The Funding Source Of Radicalism!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The anti-Israel attitude that is spreading within the Democrat Party began as a tiny benign gene that metastasized and has now reached cancerous proportions. It's growth is, in part, because of the radicalized support of Jews who are their own worst enemies.
I am constantly asked by Christian friends to explain why Jews continue to impale themselves upon the Democrat Party. There are many reasons and much disagreement.
In part, I believe acceptance, fear of rejection and association with the aggressor are among the more compelling now that Jews have gained a level of social acceptance and prominence never before achieved.
Historically, Republicans were unaccepting but their basic belief in Democratic Principles, Capitalism and a willingness to defend against tyrannical and fascistic behaviour now make them logical supporters of Israel. Their belief that Democratic Societies are a force for good and that America is a benefit to the world makes their alliance with Israel an easy one.
Democrats are more persuaded by a mixture of confused, radical intellectual thinking that willingly embraces false promises of betterment through PC'ism which easily morphs into negative attitudes about America. Democrats are more prone to be convinced by specks of blemish and thus, are blinded and unable to see and/or grasp and/or defend the larger picture.
No nation is perfect but, by comparison, America and Israel, for that matter, remain head and shoulders above all the rest and that includes Britain, France and most of the West that have gone off the deep end. Unwillingness to defend our history and to no longer even teach it is America's undoing.
Democrats are leading the anti-parade led by Obama their radical Pied Piper.
The popularity of Bernie and his Socialistic ideas are ample evidence of what a demoralizing future the Democrat Party offers America, I equate the rise in anti-Semitism and the radical left's contempt for America as having both a common root and connected financial resources.
Trump may be a questionable response but given our two choices he is better than an older Arkansas version of Jane Fonda, who sold uranium to Russians in order to enrich herself (See 1, 1a, 1b and 1c below.)
None of this radical swing to the left could occur without funding from comparable radicalized sources. (See 1d below.)
====
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks wins The Templeton Prize.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
===
Because both prospective candidates have high unappealing credentials there is a growing possibility we could have a large number of splinter candidates running for the presidency. None of these thorns will be elected but they could alter the results further shattering our nation's fragile unity and contribute to Hillary's election.
My liberal friend, whose item I posted in my last memo, wants me to vote for the Libertarian candidates and sent me an article outlining Trump's alleged underhanded activities in reducing the time it took for him to get a gambling license in Atlanta City as if Atlantic City and/or New Jersey are paragons of virtuous politics.
Bret Stephens and those of a like mind continue to make the point that Trump will ruin the Republican Party as if the Republican Party has not already ruined itself by offering incompetent past nominees and failing to accomplish anything akin to their theoretical conservative principles. Trump's popularity is meant to send a message to elected Republicans your governance is being rejected.
I find Trump bizarre in many ways but I find Hillary a downright traitorous liar. The latest report from the independent Inspector General from her own Department found her in violation of a series of federal regulations. Meanwhile she continues to besmirch Colin Powell in order to obfuscate her own illicit behaviour. She told us her server was for convenience and then we find out she would never have been authorized had she asked. She tells us she is forthcoming and yet was unwilling to be interviewed and the list of her lies is endless. Trump has his own issues when it comes to veracity but Hillary's unmitigated gall ascends above my most liberal level of acceptance and willing latitude.
Her desire to be president, when matched against her behaviour, qualifies her for a jail cell cot not a seat in the Oval Office. Eventually, pathetic nations are led by pathetic leaders.
===
While I was away The Fed. Chairperson alluded to the fact that a rise in rates was in order and the question is will they do so and if so will they do so in June or July.
I vote for July because then we will know what Britain will do regarding the E.U and we will have one more month of economic data and perhaps have a clearer view of the election outlook.
The problem with raising rates is that is makes the dollar stronger, puts pressure on Europe, raises the cost of oil for those who have to buy dollars with weaker currencies and sucks oxygen from the world sending it to America when or own businesses are unwilling to spend money on expanding because basic consumer demand is pitiful.
On the other hand, historically low rates are causing economic distortions, absolutely killed returns for those dependent upon such and has made the wealthy wealthier at the price of driving more nails into the middle classes coffin as investment risks rise.
We stopped in a McDonald's on the way home yesterday for some coffee and were greeted by new machines that allow the customer to enter their own order, get a number and pick up their order when their number is called. Thank you $15/hour minimum wage.
Robots are coming and in order to be able to send more checks to our expanding retiree population, who have nothing to retire on, owners of robots will eventually be taxed and forced to pay SS and other benefits so government can continue to meet its out sized obligations and commitments.
Welcome to the world of technological driven socialism.
The solution to the mess we are in will, in my opinion, not end in a soft landing but then I am a pessimist.
As for the stock market I remain skeptical though I continue to believe the best sectors remain in the area of interest sensitivity, technology and health.
As for the youths who embrace Bernie and his love affair with socialism, I daresay they are stupid when it comes to economics, have never read "The Road To Serfdom" and believe free s---- grows on trees.
They cannot conceive of the fact that government is dysfunctional but then these Bernie youths never were wounded , never belonged to an organization seeking approval from the IRS, willingly accept America's energy dependency, have student loans they want tax payers to assume, believe standing in line to catch a plane and miss flight connections to Denver to buy 'mary jane' with food stamps is America's answer to leisure travel etc.
===
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Message body
“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US. Pogo
Her family and friends are baffled how Simone, who grew up in a Zionist
Simone arrived at UC-Berkeley in Fall 2009 as a pro-Israel enthusiast,
After graduating, she helped found, and became a leader of, IfNotNow, a J
At Berkeley, Simone frequented Hillel which presents itself as “a home away
Reviewing a sampling of the toxic IDF/Israel-bashing programs presented
On September 16, 2009 Kesher Enoshi, in conjunction with Students for
Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association, Jewish
Some of the lyrics asserted that Israelis are terrorists and equated Israel
On November 16, 2009, Hillel’s Kesher Enoshi hosted the New Israel Fund-
The event was also widely publicized and promoted by SJP. Tom Pessah,
The fact that Jewish students on campus are invited to Israel-bashing
The divestment bill, passed 16 to 4, was subsequently vetoed by the
This snowballed into a national BDS movement on campuses across North
Even after the 2010 Divestment Bill at UC Berkeley, Hillel continued
On February 22, 2011 Hillel’s KE and J Street U brought the founder of the
The speaker, Assaf Sharon, demonized Israel describing Jerusalem as the
Pro-Israel students who protested the Israel-demonizing event were told by
Impressionable and susceptible Jewish students, such as Simone, have
Pro-Israel students, concerned parents and community members protested
Rather than condone such madness and clean house, the Hillel leadership
They are victims subjected to a systematic and very effective indoctrination
The Ploughshares Fund, established in 1981, describes itself as follows:
"does not influence the editorial content of their coverage in any way, nor would we want
it to."
It is so sad that once fabulous organizations have been taken over, to a great degree, by
those whose mission is the opposite of the intention of the founders and those well meaning
contributors of time and money who have little clue what is actually happening on the
ground. The main culprits, however, are the heads of these organization and their boards
who exercise so little control, notwithstanding their clearly enunciated goals.
Chronology of the Systematic Subversion and Radicalization of
America's Next Generation of Jewish Leaders
By Natan Nestel,
Simone Zimmerman, Bernie Sander's national Jewish outreach coordinator,
created quite a stir after her year-old profane rant against PM Netanyahu
recently became public. This led to her suspension from the campaign two
days later.
Her family and friends are baffled how Simone, who grew up in a Zionist
home, attended a pro-Israel Jewish day school (about 10 percent of her
class serve in the IDF), spent summers in Israel with her youth movement,
and seemed destined to become a stalwart of the pro-Israel community,
became so virulently anti-Israel.
Simone arrived at UC-Berkeley in Fall 2009 as a pro-Israel enthusiast,
active with AIPAC, who felt her “duty going out into the world is to defend
Israel.” However, during her first year Simone changed dramatically.
She became a J Street campus leader, and eventually national president of
J Street U.
After graduating, she helped found, and became a leader of, IfNotNow, a J
Street offshoot that focuses on disrupting Jewish organizations and aiming
to “transform the Jewish community.”
At Berkeley, Simone frequented Hillel which presents itself as “a home away
from home.” There, she encountered Kesher Enoshi (KE), a Hillel group
presenting programs demonizing Israel and the IDF. Kesher Enoshi had
been collaborating with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the leading
anti-Israel BDS campus group-- on the ADL top 10 list of anti-Israel groups
in America. The Hillel Director, Rabbi Naftalin-Kelman, supported and
promoted Kesher Enoshi.
Reviewing a sampling of the toxic IDF/Israel-bashing programs presented
by Hillel and Kesher Enoshi illuminates the transformation Simone, and
numerous other students, underwent.
On September 16, 2009 Kesher Enoshi, in conjunction with Students for
Justice in Palestine, organized a presentation by “Shministim”, Israeli draft-
dodgers who defame the IDF and Israel. The Shministim US tour was
organized by the BDS group, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), also on the
ADL top 10 list of anti-Israel groups in America. The Shmimistim urged
divesting from Israel.
Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association, Jewish
Voice for Peace and other Israel BDS groups, sponsored a concert by a
Palestinian hip-hop artist.
Some of the lyrics asserted that Israelis are terrorists and equated Israel
with Nazi Germany.
On November 16, 2009, Hillel’s Kesher Enoshi hosted the New Israel Fund-
funded Breaking the Silence, (BTS), a fringe group that demonizes the IDF
across the world, accusing it of human rights abuses. Hillel’s publicity, sent
to all the Jewish students, said: “Through discussion we will expound about
the idea of silence about human rights abuses and connect the war in Iraq
to events in Israel and Palestine.”
The event was also widely publicized and promoted by SJP. Tom Pessah,
Students for Justice in Palestine’s leader, who headed the divestment
campaign at Berkeley, and Rabbi Naftalin-Kelman, the Hillel director, sat
together at the event where students were divided into small groups, each
with a facilitator from Students for Justice in Palestine or Hillel Kesher
Enoshi leading the “discussion.” It was a classic SJP-KE brainwashing
procedure.
The fact that Jewish students on campus are invited to Israel-bashing
events by their Hillel (which controls the list of the Jewish students on
campus including the Taglit- Birthright alumni) is highly significant. Hillel and
its groups’ provide legitimacy and credibility to the Israel-bashing events.
Hillel’s Kesher Enoshi’s slanderous events, organized with BDS groups,
laid the groundwork for the Berkeley Divestment bill of 2010. The formerly
pro-Israel Jewish students played a key role in it. Hillel's KE students
actively advocated for the adoption of the anti-Israel divestment resolution
before the Berkeley Student Senate. This influenced several independent
senators to support the anti-Israel measure.
The divestment bill, passed 16 to 4, was subsequently vetoed by the
Student Senate President. Although the veto was sustained by a single
vote, the divestiture coalition succeeded in defining the terms of the
debate while simultaneously advancing their narrative.
This snowballed into a national BDS movement on campuses across North
America delegitimizing Israel.
Even after the 2010 Divestment Bill at UC Berkeley, Hillel continued
collaborating with BDS groups that led it. On February 11, 2011, Hillel
hosted the leaders of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), --founded by
the Muslim Brotherhood -- for Shabbat dinner. In its rally in Berkeley, MSA
shouted: “From the river to the sea Palestine will be Free.”
On February 22, 2011 Hillel’s KE and J Street U brought the founder of the
NIF funded Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement (SJSM) to speak at Hillel.
The Jewish Agency describes the group as “opposing the idea of Israel as
a Jewish homeland and promoting an anti-Zionist agenda.”
The speaker, Assaf Sharon, demonized Israel describing Jerusalem as the
symbol of evil.
Pro-Israel students who protested the Israel-demonizing event were told by
the Hillel head that it was within Hillel guidelines. It was not.Hillel guidelines
forbid Israel-demonizing events.
Impressionable and susceptible Jewish students, such as Simone, have
been systematically indoctrinated at Hillel with messages dehumanizing
Israel’s soldiers, portraying them as “war criminals,” and describing Israel
as an “occupying, apartheid state” committing “crimes against humanity.”
Many students from pro-Israel homes, even those with Israeli parents, were
co-opted and alienated from Israel at Hillel. Many, like Eyal Mazor,
became BDS leaders. After graduating, Eyal joined two BDS groups:
Code Pink, which disrupted Netanyahu’s speech at Congress and JVP,
with Eyal as a key organizer, disrupted Netanyahu’s speech before the
General Assembly of Jewish Federations in New Orleans.
Gila Hashkes, the Israel Fellow (Jewish Agency emissary) at the Berkeley
Hillel, who came from a national-religious home and was in the Bnei Akiva
youth movement provides a tragic example. She was also impacted when
serving under the Berkeley Hillel Director. After returning to Israel she went to
Ramallah to console mothers of Palestinian terrorists. Later she married a
Palestinian Muslim.
to International Hillel leaders and the Berkeley Hillel Director regarding the
dire situation. They never received a reply!
Rather than condone such madness and clean house, the Hillel leadership
and “leaders” such as Daniel Sokatch [now the President of the New Israel
Fund, former CEO of the SF Jewish Federation (which, under his
leadership, funded the Rachel Corrie debacle co-sponsored by BDS
groups], covered up the situation at Hillel, and enabled it to continue.
After its exposure, Hillel’s Kesher Enoshi at Berkeley morphed into J Street
U. Simone Zimmerman became its leader and later the J Street U National
President. After graduating she helped found J Street’s IfNotNow.
The Berkeley Hillel Director, has been using his position and resources to
promote and advance J Street’s agenda. Despite the Jewish Student
Union’s (umbrella organization of Jewish students at UC Berkeley)
democratic decision not to include J Street U, due to its Israel-demonizing
events, the Hillel leader blatantly disregarded the students’ will and vote, and brought J Street into Hillel.
students to attend National J Street Conference in Washington DC.
Simone Zimmerman, and many other students have been brainwashed and
co-opted.
They are victims subjected to a systematic and very effective indoctrination
at the Campus Jewish Center presenting itself as “Home away from home.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The dire situation is metastasizing across
America. And the consequences are grave!
The writer, as a graduate student at UC Berkeley founded the Jewish Student Union and co-founded the
Israel Action Committee (IAC) there. He also served as chairman of the Israeli Students Organization in
North America and was on the executive board of the North American Jewish Students Network, the
umbrella organization of Jewish Students in North America. He is working on a film documenting the
subversion of the younger generation by J Street.
1a)DEMOCRACY IN TURMOIL
Melanie Phillips, Jerusalem Post
The West is convulsing over a crisis of democracy.This week, Austria’s far-right leader Norbert Hofer came within a whisker of being
elected the country’s president.Across Europe, neo-fascist parties are gaining traction. What’s driving their support is
a revolt against the entire political and cultural establishment which extends beyond
Europe’s borders.The reasons vary country by country.In Europe, it’s the scale of mass migration from the developing world and the fear of
Islamization.In Britain, concerns about the loss of national self-government as well as unsustainable
levels of European-linked immigration have provoked next month’s referendum on
continued EU membership.In America, widespread disgust with crony capitalism and a corresponding public
swing toward isolationism and protectionism have fueled both the persistent support
for Bernie Sanders and the unstoppable rise of Donald Trump.All these discontents share a common core: a revolt by the masses against an entire
political and cultural establishment now overwhelmingly seen as corrupt, self-serving,
arrogant, incompetent and unaccountable. It is a crisis for democracy itself.In a different context, a similar crisis is gripping Israel.The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, dumped his ally, the generally respected
defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, and replaced him with his foe, the generally reviled
Avigdor Liberman.This was because Ya’alon had spoken out in support of the deputy chief of staff, Maj.-
Gen. Yair Golan. In a speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day, Golan warned about
signs in Israeli society of “intolerance, violence and self-destruction.”He added: “If there is one thing that is scary in remembering the Holocaust, it is noticing
horrific processes which developed in Europe – particularly in Germany – 70, 80 and 90
years ago, and finding remnants of that here among us in the year 2016.”Netanyahu hit the roof, saying Golan’s remarks “wrong Israeli society and cheapen the
Holocaust.” Ya’alon said it was right and necessary for IDF officers to speak up for
moral values and was accordingly fired.Golan was correct in warning about a moral crisis, but not in the way he meant. The
crisis is over the meaning of Israeli democracy, and both he and Ya’alon are themselves
part of the problem.For sure, there are indeed disturbing trends in Israeli society. The violence of “hill-top
youth” or “price-tag” terrorists needs to be stamped out. Some attitudes toward Arabs
or Ethiopian Jews cross the line from legitimate concerns into bigotry.It is also troubling that so many Israelis, who are outraged by the prosecution for
manslaughter of Sgt. Elor Azaria after he shot dead an already wounded Palestinian
assailant, seem not to recognize any moral distinction between stopping an attack and
shooting in cold blood someone who poses no threat.
Maj.-Gen. Golan was, however, wrong to have publicly denigrated Israeli society, and
his Weimar/Nazi analogy was beyond the pale.Ya’alon was wrong in turn to say IDF officers should be free to say what they like. They
should not. Soldiers should be defending their country, not attacking it. As servants of a
unified national interest, they must be seen to be dispassionate and detached from the
wider public debate.Golan and Ya’alon, however, reflect a wider problem. The IDF and Israeli security
circles behave as a superior and untouchable elite that puts itself above democratically
elected politicians.In an extraordinary article in last weekend’s New York Times, the Israeli military
affairs journalist Ronen Bergman suggested the “last defenders of Israel” were the
heads of the IDF. Politicians, he wrote, “blatantly trample the state’s values and laws
and seek belligerent solutions, while the chiefs of the Israel Defense Forces and the
heads of the intelligence agencies try to calm and restrain them.”Israel’s defense establishment, he claimed, was motivated only by the national interest
rather than ideology, religion or electoral considerations.Above all, he said, many military and intelligence officers simply detested Netanyahu.According to the former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, while all other prime ministers had
been motivated ultimately by the national interest, Netanyahu was motivated by self-
interest alone.The arrogance and disloyal insubordination of such views are startling. As Bergman
notes in the same article, the unelected military and security establishment blocked one
government initiative after another, including an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.Far from defending the national interest, several of Israel’s most senior security
personnel actively undermine it. In the movie The Gatekeepers, a number of former
Shin Bet chiefs blamed successive governments for not having pulled out of the disputed
territories which, they claimed, would have ended the Arab war against Israel.Endorsing, by such demonstrable idiocies, the manipulative campaign of psychological
warfare against Israel and thus giving ammunition to its mortal enemies is nothing
short of treachery.
1b)
Abe Foxman on the Cancerous
State of Anti-Semitism
Former National Director of the Anti-Defamation
League: BDS movement challenges 'the very
legitimacy of Israel'
For Abe Foxman, it’s a case of same book, next chapter. After 50 years working for the Anti-Defamation
League—the last 28 as its National Director—Mr. Foxman turned the ADL’s reins over to former Obama
aide Jonathan Greenblatt last July. But the 76-year-old Mr. Foxman, American Jewry’s answer to the
Energizer Bunny, has now taken on a new project, spearheading the formation of a center for the study of
“anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred” at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City.
This is on top of his role as a Non-Resident Fellow at the Institute of National Security Studies in Tel Aviv,
and an unsurprisingly wide array of requests to speak, write and advise that are directed his way.
“Anti-Semitism is the mother of all prejudices,” Mr. Foxman says. “Not only is it not abating, but it is
increasing.”
Mr. Foxman’s successes in making the ADL a political force in Washington and a civic force in the nearly 30
regions in which it maintains offices around the country both reflected the upsurge in American Jewry’s
confidence in speaking out on its own behalf, and enhanced it. His ballsiness in challenging leaders and
institutions when he thought it warranted rankled many—and not only those at whom his ballsiness was
directed. But there was never any denying that he was prepared to speak his mind, or the mind of the
Jewish community, to anyone. And it was frequently evident that those facing an emerging conflict with Mr.
Foxman concluded that they needed a fight with Abe Foxman like they needed a hole in the head, and would
try to avert the hole in the head if possible.
For his part, Mr. Foxman used that leverage to massage, cajole, extract or bludgeon changes in
For his part, Mr. Foxman used that leverage to massage, cajole, extract or bludgeon changes in
government policy, or corporate behavior, or media coverage, on matters ranging from anti-Semitism to
Israel to LGBT rights to discrimination against minorities and immigrants. American Jews, so disposed to
disagree with one another if given half a chance, so inclined to believe they know better than anyone else,
could not help but notice Mr. Foxman’s willingness—and sometimes eagerness—to stake out a position on
matters consequential to them. It made American Jewish organizations, and American Jews individually and
collectively, stronger and more vibrant than they would have been had there never been an Abe Foxman to
watch in action over several decades.
Say what one will about Abe Foxman: He has never been faint of heart.
During his years as ADL’s head, Mr. Foxman served at times as the Great Explicator, interpreting Israel for
Americans and vice versa, here acting as a secret back-channel for either America or Israel with other
governments, there acting as a public prod, deploying a sui generis mixture of personal warmth, reproach,
familiarity, history lesson and toughness in order to advocate for what he regarded as the right result.
American leaders turned to Mr. Foxman when they wanted to take the temperature of American Jewry;
Israeli leaders turned to him when they wanted to know what American leaders were thinking. He has
known many on both sides for a long time, and it shows. Midway through a meeting with American Jewish
leaders in the Prime Minister’s office in July 2012, Benjamin Netanyahu, in obvious pain from a torn Achilles
tendon, visibly brightened when he spotted Mr. Foxman’s wife at the end of the conference room. “Hey,
Golda!” he blurted.
The Foxmans had known Netanyahu since he was a mid-level Israeli diplomat in the United States decades
earlier.Though for much of his tenure at the ADL the poison of anti-Semitism flowed largely from the far
right, Mr. Foxman says that that is no longer the case.“The clear and present danger comes from radical
Islam,” he says. “Islam has replaced Christianity as the principal source of anti-Semitism. The highest level
of anti-Semitism in the world is found in the Middle East. This is the function of a radical Islam that teaches
and preaches anti-Semitism.”
Mr. Foxman says that, at present, cancerous anti-Semitism is metastasizing from both political directions and
penetrating the mainstream. “You have it on the right, you have it on the left,” he says, “and it affects the
center.”
He is particularly troubled by the spread of anti-Semitism posing as something more innocent on American
college campuses, pointing to a 2015 incident at UCLA as emblematic of where things are headed. Rachel
Beyda, a second year economics major at UCLA who was seeking a position on the student council’s
Judicial Board, found herself at the receiving end of some unusual questioning.“Given that you are a Jewish
student and very active in the Jewish community,” a member of the Undergraduate Students Association
Council asked her, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?” The council first
rejected Ms. Beyda’s nomination before a faculty advisor intervened to point out that the line of questioning
was improper. But the toxic toothpaste had been let out of the tube for all to see.
“You wouldn’t ask an African-American student: ‘since you are African-American, how would you vote?’”
says Mr. Foxman, and neither the ugliness of the incident nor Mr. Foxman’s assessment of its implications
seems open to challenge. “Anti-Semitism today is the worst that it has been since World War II, regardless
of the inventory that you take, whether events or attitudes,” says Mr. Foxman flatly. “The prognoses of 50
years ago that anti-Semitism was gone, that Israel would be accepted as a normal nation among nations…
were wrong.” Mr. Foxman notes that the Israel-haters have gotten awfully good at sidestepping scrutiny of
who they are and what they stand for. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions groups that single out the
Jewish state—and could care less about countries whose human rights credentials can’t hold a candle to
Israel’s—indignantly deny their conduct is anti-Semitic. They have succeeded in neutralizing critics by
proclaiming that the last thing they are is anti-Semitic, even though what they are doing speaks loudly to the
contrary. It now seems that unless one states forthrightly: “You’re damn right I’m an anti-Semite” one will be
spared the appropriate critique.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, has a fairly clear view of the matter.
“If Israel is one of many countries they are boycotting then at least I know these groups may have some
principles by which they are judging Israel,” he says. “I would not call them anti-Semites. I would say they
are ignorant or misinformed, and that we need to educate them about the facts. But if these groups single
out Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, and are silent on all the egregious human rights
violators that exist throughout the world, then they are anti-Semites.”
Mr. Foxman concurs and, if anything, is even more blunt. The BDS movement “is an anti-Semitic movement.
You don’t have to ask me; ask the Pope,” he says, referring to Pope Francis’ statement a year ago that
“anyone who does not recognize… the State of Israel and [its] right to exist is guilty of anti-
Semitism.” He adds: “This is not a movement to change the policy of the Israeli government. It’s just not. It’s
a movement to challenge the very legitimacy of Israel.”
This is a point Mr. Foxman has hammered home for some time, and there is some evidence, at least, that it
is beginning to penetrate in some places. Earlier this week the 12 million member United Methodist Church
rejected a series of resolutions calling for divestment from companies doing business in Israel. The BDS
resolutions “pretty much went down in flames,” one member told Religion News Service. In January, the
American Historical Association rejected a resolution targeting Israel by more than a two-to-one margin, and
in February the students at McGill University in Montreal, long a center of anti-Israelism, rejected an anti-
Israel motion by 57 percent to 43 percent.
Between the pincer of anti-Semitism from the right and the left and the hand-to-hand combat being waged
over Israel on American campuses, it is not exactly a time for the faint of heart. Say what one will about Abe
Foxman: He has never been faint of heart. He knows that the outcome of the current battles will depend
heavily on who has the fortitude to fight them and, as always, he insists on doing his part.
Jeff Robbins served as Chief Counsel to the Democratic Senators on the United States Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Twice appointed as a United States Delegate to the United Nations
Human Rights Commission under President Clinton, he is an attorney in Boston
1c)
The Party’s Over for Pro-Israel
Dems
The names of those chosen to be on the Democratic Party platform committee were
Sanders was able to name five of the 15 members of the committee with Hillary Clinton
getting six and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
naming four. The group will have plenty to argue about as they decide just how far to the
left they will tilt as Democrats prepare for the general election. But it is also painfully
obvious that one of the clear points of disagreement will be about Israel and the
Palestinians. Three of Sanders’ picks are outspoken opponents of Israel. While there are
some clear supporters of the Jewish state among the others chosen, there are also others
who are deeply critical of Israel. It is not clear that such a group can possibly arrive at a
consensus and avoid a painful floor fight about how “even handed” Democrats will
claim to be about the Middle East conflict, we do know one thing, any pretense of this
being a pro-Israel party is now officially exploded.
The reports that the Sanders camp is planning on making demands that the platform
move away from the unambiguously pro-Israel document it has put forward at past
conventions were confirmed when we learned the names of the committee members his
campaign selected. They include: Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first
Muslim in Congress and a fierce critic of Israel though he does have good relations with
Minnesota’s Jewish community; James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute
and someone who has fought for many years to distance the Democrats from the Jewish
state; and academic Cornel West, an advocate for the BDS — boycott, divest, sanction —
movement that advocates for economic war on Israel in order to isolate and ultimately
destroy it.
Among Clinton’s picks was Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress
think tank, who is not an opponent of Israel per se but a fierce critic of the Netanyahu
government, even if her group did allow the prime minister to speak at one of their
events.
Wasserman Schultz chose the committee chair Representative Elijah Cummings of
Maryland as well as Representatives Howard Berman of California, both of whom are
generally considered strong friends of Israel and Jewish philanthropist Bonnie Schaefer.
But she also chose Rep. Barbara Lee of Texas who joined those ganging up against
Israel during the time of the 2008 conflict with Hamas. As JTA noted, the left-wing J
STREET lobby has endorsed all five of the members of the House that are on this
committee.
It would be wrong to prejudge what they will produce but suffice it to say with such a
group no one should expect their work to say anything about Jerusalem being Israel’s
capital or to note that Israel has already taken risks for peace and been repeatedly
rejected.
At best, such a committee will give the country a platform plank that will be, as Sanders
intends, one that puts democratic Israel on the same moral plane as the terror-
supporting Fatah kleptocrats of the Palestinian Authority and the Islamists of Hamas
who make no secret of their desire to eliminate the Jewish state and to commit genocide
against its people. Democrats will spin it as an approach that is pro-peace and
recognizes Israel’s right to exist alongside a Palestinian state, but it will almost certainly disingenuously label Israel as being as much to blame for the conflict as the terrorists
seeking to destroy it.
As for the Iranian nuclear threat, we already knew that Democrats regard support for
President Obama’s policy of appeasement of that regime. There was never any doubt
about the platform supporting a pact that ensured Iran would not only get international
approval for its nuclear program but would be able to get a bomb within a decade after it
expired since President Obama made the deal a partisan litmus test. But the presence
of Wendy Sherman — chief administration negotiator with the Iranians as well as the
architect of Bill Clinton’s failed nuclear deal with North Korea and a Hillary Clinton
choice — on the committee is an interesting touch.
All of which should leave pro-Israel Democrats wondering whether they stand in their
party.
Over the last 40 years as Republicans have switched from being the party that was
ambivalent about Israel to the one where support for it was nearly universal. At the same
time, the growing influence of the left led many Democrats to drift away from a position
of strong support for the Jewish state. During this period, pro-Israel Democrats have
taken umbrage at the effort of Republicans to use their party’s stands on this issue to
persuade Jewish voters to abandon their longtime political home. They branded such
discussions as an illegitimate attempt to turn Israel into a political football and dismissed
the notion that Democrats could no longer be relied upon to back the Jewish state, even though
the presence of opponents of Israel grew within their ranks. Congressional Democrats'
decision to choose to back President Obama on Iran rather than to stand with the pro-
Israel community was the culmination of this process.
In that sense, the composition of a platform committee is a minor affair that merely
confirms what we all already knew. But the point about the platform is that up until now
Democrats still cared enough about being perceived as friends of the Jewish state that
they still bothered to write a document every four years that, at least on paper,
reconfirmed their position as a pro-Israel party.
Given the number of adamant opponents of Israel on the committee, we know there can
be no plank about the conflict that will not place the party at odds with what has been a
bi-partisan consensus on the issue. Moreover, if the Sanders forces are not satisfied with
what will already be a departure from past stands, then the Clinton camp can have no
confidence that an attempt to tilt the party even more towards the Palestinians will fail
on the convention floor. As I noted yesterday, the spectacle of the will of the majority of
the delegates being thwarted by party officials intent on passing a pro-Israel document
won’t be repeated.
That means that although they may find the GOP alternative to be so repulsive that it
gives them no choice but to stick with their party, pro-Israel Democrats must, if they are
honest, now admit they are no longer a clear majority within their party. Sanders and
the far left may not yet be in complete charge of the Democrats, but their influence is
undeniable and increasingly decisive.
Democrats may argue, as Sanders does, that even-handed doesn’t mean anti-Israel. But
in practice, as Sanders illustrated this spring when he not only wrongly blasted Israeli
efforts at self-defense as “disproportionate” but also made wild, exaggerated claims of
Israeli killing civilians that show his mindset. It is one thing to be “pro-Israel and pro-
peace” as J Street claims to be or even to assert that appeasement of Iran is in Israel’s
interests. But it is quite another to have prominent Israel-bashers and BDS advocates
among those in charge of declaring where the party stands on important issues.
The Democrats have ceased to be a pro-Israel party and become one where Israel-haters
are not only welcomed but given honor and power. If they are honest, pro-Israel
Democrats must understand that they are on their way out in their old political home.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that’s one of the clear outcomes of the 2016 campaign is
in a state of denial.
1d)
Soros-Backed Group Funded
Obama's Media Push on Iran
Nuclear Deal
Deputy National Security Adviser For Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
A left-wing foundation linked to the Obama administration gave hundreds of thousands
of dollars to several left-wing groups and news outlets -- including National Public Radio
-- to promote the Iran nuclear deal.
The Ploughshares Fund, established in 1981, describes itself as follows:
[A] public grant-making foundation that supports initiatives to prevent the spread
and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and other weapons of war,
and to prevent conflicts that could lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Ploughshares opposes America's development of a missile defense system, and has expressed sympathy with the Iranian regime. They are funded by, among others:
-- Carnegie Corporation of New York
-- Ford Foundation--Minneapolis Foundation-- George Soros’s Open Society Institute
The Ploughshares Fund partners with a roster of well-known anti-American groups,
such as:
-- Code Pink
-- Demos-- United for Peace & Justice-- U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
The recent New York Times profile of Obama adviser Ben Rhodes named
Ploughshares Fund as a key surrogate responsible for creating the media "echo
chamber" that promoted the Iranian nuclear deal and shot down fact-based
criticism of it.
According to Ploughshares' annual report, it gave $100,000 last year to NPR "to help it
report on the pact and related issues." And since 2005, they have given the federally
funded broadcaster at least $700,000.
Via AP:
In the New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran's nuclearactivity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.
"We created an echo chamber," said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser,
adding that "outside groups like Ploughshares" helped carry out the
administration's message effectively.
While there is a disturbing trend of outside groups giving money to news organizations
for special projects or even news coverage, the AP notes that most news organizations
have rules that protect journalistic independence.
Yet it found Ploughshares' backing "more unusual, given its prominent role in the
rancorous, partisan debate over the Iran deal":
The Ploughshares grant to NPR supported "national security reporting that
emphasizes the themes of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and budgets, Iran's
nuclear program, international nuclear security topics and U.S. policy toward
nuclear security," according to Ploughshares' 2015 annual report, recently
published online.
reported stories," Ploughshares spokeswoman Jennifer Abrahamson said. Funding"It is common practice for foundations to fund media coverage of under
"does not influence the editorial content of their coverage in any way, nor would we want
it to."
Ploughshares has funded NPR's coverage of national security since 2005, the
radio network said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over
that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran.
In a statement to the AP, NPR denied any wrongdoing:
It's a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our
specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security,
nuclear policy, and nonproliferation. As with all support received, we have a
rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent
and is not influenced by funders or special interests.
Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas is questioning the independence of NPR's
coverage on the Iran nuclear deal. Pompeo says he repeatedly asked NPR to allow him
on the air to be interviewed as a counterweight to a Democratic supporter of the
agreement who regularly appeared on the station:
NPR refused to put Pompeo on the air, he said. The station said it had no record
of Pompeo's requests, and listed several prominent Republicans who were
featured speaking about the deal or economic sanctions on Iran.
Another who appeared on NPR is Joseph Cirincione, Ploughshares' president. He
spoke about the negotiations on air at least twice last year. The station identified Ploughshares as an NPR funder one of those times; the other time, it didn't.
Other media outlets have taken money from Ploughshares, including the Guardian,
Salon, Huffington Post and Pro Publica. AP reports that the Ploughshares Fund also
gave money to individual reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones to generate news coverage, and that other groups Ploughshares funded last year include:
The Arms Control Association ($282,500); the Brookings Institution($225,000); the
Atlantic Council ($182,500); the liberal Jewish political action group J-Street
($576,500) and the National Iranian American Council($281,000).
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is the Iranian regime’s principal lobbyist
in the United States.Emails produced during the discovery phase of a defamation
lawsuit -- brought by top NIAC official Trita Parsi -- revealed in 2012 that Parsi had been
visiting the Obama White House since 2009. Parsi consulted with Valerie Jarrett, briefed
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even delivered lectures to the CIA.
The NIAC, in turn, has used the services of ultra left-wing public relations firm Fenton Communications to help it convey an anti-sanctions message to the American public.
Fenton Communications promoted the Alar scare and other bogus health scares, and
was behind the infamous “General Betray Us” ad in 2007 attacking General Petraeus.
The firm is also very active in promoting climate change propaganda.
Months after it went into effect, it has become clear that the Obama White House used
sinister and nefarious means to sell the unpopular Iranian nuke deal.
Sadly, Obama's willing dupes in the media were apparently more than "happy to be
managed" by him.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
2)
Thanks to Obama, the terrorist cancer is growing
We still do not know who or what is responsible for the crash of EgyptAir Flight 804, but we know this much
for certain: The terrorist danger is growing, and it won’t be contained to the Mediterranean.
Responding to criticism of President Obama’s handling of terrorism, White House press secretary Josh
Earnest boasted Thursday of all the setbacks the Islamic State has experienced in recent months, noting
that in Iraq “45 percent of the populated area that ISIL previously controlled has been retaken from them. In
Syria, that figure is now 20 percent.”
That’s like a patient who ignored a cancer diagnosis bragging that he finally reduced the tumor in his lung —
glossing over the fact that he let it spread and metastasize to his other organs. If he had attacked the Islamic
State cancer early, Obama could have stopped it from spreading in the first place. But instead, he dismissed
the terrorist group as the “JV team” that was “engaged in various local power struggles and disputes” and
did not have “the capacity and reach of a bin Laden” and did not pose “a direct threat to us.” He did nothing,
while the cancer grew in Syria and then spread in Iraq.
Now the cancer has spread and metastasized across the world.
According to a recent CNN analysis, since declaring its caliphate in 2014, the Islamic State has carried out
90 attacks in 21 countries outside of Iraq and Syria that have killed 1,390 people and injured more than
2,000 others. The Islamic State has a presence in more than a dozen countries and has declared
“provinces” in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Post
reported in 2015 that “since the withdrawal of most U.S. and international troops in December, the Islamic
State has steadily made inroads in Afghanistan” where it has “poured pepper into the wounds of their
enemies . . . seared their hands in vats of boiling oil . . . blindfolded, tortured and blown apart [villagers] with
explosives buried underneath them.”
On the day an EgyptAir plane carrying 66 people disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea, White House
press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that investigators will look into all "potential factors that may
have contributed to this tragedy." (White House)
And while the Islamic State spreads and grows, al-Qaeda is making a comeback. Obama is touting the killing
of Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour as “an important milestone,” but the truth is that the Taliban
has made major military gains in Afghanistan — and that has opened the door to al-Qaeda. The Post
reported in October that “American airstrikes targeted what was ‘probably the largest’ al-Qaeda training
camp found in the 14-year Afghan war.” Sounds good except for one small problem: There were no major
al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan when Obama took office. Now it is once again training terrorists in the land
where it trained operatives for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Al-Qaeda has also regained lost ground in Yemen, the country where it trained and deployed the underwear
bomber who nearly blew up a plane bound for Detroit in 2009. And as a recent report from the Institute for
the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project notes, the “Syrian al Qaeda
affiliate Jabhat al Nusra poses one of the most significant long-term threats of any Salafi-jihadi group” and
“is much more dangerous to the U.S. than the ISIS model in the long run.”
Overall, Gen. Jack Keane recently testified that al-Qaeda has “grown fourfold in the last five years.”
We’re lying to ourselves if we think that the violence we are witnessing is going to be confined to the Middle
East . . . or South Asia . . . or North Africa . . . or Europe. It is only a matter of time before the Islamic State
and al-Qaeda bring this violence here to our shores.
Indeed, in many ways we face a situation far more dangerous and complex than we did before Sept. 11,
2001. Before 9/11, we largely faced a danger from one terrorist network (al-Qaeda) with safe haven in one
nation (Afghanistan). Today, we face danger from multiple terrorist networks with safe havens in a dozen or
more countries.
Moreover, we face something we have never seen before: two terrorist networks — the Islamic State and al-
Qaeda — competing with each other for the hearts of the jihadi faithful and the backing of jihadi financiers.
The way to win that competition is to be the first to carry out a catastrophic attack here in the United States.
When it came to terrorist networks, the George W. Bush administration had a mantra: We’re going to fight
them over there so that we do not have to face them here at home. Obama abandoned that mantra. And
now the danger is getting closer to home with each passing day
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment