I Believe" What Different Does It Make Now' Still Matters and even More So!

===

Yesterday a former local Rabbi, who was fired from his pulpit and a known supporter of J Street and the Palestinian cause, challenged Rep. Carter to avail himself of listening to the other side of the Iran Deal.

J Street is an organization of misguided, mostly young Jewish radicals and bleeding hearts, many , if not most, have a problem with their Jewishness, have little if any history of the formation of the nation and generally take an Anti-Semite position on most issues effecting Isrfael.

I am fairly simplistic when it comes to the Iran Deal and suggest that when a neighbor tells you he wants to burn your house down and then visually begins to develop the means to do so, I am not going to provide them with the match.  All the rest is rhetoric, legaleeze and politically correct garbage.

As the press and media dig deeper they discover Obama and Kerry could not get what they promised so they agreed to a lesser deal, withheld many of its terms and basically allowed the IAEA to be in charge of inspection aspects.  Now we find Iran is allegedly allowed to self inspect and has a 24 day opportunity to delay inspection which can be extended well beyond. 

The entire agreement is a fraud perpetrated on the world by a  president who consistently lies and his hand chosen, pitiful Sec. of State. (See 1 and 1a  below.)

===

George Washington has been dubbed The Father of our country. I would argue, being our first president, it is not unreasonable to judge all future presidents based on George's virtues or lack thereof.  History suggests Washington was held in high regard by peers and beloved by his countrymen.  He was a man of great stature, physical and otherwise, and was known to possess a character that was impeccable.

Most subsequent presidents have measured well when compared to Washington, some have failed miserably, Grant comes to mind, and a few, because of the extreme circumstances surrounding their tenure, displayed extraordinary qualities - Truman comes to mind. In my humble opinion our current president fails on virtually all counts.

One of the current candidates was recently interrogated about the consequences of her alleged behaviour and responded 'what difference does it make now.'  I found that to be, at the very least, an insensitive response to the event(s) in question.

That said, can one use that phrase to judge current candidates for president when it comes to matters of character and other subjective qualifications?  In other words, does it matter whether a president has a sterling character, is trustworthy, is intelligent, has a questionable personal history, has been engaged in a series of misdeeds, has an identifiable record of achievements, can work with others, is arrogant, will respect the Constitution and uphold the oath of office etc.? After all, most presidents are politicians and the public seems to have a less than favorable view of those who engage in this power seeking profession.

Being old fashioned, I believe the phrase does matter. I believe the office of the president should be occupied by a person who possesses characteristics that are commendable.  I am still in an observing mode because it is early and the candidates are just beginning to be tested. 

Therefore, if matters I have articulated are still relevant, as I believe they are, Hillarious is eliminated. Furthermore, based on the selection of Obama, twice, it seems not to matter.  

Voters now seem to base their judgement and selection on other less serious factors such as charisma, how the aspirant responds to 'gotcha' questions from a biased press and media, their physical appearance, the amount of money amassed, mis-prioritization of issues etc.?  Ask yourself, could Lincoln have been elected because of his looks or even FDR because of his physical infirmities?

Many argue Trump does not qualify but in many ways he actually does because he is uncoupled from any handlers and thus speaks his mind,is not in the grip of vested monied and self serving interests, apparently touches responsive concerns that disturb those attracted to him, has a record of wealth achievement etc.  Meanwhile, these same voters find Hillarious completely acceptable.  Is winning at all costs more of a driving and determinant factor for them than acceptable issues surrounding  integrity?

I am appalled at the decline in our nation based on most objective measurements. Rising debt is going to choke us, education is in decline, racial division is on the rise, American military power is being crippled by funding cuts, questionable entitlements are exploding,  America's place in the world is shrinking, our middle class is struggling, politically correct nonsense is crippling freedom of expression and the list seems both endless and growing. 

Where it all ends is any one's call but I still believe it matters who occupies the Oval Office and the candidate best qualified is more likely, in my conservative view, likely to surface among the Republican bench. Nevertheless, for the time being I have chosen to remain in an observation mode.

===
Dick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The power of Jewish indignation

By Caroline B. Glick

Rotodom Sunsplash reggae festival organizers. They just provided us with a textbook case both of the nature of today's anti-Semitism and of how to defeat it.
Last weekend, the festival organizers canceled their invitation to Matisyahu, the American-Jewish reggae artist, because he refused to bow to the organizers' demand that he publicly support "Palestine."
Matisyahu was the only known Jew in the festival line-up and the only performer asked to produce such a statement.
Rather than take this lying down, on Monday Matisyahu recounted the episode on his Facebook page, writing, "It was appalling and offensive that as the one publicly Jewish-American artist scheduled for the festival they were trying to coerce me into political statements."
Matisyahu's disinvitation prompted a worldwide Jewish outcry. The Foreign Ministry registered a complaint with the Spanish government.
Every major American Jewish organization and several European Jewish organizations condemned the blatant discrimination against Matisyahu.
On Tuesday, Spain's main newspaper, El Pais, condemned the festival's anti-Semitism. The Spanish government followed hours later.
On Wednesday, the festival organizers issued a groveling apology to Matisyahu and officially reinstated his invitation to perform.
The organizers claim they were intimidated into discriminating against Matisyahu by a local anti-Israel BDS group. BDS País Valencià resorted to "pressures, threats and coercion" and warned the organizers that its members would "seriously disrupt the normal functioning of the festival."
There are two main lessons here.
First, the BDS movement does not seek to end the so-called occupation of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. It does not seek peace.
By demanding that an American Jew denounce Israel as a condition for performing, the BDS movement made clear that the only Jews it is willing to countenance are anti-Semitic Jews. The only Jews BDS activists will accept in the public square are those who join them in denouncing Israel and denouncing Jews who support Israel.
In other words, the goal of BDS is deny Jews civil rights. All participants in the movement — whether non-Jews or Jews — are anti-Semites, because they all seek to boot from public life Jews who disagree with them.
The second lesson of the Matisyahu affair is that it is possible to defeat these haters. The festival organizers discriminated against Matisyahu because they feared the Jew-hating mob more than they valued his artistry. They are now groveling at his feet because the pushback they received from world Jewry for their behavior knocked them to their knees.
When Jews stand up to anti-Semites, the anti-Semites back down.
In the West today, the hardest part about standing up to anti-Semites is that most anti-Semites and the most powerful anti-Semitic movements are on the Left, where most Western Jews have traditionally situated themselves.
Although the US is far less anti-Semitic than Europe, ironically, it is in the US where Jews have the hardest time defending themselves. The relative mildness of anti-Semitism in the US makes anti-Semitic Jews feel comfortable joining anti-Semitic non-Jews in weakening Israel and the Jewish community.
Their involvement in anti-Semitic organizations, in turn, together with the relative weakness of the threat in comparison to Europe, inhibits mainstream Jewish groups from discrediting hostile Jews and hostile groups.
J Street has played a major role in recent years in subverting attempts to achieve Jewish unity on issues related both to Israel and to fighting anti-Semitism on college campuses.

Case in point is the communal division over President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran.

But whereas the organizers claimed that the signatories represented all streams of American Judaism, according to an analysis undertaken by the Zionist Organization of America, 187 of the signatories are members of J Street's "Rabbinic Cabinet."
The ZOA revealed as well that Ameinu, the Jewish group that organized the letter, is a J Street front group. Its National President Kenneth Bob also serves as J Street's treasurer. Its Vice President and Executive Committee Chairwoman Judith Gelman is also a J Street official.

J Street is so radical that its student group J Street U just elected a Muslim to serve as its national president.
President Amna Farooqi announced that J Street U is not a pro-Israel group. In her words, "We are not here to talk about the pro-Israel conversation on campus. We are here to talk about the occupation." She declared that J Street U will dedicated itself to "yearlong anti-occupation work."

Part of the reason the community has avoided taking J Street on is because of its deep ties to the Obama White House. For six years the White House has used J Street as a strategic weapon of influence. J Street's assigned role is to prevent the Jewish community from opposing the administration's rank hostility toward Israel and block Jewish criticism of the administration's willingness to countenance and legitimize anti-Semitic allegations. These include Secretary of State John Kerry's libelous accusations that Israel is about to become an apartheid state and that Israelis are uninterested in peace as well as Obama's recent insinuations that there is something basically treacherous about American Jewish support for Israel.

It is a sign of J Street's power that although the 340 activists who signed the J Street-inspired, pro-Iran rabbis' letter to Congress make up just 6 percent of the rabbis in America, and although American Jews oppose the deal 2 to 1, neither the Reform and Conservative movements nor the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations has agreed to openly oppose the deal.
Then again, for a group with a direct line to the White House and apparently unlimited amounts of money, convincing a community that voted for Obama 3 to 1 twice to side with the White House against Israel should have been a piece of cake. And yet, the fact is that despite all of its advantages, while the Conservative and Reform movements haven't come out in opposition to the deal, they also haven't come out in support of it.

On Wednesday, the Reform movement issued a statement announcing it would refuse to take a stand on the issue. Although purportedly neutral, the statement criticized the administration's employment of anti-Semitism in its attacks against opponents of the deal, stating, "We are concerned... with the possibility that some will use the debate as fuel for anti-Semitic views."
With even the Reform movement denying its support, it is hard to imagine the administration will be able to secure the support of any major Jewish groups outside of J Street and the NJDC — the official Jewish wing of the Democratic Party.

In part, J Street's failure is a testament to the overwhelming support for Israel among American Jews. In part, it owes to communal anger at Obama's anti-Semitic bating of his Jewish opponents.

But a large share of the credit for blocking Obama's attempts to split the community goes to Israel's skillful diplomacy, which has challenged and empowered normally diffident Jewish leaders to stand up to the White House and withstand its pressure.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's willingness to confront Obama directly and explain over and over why Obama's deal endangers Israel makes it difficult for American Jewish leaders to support it. They cannot take Obama's word for it when Netanyahu shows them how the deal guarantees Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, be well placed to achieve its goal of regional hegemony and develop the means to attack the US with nuclear warheads.

There is a lesson here about the role of Israeli diplomats in fighting anti-Semitism in the West and cultivating Jewish unity in defense of Jewish rights, even as leftist Jews seek to undermine that unity.

The lesson is that there is no point in trying to reach compromises with anti-Semites, or with those pushing agendas that endanger Israel and threaten the civil rights of Jewish communities in the West. Israel gains the most by demanding the most and patiently, clearly and convincingly justifying its demands.

Israel empowers Western Jews — including leftist American Jews — to stand with it, and to stand for their rights by unapologetically defending it and its rights.

This basic truth demonstrates why Israelis should be heartened rather than concerned about Netanyahu's ambassadorial appointments.

His designated ambassador to Italy, Fiamma Nirenstein, has devoted her life to defending Israel and Jewish rights and fighting anti-Semitism in Europe. Netanyahu's decision to appoint her to Rome is a clear sign that he is putting an end to the pathetic mollycoddling of anti-Israel forces in the hopes of appeasing them that has characterized Israel's diplomacy for decades.
The concerns of some Italian Jews that Nirenstein's appointment will raise allegations of dual loyalties against the community are proof not that Netanyahu made a mistake in appointing the famous Italian-Jewish journalist and former member of the Italian parliament to represent Israel, but that he was right to appoint her.

Only a fighter like Nirenstein who knows Italian culture inside and out can ensure that such allegations are discredited and that anti-Semites feel the same heat that the organizers of the reggae festival in Spain felt this week.

Netanyahu's decision to appoint Danny Danon as ambassador to the UN springs from the same willingness to confront rather than appease anti-Semites. Danon's unapologetic defense of Israel's rights to Judea and Samaria has been attacked by the Left as proof that he will be unable to get along at the UN.

But Israel of course cannot get along at the UN. The only way for it to successfully defend itself in a body dedicated to delegitimizing it is by fighting for its rights every single day. That is why someone who makes no apologies and doesn't worry about being loved is exactly the person Israel needs at the UN.

Matisyahu's ejection and reinstatement at a reggae festival is a small story in the vast scope of events today. But it tells us that we can fight effectively for our rights against the anti-Semites on the Left. We can defend our rights and defeat our enemies on the Left if we stick to our guns and empower our fellow Jews — including leftist Jews — to do the same.


1a)J Street U, the campus branch of the left wing pro-Israel, pro-peace political lobbying group J Street, announced on Thursday that it has elected a Muslim-American president. Amna Farooqi, 21, who was born in Maryland and will now serve as the head of J Street U’s national student board, reported Haaretz.

The vote was held at J Street U’s Summer Leadership Institute in Washington D.C. Farooqi was running against two others but won “decisively,” said J Street spokesperson Jessica Rosenblum.

Farooqi is a rising senior at the University of Maryland where she studies government and politics with a minor in Israeli studies. According to Haaretz, Farooqi grew up in a “fairly religious Muslim home” in the Washington suburb of Potomac, which has a strong Jewish community. At a J Street conference in March, Farooqi who grew up in a pro-Palestinian household, said: “[The Palestinian-Israeli] conflict evoked a level of anger and emotion in me and I needed to learn more. Everything I was learning about the conflict made me not want to be pro-Israel… As someone who wanted to contribute to ending this conflict I knew I needed to understand all sides.”

In one of her Israeli studies classes that she reportedly “fell in love with Zionism” when she learned it was about “the Jewish people taking control of their future after a history of being trampled on.”

She continued: “I fell in love with Zionism, because Zionism became about taking ownership over the story of one’s people. If Zionism is about owning your future, how can I not respect that?”

Over time, Farooqi got more and more involved with the J Street U chapter at the University of Maryland. She spent a semester abroad in Israel studying at Hebrew University as part of an international student exchange program. And she returned to Israel this summer to intern at J Street U in Jerusalem, leading day trips for American students who were visiting the Holy Land. Shortly following her return, she was elected president of the organization.

“I am so excited to serve as J Street U’s president,” Farooqi told Haaretz. “I’m very excited for the next year.”

Traditionally, J Street’s liberal-minded activities are controversial among the conservative, pro-Israel crowd, partly due to its alleged support of the Goldstone Report, which falsely indicted the IDF of committing war crimes in the 2009 Gaza War, as well as its alleged support for the BDS movement, which the organization flatly denies. Haaretz contibutor Samuel Heilman pointed out that the election of a Muslim J Street president to its student branch is likely to cause a stir, but he also believes her election could communicate an positive message:

…having an openly identifying Muslim representing a college Zionist organization certainly challenges those Islamists and boycott, divestment and sanction movement supporters who wrong-headedly claim that Zionism, contemporary Israel and Islam are necessarily in conflict if not diametrically opposed to one another

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------