;
a
Those who complain about their lot .
+++Absolutely Inspirational - should be compulsory viewing for everyone - what a humbling experience!
========================================================================
Just returned from wedding of our grandson in Nashville. It was an understated weekend event and Kevin and Andy (Andrea) planned it all and did a great job. They are now in the Caribbean on their honeymoon.
We came back by way of a two day stop off in North Carolina being with friends who own summer homes in the region.
===
This memo will consist of a collection of items I noted while I was away and I am posting with very little commentary.
My next memo will be devoted to personal comments and a theory that has been rolling around in my head.
+++
An article about the heightened media bias and its danger. (See 1 below.)
(Remember when Hillary was calling out Trump for having his ties made out of the country?
Quote from Bryan Crabtree at "The Hill" - "Clinton was wearing one of her pantsuits which range in price from $3000 - $15,000, usually made by Armani, Ralph Lauren and Susanna ... Beverly Hills...clothing from designers who manufacture most of theirs in China, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka." )
===
Obviously I was not there when these comments by Hillary were made but they have been quoted in "italics" in several books and I submit go to the matter of temperament.
As previously noted, I play tennis with a former Secret Service Agent who served three presidents and, though he will not go into detail, he has given me some insights into Hilary's behaviour and attitude regarding those who protected her as well as her relationship with her husband. (See 2 below.)
and: https://youtu.be/BdNHf1g4ivA
Finally, let's have a look at Bill's military record. (See 2a below.)
===
Interesting commentary on the "Ransom" money episode that we are told was not Ransom.
Obama's arrogance knows no bounds. (See 3 below.)
===
Israel,without the help of the U.N, has settled millions of refugees. UNRWA has received billions to take care of displaced Palestinians and get them integrated back into their own society. This has been an on going effort for over 60 plus years. I have written about this before. These Palestinians serve as political pawns and they are job security for those who work for UNRWA. Sixty more years from now they will remain refugees and UNRWA will still be involved and our tax dollars will continue to fund this fraud.
https://youtu.be/YGJajyjMCbs
And then another fraud. (See 4 below.)
===
A dear liberal friend of mine, who does not get my memos, cannot understand how I could vote for Trump in view of Hillary's experience.
I responded as follows: If Hillary had a driver's license and had been driving for thirty years that would suggest she was experienced but then if we checked her record and found she had many crashes, several DUI's and rear end accidents that would be evidence of the results of her ten years of experience. I told him that is how I feel about his argument and I would rest my case accordingly. He had no response so we continued eating our dinner. (See 5 below.)
+++
Caroline Glick continues her distrust of Obama and calls his hand for his continuing bashing of Israel. (See 6 below)
and , Hillary follows her boss. (See 6a below.)
===
If you are white and French, black things may happen to you: https://www.youtube.com/embed/
+++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Clinton vs. Trump? No, It’s the Media vs. America
By Selwyn Duke
Liberal media bias has long been an open secret. But now it’s so bad that even a liberal mainstream newspaper notes that, in an effort to destroy Donald Trump, the media have jumped the shark.
In a Los Angeles Times piece, columnist Justin Raimondo writes that to “fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity”; he then asks, “Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?” He also theorizes that the pro-Hillary Clinton bias has become so blatant it may actually backfire on the media.
As his first example, Raimondo cites how the media present out of context Trump’s statement that the Russians should release Clinton’s 30,000 “lost” e-mails, portraying an obvious joke as dangerous encouragement of foreign espionage. On this count Raimondo makes a good point, though: If the e-mails are all “personal,” as Clinton has maintained, how could they threaten national security?
Nonetheless, the media casts Trump as “a kind of Manchurian candidate,” as Raimondo puts it, “in what was once called red-baiting.” Yet this smacks of projection. Consider that former Bill Clinton political hit man Larry Nichols revealed in 2015 that the first time he met Hillary, she was wearing a medal around her neck stating, “Proud member of the American Communist Party” (videohere; forward to 6:07). Also note, the Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Russian sources, and many allege that these monies essentially were bribes in exchange for access to American technological secrets and for a huge portion of the United States' uranium stockpile. This, not to mention that our country is in many respects now more “red” than Russia — largely due to the machinations of Clinton and her fellow travelers.
Even more strikingly, the media have engaged in outright collusion with Democrat operatives. As Raimondo reports:
DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?
The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.
Yet it must be pointed out that, contrary to Raimondo’s assertion, media rules aren’t being rewritten; written long ago, they’re just more devoutly embraced with each succeeding media degeneration. For example:
• In 2004, famed newsman Dan Rather’s career was ended when it was discovered that he had peddled forged documents purporting to show that President George W. Bush had shirked his Texas Air National Guard duties in the 1960s and 1970s.
• In 2010, there was the JournoList Scandal, involving an online meeting place in which journalists would conspire to slant the news; this proved that not all media bias was unintentional.
• The media happily reported the claim that WWII-era pontiff Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.” Yet they just as happily ignored an even bigger story: the 2007 revelation that the allegation was a malicious fabrication promoted by a Soviet disinformation campaign.
• While the media can’t let go of the Catholic Church sex scandal, they ignore the child sex abuse in government schools, a phenomenon a federally funded study found was 100 times the magnitude of the church scandal. In fact, the researchers evaluated a certain time period and discovered that California’s 61 biggest newspapers ran 2,000 stories about the church scandal but onlyfour about the school scandal.
• The media gratuitously report stories of police shootings of black criminal suspects, despite these occurrences having declined 75 percent during the last few decades. Yet while the police not only shoot more whites but, according to studies, are actually more likely to do so, such events are never widely publicized. This lends the illusion that blacks are under assault, creates racial unrest, and has led to the “retaliatory” murder of cops.
• In 2012, NBC heavily doctored George Zimmerman’s 911 call in a manner many describe as malicious, as it did a cut-and-paste job that made him appear bigoted.
The above is, of course, just a short list. In addition, there’s also the “everyday” bias, such as calling statist politicians with anti-immigration policies (e.g., France’s Marine Le Pen) “right-wing” while refusing to call socialists such as Francois Hollande left-wing; branding semi-automatic rifles “assault weapons”; and labeling pro-life people “anti-abortion” and pro-abortion people “pro-choice.” And then there’s social-media bias, which is just as profound and which I reported on here and here.
And this bias has a devastating effect. The media are the people’s conduit of information, and how can Americans make the right decisions regarding politicians and policies if they’re given misinformation? As with a computer, it’s garbage in, garbage out.
And what is the nature of the political litterbugs? In his 2011 book Left Turn, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose quotes “a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent,” writesU.S. News. The site continues:
As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass — a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see."
He adds: "That bias makes us more liberal, which makes us less able to detect the bias, which allows the media to get away with more bias, which makes us even more liberal."
And this sways elections. As Groseclose also wrote, "Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent [in 2008], instead of losing 53-46."
I’ve often quipped that the Democrats have the world’s most effective public-relations team: the U.S. media. And what of Raimondo’s theory that their now bare-naked bias may inspire a backlash that elects Trump? Such a phenomenon would likely just diminish, but not completely negate, the Democrat-buttressing effects of media manipulation. With only six percent of Americans approving of the media, though, Trump would be wise to portray himself as the opponent of this fourth estate-cum-fifth column. It’s morally fitting, too, to run against a group that is running against America.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)EIGHT QUOTES
BY HILLARY CLINTONFROM DIFFERENT BOOKS:Her actual words:1)"Where is the God damn flag?I want the God damn fucking flag up every morningat fucking sunrise".Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansionon Labor Day 1991.From the book "Inside the White House"by Ronald Kessler, p. 244(2)“Fuck off!It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day!I'm not going to talk to you, too!Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut"Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning."From the book "America Evita"by Christopher Anderson, p.90(3)"If you want to remain on this detail,get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!"Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands freein case of an incident.From the book "The First Partner" p. 25(4)"Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me!Don't come within ten yards of me, or else!Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?"Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.From the book "Unlimited Access"by Clinton’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139(5)"Where's the miserable cock sucker?"(otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”)Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.From the book "The Truth about Hillary"by Edward Klein, p. 5(6)"You fucking idiot"Hillary to a State Trooperwho was driving her to an event.From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84(7)"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.I need those fucking sunglasses!We need to go back!Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn backwhile in route to Air Force One.From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-728.((cool))"Come on Bill, put your dick up!You can't fuck her here!!"Hillary to Gov. Bill Clintonwhen she spots him talking with an attractive female.From the book "Inside the White House"by Ronald Kessler, p. 243There it is ........book, chapter and page.......the real Hillary……Additionally, when she walked around the White House,NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye,they all had to lower their heads with their eyestowards the ground whenever she walked by.Clearly she is a class act......!This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth,hateful and abusive womanwants to be your next President,and have total control as Commander-in-Chiefof our Military,the very Military for which she has shownincredible disdain throughout her public life .Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi:“What difference at this point does it make?”Most recent of her outbursts was to Obamawhen she learned that the FBI was investigating her:"Call off your fucking dogs".Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft,"Broomstick ONE"
2a) BILL CLINTON'S AMAZING MILITARY CAREER
Oh! You didn't know he had a military career?
Bill and Hillary got a combined $20 million for their to-be written memoirs.
Here's some help for them since their memories are getting old.
Here's some help for them since their memories are getting old.
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964,
accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the
draft. Selective Service Number is 326 46 228.
accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the
draft. Selective Service Number is 326 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States
Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of COL. E. Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University
of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment
with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now
AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2) (a) -
registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction.
with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now
AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2) (a) -
registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction.
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,
1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for
induction is INELIGIBLE!
1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for
induction is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under Public Law 90-40.
under Public Law 90-40.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
fugitive from justice.
fugitive from justice.
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Carter.
Bill Clinton becomes the FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve
as President of the United States.
as President of the United States.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been
refuted by Clinton.
laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been
refuted by Clinton.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton
promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
Military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed
19 and injured 200 U.S. Military personnel, Clinton promised that
those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
19 and injured 200 U.S. Military personnel, Clinton promised that
those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. Embassies in Africa, which killed 224
and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.
and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured
39 U.S. Sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible be hunted
down and punished.
39 U.S. Sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible be hunted
down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people
in New York and Washington , DC , and Pennsylvania who are now dead
would be alive today.
in New York and Washington , DC , and Pennsylvania who are now dead
would be alive today.
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall
anything about past events while under oath.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall
anything about past events while under oath.
Sincerely,
Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++3) The Mendacity Behind Obama's Mockery of the Cash-for-Iran Story
"It is not at all clear to me why it is that cash, as opposed to a check or wire transfer, has made this into a news story."
-- President Barack Obama, Pentagon Press Conference, August 4, 2016
Thus did President Obama scold those who are now asking why his administration secretly airlifted $400 million worth of cash to Iran this past January, just as Iran was releasing four American prisoners. By Obama's account, there's nothing to see here. Not only did Obama deny, despite the striking coincidence of timing, that the payment was a ransom. He also mocked anyone who might see the story of the cash itself as troubling news, or newsworthy at all. Obama dismissed such reactions as "the manufacturing of outrage in a story that we disclosed in January."
Welcome, once again, to the vertigo of the Obama "narrative," in which the priority of his "most transparent" administration is not to deal honestly with the American public, but to spin a web of half truths, enmeshed in complexities, to cover up highly questionable uses of power -- and then, if caught red-handed, use the bully pulpit to deride and dismiss the critics.
In this case, the thrust of Obama's remarks was to write off the story of the cash shipment to Iran as a bit of out-dated trivia, the sort of thing no serious person would care about. At his Pentagon press conference on Thursday, he went on to speculate that maybe the tale is generating interest simply because it is colorful to picture pallets of cash: "Maybe because it feels like some spy novel or some crime novel."
Yes, it does. But there are reasons that spy and crime novels -- plus a fair number of felony cases in U.S. courts -- are prone to feature such episodes as stacks of cash delivered secretly to the bad guys. Such behavior reeks of shady activity. Cash is highly fungible, and harder to trace than checks or wire transfers. (A word to the wise: If you ever find yourself making a multi-million dollar payment to someone, and he asks for it in stacks of cash, you might want to walk away.)
For a government, such as Iran's regime -- world's leading state sponsor of terrorism -- cash lends itself less to financing national infrastructure (the use to which the administration suggests it has likely been put) than to funding terrorists and pursuing illicit weapons. Whatever Iran's regime might be doing in the way of sewer and road repair, its demonstrated priorities include its continued testing of ballistic missiles, in violation of UN sanctions. The prime use of ballistic missiles is to carry nuclear warheads -- which suggests that Iran's likely intent is, at a moment of its choosing, to scrap Obama's vaunted Iran nuclear deal (on which Iran is already cheating). As far as that entails buying weapons and technology from, say, nuclear-testing North Korea, or procuring illicit inputs on world markets, hard cash is a big help.
Obama's justification for sending the $400 million installment in cash is that the U.S., due to its strict sanctions on Iran, has no banking relationship with the country -- thus the air-freighted pallets of banknotes. Except that doesn't add up. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey asks: "How come the U.S. did not simply transfer the $400 million we are told actually belonged to Iran to a foreign entity, to be converted into foreign funds for conventional banking transmission to Tehran?"
It's also disturbing that Obama's administration still seems unable or unwilling to officially disgorge such basic information -- relevant to the accusation of ransom -- as precisely what time, on what date, the $400 million worth of cash arrived in Tehran. Nor has Obama's administration disclosed how or when it conveyed to Iran a further $1.3 billion payout, which was part of the same deal. Was it sent by check? By wire? Or were there yet more pallets of money delivered door-to-door to Tehran?
One might almost suppose Obama knows quite well that cash shipments to Tehran are actually a very big story. A story that quite reasonably raises glaring questions about his dealings with Iran, and the integrity of the narrative he offers the public.
What's now clear is that Obama misled the public months ago, with an artfully crafted tale -- omitting any mention of all that colorful cash. On Jan. 17, the same Saturday that Iran freed the American prisoners, Obama delivered a long statement, celebrating the formal implementation a day earlier of the Iran nuclear deal. In the same statement, Obama announced as if it were a separate issue -- "a second major development" -- that "several Americans unjustly detained by Iran are finally coming home." Framing this strictly as a prisoner swap, Obama added that "in a reciprocal gesture" seven Iranians charged or convicted of crimes in the U.S. were being released (he neglected to add that the U.S. was also dropping extradition requests for another 14 Iranians).
Then, as if turning to yet another, independent issue, Obama mentioned the payment to Iran, but without naming any actual amount, or time frame, or how the funds would be conveyed. He said, "the third piece of work that we got done this weekend involved the United States and Iran resolving a financial dispute that dated back more than three decades." Obama advertised this settlement as a terrific deal for America, while omitting entirely such eye-catching specifics as the information that he had directly approved a $1.7 billion payout to Iran, starting with a $400 million airborne stash of cash that we now know was touching down in Tehran within hours -- give or take -- of his public remarks.
Instead, Obama announced the payment in generic terms, further smoothing over the implications by using the passive voice: "Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount sought."
To the extent Obama used his high-profile podium to name any particular sum, he mentioned not the payout, but his rough estimate, purely hypothetical, that this deal might ultimately save America money. He said (the italics, highlighting the speculative nature of his statement, are mine): "For the United States, this settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran." Obama then used that bait-and-switch bit of guesswork about "billions" in savings to justify the timing: "So there was no benefit to the United States in dragging this out."
Actually, it's far from clear that there would have been no benefit to dragging out any settlement. Four previous American presidents had already dragged it out, quite rightly postponing the day that terror-sponsoring Iran might get its hands on a payout. But not Obama.
Obama deflected to Secretary of State John Kerry the job of handling the public "messaging" about the actual sum the U.S. had agreed to pay Iran, which totalled $1.7 billion. On that same day of Obama's statement, and Iran's prisoner release, Jan. 17, Kerry put out a press statement saying the U.S. and Iran had settled a dispute over roughly $400 million paid by Iran long ago, under the Shah, for a U.S. arms deal that fell through after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. Kerry described the agreement as if it were relatively routine, saying it was: "the latest in a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal." Citing "litigation risk" as the reason the Obama administration had chosen to settle this dispute that dated back well over three decades, Kerry said Iran would receive the $400 million plus "a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest."
Like Obama, Kerry made no mention of how or when or where any payment might take place. Instead, the Obama administration stonewalled relevant questions from Congress and the press, for months.
Finally, this week, The Wall Street Journal's Jay Solomon and Carole E. Lee broke the news of the secret Obama-approved cash airlift in mid-January to Iran. Their storyincluded such details as the U.S. government swapping 400 million U.S. dollars into euros, Swiss francs and other currency via the Dutch and Swiss central banks, loading the cash on pallets and flying the loot to Tehran's Mehrabad Airport aboard an unmarked cargo plane. The Journal cited a report from an Iranian news site close to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Tasnim agency, which said the cash arrived on the same day the American prisoners left, Jan. 17.
Forced to admit that the cash shipment took place, the Obama administration now appears to be having great difficulties locating information on what time the cargo plane landed in Tehran -- before or after the American prisoners took off? Asked about this at a press briefing on Thursday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner replied: "I don't believe we've gotten clarity on that."
There's also no clarity to date on how the Obama administration handled the payout to Iran of the additional $1.3 billion in interest. On Thursday The Wall Street Journal reported that "administration officials said the remaining $1.3 billion was later paid out of a fund used to pay judgments and settlements of claims against the U.S." But the Journal story included no information on how or when the U.S. made that additional payment, most likely because the administration won't say. Also this Thursday, the New York Times reported: "White House officials have declined to say whether the rest of the $1.7 billion payment (including $1.3 billion in interest) was also made in cash."
Where does that leave us?
1. For all Obama's denials and derision of his critics, the $400 million payment in January sure looks like a ransom, a cash-for-captives deal that can only encourage Iran to imprison more Americans -- which it has already done.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. If indeed there was a quid pro quo, and if the Iranians have any evidence of that, then Obama's denial that he paid any ransom opens the door to Iranian blackmail of the administration over this payola.3. The U.S. airlift of cash to Tehran quite likely sends a signal to the world that those strict U.S. sanctions need not deter others from airlifting into Iran crates, or pallets, of cash, which can then be used for Iran's terrorist and military ventures. The U.S. government itself has set the example.4. If there was nothing wrong with Obama's $1.7 billion settlement with Iran, and his administration's handling of the payments, then why won't his office provide full information about the logistics, for both the $400 million and the additional $1.3 billion, and answer in good faith the questions of Congress and the press?5. Finally, there's the ugly matter of Obama belittling anyone who might question or criticize his cash payola for Iran. That shows an utter disregard for his own promises of transparency, and gross disrespect for the American public. It's terrible policy for an American president to secretly ship $400 million -- or is it by now $1.7 billion? -- worth of cash to the terror-sponsoring ballistic-missile-testing Islamic Republic of Iran. It's even worse when the president, caught out by the press, chooses to defend himself by denigrating the reporters, and his fellow citizens generally, as sensation-seeking fools. The best retort by now, no matter what the presidential mockery, is don't stop following the money.
4)Obama’s Iran deal is a fraud top to bottom
By Amir Taheri
It now seems certain that there really was no deal: Obama merely danced around the nuclear issue.
What he wanted was a smoke screen behind which he could help the Iranian theocracy negotiate its way out of a severe political and economic crisis in exchange for endorsing Obama’s claim that he had prevented “yet another war” in the Middle East. He wanted a photo op with another long-time enemy of the US, another Nobel Prize — or at least justification for the one he already has.
He failed on all fronts.
“Iran’s nuclear program remains intact,” asserts Ali-Akbar Saleh, the man who heads the Iran Atomic Energy Agency. “We have done nothing that could not be undone with the turn of a screw.”
To hammer in the point further, Iran recently tested a new generation of missiles which, because of their long range and small payload, only make sense if they carry nuclear warheads.
In exchange for vague promises, Obama has solved the Islamic Republic’s cash-flow problem by releasing unknown quantities of frozen assets. At least some of those assets took the form of hard cash flown to Tehran via Beirut in sealed safes, all in secret. Part of the cash, the Wall Street Journal revealed, appears to have been $400 million for the release of four hostages held by the mullahs — disregarding United States policy not to pay ransom. Iran wasted no time seizing six new American hostages.
In fact, since its inception in 1979, the mullahs’ regime has not spent a single day without at least one American hostage.
A lump sum of $1.7 billion from assets frozen under President Jimmy Carter went straight into the budget of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to help it upgrade its adventures in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
This time last year, President Hassan Rouhani was talking of “the greatest diplomatic victory in the history of Islam” while Islamic Security was busy organizing “spontaneous demonstrations” to mark the triumphal moment. Rouhani’s entourage was spreading rumors that he may be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, while his brother, Hussein Fereidoun, supervised the erection of the president’s bust in their native village of Sorkheh.
For its part, the Obama administration conducted an elaborate hoax to sell the Congress, the media and, beyond them, the public at large a bill of goods which was to be exposed by the president’s own advisers a few months later.
This year, of course, there were no “spontaneous demonstrations” and, if the reports we get are correct, no one is even cleaning the graffiti left by pigeons on the president’s triumphal bust in Sorkheh.
Rouhani had promised that the “deal” would mark the start of a new era of economic prosperity and international acceptability. To keep that myth alive, he traveled to a dozen capitals, some in the West, and played host to dignitaries from some 60 different countries, who rushed to Tehran as if it were the new Eldorado. To give the hyped comings and goings a simulacrum of substance, Rouhani and his entourage announced putative trade agreements with 30 countries worth more than $400 billion. A year later, not a single one of those “announcements” had been elevated to the level of a real contract.
Instead, Tehran has signed a series of contracts to buy more weapons from Russia. Rouhani is preparing to meet Vladimir Putin on Aug. 8 to discuss “joint efforts to stabilize the Middle East,” according to Tehran media.
However, not everyone fell for the elaborate hoax worked out by Obama. Some of us noted right from the start that the only deal made was about the method of circumventing the US Congress and the Iranian ersatz parliament (Majlis).
Once the hoax was exposed, Obama and his “New York Boys” in Tehran — Iranian politicians who were largely educated in the US, many of whom served at Iran’s UN office in New York, and were considered to be “reformers’’ — tried to promote a new narrative. They were going to transform Iran from an international pariah into a “constructive partner” for the United States.
The second act was to produce a crushing victory for the New York Boys, their strings pulled by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s faction, giving them control of the Assembly of Experts and the Islamic Consultative Assembly.
When elections did take place, the hoped-for second act turned out quite differently. While there were signals that many voters were fed up with the whole caboodle of the Khomeinist regime, there was no indication that the New York Boys had secured a constituency of their own.
The third act was supposed to see the New York Boys reining in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and starting to change the Islamic Republic’s behavior. John Kerry, the US secretary of state and one of the most totally clueless diplomats I have seen in 50 years of journalism, believed that his 100-plus meetings with Muhammad Javad Zarif, one of the “New York Boys” acting as foreign minister for the mullahs, would transform the Khomeinist wolf into a lamb.
A year after the hyped-up “deal,” what was known in Western chancelleries as “The Iran Problem” remains intact. In Tehran we have a regime that cannot liberate itself from its dangerous illusions and continues to behave like a rebellious teenager who refuses to grow up.
It tries to make the rest of the Middle East like itself because it is afraid of being forced to become like the rest of the Middle East.
Obama simply kicked the ticking can down the road for his successor.
Obama’s trompe-l’oeil “deal” was to open the way for a photo-op blitz-visit to Tehran in his last year as president, the same way he visited Cuba.
That is not going to happen. “Barack in Iran” isn’t the new “Nixon in China” — “A Tale of Two Liars” is more accurate.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)The Clinton White House Years
By Kent Larsen
6) Discrimination to advance the cause of 'peace'?
By Caroline B. Glick
Why did the Obama administration decide to escalate its attacks against Israel last week? What was the purpose of the State Department’s shockingly hostile assault last Wednesday following the Israel Land’s Authority’s announcement that it is publishing tenders to build 323 apartment units in Jerusalem’s Gilo, Har Homa, Pisgat Zeev and Neveh Ya’acov neighborhoods? The statement needs to be seen to be believed.
“We are deeply concerned by reports today that the government of Israel has published tenders for 323 units in East Jerusalem settlements. This follows Monday’s announcement of plans for 770 units in the settlement of Gilo,” it began.
“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace. These steps by Israeli authorities are the latest examples of what appears to be a steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.”
The Americans then attacked Israel for advancing plans to build in Judea and Samaria. The projects now on the table involve building apartments in the city of Ma’aleh Adumim and in Kiryat Arba and authorizing the already constructed Amona neighborhood in Ofra. The statement attacked Israel for enforcing its land laws toward non-Jews.
“We are also concerned about recent increased demolitions of Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children....”
Finally, it concluded, “This is part of an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict. We remain troubled that Israel continues this pattern of provocative and counter-productive action, which raises serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”
Elliott Abrams, who was president George W. Bush’s adviser on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, expressed shock at the statement’s hostility. In written commentary, Abrams hypothesized that the statement was directed toward the Europeans.
He offered that it was likely meant to signal to them that they are free to attack Israel as harshly as they wish.
Maybe. But after seven-and-a-half years of the Obama presidency, the Europeans need no such reassurance. They know that the White House has their back when it comes to Israel-bashing. A more likely explanation lies elsewhere. To understand it though, it is important to recognize that the positions expressed in last week’s statement weren’t altogether new.
In January, then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the inclusion of a 10-acre plot of land adjacent to Route 60 south of Jerusalem within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The plot in question was lawfully purchased eight years ago from the Presbyterian Church by the late Irving Moskowitz and his wife, Cherna Moskowitz.
The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”
Irving Moskowitz, who passed away in June, and his widow, Cherna Moskowitz, are Americans, not Israelis. The American couple privately purchased the 10-acre plot, along with eight buildings located on the plot from the Presbyterian Church – a private entity. The sale took place not in the US, but in foreign territory.
US law does not bar US citizens from buying land in Judea and Samaria. In fact, in other cases, the administration actually encourages US citizens to purchase and develop land in the areas. For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the Binyamin district is Bashar al-Masri.
Masri is a US citizen.
Far from condemning Masri, or the Palestinian Authority which is expanding Rawabi with him, the US government is funding Rawabi. The administration upholds Masri as a hero.
Legally, there is no difference whatsoever between the Moskowitzes and Masri. The only difference between them is their religion. The Moskowitzes are Jews. Masri is a Muslim.
And while the State Department condemned the lawful purchase of land by the Moskowitzes, and Israel’s incorporation of that land, in accordance with their wishes, within the boundaries of Gush Etzion, the administration celebrates land purchase, appropriation and development of Rawabi by Masri.
There is a name for this type of behavior. It is called discrimination. It is also called anti-Semitism.
Last week’s State Department condemnation was no different.
5)The Clinton White House Years
By Kent Larsen
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”
6) Discrimination to advance the cause of 'peace'?
By Caroline B. Glick
Why did the Obama administration decide to escalate its attacks against Israel last week? What was the purpose of the State Department’s shockingly hostile assault last Wednesday following the Israel Land’s Authority’s announcement that it is publishing tenders to build 323 apartment units in Jerusalem’s Gilo, Har Homa, Pisgat Zeev and Neveh Ya’acov neighborhoods? The statement needs to be seen to be believed.
“We are deeply concerned by reports today that the government of Israel has published tenders for 323 units in East Jerusalem settlements. This follows Monday’s announcement of plans for 770 units in the settlement of Gilo,” it began.
“We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace. These steps by Israeli authorities are the latest examples of what appears to be a steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.”
The Americans then attacked Israel for advancing plans to build in Judea and Samaria. The projects now on the table involve building apartments in the city of Ma’aleh Adumim and in Kiryat Arba and authorizing the already constructed Amona neighborhood in Ofra. The statement attacked Israel for enforcing its land laws toward non-Jews.
“We are also concerned about recent increased demolitions of Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children....”
Finally, it concluded, “This is part of an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict. We remain troubled that Israel continues this pattern of provocative and counter-productive action, which raises serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”
Elliott Abrams, who was president George W. Bush’s adviser on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, expressed shock at the statement’s hostility. In written commentary, Abrams hypothesized that the statement was directed toward the Europeans.
He offered that it was likely meant to signal to them that they are free to attack Israel as harshly as they wish.
Maybe. But after seven-and-a-half years of the Obama presidency, the Europeans need no such reassurance. They know that the White House has their back when it comes to Israel-bashing. A more likely explanation lies elsewhere. To understand it though, it is important to recognize that the positions expressed in last week’s statement weren’t altogether new.
In January, then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the inclusion of a 10-acre plot of land adjacent to Route 60 south of Jerusalem within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The plot in question was lawfully purchased eight years ago from the Presbyterian Church by the late Irving Moskowitz and his wife, Cherna Moskowitz.
The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.”
Irving Moskowitz, who passed away in June, and his widow, Cherna Moskowitz, are Americans, not Israelis. The American couple privately purchased the 10-acre plot, along with eight buildings located on the plot from the Presbyterian Church – a private entity. The sale took place not in the US, but in foreign territory.
US law does not bar US citizens from buying land in Judea and Samaria. In fact, in other cases, the administration actually encourages US citizens to purchase and develop land in the areas. For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the Binyamin district is Bashar al-Masri.
Masri is a US citizen.
Far from condemning Masri, or the Palestinian Authority which is expanding Rawabi with him, the US government is funding Rawabi. The administration upholds Masri as a hero.
Legally, there is no difference whatsoever between the Moskowitzes and Masri. The only difference between them is their religion. The Moskowitzes are Jews. Masri is a Muslim.
And while the State Department condemned the lawful purchase of land by the Moskowitzes, and Israel’s incorporation of that land, in accordance with their wishes, within the boundaries of Gush Etzion, the administration celebrates land purchase, appropriation and development of Rawabi by Masri.
There is a name for this type of behavior. It is called discrimination. It is also called anti-Semitism.
Last week’s State Department condemnation was no different.
To understand why this is the case it is important to bear in mind that a few weeks before last Wednesday’s announcements about construction tenders in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, Israel Lands Authority announced it is issuing tenders for 600 apartments in Jerusalem for Arabs-only in Beit Safafa and additional housing for Arabs-only in Beit Hanina.
Whereas the State Department harshly condemned last week’s announcement, it said nothing about the previous ones. In other words, it distinguishes between building for Jews and building for non-Jews. It seeks to trample Jewish civil rights while championing those of Arabs. Indeed, it defends Arab lawlessness.
This too is a policy predicated on bigotry, on anti-Semitism. There is one more component to Obama’s actions, which, like his anti-Jewish rationale, has spanned the length of his presidency.
In 2010, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton shocked Israeli society by screaming at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the telephone for 45 minutes. Clinton upbraided Netanyahu for a decision by a Jerusalem municipal planning board’s to approve a stage in the planning process toward building apartments in Ramat Shlomo, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem.
Israelis – and many Americans – were shocked by her behavior, because no previous administration had ever treated neighborhoods in Jerusalem as controversial. Everyone, including Obama, acknowledged that like the major population centers in Judea and Samaria, these neighborhoods will remain part of Israel in perpetuity.
Yet suddenly in 2010, Clinton and Obama began castigating them as “illegitimate settlements.” In other words, they expanded the meaning of “settlement” to include all Jewish communities located in areas that had been under Jordanian occupation between 1949 and 1967.
Last week’s State Department’s statement made clear, yet again, that it is official US policy to view Gilo, a neighborhood of 40,000 people, and Ma’aleh Adumim, a city of 40,000 people, as indistinguishable from a few mobile homes in the middle of nowhere with a dozen 20-somethings camped out in them. For the past seven years, the US has viewed these residential areas all as equally evil, equally “corrosive” and equally “illegitimate,” despite the fact that their only shared quality is that they all house Jews. To be clear, none of this has any connection to international law. This is why the administration prefers the meaningless term “illegitimate” to the term “illegal.”
The administration argues that it discriminates against Jews to advance the cause of peace. But as Abrams made clear, this claim is completely absurd. Again, the Obama administration itself acknowledges that these areas will remain part of Israel under any possible peace deal.
Then there is the awkward issue of the Palestinians.
The Americans reject Jewish civil rights and blame Israel’s respect for those rights for the absence of peace at the same time that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is spewing blood libels about Jews at the European Parliament and suing Great Britain for the Balfour Declaration.
In other words, they are accusing Israel of destroying prospects for peace when it is clear to everyone – including Obama’s own negotiators – that the only side unwilling to make peace is the Palestinians.
Some argue that the administration’s condemnations are geared toward setting the conditions for a UN Security Council resolution against the settlements.
Obama, they warn, intends to enable such a decision to pass after the presidential election in November.
But these condemnations can just as easily make it politically difficult for Obama to carry out his plan. By condemning Israel in such an openly bigoted manner, Obama opens himself up to denunciations by Israel’s many friends in Congress, and indeed, in presidential politics. These allies can easily demand that Democratic nominee Clinton reject his anti-Semitic policies. In doing so, they will ensure that even if an anti-Israel resolution passes in November, it will be forgotten the moment Obama leaves office.
Whereas the State Department harshly condemned last week’s announcement, it said nothing about the previous ones. In other words, it distinguishes between building for Jews and building for non-Jews. It seeks to trample Jewish civil rights while championing those of Arabs. Indeed, it defends Arab lawlessness.
This too is a policy predicated on bigotry, on anti-Semitism. There is one more component to Obama’s actions, which, like his anti-Jewish rationale, has spanned the length of his presidency.
In 2010, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton shocked Israeli society by screaming at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the telephone for 45 minutes. Clinton upbraided Netanyahu for a decision by a Jerusalem municipal planning board’s to approve a stage in the planning process toward building apartments in Ramat Shlomo, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem.
Israelis – and many Americans – were shocked by her behavior, because no previous administration had ever treated neighborhoods in Jerusalem as controversial. Everyone, including Obama, acknowledged that like the major population centers in Judea and Samaria, these neighborhoods will remain part of Israel in perpetuity.
Yet suddenly in 2010, Clinton and Obama began castigating them as “illegitimate settlements.” In other words, they expanded the meaning of “settlement” to include all Jewish communities located in areas that had been under Jordanian occupation between 1949 and 1967.
Last week’s State Department’s statement made clear, yet again, that it is official US policy to view Gilo, a neighborhood of 40,000 people, and Ma’aleh Adumim, a city of 40,000 people, as indistinguishable from a few mobile homes in the middle of nowhere with a dozen 20-somethings camped out in them. For the past seven years, the US has viewed these residential areas all as equally evil, equally “corrosive” and equally “illegitimate,” despite the fact that their only shared quality is that they all house Jews. To be clear, none of this has any connection to international law. This is why the administration prefers the meaningless term “illegitimate” to the term “illegal.”
The administration argues that it discriminates against Jews to advance the cause of peace. But as Abrams made clear, this claim is completely absurd. Again, the Obama administration itself acknowledges that these areas will remain part of Israel under any possible peace deal.
Then there is the awkward issue of the Palestinians.
The Americans reject Jewish civil rights and blame Israel’s respect for those rights for the absence of peace at the same time that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is spewing blood libels about Jews at the European Parliament and suing Great Britain for the Balfour Declaration.
In other words, they are accusing Israel of destroying prospects for peace when it is clear to everyone – including Obama’s own negotiators – that the only side unwilling to make peace is the Palestinians.
Some argue that the administration’s condemnations are geared toward setting the conditions for a UN Security Council resolution against the settlements.
Obama, they warn, intends to enable such a decision to pass after the presidential election in November.
But these condemnations can just as easily make it politically difficult for Obama to carry out his plan. By condemning Israel in such an openly bigoted manner, Obama opens himself up to denunciations by Israel’s many friends in Congress, and indeed, in presidential politics. These allies can easily demand that Democratic nominee Clinton reject his anti-Semitic policies. In doing so, they will ensure that even if an anti-Israel resolution passes in November, it will be forgotten the moment Obama leaves office.
Given the fact that the US public does not share Obama’s hostility toward the Jewish state, prudence would recommend that he advance his bigoted aims as quietly as possible. So what is he up to? Since the Europeans don’t need a US condemnation to act, and anti-Israel resolutions at the UN are best advanced through quiet diplomacy, not public condemnations of a popular ally, the only remaining option is that Obama’s actual target audience is the US itself. With three months until the election, Obama is focused on legacy building.
Last week’s statement demonstrates that shaping the US’s future policy toward Israel is a major component of the legacy he is building. And what is the shape he is giving to that policy through his actions? By openly employing anti-Jewish policy rationales, Obama shows that the legacy he intends to pass on to his successors is a US policy toward Israel based neither on US interests nor on American values. Rather, it is predicated on unabashed anti-Jewish discrimination.
In other words, Obama’s presidential legacy is the promotion of anti-Semitism as the guiding principle shaping and informing US Israel policy.
This is, to be sure, a stunning – indeed shocking – conclusion. It points to the depth of Obama’s hostility to Jewish national and civil rights. But as his administration’s statements make clear, the conclusion that anti-Semitism is the guiding principle of his policies is unavoidable.
Those running to succeed Obama should be urged to denounce his bigotry and renounce his legacy. By the same token, the Israeli pro-Palestinian Left and the American pro-Obama Left should be urged to distance themselves from him.
As long as they refuse to do so, as long as they continue to support Obama, they make clear that for them, anti-Jewish bigotry is no big deal. As far as they are concerned, Jewish rights should only be respected when doing so advances their political goals.
This means that Obama’s supporters can no longer claim to be liberals. Now that we understand that anti-Jewish bigotry, and the rejection of Jewish civil rights, is the rationale informing Obama’s policy toward the Jewish state, it is clear that it is no longer possible to be both a liberal and an Obama supporter.
This is his legacy. And this is their choice.
6a)
In other words, Obama’s presidential legacy is the promotion of anti-Semitism as the guiding principle shaping and informing US Israel policy.
This is, to be sure, a stunning – indeed shocking – conclusion. It points to the depth of Obama’s hostility to Jewish national and civil rights. But as his administration’s statements make clear, the conclusion that anti-Semitism is the guiding principle of his policies is unavoidable.
Those running to succeed Obama should be urged to denounce his bigotry and renounce his legacy. By the same token, the Israeli pro-Palestinian Left and the American pro-Obama Left should be urged to distance themselves from him.
As long as they refuse to do so, as long as they continue to support Obama, they make clear that for them, anti-Jewish bigotry is no big deal. As far as they are concerned, Jewish rights should only be respected when doing so advances their political goals.
This means that Obama’s supporters can no longer claim to be liberals. Now that we understand that anti-Jewish bigotry, and the rejection of Jewish civil rights, is the rationale informing Obama’s policy toward the Jewish state, it is clear that it is no longer possible to be both a liberal and an Obama supporter.
This is his legacy. And this is their choice.
6a)
NO HOLDS BARRED: Hillary Clinton’s treatment of Michael Oren as ambassador
Jerusalem Post responds to attack in Clinton e-mails calling paper 'Likud organ'
The dumped Clinton emails contained insinuations, conspiracy theories and negative portrayals painting Oren as almost an enemy agent who could not be trusted.
US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks with supporters during a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire. (photo credit:REUTERS)
In the recent email dump from Hillary Clinton’s private server, a series of poisonous emails and articles were exchanged regarding former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. They contained insinuations, conspiracy theories and negative portrayals painting Oren as almost an enemy agent who could not be trusted.
Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s anti-Israel adviser and longtime friend, sent a number of these emails. In one email, Blumenthal sent an article from the notoriously anti-Israel website Mondoweiss, which has long trolled me on the Internet, and which duplicitously implied with empty insinuations that Oren had planted a false story about a joint US-Israel Iran strike in a plot to manipulate US policy.
On another occasion, Blumenthal sent two articles written by his anti-Semitic son, the notorious Israel-hater Max Blumenthal, which implied Oren was conspiring with Benjamin Netanyahu to derail the peace process.
Sidney Blumenthal derisively emailed Hillary about Oren’s untrustworthiness writing, “[T]he New Republic is a preferred outlet for the highest level Likud/neocon propaganda. Michael Oren, a channel for Israeli intel, was a frequent contributor in the past.”
He also sent an email describing rumors from his journalist son Paul, who claimed to have heard that “Oren raced around the West Wing searching for Barack [Obama], opening doors and looking in rooms.
[Then-US national security adviser Thomas] Donilon heard about Oren’s frantic snooping and raced after him, catching him, and escorted him out. Apocryphal? True?” Hillary responds to the email, “Doubt that it happened, but, these days, who knows???” Furthermore, a flurry of email communications from July 2012 surrounded Hannah Rosenthal, who served from 2009 to 2012 as special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism for the Obama administration. After three years in this position, news broke that Rosenthal had accepted a position as president of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. However, she faced harsh criticism from sectors of the Jewish community for her past views toward Israel. The exchange in these released emails from Hilary’s server showed that the administration was very concerned about this opposition and planned on how best to counteract it, with long-time aide Huma Abedin keeping Clinton apprised.
Rosenthal had previously served on the board of directors of the anti-Israel J Street. She was also on the board of directors of Americans for Peace Now – an organization that advocates for a total BDS-style boycott of Judea and Samaria and its settlements. Yes, this was the person hand-picked by the White House with Clinton’s blessing to fight anti-Semitism.
The protests of Rosenthal’s appointment to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation post stemmed in part from her associations with these anti-Israel groups.
We know that Rosenthal has been a major supporter of Hillary Clinton for the past 20 years and was appointed and served under the Bill Clinton administration in a top-level position in the Department of Health and Human Services.
In a speech of July 13, 2010, Hillary Clinton praised Rosenthal’s appointment to combat anti-Semitism, saying, “I have known Hannah for more than 20 years and we have worked over those 20 years on issues that are near and dear to both of us.” She went on to say, “We know we have a big challenge ahead of us, but I was thrilled when Hannah agreed to take this position...”
Yet just a few months earlier, Rosenthal’s first denunciation in her new role was not against anti-Semitism but shockingly against ambassador Michael Oren.
Oren had recently turned down the offer to be the keynote speaker at J Street’s inaugural conference in December 2009, saying that the policies and approaches of J Street toward Israel were “fooling around with the lives of 7 million people.”
Rosenthal, no doubt offended at the refusal, broke protocol in an uncharacteristic attack on Oren, condemning his comments, and calling his approach to J Street “most unfortunate,” saying that he “would have learned a lot” if he had attended the conference.
Supporting J Street, boycotting Judea and Samaria, and condemning Michael Oren. Was this the basis of Hillary’s support for Rosenthal? Rosenthal faced criticism from a number of Jewish groups for her words. Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, summed up the unusual and inappropriate nature of Rosenthal’s comments. “As an official of the United States government, it is inappropriate for the anti-Semitism envoy to be expressing her personal views on the positions ambassador Oren has taken, as well as on the subject of who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community.”
The Israeli government released a statement that said in part, “We received Ms. Rosenthal’s statements as reported in Haaretz with astonishment and surprise.”
The Obama administration tried to reassure Israel that these comments did not represent State Department policy.
Unfortunately, the truth is that based on everything we have seen in these email dumps, this is precisely what the State Department’s policy was.
All of these communications put into context another revelatory email from Brian Greenspun, owner of the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, who is close to the Clintons and who fund-raised for them in the past. Greenspun became aware that Oren had been at his job as ambassador for already six months, and astoundingly could not get a single meeting with secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Greenspun wrote Clinton in December 2009, “Word has it that the Israeli ambassador has been trying to meet with you to no avail.
I wanted to make sure you knew that was a belief being shared. I can’t imagine why your folks would want to keep you two apart. I hear he is solid...”
This corroborates Oren’s own claims in his book, Ally: My Journey Across the American- Israeli Divide, in which he described how in the early months at his post as ambassador, Clinton refused to arrange a meeting with him. This was a bizarre change in protocol from Condoleezza Rice’s time as secretary of state in which she met with Israel’s ambassador on a regular basis. Yet Clinton’s staffers pushed off Oren for months with the absurd explanation that she did not meet with ambassadors of foreign countries. When Oren happened to later run into Clinton, she patronizingly asked him in jest why he never responded to the messages she left him.
Clinton’s excuses ring hollow seeing as how six months later her emails show she summoned Oren for a meeting. Unfortunately this severance of communication and unfortunate treatment of Israel’s ambassador was the inevitable result of the attitude toward Israel that seems to have encompassed and defined Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
Mrs. Clinton owes us all an explanation.
Shmuley Boteach is the international bestselling author of 30 books, including his upcoming The Israel Warrior: Fighting Israel’s Battles in the Marketplace of Ideas.
Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s anti-Israel adviser and longtime friend, sent a number of these emails. In one email, Blumenthal sent an article from the notoriously anti-Israel website Mondoweiss, which has long trolled me on the Internet, and which duplicitously implied with empty insinuations that Oren had planted a false story about a joint US-Israel Iran strike in a plot to manipulate US policy.
On another occasion, Blumenthal sent two articles written by his anti-Semitic son, the notorious Israel-hater Max Blumenthal, which implied Oren was conspiring with Benjamin Netanyahu to derail the peace process.
Sidney Blumenthal derisively emailed Hillary about Oren’s untrustworthiness writing, “[T]he New Republic is a preferred outlet for the highest level Likud/neocon propaganda. Michael Oren, a channel for Israeli intel, was a frequent contributor in the past.”
He also sent an email describing rumors from his journalist son Paul, who claimed to have heard that “Oren raced around the West Wing searching for Barack [Obama], opening doors and looking in rooms.
[Then-US national security adviser Thomas] Donilon heard about Oren’s frantic snooping and raced after him, catching him, and escorted him out. Apocryphal? True?” Hillary responds to the email, “Doubt that it happened, but, these days, who knows???” Furthermore, a flurry of email communications from July 2012 surrounded Hannah Rosenthal, who served from 2009 to 2012 as special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism for the Obama administration. After three years in this position, news broke that Rosenthal had accepted a position as president of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. However, she faced harsh criticism from sectors of the Jewish community for her past views toward Israel. The exchange in these released emails from Hilary’s server showed that the administration was very concerned about this opposition and planned on how best to counteract it, with long-time aide Huma Abedin keeping Clinton apprised.
Rosenthal had previously served on the board of directors of the anti-Israel J Street. She was also on the board of directors of Americans for Peace Now – an organization that advocates for a total BDS-style boycott of Judea and Samaria and its settlements. Yes, this was the person hand-picked by the White House with Clinton’s blessing to fight anti-Semitism.
The protests of Rosenthal’s appointment to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation post stemmed in part from her associations with these anti-Israel groups.
We know that Rosenthal has been a major supporter of Hillary Clinton for the past 20 years and was appointed and served under the Bill Clinton administration in a top-level position in the Department of Health and Human Services.
In a speech of July 13, 2010, Hillary Clinton praised Rosenthal’s appointment to combat anti-Semitism, saying, “I have known Hannah for more than 20 years and we have worked over those 20 years on issues that are near and dear to both of us.” She went on to say, “We know we have a big challenge ahead of us, but I was thrilled when Hannah agreed to take this position...”
Yet just a few months earlier, Rosenthal’s first denunciation in her new role was not against anti-Semitism but shockingly against ambassador Michael Oren.
Oren had recently turned down the offer to be the keynote speaker at J Street’s inaugural conference in December 2009, saying that the policies and approaches of J Street toward Israel were “fooling around with the lives of 7 million people.”
Rosenthal, no doubt offended at the refusal, broke protocol in an uncharacteristic attack on Oren, condemning his comments, and calling his approach to J Street “most unfortunate,” saying that he “would have learned a lot” if he had attended the conference.
Supporting J Street, boycotting Judea and Samaria, and condemning Michael Oren. Was this the basis of Hillary’s support for Rosenthal? Rosenthal faced criticism from a number of Jewish groups for her words. Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, summed up the unusual and inappropriate nature of Rosenthal’s comments. “As an official of the United States government, it is inappropriate for the anti-Semitism envoy to be expressing her personal views on the positions ambassador Oren has taken, as well as on the subject of who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community.”
The Israeli government released a statement that said in part, “We received Ms. Rosenthal’s statements as reported in Haaretz with astonishment and surprise.”
The Obama administration tried to reassure Israel that these comments did not represent State Department policy.
Unfortunately, the truth is that based on everything we have seen in these email dumps, this is precisely what the State Department’s policy was.
All of these communications put into context another revelatory email from Brian Greenspun, owner of the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, who is close to the Clintons and who fund-raised for them in the past. Greenspun became aware that Oren had been at his job as ambassador for already six months, and astoundingly could not get a single meeting with secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Greenspun wrote Clinton in December 2009, “Word has it that the Israeli ambassador has been trying to meet with you to no avail.
I wanted to make sure you knew that was a belief being shared. I can’t imagine why your folks would want to keep you two apart. I hear he is solid...”
This corroborates Oren’s own claims in his book, Ally: My Journey Across the American- Israeli Divide, in which he described how in the early months at his post as ambassador, Clinton refused to arrange a meeting with him. This was a bizarre change in protocol from Condoleezza Rice’s time as secretary of state in which she met with Israel’s ambassador on a regular basis. Yet Clinton’s staffers pushed off Oren for months with the absurd explanation that she did not meet with ambassadors of foreign countries. When Oren happened to later run into Clinton, she patronizingly asked him in jest why he never responded to the messages she left him.
Clinton’s excuses ring hollow seeing as how six months later her emails show she summoned Oren for a meeting. Unfortunately this severance of communication and unfortunate treatment of Israel’s ambassador was the inevitable result of the attitude toward Israel that seems to have encompassed and defined Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
Mrs. Clinton owes us all an explanation.
Shmuley Boteach is the international bestselling author of 30 books, including his upcoming The Israel Warrior: Fighting Israel’s Battles in the Marketplace of Ideas.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment