A California white male college student wearing
dreadlocks was accused by a black female college
student of stealing her culture.
We are raising an uneducated generation of wimps
and social misfits. God Help America! What have
we done to ourselves? Where has our rugged
individualism gone? Crushed under the weight of
PC'ism? Destroyed by liberal academia? Entitlements?
===
Last week Trump self-destructed and on Tuesday we will learn how well is the aim of the GOP's other two remaining candidate's.
If their convention cannot select a candidate on the first ballot then the prospects for a Kasich victory could heighten because Cruz lacks the attraction of Trump.
Stay tuned as the powers within the Party seek to regain control. (See 1and1a below.)
===
My friend and fellow memo reader, John Podhoretz, reveals the "Godmother" side of Hillarious she does not wish shown. Notwithstanding her controlled efforts and denial she cannot contain that other person that resides in her.. (See 2 below.)
Tobin also kicks in but from a different angle stating Trump is Hillary's salvation. (See 2a below.)
===
The schism remains! (See 3 below.)
===
This is a very long talk by Ted Belman who is editor of Israpundit. Ted was educated in Canada and lives in Israel.
Much of what he talks about was covered in Dennis Ross' recent book, which I reviewed, and has been covered in many of my memos but it is still worth listening to and you should draw your own conclusions. I have also posted some corrections Belman made after his address:
http://www.israpundit.org/
A few corrections.
1 Obama stumped for Odinga in 2006 and not 2008 as I said.
2. Bush agreed to give his vision speech embracing the state of Palestine on Sept 13/09
1 Obama stumped for Odinga in 2006 and not 2008 as I said.
2. Bush agreed to give his vision speech embracing the state of Palestine on Sept 13/09
He delayed it until June 2002.
I claimed that both Michelle and Barak were forced to give up their law licenses. It seems that this is not true. My research was done in 2008. Subsequently, it was established that they were not forced to resign. My apologies.
===
Muslim/Arab Lunacy is finally reaching The UGA!
The goal of Soros and his anarchist friends is to radicalize 0ur campuses as another step twoards creating chaos. (See 4 below.)
===
The goal of Soros and his anarchist friends is to radicalize 0ur campuses as another step twoards creating chaos. (See 4 below.)
===
Finally watched the one hour program on Obama's decimation of our military and the failure of his foreign policy on FOX tonight. It was a rebroadcast of Bret Baier's program. (Tune in to FNC for 'Fox News Reporting: Rising Threats - Shrinking Military')
I also saw Hilarious say about Ghadafi's death "We came ,we saw and he is now dead!"
and
and
I also heard three Defense Secretaries and several Generals lament the trend that this president has pursued by turning our military into a social and PC experiment. I witnessed ROTC members being told they must walk around in pink female shoes and other displays of downright insanity.
The damage Obama has purposely done to our nation, in furtherance of his misguided thinking and Muslim sympathy, has crippled our nation and will cripple the actions of future presidents and if he is followed by Bernie or Hillarious you can bend over and kiss this nation good bye!
===
Dick++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) If This Is Tuesday It Must Be Wisconsin
By Clarice Feldman
This Tuesday, America’s long-running primary contest goes to Wisconsin. Per most of the media coverage, Sanders will beat Clinton and Cruz will beat Trump, in the latter case derailing his victory march through the states. Sanders may well win Wisconsin. It is, after all the home of Lafollette’s Progressive party and for a very long time its largest city, Milwaukee, had socialist mayors.
As for Cruz, he’s spent a long time there and is likely to win, but it’s not quite clear that this is a major bump in the road for Trump.
With a commanding 289-delegate lead, Trump is on pace to have a nearly 400-delegate lead in Cleveland and is likely to have 1,200 of the 1,237 needed for an indisputable victory, according to FiveThirtyEight Politics.Trump has 752 delegates and Cruz has 463. But the lead is even wider than it appears to be.
Economist Nate Silver, who started the site eight years ago, for this race figured out the path to the nomination individually for each candidate, state by state. For example, Trump is expected to do better in New York than Cruz, who was expected to do better than Trump in Texas. It is an interesting theoryAt this point, Trump needed to be at 789 delegates. He is at 752. So he is on pace for 1,200 delegates.
But Cruz needed to be at 882 delegates. He is at 463. So he is on pace for 818 delegates.
How does this pace thing work? According to Silver, Trump needs only 18 of the 42 delegates from Wisconsin. Cruz needs 33. Kasich needs 39. In other words, Wisconsin was never a Trump state, according to Silver.But even if Cruz takes all 42 delegates, he will still be 245 delegates behind Trump with fewer opportunities to catch up as the month will end with primaries in Trump's home state of New York and Trump friendly states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
The delegate selection process is different in the Wisconsin Democratic and Republican party primaries, which are open primaries in any event, allowing voters to vote in either primary regardless of their registration:
Of the state’s 42 Republican delegates, 24 are allocated by congressional district. Wisconsin has eight U.S. House seats, and each one is worth three Republican delegates to the winner. The GOP’s other 18 delegates -- 15 at large and three members of the Republican National Committee -- go to the winner statewide.
Wisconsin Democrats do things a bit differently. Of their 96 convention delegates, 57 are allocated by congressional district, 29 go to the statewide winner and 10 are unbound “super-delegates.”Unlike Republicans, Democrats don’t give equal weight to each district. Those that produce more Democratic votes in statewide elections are rewarded. The very blue Second District anchored by Madison, for example, has more than twice as many delegates (11) as the very red Fifth District, which includes most of Waukesha and all of Washington County (5). The Fourth District has 10, the Third has 7, and the First, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth have 6 apiece.
Democrats award their district and statewide delegates proportionally, instead of winner-take-all, as the GOP does. If Republican Ted Cruz wins Milwaukee’s Fourth District by just one vote, he gets all that district’s delegates.
But if Democrat Clinton wins 60% of the vote in the Fourth, she would get only six of its ten delegates, while Sanders would get four.
No one expects Cruz to win every district, so it is unlikely he could sweep the table in Wisconsin.
It’s details like these that escape most of the pundits predicting Wisconsin will be Trump’s Waterloo -- something by the way they keep predicting in vain.
Ann Coulter, in fact, argues that the Democrats have an electoral college advantage that only Trump can overcome.
Online this week, most of the attention was focused on whether Trump flubbed his response to a Chris Matthews predictable setup on abortion. Trump, instead of refusing the hypothetical as he should have, instead opined that if abortion was made illegal (which it hasn’t been and probably will never be) both the patient and the provider would be subject to criminal penalties. The favored answer -- as it was to my knowledge in the pre-Roe days -- was only the abortion provider would be subject to criminal penalty, In any event he quickly clarified his response.
Much will be made of this by his opponents of both parties -- after all, it’s always ladies are delicate flowers who must be protected against their own folly.
And that, too, was the point of the Michelle Fields contretemps which so conveniently played into the narrative, Trump as Bully.
In sum, Michelle Fields, late of Breitbart, claimed that Trump’s campaign manager had thrown her almost to the ground at the conclusion of a presser and got the Clinton campaign worker Palm Beach D.A. to bring battery charges against him. Fans and foes filled the internet with heated argument, but the latest video clarified what the others had not -- at most Corey Lewandowski brushed past her for a few seconds after she’s broken through the security barrier around the candidate and kept touching him after having been warned off that.
For once IOTW agreed with Piers Morgan that this was an utterly silly charge:
Women want to be treated equally, paid the same, and not looked upon as a second-class citizen. When it suits their agenda they will twirl their hair and draw circles on the ground with their toe and talk in a baby voice.
Men agreeing with Fields, that this is assault, are patronizing women like they are made of spun sugar, and Michelle Fields is gladly accepting the patronization.
Either men will have to adopt a girly view of the world, and accuse their Lewandowskis of causing “the worst experience since their father’s death,” or women will have to toughen up, you know, for the sake of equality.
As for the criminal charge, it strikes more than me that it is a joke:
the decision by a prosecutor in Florida to charge Lewandowski with criminal assault in connection with his encounter with former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields is a joke.Why did the local authorities choose to prosecute Lewandowski? It came out yesterday that Palm Beach County’s States Attorney is Dave Aronberg, a former Democratic state senator and a high-profile backer of Hillary Clinton:
The police report in the case says that “probable cause exists to charge Corey Lewandowski… with (1) count of simple battery… in that he did intentionally touch Michelle Fields… against the will of Michelle Fields.” That’s true enough, but if every instance where someone touched someone else against his or her will were prosecuted, just about all of us would be criminals. This is what the video shows -- an unwanted touch, certainly, but hardly a criminal assault:
The Florida prosecutor whose office is handling the battery case involving Donald Trump’s campaign manager is a long-time Democrat and former state senator who’s now part of Hillary Clinton’s so-called Florida leadership “council.” …
Aronberg, who was elected to the post in 2012, has been listed as a member of Clinton’s “Florida Leadership Council” since November, along with several state senators, representatives and local elected officials. He also gave $1,000 to linton’s campaign in January, according to campaign finance records.
Michelle Fields was not the only Ladies First woman to beclown herself over this nothingburger.
WOW! A new low for the #NeverTrump Cruz gang….
LOOK FOR THESE GALS ON MEGYN KELLY TONIGHT?FOR THE RECORD -- THESE SAME SELF-RIGHTEOUS WOMEN -- Were going to release this letter after the alleged “assault” two weeks ago but held back after video was released that showed nothing happened.
A group of self-righteous Ted Cruz supporters released a prepared statement today demanding Donald Trump fire Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski for the media hoax that he assaulted Michelle Fields by walking past her at a Trump event in Jupiter, Florida.
Lewandowski was charged with “battery” for bumping into
The group of “guilty until proven innocent” are led by Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich and Meghan McCain. HAH-HAH-HAH!
These so-called “conservatives” do not believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. They’re going for it! They also don’t believe in their own lyin’ eyes that shows NOTHING HAPPENED!
But, hey… It’s what Ted Cruz wants.Riffing off Fields’ repeated baseless claims of having been mistreated, the People’s Cube satirized the incident,
The contretemps is only a small fragment of what is happening both here and in Great Britain -- a devolution of political alignments. Wretchard at PJ Media lays it out:
Trump or Cruz can try to bring back the jobs, but it won't be easy; it certainly won't be quick. Although Labor's Jeremy Corbyn has promised to keep the steel works open with government money, in much the same way as Sanders or the CTU or California would mandate increases to solve the downward mobility problem perhaps enough people are beginning to realize this no longer works if ever it did. The parties are selling merchandise that is no longer in production.
Enough disillusionment on both sides of the political divide can lead to an erosion of established two party political systems. This has already occurred to some extent in the UK where the Lib-Lab-Con party monopoly is shattering. The London School of Economics is tracing the ongoing emergence of a British multi-party system. Will a similar development occur in the US? It seems reasonably certain Herbert Stein's law will eventually kick in. "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." What replaces it? That's the question.
Are the Trump verbal gaffes worse than those Obama made and were spackled over by the press? Is being able to parse elegantly one’s positions the most important thing for a candidate? Despite the bleats of the chattering class, which microscopically examines every word for purity?
Author and master wordsmith Tom Wolfe weighs in and says no.
If you go through our history, the strictly intellectual component of the presidency is not all that important. Just look at Reagan. He was a huge success. He was considered an idiot by half of the people in the political field.
I remember Henry Kissinger was at a university once, holding a seminar for ten students and he didn’t know that his remarks were being recorded. And he said something like, “You know, when you first meet Reagan and you spend a half hour with him, you leave saying, ‘Oh my God, how could the future of the free world be dependent on such a stupid guy?’” But then Kissinger said, “And yet every move he makes is right.” Kissinger was horribly embarrassed when that came out. The point is that decision making is not necessarily an intellectual talent.
One of the stories about Reagan that I remember is the time he went to Germany to speak before the Berlin Wall. It was at the time when the Berlin Wall was still a big factor. And so Reagan had a discussion with his advisers about whether or not he should say that the “wall should come down.” And they said, “Oh, don’t say that,” and then told him what he should say instead. But when Reagan gave the speech, he said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and it was a real turning point in the Cold War. It was just Reagan’s gut reaction to the facts.
Time will tell, of course, and I might be proven wrong, but I think Trump is the front runner will be the front runner when convention time comes, and if he is denied the nomination the party will lose against whoever the Democratic nominee is. And, I do not think that nominee will be Hillary because there is every indication that within weeks the FBI head will recommend a substantial criminal prosecution against her. Whatever Attorney General Loretta Lynch decides, the Democrats would be ill-advised to not force her out of the race because the entire intelligence community would not stand still her being let off the hook.
1a) John Kasich’s Case for Staying in the GOP 2016 Race
By
What’s the case for Kasich?
Or, to put the question differently, in a Republican presidential race that many increasingly see as a choice between Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz—and in which many establishment Republicans see Mr. Cruz as the only viable choice to stop the Trump movement—why is Ohio Gov. John Kasich hanging around?
In fact, many Republicans are quietly hoping Mr. Kasich will drop out to leave Mr. Cruz a clear path to stop Mr. Trump. The establishment’s fear is that Mr. Kasich will dilute the anti-Trump vote, starting with next Tuesday’s big Wisconsin primary, and enable Mr. Trump to win despite the kinds of difficulties he has encountered on questions such asabortion and nuclear arms.
Mr. Kasich and his supporters see the situation differently, of course. They insist that they see a path to the nomination. It’s circuitous and some would say implausible, but here it is in a nutshell:
The case starts with an assumption: That Mr. Trump won’t be able to win the 1,237 delegates needed to win a majority on the first ballot at the Republican convention in Cleveland in July. That part of the scenario isn’t implausible. Mr. Trump needs to win roughly two-thirds of the delegates bound to a specific candidate who remain to be chosen to get to that total, and the task will be tougher if he loses in Wisconsin next week. Right now, he trails Mr. Cruz in the polls there, with Mr. Kasich further back in third place.
That would produce a contested convention that is thrown wide open after the first ballot, because most delegates at that point would be free to move to a candidate of their choosing. Some Trump delegates would move to Mr. Cruz, because they come from states where the party is choosing delegates who are nominally Trump delegates but, in fact, are Cruz supporters.
But that wouldn’t be enough to give Mr. Cruz the hundreds of additional delegates he would need to get a majority. Dyed-in-the-wool Trump delegates who have bought into their candidate’s disdain of Mr. Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted” wouldn’t move into the Cruz camp. Cruz delegates angry at Mr. Trump for mocking and belittling their candidate and his wife wouldn’t move into the Trump camp. Deadlock would be the result.
At that point, the case goes, the top priority for delegates who realize they can’t have their first choice and are forced to find an alternative would be to move to a candidate who looks as if he actually can beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the fall. That person is John Kasich.
Mr. Kasich himself made that argument this week in a town-hall meeting with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd. “Well, first of all, you know, I’m really the only candidate that wins against Hillary,” he said. “Last poll, I was up by 11. I mean, the last five or six, I’ve been able to beat her decisively.”
That assumes, of course, that such a deadlocked convention wouldn’t turn to somebody from outside the current field—somebody such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, the party’s vice-presidential nominee last time. Mr. Kasich dismissed that notion by arguing that, at such a point, delegates would want somebody who has been “tested” by the rigors of the campaign: “I don’t know how somebody just pops in.”
It’s a long shot, to be sure, and the most implausible part may be the assumption that deeply conservative Cruz delegates would turn in the end toward a relatively moderate governor who angered the right by expanding Ohio’s Medicaid program as envisioned by the Affordable Care Act passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.
But Kasich backers argue that the divides in this year’s presidential race aren’t deeply ideological, but rather are more about temperament.
Moreover, Mr. Kasich has tried to leave the path clear for both Cruz and Trump backers to come his way by largely avoiding the kinds of attacks on fellow candidates that have marked other campaigns.
As he put it in his comments to MSNBC: “I have a right to lead the party and define the party as much as anybody else.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
‘Godmother’ Hillary shows her mob boss side
Hillary Clinton lost her temper the other day. She said she was “sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me.” It’s hard to believe that this is what she’s sick of — since Sanders is, without question, the gentlest opposition candidate any front-runner has faced in the history of American politics.
The truth is likely this: She’s sick, all right — sick of having to run against Sanders.
Look, she had it in the bag, guys, she had it in the bag. Before she declared her candidacy she made like Don Corleone of “The Godfather” and put all the politicians and party bigwigs in her pocket. She lined up the super delegates. She scared Elizabeth Warren out of the race. She scared Joe Biden out of the race. The only one who dared face her was a septuagenarian leftie lunatic from Vermont.
So what if she lied about her e-mails? So what if the FBI was on her trail? Life was good.
Only now it’s not so good.
The frustration is palpable. Everybody says Sanders can’t win. Everybody says she has the Democratic nomination sewn up. And yet there Bernie is and he won’t go away — and instead of suffering the power outages endemic to socialist regimes, he’s the Energizer Bunny on steroids.
What are these lies about her Hillary is so angry about? The specific claim that set her off didn’t come from the Sanders campaign but from a leftist activist who asked Clinton to defend taking “fossil-fuel” money. She said she didn’t — indeed, it’s illegal for any corporation to donate to a presidential campaign — but then she basically acted as though the activist were an official of the Sanders team spreading falsehoods about her.
The reason the charge makes her angry is that she knows it’s “sticky” — the kind of idea that goes viral. She had faced the same question a few times in previous weeks, all due to an article published by the radical group
Greenpeace detailing $300,000 in donations to Clinton from people who work in the oil and gas industries.
But it’s not “sticky” because it’s about oil and gas. It’s sticky because it resonates with the idea that Clinton is a corporatist in liberal garb secretly plotting to serve the interests of big business and Wall Street against the modest folk. The supposed evils of Wall Street are the focus of the Sanders campaign, and one of the reasons Sanders is bedeviling Clinton’s every step is the ease with which he can tie her to them.
She has only herself to blame in this regard. After all, it was her decision and hers alone to take gigantic speaking fees from investment firms at a time when she knew she was going to be running for president in short order.
A politician with a natural sense of the negative emotions roiling inside her own party would have foregone such gigs. Did she need the money? Please. Her husband made more than $100 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2013, when she left government. Surely she could have borrowed a couple of bucks from him if she was short before payday.
But she didn’t. She took the dough. And that helps to explain why she sputters with rage when confronted with the leftist-populist accusation she hasn’t been hard enough on corporations like oil-and-gas producers closely tied to the “millionaires and billionaires” Sanders excoriates hourly.
The excoriation is working. Sanders won three of three Democratic contests a week ago, and given the enthusiasm of Wisconsin’s highly organized left wing and polling that shows him with a slight lead, he’s likely to win the crucial Badger State on Tuesday night. That will make four in a row, and a total of 16 victories. Ted Cruz, in second place in the GOP race, has won just nine.
The most dramatic sign of the Bernie surge came on Friday, when we learned that in the first quarter of 2016, the Sanders campaign raised $109 million. That’s January, February and March. To give you a sense of just how mammoth this is, the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $112 million in 2015 — only $3 million more over the course of an entire year.
Before Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy she made like Don Corleone of “The Godfather” and put all the politicians and party bigwigs in her pocket.
No one in the history of American politics has ever raised this much money this fast. Ever.
Now, money isn’t everything, as Jeb Bush’s futile presidential bid has shown us. That’s why increasingly frustrated liberal commentators continue to insist, with greater and greater heat, that the Sanders bid is utterly futile. After the Sanders sweep on March 26, Matthew Yglesias of Vox published a piece called “Bernie Sanders just won landslides in 3 diverse states. He’s still toast.”
Yglesias has a point. For while it is true Sanders has collected 41% of all Democratic votes, it’s also the case that Clinton has received 59%. Math is math, and without a complete Hillary meltdown between now and the June 7 California primary, Sanders cannot overtake her in the race for the delegates meted out from primary and caucus victories.
And without a complete change in the party’s temperature and mood, he won’t be able to get those politicians and party bigwigs who constitute the Democratic superdelegates to climb out of her pocket and into hers.
But you don’t have to be an old Vermont commie hippie to remember Bob Dylan’s lyric that “you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” Right now Sanders is generating all the enthusiasm and excitement in the party. That’s what the consecutive victories show. It’s what the money haul shows, and it’s what the mammoth crowds he draws everywhere he goes are showing.
Meanwhile, Hillary is generating all the enthusiasm of the second-weekend audience of a fifth sequel to “Divergent.”
As Sollozzo the Turk, the outsider who decided to challenge Don Corleone, might have put it: “The Godmother is slippin’.”
To be fair, though, it’s likely that many Democrats feel free to vote for Sanders because they think it’s a free vote.
Since they are certain Hillary is going to be the nominee anyway, they can have fun with their ballot. They can offer a hearty salute to the passionate loudmouth who is promising cradle-to-grave free stuff, all of which will be paid for by jailed millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street just before he frog-marches them all right into the prisons he’s going to empty of unfairly incarcerated poor people.
Stranger things have happened than Bernie toppling Hillary at this point. Trump, for example.
If they’re not, though, watch how the Godmother plays the long game. She will be loving and accepting and full of praise and admiration for Sanders and his supporters at her convention coronation. It will be like the meeting of the Five Families, when Vito Corleone agrees to share the political wealth with his fellow Dons.
Then say she wins the presidency — and at that point, the Godmother will settle all family business. It won’t be pretty. My advice to America’s leftist activists would be to avoid all massage tables, lest they meet Moe Greene’s fate. And if Sanders then asks Huma Abedin if she “can help me out, for old times’ sake,” Hillary’s consigliere will answer, “Can’t do it, Bernie.”
Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in national polls and in any primary or caucus state without a significant African-American population.But with her edge in super delegates and the likelihood that she can scratch out a majority even if Sanders keeps winning primaries, no serious political observer really thinks she won’t be the Democrats’ presidential nominee. But that hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of some of Sanders’ most ardent supporters like actress Susan Sarandon. Sarandon set off a mini-firestorm in the world of Hollywood politics by declaring earlier this week that she wasn’t sure she could even vote for Clinton if she won the nomination.
That led to a Twitter fight between Sarandon and Hillary-loving Debra Messing.But Messing wasn’t the only liberal to question Sarandon’s judgment. Would she really sit out November if the general election matchup turned out to be a contest between Donald Trump and Hillary? I don’t think so either. But, I think Sarandon was pointing to a larger problem for Clinton that crosses party lines. As Sarandon seemed to be saying, liberals seem to share at least one belief with conservatives. They both think Hillary is a fake and doesn’t mean a thing she says.
Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes earlier this week if she would still boycott Hillary if it meant Donald Trump becoming president, Sarandon engaged in some pretty heavy duty leftist dialectics.
“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “It’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”
Okay, we get the picture. Sarandon is hoping for either the election of a socialist or depending on Trump inciting some sort of rebellion. Dream on.
But the main thing here is that Sarandon probably isn’t the only member of the Democrats’ left-wing base that happens to think Clinton’s mimicking of Sanders’ left-wing positions during the primaries is insincere.
The interesting thing about Sanders doing far better than anyone remotely expected him to do in this race is that it is clearly a function of dissatisfaction with Clinton rather than a belief on the left that the Vermont senator would make a great president. But Sanders has managed to generate enormous enthusiasm by exhibiting the sort of left-wing ideological purity that they love and which is sorely lacking in the chameleon-like attitudes of their frontrunner.
Sarandon isn’t wrong when she speaks about the excitement Sanders has injected into a Democratic primary process that was set up to produce only one outcome: Hillary’s nomination. The question facing Democrats as Clinton limps down the home stretch is whether the Democrats that have felt the bern are going to be willing to swallow hard and vote for the same person they are currently denouncing as a traitor and a friend of Wall Street. Though no one on the left is willing to talk about the email scandal, let alone concerns about the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Global Foundation’s fundraising, it would be a mistake to think that this doesn’t play into their anger about her connections to big business and unwillingness to trust her. Clinton’s inauthenticity could mean that the hordes of young people and minorities that produced Democratic victories in 2008 and 2012 will stay home rather than taking the trouble to vote for an unpalatable compromise named Hillary.
That probably won’t include Sarandon who probably learned her lesson about the lesser of two evils when she supported Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore in 2000. But others who are not quite so sophisticated may not bother to vote for Hillary. Unless, that is, Donald Trump is the Republican nominee.
In his interview with Sarandon, Hayes hit on the key point for liberals. Whatever they may think of Hillary, Trump may be a powerful turnout engine for Democrats this year. Against a less toxic Republican that would be harder to smear as a fascist, left wing voters can’t be expected to storm the polls the way they did for Barack Obama. Indeed, no one is likely to duplicate the magic of his historic candidacies. But as Trump’s negative ratings soar among women and head-to-head matchups that show him losing to both Clinton and Sanders, no one in the GOP should be under any illusion about the impact of his candidacy. Even those left-wingers that really hope for the outbreak of a “revolution,” are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.
Sarandon’s comments do illustrate the depths of Hillary’s problems with her party’s base. But she can rest easy provided that Republicans don’t stop Trump. He is the answer to all of Clinton’s problems, a veritable “dead man walking” leading the rest of the GOP to a date with the executioner in November.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The Left lost in Israel, but still rules over American Jews.
The American Jewish left is the product of a spiritual vacuum. It is a decadent movement of the directionless, of the neurotically unhappy needing validation and narcissists clamoring for attention. It has no real challenges to grapple with and so it immerses itself in borrowed sufferings and ennobles itself by lecturing others. There is nothing Jewish about the Jewish left. That is the whole point.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Dear Pro-Israel community:
3) The Left lost in Israel, but still rules over American Jews.
The Israeli left as a democratic political movement is dead. That piece of bad news was delivered by a recent survey which shows that only 8% of Israeli Jews identify with the left, 55% with the center and 37% with the right.
In the last election, the establishment Labor Party had to dress up as a wolf in Zionist centrist clothing by renaming itself the Zionist Camp (it still lost). The left had to create two other fake centrist parties to stop Netanyahu, but just ended up having to roll them into his center-right coalition.
The Israeli left still controls the usual undemocratic elitist outposts of the Deep State, media, academia, popular culture and the judiciary, but it can no longer even call itself the left and still hope to win. All it can do is undermine the will of the people and sabotage the country out of selfishness and spite.
The situation in Israel stands in sharp contrast to the United States where 49 percent of Jews lean to the left, 29 percent tend to the center and only 19 percent identify as conservative.It’s a popular and simplistic conclusion on both the left and the right to attribute this split to terrorism. But if Muslim terrorism made people move to the right, New Yorkers would all be Republicans. And until the latest Knife Jihad, the Israeli right’s policies had ended Islamic terrorism as an everyday problem.
The Israeli left’s disastrous peace process with terrorists, which killed more Israelis than the Six Day War, helped discredit it, but it’s far from the whole story. The Israeli left didn’t suddenly implode because of PLO deal. It made the deal with the terrorists because it had been losing elections left and right.
The Israeli left had gone from dominating Israeli politics for thirty years to losing its grip in the seventies. By the eighties, the Israeli left was dying. For the last fifteen years, every Israeli prime minister has come out of the conservative Likud party (even if he didn’t always stay there.)The rise of the Israeli right was fueled by immigrants. It still is. The Israeli left had set up its Socialist utopia of intertwined labor unions, collective farms, social welfare and political organizations in which your ability to earn a living depended on your political ties to the left. Holocaust survivors were violently assaulted by leftist thugs as soon as they reached the shore if they didn’t belong to the left. Middle Eastern Jewish refugees encountered a bigoted leftist system that viewed them as only slightly better than animals. Russian Jews fleeing the USSR often found an equally hostile welcome waiting for them.
These groups helped topple the left from power. The Holocaust survivors had been fleeing National Socialism. Middle Eastern Jews had fled Arab Socialist dictatorships. Russian Jews had escaped the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism had few positive connotations for them. And the discrimination they encountered from the left as soon as they arrived convinced them to join the right.
The left had always understood that Jewish immigration to Israel posed the biggest threat to its rule. It needed immigrants, but it also hated and feared them. And they learned to hate it back. In the United States, first-generation and even second-generation immigrants make up a much smaller proportion of the American Jewish population than they do in the Israel. And, like their Israeli counterparts, first-generation Jewish immigrants in America from the USSR or Syria tend to be politically conservative.
Twice as many Israeli Jews as American Jews believe in G-d. What do American Jews who don’t believe in G-d believe in? Usually the answer is Obama. Or in Israel, a fantasy of peace with Islamic terrorists.That’s part of the story. But it’s also not the whole story. To see the rest of it, we have to look at American Jews. You can predict the politics of American Jews based on their religiosity.60 percent of Jews who attend weekly religious services disapprove of Obama. Only 34 percent approve. Among those who don’t attend religious services, approval stands at 58 percent to 38 percent. In Israel, the left finds its greatest support among secular Jews and the right hits its best numbers among religious Jews. Left-wing identification in America is 50% higher among Jews of no religion. The number of American Jews of no religion has tripled since 2001. Meanwhile the Israeli secular population is declining.
Secularism does not in and of itself translate into leftist politics. Even secular Israelis are more likely to identify with the right than with the left (though by a much smaller margin). But secularism does create a vacuum that the left is quite adept at filling with its cults of personality, political messianism, pseudoscientific doomsdays and apocalyptic struggles for the future of mankind.
The American Jewish left is the product of a spiritual vacuum. It is a decadent movement of the directionless, of the neurotically unhappy needing validation and narcissists clamoring for attention. It has no real challenges to grapple with and so it immerses itself in borrowed sufferings and ennobles itself by lecturing others. There is nothing Jewish about the Jewish left. That is the whole point.
To many American Jews, land is not finite and there is no reason to fight anyone over it. But tell that to a Jewish farmer or herder on a plot of land overlooking a terrorist encampment. His life has less in common with New York than with a Texas outpost before a Comanche Moon or Afghanistan.American and Israeli Jews exist in fundamentally different political, economic and religious contexts.Both American and Israeli Jews have an immigrant narrative, but their narratives are very different. The Israeli immigrant narrative began with a pioneer story of settlers clearing land for settlements and fighting off savages. This resembles the American pioneer narrative, but has little in common with an American Jewish narrative of modern urban immigration. While American Jews also went west, built cabins, farmed, mined and were scalped, their narratives were discarded for social justice reasons.
The next phase of the immigrant narrative ended very differently in America and Israel. In America, the left won its struggle with poor religious Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe whose descendants became secular leftists raised to think of the Democratic Party as their religion. In Israel, the left lost its struggle with poor religious Jewish immigrants from the Middle East despite using every dirty trick.
The fall of the left in Israel reflects a country where the struggle between religion and the left, between immigrants and political elites, ended with a fundamentally different outcome than it did in America.
Generations of American Jews have been indoctrinated to think of left-wing ideas as elementally Jewish. They are unaware of any conflict between their ideas and their origins. But to many Israeli Jews, left-wing agendas are antithetical to Jewish values. Middle Eastern Jewish refugees and Soviet Jews had to defy the left to remain Jewish.
All of these combined created very different cultural contexts. American and Israeli Jews both felt vulnerable, but the former responded to it by becoming less Jewish and the latter by becoming more Jewish. Israeli Jews have found strength in becoming more Jewish. American Jews have only found neurosis and spiritual emptiness in becoming more leftist.Finally in the economic context, Israel has opened up economic opportunities by moving away from the left to a more open economy. Americans have never lived under Socialism and so are more willing to believe the empty promises than people who have suffered under the real thing.American Jews define themselves by a progressive narrative of struggling for equality. In Israel, the struggle for equality for a majority of Jews was a struggle against the left. The left has taught many American Jews to view religious devotion and nationalism as evils. In Israel, they are virtues.
And so the left lost in Israel, but still rules over American Jews.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Dear Pro-Israel community:
We are writing to you as UniFI UGA, United for Israel UGA, a coalition of pro-Israel student organizations on campus.
We would like to inform you that April 4th – 7th is “Israeli Apartheid Week” at the University of Georgia, sponsored by the pro-Palestinian groups on campus. They will table daily at Tate and host nightly movie screenings or guest speakers.
The content of Israeli Apartheid Week may be upsetting. This content falsely accuses Israel of being an “apartheid state”, and of committing “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” against the Palestinians, among other insinuations.
As supporters of Israel and advocates for peace, it is painful to watch a group with so much passion for justice direct it towards demonizing and delegitimizing the State of Israel. However, it is our duty and of the utmost importance that we hear their viewpoints and engage in peaceful dialogue in the most respectful manner possible. We must respect their freedom of speech and can use this time as an opportunity to promote peaceful and constructive dialogue. It is up to us to find a means of creating an atmosphere of discussion rather than protest.
This is our chance to show UGA the strength and unity of our pro-Israel voice.
We hope to have a strong showing at our Israel events next week (details below)! In addition, please take the time to read this article to learn more about the facts and fallacies behind Apartheid Week.
Remember: At the end of the day, the most important thing we are ‘pro’ is pro- peace.
Signed,
UniFI UGA
Alpha Epsilon Pi
Chabad at UGA
Christians United for Israel (CUFI)
Dawgs for Israel (DFI)
Hillel at UGA
Sigma Delta Tau
Students Supporting Israel at UGA (SSI)
Tau Epsilon Phi
UGAIPAC
Zeta Beta Tau
=====================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment