===
Hillarious tries to equate her alleged illegalities with those of others but that dog won't hunt for those who are unwilling to be slavishly stupid.
In Hillarious' world there are no differences when it comes to ethics. Whatever she and "Ole Bill" decide to do becomes the bar. The Clinton's believe, think and act as if they are above the law, in fact they are the law and they set the standards.
Alas, far too many Americans have been willing to dumb themselves down accordingly.(See 1 below.)
===
When it comes to Israel, hell is always paved with supposed/claimed good intentions. Why? The problem is far too much equating negates their claim of caring and objectivity.
Their purported even-handedness thus camouflages a moral degeneracy.
"While denouncing Israel, they support Palestinians who throw gays from the top of tall buildings, abuse women and children, jail, torture and kill dissidents. They support the racist ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine. They help incite false grievances that kill and thus, they have the blood of innocents on their own hands." (See 2 below.)
===Perhaps we conservatives have more to thank Obama for than we acknowledge. (See 3 below.)
AND THEN: The Third Row?
|
===
And so it came to pass:
"The pictures were uploaded by the producer. Harvey was on the radio.
This was his radio broadcast on April 3,1965. An amazing prediction!
Do you remember the famous ABC radio commentator Paul Harvey?
Millions of Americans listened to his programs which were broadcast to
over 1,200 radio stations nationwide.
When you listen to this, remember the commentary was broadcast on
April 3, 1965, 49 years ago. It's short. . . less than 3 minutes. But you will
===
Vote Democrat and sink Israel and raise Iran
from the briny. (See 4 below.)
===
I understand the need for politicians to pontifi-
cate but I am truly tired of hearing them tell me
what they are going to do for me.
I am going to "Make America Great Again"
sounds great and has pole vaulted Trump into
a leading spot but Trump cannot make America
great again by himself.
Then, Hillarious is going to fight for me. When
did she ever fight. Hell she lied about being
attacked coming off a plane.
It is the silly season which transcends party. I just wish these candidates recognized unless we are united
they can't do a damn thing.
It would be nice to hear one of these turkeys use the word "together." Together we can do more, together
we might accomplish so and so. Wouldn't that be like music? I believe it would.
===
|
========================================================================
1)
Clinton’s False Email Equivalence
Hillary tries to wrap Powell and Rice into her email security breach.
A week ago Hillary Clinton’s allies accused the State Department Inspector General’s office of belonging to the vast right-wing conspiracy. So you have to admire her chutzpah this week in trying to spin a memo from that same office to exonerate her use of a renegade private email server. All the more so because the new memo strengthens the case that she mishandled national secrets.
In Thursday’s Democratic debate, Mrs. Clinton hailed a new document from State IG Steve Linick that summarizes his view of the email practices of five prior Secretaries of State. The memo says he found a few instances of “sensitive material” sent to the private email accounts of Republicans Colin Powell and staffers to Condoleezza Rice.
“Now you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing [to Powell and Rice’s aides] they’ve been doing to me,” claimed Mrs. Clinton—that is, “retroactively classifying” documents. “I agree with Secretary Powell, who said today this is an absurdity.”
Ah, yes, the old everybody-does-it defense. Mrs. Clinton wants Americans to believe it was common practice for top diplomats to use private email, and that they are all now subject to overzealous interagency squabbling over classification. By Friday Democrats were spinning that Mrs. Clinton is a political victim for having been singled out. Her media phalanx is buying this line, though the Powell and Rice details prove the opposite—and how reckless Mrs. Clinton was by comparison.
Start with the fact that neither Mr. Powell nor Ms. Rice set up a private email server to conduct government business. Mr. Powell did have a personal email account, but he purposely used a State-maintained classified computer system on his desk for classified communications. This may not have been “convenient” for him, to borrow an earlier Clinton explanation for her private server, but Mr. Powell understood the rules. And he understood them even prior to 2005 when State instituted clear rules warning against private email for official business. Mrs. Rice’s aides say she never used any email while at State.
While a few sensitive details may have leeched into a Powell or Rice-aide email account, these would have been accidental. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton intentionally created a private email account, on her own private server, precisely so she could keep those emails away from government public-disclosure rules.
Mr. Linik’s review turned up two messages sent to Mr. Powell’s account that State now deems sensitive (though Mr. Powell disputes that they should be classified). Mr. Linik found 10 that were sent to Ms. Rice’s State Department entourage over her entire tenure. By contrast, State has now deemed that more than 1,600 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server are confidential—and there is another batch still to be released.
The federal government maintains several levels of classification, ranging from the lowest designations of “sensitive but unclassified” and “confidential” to code-word classifications for the most important secrets. While all such information must be safeguarded, lower-level “sensitive but unclassified” and “confidential” information is sometimes circulated on unclassified government systems. Mr. Powell points out that the two emails sent to him were first circulated on unclassified State Department systems and forwarded to his account by an assistant.
Many of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,600 classified emails also fall into these “sensitive” and “confidential” categories. But at least 22 emails have been identified as highly classified from their creation. This means that their information would have resided at all times on classified government systems until they were sent to Mrs. Clinton and her unclassified, unguarded private server. There is no evidence that anything remotely like that happened under Secretaries Powell or Rice.
This transfer question gets to the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s email negligence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is defending Mrs. Clinton by claiming there is no evidence that any of these top secrets emails originated with Secretary Clinton. “It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else,” the California Democrat says.
But Mrs. Clinton is responsible because she is the one who created the classification problem by doing official business on her private server. This would never have become an issue if she had followed the rules and used State Department email. That she set up her private email out of a self-serving desire to shield her communications from public disclosure makes her disregard for security a willful act that opens her to criminal liability.
Readers of a certain age will recall that another Clinton tried the everybody-does-it defense when he was found to have broken the law. Are Democrats really going to lash themselves one more time to the Clinton standard of ethics?
===========================================================
2)Those nice Israel-bashers’ Achilles’ heel
===================================================================================By Melanie PhillipsWhy can’t Israel’s self-styled friends understand that the things they say about Israel are not in fact the sentiments of friends but of enemies?Whenever someone says “As a friend/candid friend/staunch ally of Israel...,” you know that what’s coming is a vicious kick to the head. Delivered, of course, purely in a spirit of friendship.The Canadian foreign minister Stéphane Dion, describing himself as a “steadfast ally and friend to Israel,” criticized both the Palestinians’ unilateral pursuit of statehood and the Israelis’ settlement construction. “Canada is concerned by the continued violence in Israel and the West Bank,” he said.“Canada calls for all efforts to be made to reduce violence and incitement and to help build the conditions for a return to the negotiating table.”Dion seemed to be suggesting that Israeli terrorism victims were somehow asking for it and that Palestinian murder attacks were to be equated with Israeli self-defense.Doubtless he thought he was being studiously even-handed and therefore fair, wise and just. But in the battle between victim and aggressor, legality and illegality, truth and falsehood, even-handedness inescapably entails blaming the victim and tacitly endorsing illegality and lies.A few days later the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon did something similar. While condemning the current wave of Palestinian stabbings and other attacks upon Israelis, he claimed the perpetrators were driven by “alienation and despair.”“It is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism,” he said.When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed outrage at such an apparent justification for Palestinian violence, Ban appeared genuinely affronted. His words, he said, had been twisted. Palestinian attacks and incitement were reprehensible and he condemned them.Yet having stated, “Nothing excuses terrorism,” he then repeated the excuse for Palestinian terrorism. “No one can deny that the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.”Well actually, no one who pays the slightest regard to reality could maintain such a thing. Whatever the provocation, it is not “human nature” to set out to murder as many innocents as possible, including women and children.Ban’s apparently real bewilderment that anyone could possibly think he supports terrorism arises from two things. The first is his fundamentally false view of the Arab war against Israel. The “occupation” does not cause Palestinian violence. It is unending Palestinian violence that prolongs the “occupation.”The Palestinians aren’t driven by despair at the absence of their state. How can this be so, when they have turned down repeated offers of such a state since the 1930s? Isn’t it more logical to assume that the relentless incitement – to which Ban himself alluded – which tells them falsely that Israel plans to destroy al-Aksa and that their highest calling is to kill Jews and conquer the whole of Israel has rather more to do with it?Moreover, this is not an occupation in the normally accepted understanding of the word. Israel has not occupied another people’s land, because the disputed territories never belonged to another people.Nor is Israel there out of an aggressive colonial impulse. The Jews are entitled to hold and settle the territories under international law several times over, both as a legally permitted defense against continuous belligerence and from their never-abrogated entitlement to do so – as the only people for whom this was ever their national homeland – under the terms of the Palestine Mandate.These false premises about Israel’s “occupation,” however, are widespread.This helps explain the distressing fact that most of the almost daily Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis aren’t noted at all in the Western media.Few realize that Israelis going about their everyday lives are routinely being murdered or wounded by stabbing, shooting, rock-throwing or cars driven into bus queues.This onslaught is not being reported because, to the Western media, it is the understandable response to occupation. The settlers have chosen to put themselves in harm’s way, goes the thinking, and other Israelis have also brought this upon themselves merely by being Israelis.So to the West, these Jewish victims of terrorism just don’t exist. At the same time, the Western media never reports the near-daily Palestinian incitement of the mass murder of Israeli Jews. That doesn’t fit the narrative of Palestinian victims of Israel.For identical reasons, the media also ignores the victimization of Palestinians by other Palestinians. According to Palestinian Media Watch, last year the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights received 292 complaints of torture, maltreatment and physical assault in the West Bank and 928 in the Gaza Strip.The West remains almost totally ignorant of the tyrannical abuse Palestinians inflict upon one another. But why is its Palestinian narrative thus hermetically sealed against the truth?Here’s the second reason for Ban’s bewilderment. Progressives subscribe to universalizing agendas. These by definition deny any hierarchy of cultures or moral values. So Palestinian society cannot be held to be innately hostile to human rights, and Palestinian terrorism is equated (at best) with Israeli defense against such attacks.Thus on Holocaust Remembrance Day, of all things, Ban equated anti-Semitism with anti-Muslim bigotry. But the two are not remotely comparable.Of course there are some who are irrationally bigoted against Muslims.But most anti-Islamic feeling is a rational response to Islamic violence and aggression. By contrast, anti-Jewish hatred is true bigotry as it is based entirely on lies, myths, and paranoid and deranged beliefs about Jews who have never posed an aggressive threat to anyone.Ban and others committed to universalism think this equation is fair. In fact, it diminishes Jew-hatred and sanitizes Islamic aggression. Which is why progressives who think they are pure because their hearts so conspicuously bleed for the oppressed are not pure at all. They are morally corrupt.They aren’t driven by compassion for any kind of victim. What drives them instead is hatred of supposed victimizers in the “powerful” West.Their purported even-handedness thus camouflages a moral degeneracy.For while denouncing Israel, they support Palestinians who throw gays from the top of tall buildings, who abuse women and children, who jail, torture and kill dissidents. They support the racist ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine. They help incite false grievances that kill.They have the blood of innocents on their own hands.But they think of themselves as fair, decent, progressive. This is where they are vulnerable. For like Ban, they also tend to be remarkably thinskinned.That’s because their image of themselves really is all that matters to them. They don’t care about the world’s victims. They care about being seen to care.They think of themselves as nice people. We have to show them that they are not. Self-regard is everything to them. It is therefore their Achilles’ heel.We should puncture it.
3) One Older Lady Who Loves Obama
One 82-year-old lady loves Obama and she may have a very good point. She says that Obama is amazing, and is rebuilding the American dream! She gives us an entirely new slant on the "amazing" job Obama is doing, and she says that she will thank God for the President. Keep reading for her additional comments and an explanation. When discussing Obama, she says:This is certainly a different way to look at what is happening....................
===============================================1. Obama destroyed the Clinton Political Machine, driving a stake through the heart of Hillary's presidential aspirations - something no Republican was ever able to do.2. Obama killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - no more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home.3. Obama is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race. Evan Bayh had never lost a race. Byron Dorgan had never lost a race. Harry Reid - soon to be GONE! These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed. By the end of 2016, dozens more will be gone. Just think, in December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In two election cycles, they had picked up 14 Senate seats and 52 House seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. However, in just one term, Obama put a stop to all of this and gave the House and the Senate - back to the Republicans.4. Obama has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Sadly, every generation seems to need to re-learn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. Obama is bringing home the lesson very well: Liberals tax, borrow and spend. Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America. Liberals want to take over the economy. Liberals think they know what is best for everyone. Liberals are not happy until they are running YOUR life.5. Obama has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one term, he has rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and brought out to the streets millions of freedom loving Americans. Name one other time when you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!6. Obama, with his "amazing leadership," has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a "stimulus" to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded, or moved off-shore.7. In all honesty, 4 years ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not afraid of the economy, but afraid of the direction our country was going. I thought, Americans have forgotten what this country is all about. My neighbors and friends, even strangers, have proved to me that my lack of confidence in the greatness and wisdom of the American people has been flat wrong.8. When the American people wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama has served to wake up these great Americans! Again, I want to say: "Thank you, Barack Obama!" After all, this is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed!!9. He has saved Carter’s legacy and made Jimmy Carter happy, since Jimmy is no longer the worst president we've ever had. Credit goes to where credit is due.THANK YOU OBAMA
4) You Cannot Support Israel’s Existence (and Ours) and Vote Democratic This Election
The Iowa Democratic caucus which I’ve already described as akin to the Marxist Zimbabwe Farmers-workers confabs is over, and it appears -- as Mark Steyn ably notes -- “almost certain” that Hillary Clinton did not win it.
If Iowa were one of those banana republics in which the president-for-life has been prevailed upon to hold an election and Jimmy Carter and a bunch of UN observers had flown in to certify it, none of the above would pass muster. But in the Democrat Party it does:
In effect, Hillary and Bernie fought Iowa to a draw. But a miss is a good as a mile and, as I said on Tuesday, Sanders needed the headline "BERNIE WINS!” and all Mrs. Clinton had to do was figure out a way to deny him that. The squalid and repulsive rules of her caucus helped her do that. [/quote]
The kerfuffles over the caucus served as cover for the fact that the administration’s foreign and domestic policies render ourselves and our allies increasingly powerless to combat Islamic terrorism, and neither of the Democratic candidates is likely to alter that or the president’s patent anti-Israel approach in any substantial measure.
The evidence of the administration’s tilt and recklessness grows.
The most shocking evidence comes from Philip Haney writing for the Hill. Haney, a longtime Department of Homeland Security employee charged that he and others working there were ordered in November 2009 to destroy raw material intelligence needed to keep us safe.
Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.
A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future -- especially before an attack occurs.
As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015).
It is very plausible that one or more of the subsequent terror attacks on the homeland could have been prevented if more subject matter experts in the Department of Homeland Security had been allowed to do our jobs back in late 2009. It is demoralizing -- and infuriating -- that today, those elusive dots are even harder to find, and harder to connect, than they were during the winter of 2009.
Haney’s revelation came just days after the president visited a terrorism-linked mosque contrary to the FBI’s suggestion that he not do so. Powerline details the mosque’s history, which the Washington Post airbrushed out of the picture:
Post readers are never informed that things at the mosque aren’t quite that simple.Moreover, according to Investor’s Business Daily, the mosque was led for 15 years by a radical cleric -- Imam Mohamad Adam el-Sheikh -- who once represented a federally designated al-Qaida front group. El-Sheikh also has argued for the legitimacy of suicide bombings. And ISB board member and vice president Muhammad Jameel has blamed American foreign policy -- namely, U.S. support for Israel -- for terrorism and the rise of Osama bin Laden.
As Scott has pointed out, just a few years ago the FBI was monitoring this mosque as a breeding ground for terrorists, after arresting a member for plotting to blow up a federal building. Agents secretly recorded a number of conversations with a 25-year-old Muslim convert -- Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain -- and other Muslims who worshiped there. According to the criminal complaint, Martinez said he knew “brothers” who could supply him weapons and propane tanks.
Does Martinez’s militancy represent the mosque’s official outlook? Not necessarily. However, the Islamic Society of Baltimore is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America, which federal prosecutors in 2007 named a radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front and an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in a scheme to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers.
I appreciate the sentiment that made President Obama want to visit a mosque. But by failing properly to vet the venue, and indeed reportedly letting the Council on American-Islamic Relations choose the site even though the FBI has banned this outfit from outreach because of known ties to the Hamas terrorist group, it’s questionable that Obama did the cause of interfaith understanding any good.
Among other things during his visit Obama preposterously thanked Moslems and suggested “Islam has always been part of America”. Covering this event, Robert Spencer could hardly contain himself:
When Barack Obama visited the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, he said: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.”
While Obama has been President, Muslims have murdered non-Muslims, avowedly in the cause of Islam, at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and attempted to do so in many, many other places. Imagine if armed Baptists screaming “Jesus is Lord” had committed murder, and explained that they were doing so in order to advance Christianity, in four American cities, and had attempted to do so in many others. Imagine that those killers were supporters of a global Christian movement that had repeatedly called for attacks on U.S. civilians and declared its determination to destroy the United States.
Imagine how incongruous it would be in that case for the President of the United States to visit a church and say: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Christian Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.” And imagine how unlikely it would be that Barack Obama would ever have done that.
But his visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore was the apotheosis of the Muslim victimhood myth, as he signaled yet again to the world (and worldwide jihadis) that in the U.S., Muslims are victims, victims of unwarranted concern over jihad terror, and thus that concern is likely to lessen even more, as Obama dismantles still more of our counter-terror apparatus.
“We’ve seen children bullied, we’ve seen mosques vandalized,” Obama claimed. “It’s not who we are.
[snip]
In reality, Muslims are not victimized in American society: FBI hate crime statistics show that the hysteria over “Islamophobia” is unfounded, but that matters not at all to Barack Obama. At the mosque, he said: “If we’re serious about freedom of religion -- and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country -- we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths.”
Once again Obama felt free to scold and admonish Christians, but said nothing about Muslims in the U.S. needing to clean house and work for real reform that would mitigate jihad terror. And his premise was false: there is no attempt to restrict Muslims’ freedom of religion.
[snip]
He is, of course, against studying the beliefs of the enemy. Yet he said proudly: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Qur’an,” without bothering to mention that they had them in order to understand the ideology of the enemy the new nation faced in the Barbary Pirates. They held, of course, the same ideology he ignores and denies today, the one he ordered all traces of removed from counterterror training.
“Islam,” Obama declared, “has always been part of America.” Really? There were Muslims at Jamestown? In the Massachusetts Bay Colony? At Roanoke? Obama’s statement is so wildly ridiculous that it doesn’t just invite parody; it pleads for it.
Caroline Glick sees in this visit a pattern for Obama’s last year in office
Obama’s apologetics for radical Islamists is the flipside of his hostility for Israel. This too is escalating and will continue to rise through the end of his tenure in office.
The US Customs authority’s announcement last week that it will begin enforcing a 20-year old decision to require goods imported from Judea and Samaria to be labeled “Made in the West Bank,” rather than “Made in Israel,” signals Obama’s intentions. So, too, it is abundantly clear that France’s plan to use the UN Security Council to dictate Israel’s borders was coordinated in advance with the Obama administration.
Glick describes the fever pitch of Obama’s anti-Israel moves as motivated by a fear that none of the present presidential contenders are as viscerally anti-Israel as he is. As I explain below, I think the difference between his view and Sanders’ and Clintons’ is far smaller than she suggests. Though I agree with her assessment of the Republican contenders and voters:
On the Republican side, the situation is entirely different. All of the Republican presidential candidates are pro-Israel. To be sure, some are more pro-Israel than others. Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, is more supportive than his competitors. But all of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.
Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel.
Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points.
Forty-five percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who is critical of Israel and 75% of Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for an anti-Israel candidate.
These data tell us two important things. Today Democratic candidates will gain nothing and may lose significant support if they support Israel.
In contrast, a Republican who opposes Israel will have a hard time getting elected, much less winning a primary.
In brief, Sanders and Hillary Clinton are really unlikely to depart from the anti-Israel bent of their party as it now exists or substantially to modify the crippling of our intelligence agencies and military vis-à-vis the Middle East. As evidence I note the following: Those emails of Hillary’s which have been made public reveal a virtual torrent of anti-Israel advice from those so close to her that they communicated on her personal account and often -- including Sidney Blumenthal, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, “docs in socks” Sandy Berger. Then there’s her exceedingly close tie to her aide Huma Abedin, another person closely tied to the loathsome and dangerous Moslem Brotherhood.
[S]ince Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive): Our government reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood; funded Hamas; continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections; dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas; hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States; issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt; announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders; excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism; and pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.
As for Bernie, it turns out there’s a reason he has been vague about just which kibbutz he lived on as a young man before his more obvious anti-Israeli bent (he wanted to deny Israel weapons before the Yom Kippur War, for example) was patent. It was a Stalinist kibbutz that took its cues about Zionism from Moscow, whose ultimate aim was the end of Israel:
“Bernie Sanders wasn't there because he liked Israel. Hashomer Hatzair did not like Israel. It ultimately wanted to destroy it. He was there because he was far left. Perhaps even further left than he has admitted.”
Pat Condell has well described the racist attitudes of the political left which permits them to hold Palestinians and Arabs to a lower standard of conduct than they hold Israel or the West and the fear of truth tellers that they’ll be labeled racist for not playing along with this odious tactic to suppress free speech. Caroline Glick argues this point well in her video argument respecting the uproar about what I call “Jews buying land in the ‘hood”. And this Moslem woman, relying on survey evidence establishes that Islam does have a substantial problem -- a cancer of extremism which will not be eradicated by pretending it does not exist, as Obama, Hillary, and Sanders do.
I see no sign that either of the Democratic candidates or their party departs from this racist, pro-Moslem nonsense, and every indication that a vote for them will simply continue the Obama path toward more chaos and terrorist violence in the Middle East and here.
============================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment