranging from domestic hardship to regional economic turmoil to a break-up of the United Kingdom itself. Many of those adverse trends have in fact begun to materialize. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, the value of the British Pound plunged by some 11 percent. (It has since rebounded slightly.)

Global markets have lost more than $2 trillion in value on post-Brexit investor jitters. And, Scotland, which leans heavily in favor of the European Union, and which overwhelmingly opposed disengagement from it, has revived a national conversation about independence and the possibility of separate accession to the EU.

But it would be incorrect to say that British voters did not adequately understand these risks ahead of time, or that they simply ignored them. Rather, a more accurate reading of the situation is that, notwithstanding these warnings, Thursday’s electoral outcome was the product of decades of pent-up frustration among Britons with their place in an increasingly unaccountable and unrepresentative community of nations.

In the four decades since they voted to join the fledgling European Union in 1975, the English have slowly but surely seen their sovereignty and prosperity eroded by European mandate. The transformation has been more far-reaching than most outside observers appreciate. Through the EU, as much as 60 percent of England’s national laws (on issues such as health care and immigration) are currently created outside the country by unelected political elites located in Brussels who cannot simply be replaced via the ballot box.

Those rules have had a marked effect on the country’s economic welfare. A recent study by the London-based CIVITAS think tank estimated that the costs to England of EU regulations averages about 20 billion pounds ($27 billion) a year, and that Europe-wide restrictions on employment, energy and banking exact a further toll on Britain’s overall economic health.

All of which might be palatable if Europe was a zone of prosperity and stability. But it is not. Over the past decade, European economic growth has remained basically flat, while Greece’s debt crisis has in recent years threatened to touch off a contagion among the community’s interlinked economies. Moreover, the EU is now weathering its most significant socio-political challenge in decades, as millions of migrants flood into the Eurozone from the Middle East and North Africa, straining social safety nets and inter-communal relations in the process.

Through it all, European elites have done little to reform and reinvigorate their ailing union. Rather, they have simply muddled on, complacent in the belief that the bloc represents the only real political option for its 28 member states.

But, as Britain has now showed us, it is not. Thursday’s vote is all the more striking because it reflects a knowing willingness by Britons to countenance significant economic hardship and political ostracism in order to reclaim a measure of their sovereignty.

Four decades ago, Margaret Thatcher – then leader of England’s conservative opposition – famously noted that the key to economic and political freedom was “to have the state as servant and not as master.” European elites, increasingly complacent in their unaccountable bureaucracy and ever-expanding welfare state, appear to have forgotten this lesson. The British have just reminded them of it.

II And, Donald Trump, four decades later, echoes Margaret Thatcher, disses the “Chattering Classes” and uncontrolled Welfare State and reminds us of another great statesman, Abraham Lincoln in his timeless Gettysburg address:

II And, Donald Trump, four decades later, echoes Margaret Thatcher, “Four score and seven years ago”—referring to the start of the American Revolution in 1776—Lincoln examined the founding principles of the United States as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln also memorialized the sacrifices of those who gave their lives at Gettysburg and extolled virtues for the listeners (and the nation) to ensure the survival of America’s representative democracy: that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor Israel Commentary

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Published on Jun 18, 2016
Most of the millions of overwhelmingly male migrants who have come to Europe in the past two years are not refugees fleeing war zones. Douglas Murray discusses the total failure of Germany and other countries to integrate the migrants, and what the consequences will be.

www.israel-commentary.org

June 24, 2016

Simon Shuster, TIME

In a stunning victory for the anti-establishment forces that have upended mainstream politics across the Western world, British voters chose on Thursday to pull their country out of the European Union, sending global markets into a tailspin and encouraging anti-E.U. forces across the continent to push for their own referenda on whether to break away.

“The E.U. is failing, the E.U. is dying,” declared the leader of the U.K. Independence Party, Nigel Farage, one of the leaders of the campaign for the British exit, or Brexit, from the union formed from the ruins of Europe after World War II. “It’s a victory against big business…against big politics,” he told reporters early on Friday morning, as the results showed 52% of the votes had been cast in favor of leaving and 48% against.

That margin of victory – amounting to around 1.3 million votes – did not simply repudiate the British government’s calls for openness and unity with Europe. It also offered a blueprint for how ballot-box insurgencies across the West could, in the course of a single campaign, shatter the legitimacy of the ruling elites.

This formula is a familiar one, drawing fuel from a potent mix of xenophobia and angst over the loss of sovereignty and national identity. In the last couple of years, it has been deployed with explosive effects across Europe — and looks set to define the race for the U.S. presidency.

Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, just happened to arrive in the U.K. to open a golf resort as the final results were announced, and wasted no time in linking them to his own insurgent campaign. British voters had “taken their country back,” he said, echoing a slogan that has helped him win over the base, if not always the old guard, of the Republican Party.

“In a sense, the result of this referendum is a victory for Trumpism the world over,” says Tony Travers, a noted political scientist in London and adviser to the British parliament. “It definitely has the same roots.” Trump supporters, much like backers of Brexit, tend to feel that traditional parties have ignored their concerns over migration and economic inequality for too long. Their response has been a wide-ranging revolt against the status quo that has opened the political arena to a variety of upstart candidates for the first time in a generation or more.

In France, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands, among other E.U. members, right wing and Eurosceptic parties have made enormous gains in popularity, especially after more than a million asylum seekers poured into Europe last year from across the Middle East and North Africa. Many of these parties have reacted to the U.K. referendum by urging their countries to follow suit. “Now it’s our turn,” the far-right leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, told a local radio station on Friday.

For populists like Trump and Wilders, who have both referred to Islam as a threat to national security, the U.K. referendum has shown how hard it is for established parties to contain public resentments over mass migration and a perceived loss of national control. In the end, the most convincing argument for British voters to stay in the E.U. was, “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t,” says Simon Hix, a professor of political science at the London School of Economics.

It didn’t work. Weighed against the prideful nativism that fueled the opposing camp, such appeals proved ineffective in convincing a majority of British voters to stick with the devil they knew. Now, the British government will need to renegotiate its trade and political relationship with the European Union over a number of years, amending or repealing many of the laws and regulations that bind its state institutions with those of other members states.

It will be a gargantuan effort that Prime Minister David Cameron, for one,will not be involved in. He said Friday he would not lead the country beyond September, as the voters had rejected his pleas for the U.K. to stay in the E.U. “I do not think it would be right for me to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination,” Cameron said.

That destination looked so uncertain to financial markets on Friday that the British pound lost about 12% of its value against the dollar in the course of six hours, marking the steepest plunge on record. The Bank of England, the country’s central bank, tried to reassure the markets that it would “take all necessary steps” to maintain financial stability. But stock markets around the world still went into free-fall, with Europe’s main indexes losing 8% in morning trading.

As these economic realities began to set in, some supporters of the Brexit had second thoughts about their decision. “I have a heavy heart this morning,” says Chris Morris, a 69-year-old cab driver in London. “It won’t affect me too much. I’m old. I got no debts. But I do worry for my daughters who have mortgages to pay,” he says. The referendum, however, cannot be taken back. “So we just have to wait and see what happens,” Moriss says. “It’s in the lap of the gods now.”

Fan Club: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Israel Commentary Blog: Subscribe at: www.israel-commentary.org

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The reason that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the Orlando massacre was met with an unprecedented response on social media for a statement made by a politician was his “tone of voice,” wrote a prominent columnist in the Financial Times on Monday.

Sam Leith, author of You Talkin’ to Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama, said this in answer to the question he himself posed: “How do you, as a politician, a public speaker or the spokesperson for an organization, respond to tragedy?”

What one is reaching for, he wrote in “The Art of Persuasion,” is “[d]ignity, restraint, a suspension of hostilities… but what a tiger to ride: to be dignified and restrained in a climate of grief; to be bipartisan and gracious in a climate of rage. Naturally, orators seek to channel strong crowd emotions. Here, they are seeking in some sense to calm them down.”

Netanyahu’s statement was similar in content – he placed blame on radical Islam – it “went down differently.”

“It is not what you say, it is how you say it,” concluded Leith.

 

Watch Netanyahu’s full statement below:

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Paul Ryan’s Treason

By Daniel Greenfield

June 22, 2016

In an awkward interview with the Huffington Post, House Speaker Paul Ryan threatened to sue Donald Trump if he were to ban Muslim immigration or build a border wall with Mexico. Considering the current track record of suing Obama over abuses of power, this is little more than a confession of impotence.

And yet it’s deeply troubling that a top Republican is willing to go to such lengths to fight for Muslim migration or for that matter illegal immigration in general.

Paul Ryan insists that he will continue to “speak up in defense of our principles, in defense of not just our party’s principles, but our country’s principles”, but it’s telling that these principles seem to involve illegal immigration and Muslim migration.

Since when are either of these representative of our party’s principles or our country’s principles?

And yet they are indeed core principles for Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan had complained that a Muslim ban was, “not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country.” Like Obama, Ryan speaks of “our principles” without actually referencing specifics. While a constitutional conservative, speaks in terms of the Constitution, Ryan uses the “values” language of the left which references no laws, only general sentiments attributed to no specific law or document.

Though Paul Ryan claims that he wants to maintain the traditional separation of powers, and quotes the exact basis for it, he seems reluctant to do so when he claims that a Muslim ban would be wrong. Ryan knows quite well that his opposition to a Muslim migration ban is not based on the law. Like his support for illegal alien amnesty, it is based on the values construct of the left and not on the Constitution.

Paul Ryan was a longtime supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Back when amnesty was still being disguised as “immigration reform”, Ryan was a key player in pushing it forward. Ryan was so notorious for his support for illegal alien amnesty that he had to promise not to move forward on it under Obama in order to gain enough support to become Speaker. And yet despite this Ryan continues to sound amnesty notes.

Like most of the left, Paul Ryan describes illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” Last year, he once again endorsed some measure of legalization for illegal aliens. Even now his website’s top 5 issues includes a call for “immigration reform” which remains a euphemism for illegal alien amnesty.

As is typical of stealth amnesty bids, up front are a raft of security measures and at the very back is a plan for more guest workers and finally a call to “give people a chance to get right with the law”.

That is yet another amnesty euphemism.

Paul Ryan’s amnesty pledge expires when Obama leaves office. That means that, if we take his website at its word, he would like to push amnesty measures under the next administration. A few years ago he was anticipating a move on “immigration reform” in 2017. And so it is not surprising that he remains less than fond of any calls to crack down on illegal immigration.

While Paul Ryan has currently been fairly quiet about amnesty, there was a time when he was one of the more vocal national legislators throwing out amnesty talking points about a “broken immigration system” and “de facto amnesty”. Ryan was certainly not the only prominent Republican to climb on board the amnesty express, but he remained aboard it long after it was leaving the station.

Despite the general shift in the GOP, there is no sign that Ryan has abandoned it. Instead he views Obama’s divisive tone as having poisoned the wall on amnesty. He’s still the same politician who complained two years ago, “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] ten years from now.”

Trump’s victory has made it quite clear that Ryan’s view of amnesty, once mainstream in the GOP, is now on the outs. If Trump were to win a national election, then the country would have ratified a rejection of amnesty. The thing that Ryan once fought so hard for, turning illegal aliens into guest workers, was thoroughly rejected by Republican voters.

But there is no sign that Ryan is willing to give up or give in. And that is the problem.

Paul Ryan insists that a ban on Muslim migration would be wrong because, “Muslims are our partners.” That would come as news to all the Americans killed at home and abroad by “our partners” from Saudi Arabia to Muslim refugees and terrorists operating in the United States. And yet even after the latest Muslim terrorist attack in Orlando, Paul Ryan shows no sign of being willing to reconsider his position.

And that’s not surprising.

Paul Ryan doesn’t represent any kind of national Republican consensus. Instead he is a vocal and effective spokesman for the point of view of his backers and sponsors. That is why Ryan not only supports illegal alien amnesty, but also backs “sentencing reform”, a euphemism for freeing criminals.

Despite the anti-establishment election, Paul Ryan continues to represent a particular strain of elitist establishment politics which is concerned with the advocacy of very specific and specifically destructive policies without regard to their consequences, whether it involves criminals, illegal aliens or Muslim terrorists. These principles are often put forward as conservative, but in fact they are a particular species of libertarianism that has very little regard for national interests and none for their victims.

Ryan’s support for illegal immigration and Muslim migration is treasonous. And yet the deeper treason is his treason to the ordinary Republicans whose views and interests he simply does not seem to care about. This is a problem that did not begin with this election and is not likely to end with it.

And yet it is a problem that must be confronted.

The GOP came dangerously close to endorsing amnesty because special interest agendas mattered more than national interests and community interests. And we are not out of the woods yet.

Paul Ryan represents everything wrong with allowing a handful of special interests to set the agenda for the GOP. The agenda has been repudiated at the polls, but it will take far more work to repudiate it in the GOP.

(The worst part is that Donald Trump has to put up with this kind of treasonous un-American behavior in his attempt to  elicit the help of the Republican Party in the election. At the same time,  many misguided Republicans are trying, with all their might, to lose the election to Hillary Clinton who in fact represents their own Left-Wing agenda and they believe is the safer choice for them to retain their ill-begotten offices and political perks.  To their mind, Donald Trump, in his attempt  to turn this awful political system around,  might very well eliminate to the benefit of the nation and the American people. These politicians might even find themselves looking for a real job outside the public trough.

It is past time for Reince Priebus, National Head of the Republican Party to rein Ryan in line publicly and work to reverse his title of  Speaker of the House — A job that Ryan so cleverly obtained and with which he will continue to perform his destructive mischief. You may remember, he was the Republican? that immediately, upon assuming the title, gave Obama his entire gargantuan eighth and final budget. That deal set spending until the end of October of this year and beyond that will continue to cripple our military while paying for the outrageous bankrupting entitlement programs promoted by the irresponsible Left)

jsk

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

 

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice

Twitter: @israelcomment

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments