Friday, February 5, 2016


She keeps blowing smoke in the eyes of Demwits.
===
Ban Ki-moon cannot op ed his way out of what he said and meant by running to the New York Times.

Meanwhile, former Pentagon official, Harold Rhode, understands and has the decency to state it publicly. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
The WSJ's take on Iowa's election. (See 2 below.)

From my perspective Trump learned you must have a ground game. Rubio could eventually overtake Cruz as more candidates drop out and Hillarious is able to continue to blow smoke in the eyes of Demwits but her results proved she remains disliked and untrustworthy.

The end result - America lost again.

Sowell's Random Thoughts. (See 2a below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)

Can Good Intentions Mix With Bias?

Monday, February 1, 2016

Blake - All Boy! The Time Has Come for Iowans!



Blake, all boy!
===
Stella's first drive




Got there without a paddle!
===
Tonight Liberals, Socialists, Born Agins, Radicals, Conservatives and other politically philosophical voters will come together in Iowa to let the rest of the nation know whether they are rational or insane.

One can only hope whomever they choose will be most suitable and capable in helping get us out of the mess Obama has put us in as a consequence of his effort to radically transform America.

Certainly, Iowans have had sufficient  time to meet the various candidates up close and their decisions should, at the very least, be informed.That said, it does not mean their choices will ultimately prevail.

The Republicans have a wide ranging number of accomplished prospects.  The Demwits have basically two misfits.

The prospect of a Republican being elected president apparently appeared  to be too much of  a "lay up" and thus, attracted an exceptional number of candidates which has caused more confusion and harm than good.

Time will tell who survives. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
I leave for Athens tomorrow, for a board meeting of GMOA, so this memo, which  was written and posted before the caucus results are complete and announced.

Meanwhile, my computer guru is working on allowing me to return to sending my memos without restrictions placed  by GOOGLE.

Stay tuned.
===
Dick
=======================================================================
1)

After Final Weekend, Iowa Voters to Get Their Say

DES MOINES, Iowa—Finally: A time for choosing.
More than a year of campaigning comes to a head Monday night in the Hawkeye State. And with it will emerge some answers to questions that have perplexed the most practiced and prepared of political types—including several of the candidates themselves.
History of a sort will also be made, no matter the outcome. For there will now be such a thing as a Donald Trump voter. The blustery businessman has been leading national and early state polls, including here in Iowa. But his support has only been measured as a hypothetical.
Moreover, the Iowa tally will provide the first real indicator of whether this unconventional Republican frontrunner can translate the enthusiasm displayed at his notorious rallies into victory, as a new Des Moines Register-Bloomberg survey of likely caucus-goers suggests. The poll, released Saturday, found Trump ahead of Ted Cruz, 28 percent to 23 percent.
Though the well-funded Texas senator is a strong second choice in the poll, a loss here would challenge his campaign moving forward and clear a pathway to the nomination for Trump, as Cruz himself has warned.
Answers of a similar sort will be provided on the Democratic side too. Bernie Sanders is now within striking distance of Hillary Clinton, who has been organizing and campaigning in Iowa for nearly a year. The same poll found the former secretary of state edging the Vermont senator, 45 percent to 43 percent, within the margin of error.
Iowa isn’t exactly a reliable predictor of eventual nominees, as history shows. But the campaigns pulled out all the stops here over the weekend. Trump arrived at an airport hangar in Dubuque in true dramatic—almost presidential—fashion aboard his personal plane, which he opened up for kids to tour. He slammed both Cruz and Clinton, and urged his supporters to go to their precinct caucuses. Trump also went to church on Sunday with his wife—the second time he has done so this month in Iowa. Jerry Falwell Jr., who recently endorsed the billionaire, campaigned for him on Sunday, hoping to help attract evangelical support so crucial to candidates here. Trump held two rallies Sunday, and continued to lay into Cruz over his eligibility to serve as president, failure to disclose campaign funding from Goldman Sachs, and the idea that he is disliked by his colleagues.
Cruz pushed through the final leg of his 99-county tour with a cast of conservative activists like Glenn Beck and Bob Vander Plaats, along with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson and Iowa Congressman Steve King. The first-term senator, who has the most robust ground operation in the state, finds himself squeezed between Trump and fellow senator Marco Rubio, who has been on the rise heading into the caucuses. Cruz is running ads attacking both candidates as inconsistent and unreliable, particularly on issues of abortion and immigration, while pitching himself as the only true conservative in the race. “If we stand united, we will win,” he told an audience at a restaurant in Fenton.
Heidi Cruz, who has been effective helpmate introducing her husband at events around the state, sought to address concerns about his likability and also to draw contrasts between him and his opponents. She pitched the candidate as a “consistent conservative—not a campaign conservative” and asked voters to consider values and character when making their decision. She told of her husband singing her songs from Broadway musicals, taking her out for her birthday after a long campaign day, and doing homework with their two daughters.
Meanwhile, Rubio sought to undermine Cruz’s support. “We are going to unite the conservative movement,” he said during an appearance at Iowa State University in Ames. During various campaign stops throughout the weekend, Rubio pitched himself as an electable uniter who would grow the conservative movement. He has played up faith and religion on the stump and on the air, aiming to tap into evangelical support. Rubio’s campaign has also downplayed expectations, hoping to over-deliver. A third-place finish that comes close enough to Cruz and far enough from the other rivals would be considered a success for him heading into New Hampshire. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, however, also campaigned in Iowa over the weekend and are hoping to blunt any momentum Rubio has before the Granite State primary on Feb. 9.
Both Rubio and Cruz know there are voters still deciding between them in the final hours.
“Cruz shares my values, but Rubio is more electable,” said Loren Looft, a factory worker from Armstrong who came to see Cruz speak in Ringsted. He definitely plans to caucus, but admitted he won’t make his final decision until Monday evening.
Cindy Myers, a dietician from the town of Nevada, came to hear Rubio speak in Ames but is planning to support Cruz because she considers him a fighter. “I was on the Trump train for a while, but you just aren’t sure where he’ll end up,” she said. “I kind of expect him to be the nominee. He’s very popular, and it’s OK, because he is bringing in a large group of people who haven’t voted Republican before.”
As competitive as the race is for the Republicans, Democrats find themselves with an even closer contest. Both Clinton and Sanders campaigned in various parts of the state this weekend, turning up the heat on each other.
The former secretary of state campaigned at Iowa State University on Saturday with former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, focusing on gun laws and aiming to draw a contrast with Sanders on the issue. Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, were on hand for evening rallies intended to get out the vote.
“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Hillary Clinton said, urging the audience to “build on the progress we’ve made.” As in 2008, she again finds herself in close competition with an unlikely insurgent who is appealing to young voters. But she appeared confident in her messaging throughout the weekend, even as Sanders seemed to be gaining momentum.
“I have learned a lot, and I believe I’ve been a better candidate,” she said of campaigning in a tightening race.
The Clinton camp has a more robust and geographically diverse ground operation in the state, which figures to serve her well as far as delegate allocation goes in the caucus format. The Sanders team hopes college students who have taken to the Democratic socialist’s campaign go home to caucus and thus expand his reach for delegates. Sanders argued throughout the weekend that if turnout is high, he will win. If not, he admitted, he won’t.
At a rally at the University of Iowa, the two-term senator used the odds as an incentive. “How would you like to make the pundits look dumb on Election Day!” he said to a boisterous crowd at the university’s Field House. Not caucusing, Sanders said, “is to allow someone else to make important decisions about your life. I think that’s dumb.” Vampire Weekend and Foster the People, along with various other musicians, played at the rally. At the end of the night, Sanders and his wife joined them on stage for a rendition of “This Land Is Your Land.”
Kamila Agi-Mejias, an art therapist from Coralville, came to the rally wearing a “Bernie” T-shirt, stickers, and a light-up sign. She was enthusiastic about caucusing for the candidate, and helped her daughter fly home to do so as well. Agi-Mejias hopes Sanders will win Iowa, but wants Clinton to win the nomination because, she believes, she is more electable and that “it’s time for a woman.” She hopes Clinton will choose Sanders as a vice president.
Several students interviewed by RCP remarked that while they would be supportive of Clinton in a general election, they were passionate about Sanders. Some were unsure whether their schedules would allow them to actually attend a caucus on Monday night.
“I always think change is good, and I feel like it’s time for maybe a slight change and not the same old politics we have,” said Noah Zouine, an engineering student at Iowa State who came to the Clinton rally but is going to caucus for Sanders. “Clinton might bring change, too, but Sanders would have more of an impact.” Brandon Jones also said he’s supportive of Sanders, but isn’t sure whether he will make it to a caucus. “He is very relatable to me,” said Jones, also an engineering major. Clinton, he said, “seems like she is piggy-backing off a lot of what Sanders says.”
Both students were not yet registered to vote, but expect to do so Monday night.
“As the saying goes, Hillary Clinton is the head and Bernie Sanders is the heart,” said Grant Freeman of Mount Vernon, Iowa, who came to see Clinton. He is undecided about which candidate he will support, but plans to caucus. “I once thought we would be best to find a candidate who could beat the Republicans. That was John Kerry and that didn’t work at all, because we didn’t go with the person we actually liked, which was Howard Dean,” he said, recalling the 2004 election.
Beside him, Linda Kautz, a music assistant from Estherville, said she is definitely caucusing for the former first lady. “She’s got the experience to take our country forward,” Kautz said while holding a sign proclaiming her support. But, she acknowledged, the race is uncomfortably close. “It’s scary, because he knows what he’s doing,” Kautz said of Sanders. “He did the campaign right, by getting a lot of younger people to back him.”
Polls show nearly 40 percent of potential voters aren’t firm in their decisions, and interviews with voters at various events, both Democratic and Republican, throughout the weekend bore that out. Iowa may not always pick presidents. But it does know how to spring a surprise. Just ask Rick Santorum.
Caitlin Huey-Burns is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at chueyburns@realclearpolitics.com


1a)

Defining Presidential Down

If this election is so crucial, why have the front-runners been so awful?

By Bret Stephens 

In 2014 I wrote a book that made the case that the United States, for all of its problems, was not in decline. Now and again I have my doubts.

The results of Monday’s Iowa caucus won’t be known until after this column goes to print. But here’s what we know already about the four top contenders. No prizes for matching names to descriptions:

1) A compulsive liar with a persecution complex, a mania for secrecy, and a bald disdain for rules as they apply to lesser people.

2) A bigoted braggart with a laughable grasp of public policy and leering manners of the kind you would expect from a barroom drunk.

3) A glib moralizer who is personally detested by every single senator in his own party, never mind the other one.

4) A Sixties radical preaching warmed-over socialism to people too young to know what it was or too stupid to understand what it does.

Such are the character traits of the candidates now vying to possess the nation’s nuclear launch codes. This being a free country, they are entitled to their ambitions. This also being a democracy, we are responsible for our political choices. So how is it that we have come to choose this?

That’s been a topic of earnest commentary ever since it became clear that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders weren’t just blips on the political horizon. The dominant explanations tend to run to the economic, sociological, technological or generational. You’re in your 50s, the recession hits, you lose your middle-income job and are waylaid by debt. You’re not going to be hired to design apps, so you wind up as a limo driver or restaurant hostess. You’re one of what columnist Stu Bykofsky has movingly described as “Throwaway Americans.”

The Donald? Why not?

There’s surely some truth to this, borne out by historical experiences from Weimar to Buenos Aires. Except life in today’s America is not remotely comparable to Germany in the 1920s or Argentina in the 1970s. There’s no hyperinflation or mass unemployment, no underground armies of left-wing revolutionaries or right-wing reactionaries. Nor is the economy worse now than it was in the 1970s, to say nothing of the 1930s or 1890s. We live in an era of mediocrity and anxiety, not collapse and tragedy.

The real difference, to adapt a line from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is that we’ve spent the better part of a generation defining “presidential” down. There was a time when some form of military experience or outstanding civilian service was considered a prerequisite for the presidency. Or when first-term senators did not presume to run for the White House without putting in time, paying dues, making friends and authoring some significant piece of legislation. Or when conspicuous character flaws or pending legal jeopardies were automatic and irrevocable disqualifications.

But all that is in the past now, and the moment that happened can be precisely dated. It began with Bubba. It began when America made its first presidential-level accommodation with the mores of the 1960s, and when it made a self-conscious choice to redefine, and demote, the concept of character in the hierarchy of political virtues.

Jimmy Carter came to office promising never to lie; he pledged an American government “as good as its people.” Bill Clinton lied, flagrantly and frequently, and he made us complicit in his lies. With Bubba we became a nation of pseudo-sophisticates, people who believed that the mark of the discerning voter was to see through—and past—the “character” issue. What mattered were results. In the halcyon 1990s, that seemed to work.

Today’s degraded politics is partly a result of that moral accommodation. It’s also the result of an intellectual accommodation. Let’s face it: If Mr. Clinton brought dishonor to the Oval Office, George W. Bush brought shallowness to it. Presidential aspirants were once expected to deliver finely tuned debating points about Quemoy and Matsu. After W, it became pedantic to expect candidates to know the names of the leaders of India and Pakistan.

And now we have Mr. Trump, who lived through the entire Cold War without, it seems, ever hearing of the nuclear triad, or thinking about it, or being embarrassed by the thought that he’d never heard or thought of it. But he thinks he’s fit to be president, and at this writing a plurality of Republican voters seem to agree. Not to worry: President Trump will take that triad, add a prong, make it a nuclear fork, and stab our enemies to death with it. Just you watch, people.

Now we are at the start of an electoral season that Americans say is of the utmost importance even as they make the most flippant choice of front-runners. And while a few thousand voters in Iowa may not be tantamount to the will of the American people, they aren’t immaterial to it, either.
Sober up, America. We’re a republic only for as long as we can keep it.
============================================================

The Mood Of Evangelicals. J Street and Bernie. Purposeful and Abysmal Ignorance. Breakfast With My Congressional Representative.

Understanding Texas and Texans!
n
===
Evangelicals care about America and its survival.  That said, in my humble opinion, is why they are buying into Trump's message. They are not single issue voters, notwithstanding the fact that religion is central and significant.

That said, they also seem not to care about the fact Trump is unlike anyone you would imagine them ever considering .  This shows the degree to which they are angry and fed up with those in D.C and their failure to accomplish anything when it comes to addressing the serious challenges we face.
===
I am unable to explain why the greatest threat to Israel is as much from within, J Street, as from without, Iran and it eventual nuclear success.

Nor can I explain American youth's love affair with a geriatric Socialist!

In the case of J Street, their beliefs and attacks are purposeful.  In the case of Socialism and Bernie the embrace is rooted in abject ignorance.  Both are misplaced, dangerous and must be rejected.

However, since we no longer teach history and economics how do you overcome abysmal ignorance? (See 1 and 1a below.)

The French political class are such worms. (See 1b below.)
===
I had breakfast with my Congressional Representative this morning and he is somewhat dispirited over the direction the Republican nomination has taken.

He defended the recent budget vote though he wished it was not in an omnibus format.

I asked him where we go from here and he said we got into our mess gradually and must exit gradually and part of the problem is there are too many who are impatient with the time it will take to undo the wrongs that have built up over decades.
===
Congressman Issa believes Hillarious should be indicted but will  not be. (See 2 below.)
====
Dick
========================================================================
1)

What to Do About J Street, An Enemy of Israel

 


HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ ON J STREET:

     “I think J Street has been the most damaging organization in American history against Israel. It has been the most damaging, more damaging than Students for Justice in Palestine [and] more damaging than the early anti-Zionist Council for Judaism. J Street has done more to turn young people against Israel than any organization in the whole of history. It will go down in history as one of the most virulent, anti-Israel organizations in the history of Zionism and Judaism. It has given cover to anti-Israel attitudes on campus and particularly its approach to Israel’s self defense” Tablet Magazine, August 2015

One method J Street employs to worm its way into mainstream public opinion is to hold small talks in synagogues and community centers in which it misrepresents its agenda, goals and methods. On January 13 the Daytimers group at Har Shalom in Potomac sponsored a talk by Alan Elsner, special adviser to the president of J Street. The talk was entitled, “Why Everything You’ve Heard about J Street is Dead Wrong.”  In point of fact, the title itself and its premise were dead wrong. It should have read, "Why Everything You've Heard About J Street Is Dead Accurate." 

J Street describes itself as pro-Israel and repeats that mantra over and over again, allowing the organization to gain entrance into our Jewish institutions. But J Street's actual behavior vis-à-vis Israel belies the claim of being pro-Israel. As Daniel Gordis, Senior Fellow at the Shalem College in Jerusalem, observed: “It’s one thing to put pro-Israel in your tag line, and another to be pro-Israel.

As the title of the Har Shalom Daytimers talk suggests, J Street attempts to label most of the reports of its anti-Israel activities as"myths." A quick example: Jeremy Ben Ami (J Street's president) speaking at the Westchester Reform Temple in Scarsdale, NY was asked why Jewish students on a J Street tour of Israel were taken to Yasser Arafat's grave in Ramallah. This same question, framed as a"myth" on the J Street web page of "myths and facts," is answered by the following ridiculous assertion; There was time to kill before the next appointment on the tour and the students were learning "about an important piece of the history of the conflict" and the need to "build a more peaceful future." This disingenuous excuse was designed to bamboozle audiences.  At the talk for the Westchester Reform Temple, Ben Ami provided yet another distortion for the questioner. He stated that J Street brings students to Yasser Arafat’s grave to teach the students that "a former Palestinian terrorist renounced and abandoned violence in 1993, and became a man of peace..."  The very notion of teaching students that Yasser Arafat, one of history's most infamous terrorists, renounced violence and was a man of peace is shockingly dishonest. Arafat has been conclusively shown, even by the admission of key Palestinian officials, to have deliberately planned and started the second Palestinian "intifada."  The second Palestinian "intifada" began in September, 2000 and didn't end until a year after the November 2004 death of Arafat. Is there anything that can be believed by an organization that would teach Jewish students such a blatant lie?

It is worth examining a few of the ways that J Street fails to live up to its motto as a pro-Israel organization. This will require selectivity, since in the few years of its existence, J Street has managed to promote a huge number of anti-Israel policies and positions that even its cleverest leaders are unable to spin as pro-Israel. 

1.     If J Street is, as it says, pro-Israel, why does it never say anything good about Israel? One might expect at least an occasional acknowledgement from an organization that claims to be pro-Israel that Israel has done something good.  Don't hold your breath.  As Alan Dershowitz, rhetorically addressing J Street, asks"I went back and I read every single J Street press release from the first day of its existence.   I could not find a single one of them that praised Israel.  How can you be a "pro-Israel" organization and never express any pro-Israel views? It is absolutely shocking to me.  Every press release seems to have a negative about Israel." 

Sara Greenberg, writing in the Jerusalem Post comments:“Instead, J Street U partners with some of Israel’s greatest enemies on campus including BDS activists and anti-Israel faculty. ....Sadly, J Street seems to focus more on educating its constituents and students about how to defend the agenda of those who seek Israel’s destruction, instead of being honest about the facts on the ground and equipping young people with the tools necessary to stand up for Israel. .... Rather than call attention to the challenges and regional threats Israel faces today – including terrorism and an impending nuclear-armed Iran – J Street spends its time lobbying Congress (and asking its student chapters to do the same) against resolutions condemning incitement in Palestinian schools, opposing the introduction of a Senate bill to impose new sanctions on Iran, and endorsing the Palestinian and Arab effort to condemn Israel in the United Nations Security Council. .... If an organization is never willing to stand up for Israel, should they still be considered pro-Israel?” 

2.     If J Street is pro-Israel, as it says, wouldn't we expect it to express concern over Israel's ability to defend itself in a region hostile to its very existence?  Instead, J Street continually opposes and criticizes Israel’s right to self-defense and worries far more over the well-being of its enemies.  A few examples follow:

      Today, as Israelis are being attacked on the streets with knives, car-rammings and bullets by Palestinians, J Street cloaks itself with words of neutrality by speaking of "Israeli-Palestinian violence," rather than acknowledging the truth, which is that the violence originates with the Palestinians and is being perpetrated against Israelis. (Israeli-Palestinian Violence is a Failure of Political Leadership on Both Sides,” J Street blog, 10/2/15)

      J Street has a history of at first opposing any sanctions at all and then later supporting the easing of sanctions against Iran, considered by Israel to be the most dangerous power that Israel faces today. Whatever view one may have of the eventual Iran deal that was struck, it was the sanctions against Iran that ultimately forced Iran to the table and induced it to come to the terms that were struck. But J Street resisted sanctions from the start. This resistance took place at a time when Iran was feverishly working to acquire nuclear weapons and was frequently declaring its goal that Israel be wiped from the face of the earth. How can we square J Street's positions on sanctions against Iran with J Street's claim that it is pro-Israel? We cannot. It should therefore not come as a surprise that J Street eventually broke with mainstream Jewish institutions which opposed the Iran Deal and launched instead a large, well-financed campaign with ads and a video in support of it.

       In Boston, New York and Seattle in the summer of 2014, during the Israel Gaza conflict, J Street refused to join in Jewish community rallies to support Israel. This refusal took place while rockets rained down on Israel from Gaza, and only the Iron Dome defense system was saving the lives of thousands of Israelis. Why would a self-proclaimed pro-Israel organization refuse to support Israel in its time of need?

     With reference to the Iron Dome defense system, the J Street Pac supported political candidates who were actually against funding the Iron Dome Missile Defense system, perfected just in time to save many Israelis.http://freebeacon.com/national-security/j-street-endorsees-in-congress-refuse-to-support-iron-dome-funding-for-israel/  Iron Dome is a purely defensive weapons system. It was designed to intercept and destroy rockets before they reach the ground in Israel. What pro-Israel organization would want Hamas's rockets to continue to reach Israel unimpeded?

      Who can forget J Street's support for the biased and inaccurate Goldstone Report that condemned Israel for defending itself during Operation Cast Lead in 2008 against rockets and mortar shells launched by Hamas. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, then president of the Union for Reform Judaism, who considers himself a dove, found J Street's words "deeply distressing because they [were] morally deficient." He accusingly noted that J Street "could find no moral difference between the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who have launched more than 5,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli civilians in the past three years, and the long-delayed response of Israel, which finally lost patience and responded to the pleas of its battered citizens in the south."http://forward.com/opinion/14847/on-gaza-sense-and-centrism-03081/#ixzz3vTr7nS3K

Rabbi Yoffie was loudly booed at the 2009 J Street Conference when he expressed those views.

3.     What does J Street do to defend Israel against the unrelenting stream of anti-Israel propaganda and lies leveled against the Jewish state? The answer -- it not only does nothing at all, it actually helps spread that negative propaganda. As an example, J Street opposed a 2011 congressional letter criticizing Palestinian incitement in the wake of the Itamar massacre of five members of an Israeli family.

J Street U sponsors talks on campuses by the group "Breaking the Silence,” which sends out former IDF soldiers to misrepresent and demonize the Israeli Defense Forces.

In a rather revealing development, J Street U recently elected a Muslim as its President, who, according to ZOA, is a "radical Muslim who spews hatred for Israel and its leaders, supports violence against Israel, and supports anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS)." 

4.     J Street claims that it is opposed to the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel, the standard set by our DC Jewish Federation for the inclusion of organizations and speakers into Jewish communal events. Yet the credibility of J Street and J Street U are severely compromised by their hosting of representatives from pro-BDS organizations to speak at their conferences and campus events, thereby providing a platform for the messengers of BDS to spread their hatred for Israel.  A number of speakers at J Street conferences have questioned the right of Israel to exist. While asserting its opposition to BDS repeatedly, J Street has also statedthat it does "not oppose boycott, divestment, or sanctions initiatives that explicitly support a two-state solution, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and focus only on occupied territory beyond the Green line.”  So, the truth of the matter is, J Street accepts some BDS initiatives against Israelis and is always open to giving a platform to those who support all BDS initiatives to spread their propaganda and recruit supporters. J Street's position gives only lip service to opposition to BDS. Its conduct demonstrates otherwise. Most telling of all about J Street's equivocal stand on BDS, J Street opposed the Roskam-Vargas Trade Bill (that passed) because it contained a provision discouraging the European Union from engaging in BDS activity.

Just who are the financial supporters of this anti-Israel group?
 

"J Street has a history of taking significant sums of money from anti-Israel sources—and lying about it. For example, J Street continuously lied about its funding from George Soros, who has blamed Israel and the Jewish people for the rise of global anti-Semitism. While J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami kept denying it, Eli Lake reported in 2010 that J Street acquired $750,000 from Soros’s family. Ben-Ami was eventually forced to apologize for lying.

Even more troubling was the discovery that Genevieve Lynch, a board member of the NIAC [National Iranian American Council], also funded J Street. NIAC is no ally of the Jewish community, and has recently created a 501(c)4 to counter pro-Israel groups’ attempts to halt the Iran deal."
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2015/7/24/its-time-to-evict-j-street-from-the-jewish-communal-tent#.VpqYRvkrJj0=


"The J Street political action committee has received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as from several individuals connected to organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian issues advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission filings. ....Arab and Muslim donors are extremely rare for other organizations that describe themselves as supporters of Israel as J Street does, Jewish leaders at organizations across the political spectrum told the Jerusalem Post."

5.     If J Street is pro-Israel, why does it work to undermine the integrity and independence of the democratically elected government of Israel? J Street works tirelessly to pressure our government to force Israel to adopt its policies. In fact, J Street’s 2016 New Year’s resolution is to "Press President Obama to finally break the impasse: it's time to put an American plan -- explicit and public -- on the table.” (email, Ben Ami, “Top ten resolutions for 2016”) The editor of Tower Magazine points out the error of J Streets ways“The idea that American Jews have the right… to impose their ideas in contradiction to Israeli self-determination. This idea weakens Israel, weakens the American Jewish community, and—most problematically — contains at its heart an implicit repudiation of Zionism itself."

6.     If J Street is “pro-Israel,” why are so many of the organizations that it partners with working to the detriment of Israel, including support for BDS?  Doesn’t that tell us something about J Street itself? It allies itself on policy issues with radical organizations that defame Israel, such as The New Israel Fund, Breaking the Silence, Peace Now, Jewish Voice for Peace and B’Tselem. It is little wonder that in 2014 the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations appropriately voted to reject J Street's application for membership. Undaunted, J Street has found its own ways to circumvent the establishment. J Street is working hard to win over the young and is already accepted on about 50 plus campuses, many as part of Hillel. It is also involving itself in educational programs at Jewish day schools.  The list of local synagogues and temples that have hosted talks by J Street includes Har Shalom (Men’s Club and Daytimers), Temple Micah, Temple Sinai, Adat Shalom, Beth El Hebrew, Temple Rodef Shalom, Tifereth Israel, Temple Shalom and B'nai Tzedek.

By falsely posing as a pro-Israel organization, J Street is infiltrating our Jewish institutions, especially our synagogues and day schools, who are responsible for educating our young, the future Zionists of America.

In challenging J Street, the best defense against their misrepresentations and false claims to be pro-Israel is to show their anti-Israel advocacy and the activities against Israel. 


1a)

Who is Out of Touch on Israel?



1b)

French Set Up Obama-Israel Fight

=========================================================
2)

Who Received Hillary's Secret Emails?




Congressman Darrell Issa has predicted that Hillary and Huma will never be indicted for leaking top-secret information through their illegal email scam.
"I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak," the Republican heavyweight told the Washington Examiner Thursday[.] ... "I think he's in a position where he's being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk[.] … You can't have 1,300 highly sensitive emails that contain highly sensitive material that's taken all, or in part from classified documents, and have it be an accident[.] … There's no question, she knew she had a responsibility and she circumvented it. And she circumvented it a second time when she knowingly let highly-classified material get onto emails in an unclassified format."
Issa's comments come just two days after former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, claimed he has friends in the FBI who "tell [him] they're ready to indict and they're ready to recommend an indictment. ... They also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public," DeLay said Tuesday during an interview on Newsmax TV.
If H&H are not indicted soon, FBI and DOJ career lawyers may retaliate by leaking additional evidence about Hillary's criminal, irresponsible, and dangerous malfeasance in high office.  Hillary is therefore deeply implicated in the worst hostile penetration of the U.S. government since Stalin.

Huma's lifelong collaboration with the Nazi-era Muslim Brotherhood has been thoroughly documented.  Four Americans died in Benghazi while Hillary and Obama dodged their constitutional responsibility to order U.S. rescue forces to knock down attackers belonging to al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) – apparently because Obama was convinced he could do a deal with al-Qaeda. We know how well that worked out.

Our Cairo embassy was assaulted by an organized jihad mob on the same day – 9/11/12 – and the Ikhwan was almost certainly involved in both assaults.  Mohammed Morsi, the Ikhwan chieftain, was president at that time and was therefore responsible under international law for protecting the American embassy in Cairo.

We now know a great deal about Hillary's email scam, but we do not know the most crucial pieces – namely, who received Hillary's and Huma's secret emails?  Emails have recipients.  In the case of the Clintons, they also have quid pro quos.  When Hillary's confidants deliberately removed USG classification markers from the State Department's secure email system, they engaged in criminal violations of the U.S. Code, including forgery by deletion of legally required classification labels.  Others, like General Petraeus, have been convicted for far less egregious violations of law.
The Constitution states that impeachment and trial by the Senate apply to the secretary of state (Article II).  If we had a U.S. Congress worth its salt, Hillary would already be in the dock.

We have not been told – yet – who received Hillary's emails.  But we can make reasonable guesses, because we know the Clintons.  They will happily sell out national security for big money, just as in Bill's eight years.  The Clintons welcomed White House visitors with known links to the Chinese mafia, because they were shielded by the most treacherous and corrupt media in American history.  Without media collusion, the Clintons would have been gone long ago, along with the Obamas.  But Clinton/Obama sleaze reflects the entire Democrat/RINO/media complex.  The fish rots from the head and from the tail.
So where did Hillary and Huma send those emails?

Here are some guesses.

1. To Bill Clinton, who was almost certainly in collusion with H&H, and to Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal.

2. To the Saudis, including Walid Bin Talal and Mohammed Salman, the new "defense minister" of Saudi Arabia, who is the very aggressive power behind the Saudi king.  (King Salman is said to be suffering from senile dementia).

The former head of the Wahhabi priesthood just told the world that ISIS's bloodthirsty campaign is following religiously sanctioned jihad.  Just to give you some idea about our friends the Saudis, they are unbelievably primitive.

Other likely email recipients:

3. Jihad supporters in Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE.

4. The mullahs and their enablers in Iran and Dubai.

5. European politicians and businesses who made big money from Obama's surrender to Iranian nukes.  Germany has tripled its nuclear machinery sales to Iran since Obama's surrender "agreement."

6. George Soros, the biggest string-pulling money man in the Democratic Party.

7. Above all, the Muslim Brotherhood, including Huma's family, a major jihadist network with tentacles in Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Turkey, and other Sunni countries.

The mass murderers of ISIS are also a product of the Ikhwan, the Muslim Broederbund, along with Gulf oil kleptocracies.

Early in this administration, Obama supported the Egyptian Ikhwan in its successful effort to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak.  The coup against Mubarak was then reversed by Egypt's political-military establishment, which is all too familiar with the murderous fanaticism of the Moobs.

Today a mainstream political general, El-Sisi, has taken over in Egypt, and the regime is at open war with the Ikhwan, which also spawned Hamas and forty years ago assassinated Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel.

The Ikhwan is now allied with ISIS in the Sinai Desert, whence it launches attacks on Egypt.
Just as there is no doubt whom Obama and Hillary were helping in the Benghazi betrayal, there is no doubt who their friends are in the email scam.  Some reports claim that Obama's own email practices are just as shady as Hillary's, which puts the White House in yet another flaming conflict of interest.  The email scam displays a mix of gross incompetence and criminal intent that is typical of the Obama/Clinton years.  They simply don't care, because they know they have establishment protection.

The U.S. has had similar periods of corruption – after the Civil War, for example.  But we were not a nuclear power then, and post-Civil War corruption did not endanger the entire world.  Today's Obama/Clinton sleaze is closely linked to Obama's destruction of sixty years of Pax Americana, which has already killed hundreds of thousands in Syria.

Bare-faced violations of law at the top also corrupt and demoralize other levels of government, as well as those who depend on the United States to say alive in an increasingly dangerous world.
===========================================================================