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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to Do About J Street, An Enemy of Israel

 

HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ ON J STREET:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Jerusalem Post:

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

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

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

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

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

1a)

Who is Out of Touch on Israel?

JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

One of the standard arguments from Israel’s American critics is that the Jewish state’s advocates are out of touch with American public opinion. In so far as that concerns the liberal supporters of President Obama that make up the majority of American Jewry, there is some truth to the assertion. There’s even more truth to the charge that American Jewish groups that consider it their duty to mobilize support for Israel have trouble connecting with young Jews on college campuses where such views are neither “cool” nor in synch with the fashionable leftism of contemporary academia. That’s why those who oppose the policies of Israel’s government and believe it must be pressured to make more concessions to the Palestinians view Israel advocacy with such disdain. But the question we should be asking about this debate is not so much whether friends of Israel are out of touch with the forces in the culture that view it negatively but whether those that oppose its policies are out of touch with the reality of the Middle East. To no small degree, future of the U.S.-Israel relationship hangs on the answer to that query.

The latest to sound the theme of alienation from Israel is New York Times columnist Roger Cohen who writes that “Israel’s image issue” runs deeper than differences about the best way to sell Israel to Americans. He chimes in to support U.S. Ambassador Daniel Shapiro’s ill-timed rant asserting moral equivalency between isolated instances of Jewish violence and a mass campaign of terrorism on the part of the Palestinians. According to Cohen, Israel’s presence in the West Bank is the problem. He thinks growing numbers of Jews are “distancing themselves from Israeli policies seen as unjust, unlawful, immoral or self-defeating.” More than that, he says that the ability of the Black Lives Matter movement to focus “minds on issues of oppression and injustice” facilitates analogies between the cause of civil rights and the Palestinians.

Such facile and misleading analogies are the core of the problem and the answer for Israel’s detractors is that it must get out of the West Bank and give the Palestinians a state. That in a nutshell is the sum total of the liberal critique of Israel. Such thinking has the advantage of simplicity and being in touch with left wing prejudices. And if the views of a Black Lives Matter movement that does far more to exacerbate lingering racial divisions than heal them is your moral compass, then it all makes sense.

But if that was all that there was to the problem of creating peace in the Middle East, it would have been solved long ago. The trouble here is that those who help shape the debate about the Middle East on campuses or the fashionable left in this country aren’t so much out of touch with the facts on the ground in Israel and the West Bank as they are completely uninterested in them.

Cohen cites a column by New York Jewish Week editor Gary Rosenblatt that highlights the difficulty of explaining a complex and fractious Israeli political system to Americans who tend to want to view the Jewish state in terms of good and evil. Unlike every other country in the world, Israel is held to an impossible standard by which the normal problems in any democracy as well as the extraordinary challenges posed by the ongoing war on Zionism are treated as reasons to oppose its existence. The job of supporting Israel and highlighting its great achievements and its challenges is, as Rosenblatt said, “getting harder each day.” That’s due in no small measure to a dysfunctional Israeli political system and the incompetence or the utter indifference of most of its leaders to the issue of how best to present their country to the world.

But while Rosenblatt is kicking around the perennial question about improving Israel’s image, Cohen is talking about something else. In Cohen’s view, Israel is an oppressor with indefensible policies that must be altered. A refusal to comply with demands for withdrawal marks Israel as an “apartheid state.” He even chimes in to agree with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s indefensible belief that the Palestinian terror campaign is only “human nature” at work since oppressed peoples have a right to resist tyrants.

But the disconnect with reality is not on the part of Israel’s friends and the tip off to that comes from a throwaway line in the Cohen piece about Israel’s extremism being illustrated by the fact that in the context of his own country, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a moderate.

He’s right about that. As I noted last week, even the leader of the opposition to Netanyahu, Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog has given up on the two-state solution. The point is, even the Israeli left that Cohen presumably wishes to see replace Netanyahu in power understands that the Palestinians don’t want peace. The current terror campaign isn’t about settlements; it was started by lies about the Temple Mount that illustrated Palestinian public opinion that view Jews as having no rights to any part of the country and sees murdering them, whether they are in Tel Aviv or a hilltop West Bank settlement as an act of heroism. Herzog knows that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas won’t recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Like Netanyahu and the overwhelming majority of Israelis, Herzog also knows that any land given up to the Palestinians will become a terror state like Gaza, from which Israel pulled out every Jew in 2005. Most Israelis would prefer a two-state solution but the majority of Palestinians oppose it because their goal remains the destruction of Israel.

That liberal Americans and college students don’t know these basic facts or don’t care about them is sad but it’s no reasons for friends of Israel to stop speaking up for what is right or to join the chorus of jackals baying for Israel to make suicidal concessions. Rather than bending to join those demanding Israel conform to the opinions of those that ignorantly compare it to apartheid-era South Africa, what friends of the Jewish state need to do is to double down on advocacy pointing out the justice of its cause and the lies of its opponents. The apartheid canard must be denounced, not compromised with or accepted.

The answer to lies is truth, not compromise. The Jewish people have a right to their own state in their ancient homeland and there is nothing analogous between the predicament of American blacks during the Jim Crow era and that of Palestinians who are merely frustrated in their efforts to eradicate the one Jewish state on the planet. Those that haven’t the courage to denounce those who make such analogies should either pipe down or get out of the way.

1b)

French Set Up Obama-Israel Fight

JONATHAN S. TOBIN

At first glance, the announcement on Friday by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius that Paris will recognize Palestine if a new round of peace talks it has proposed fails, isn’t that alarming. As the Times of Israel points out in an analysis, such a move would make it the 137th nation to recognize a state of Palestine that is, as of the moment, a legal fiction rather than an actual sovereign country. Similar declarations from other European nations have done nothing for the Palestinian people and have, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out again, only hurt the cause of peace. But as numbingly familiar as the ritual of endorsing Palestine might be, this gesture may present a serious danger to Israel’s international position in 2016. The French gesture is not just an indication of how detached from the reality of the Middle East that Western nations have become. It could also set the stage for the last great struggle between the Obama administration and Israel and do lasting damage both to the Jewish state and its alliance with the United States.

Any sensible person that has paid even the slightest attention to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would know that a proposal for a summit and new talks right now is absurd. The Palestinians have refused repeated offers of statehood and independence that would have involved major Israeli withdrawals in the last 15 years. At every stage, they have walked away and often answered plans for a land-for-peace exchange with terrorism.

Though international observers are obsessed with the concept of an Israeli pullback from the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem as the magic formula for peace, the Palestinians have never shown any interest in such schemes. Though Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has talked at times to Western and Israeli audiences as if he supports the two-state solution, he sings a different tune to his own people. Like the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, Abbas is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn.

Just as troubling is the fact that the putative leader of the Palestine the Europeans seek to recognize has become a leading voice fomenting terror and hatred of Jews and Israelis. His role in starting the current “stabbing intifada” when he broadcast lies about Israeli plans to harm the Temple Mount mosque has been matched by the applause terrorists who kill random Jews have gained from the PA once the current offensive started.

Abbas’s stance is motivated in part by his own rejectionism but it is also an indication of how much he fears his Hamas rivals. The mythical state of Palestine is, after all, still divided between two entities. Abbas’s Fatah kleptocracy runs the day-to-day affairs of the West Bank with Israeli security assistance that ensures his safety as much as it is intended to help suppress terrorism. Meanwhile Hamas continues to run Gaza as an independent Palestinian state in all but name. That Gaza was converted into a terrorists launching pad after Israel withdrew every settler and soldier in 2005 stands as a warning that the majority of Israelis heed. Repeating that experiment in the West Bank would be madness, not a step toward peace. That’s why even the head of Israel’s Zionist Union opposition party has given up on the two-state solution for the foreseeable future.

Given these facts, one has to ask what the French or anyone else could possibly think another attempt at a summit would accomplish? More than that, their statement that failure would result in recognition without forcing Abbas or Hamas to first make peace with Israel is merely a guarantee of continued Palestinian intransigence. They believe saying no will eventually lead to United Nations resolutions that will demand Israeli withdrawal without peace and ultimately an international boycott of the Jewish state that will bring them one step closer to the goal of its elimination.

That’s where the lame duck Obama administration comes in.

The Palestinians presume that after more talks fail and the French join the chorus of nations recognizing their aspirations, the next step will be another battle at the United Nations. Up until now every attempt to force either Palestinian statehood or a requirement for an Israeli pullout from the West Bank and Jerusalem has been vetoed by the United States. But if Security Council were to declare Israel’s continued presence in the territories illegal — something that would make a travesty of international law as well as ensuring even more Palestinian terrorism rather than peace — that would be a serious escalation of the conflict. The fact that France, a permanent Security Council member would be behind the effort might persuade Obama that the time would be ripe for an abandonment of the Israelis at the UN.

Despite the lip service he pays the relationship, Obama has been clearly itching for a chance to force Israel out of the territories in the vain expectation that this would encourage Palestinians to make peace. The administration’s endorsement of a European Union effort to label Israeli goods made in the West Bank and Jerusalem is not only hypocritical but also brings the West one crucial step closer to a boycott of Israel. A UNSC resolution on the West Bank would be the logical, if damaging, conclusion to be drawn from everything Obama has done and said about the Middle East.

Pundits may think the president would refrain from any move that could antagonize Jewish voters during the fall election campaign. But if such a resolution were to come up for a vote after Election Day in November there would be no political impediment to a U.S. move that would be the logical conclusion to an eight-year effort to delegitimize Israel’s negotiating stance and to create more “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. That’s a scenario Israel and its friends ought to be worried about far more than a meaningless gesture by the French.

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

Who Received Hillary's Secret Emails?

By James Lewis

Congressman Darrell Issa has predicted that Hillary and Huma will never be indicted for leaking top-secret information through their illegal email scam.

"I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak," the Republican heavyweight told the Washington Examiner Thursday[.] ... "I think he's in a position where he's being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk[.] … You can't have 1,300 highly sensitive emails that contain highly sensitive material that's taken all, or in part from classified documents, and have it be an accident[.] … There's no question, she knew she had a responsibility and she circumvented it. And she circumvented it a second time when she knowingly let highly-classified material get onto emails in an unclassified format."
Issa's comments come just two days after former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, claimed he has friends in the FBI who "tell [him] they're ready to indict and they're ready to recommend an indictment. ... They also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public," DeLay said Tuesday during an interview on Newsmax TV.

If H&H are not indicted soon, FBI and DOJ career lawyers may retaliate by leaking additional evidence about Hillary's criminal, irresponsible, and dangerous malfeasance in high office.  Hillary is therefore deeply implicated in the worst hostile penetration of the U.S. government since Stalin.

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

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

We now know a great deal about Hillary's email scam, but we do not know the most crucial pieces – namely, who received Hillary's and Huma's secret emails?  Emails have recipients.  In the case of the Clintons, they also have quid pro quos.  When Hillary's confidants deliberately removed USG classification markers from the State Department's secure email system, they engaged in criminal violations of the U.S. Code, including forgery by deletion of legally required classification labels.  Others, like General Petraeus, have been convicted for far less egregious violations of law.

The Constitution states that impeachment and trial by the Senate apply to the secretary of state (Article II).  If we had a U.S. Congress worth its salt, Hillary would already be in the dock.

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

So where did Hillary and Huma send those emails?

Here are some guesses.

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

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

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

Other likely email recipients:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ikhwan is now allied with ISIS in the Sinai Desert, whence it launches attacks on Egypt.

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

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

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

===========================================================================