+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Politicians get in the way of politics. (See 1 below.)
And:
No plan B. (See 1a below.)
Gabbard seems rational when it comes to Open Borders but her compatriots will not listen because they are already committed.(See 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent by a dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hamas rockets and Israel responds. Will it ever stop? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rags to riches story. Certainly not that of Truman. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump sent out the following tweet about tonight's debate. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More Bolton commentary and this time with regard to Israel. (See 6 and 6a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ZOA Chairman deservedly aims both barrels at Bernie and Pocahontas. (See 7 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The Problem With Politics Is the Politicians
They take credit for things they didn’t do and avoid accountability for the messes they make.
By Bobby Jindal
Pity Joe Biden. He has to convince voters both that the economy was booming less than three years ago, when he and Barack Obama were in charge, and that it’s now fallen into such a mess that we need Mr. Biden to come fix it. Whereas Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in large part by asking voters to consider if they were better off than they were four years ago, Mr. Biden and the seemingly endless list of other candidates running for president would rather voters think about anything but the economy. Democrats want American voters for the next year and a half to be perpetually anxious that the end is imminent but can be staved off at the ballot box.
This is nothing new. Politicians like to warn voters that the current election is the most important one in their lifetimes. Though politicians—and some used car salesmen—can be forgiven for their over-the-top sales antics, many candidates actually believe their elections are critical to the fate of the republic, and that their opponents must lose for humanity to continue flourishing. Republicans, who persistently remind voters of the unique virtues of the Founding Fathers and the limited government they created, nonetheless constantly warn that the next Democrat’s election threatens to undo centuries of sacrifice.
Invoking a historic sense of urgency isn’t limited to election cycles. Progressives seem to be in a constant state of frenzy about the crisis of the hour. Without a moment to celebrate the decline of mass starvation and extreme poverty, they turned their attention to rising child obesity and income inequality. The decline in smog and air pollution coincided with a new focus on rising CO2 emissions. Global cooling was seamlessly replaced with the existential threat of global warming. The Supreme Court decision striking down state bans on gay marriage was immediately succeeded by legal wrangling over transgender rights, pronoun usage and bathroom access as the next great civil-rights fight.
Even recent hard-fought liberal victories aren’t safe, as the goal posts continually move the left. ObamaCare’s federally mandated coverage, combined with large subsidies, resulted in a lower uninsured rate, yet Bernie Sanders et al. insist the exchanges, Medicare and all private health insurance be scrapped in favor of a fully state-run system. Mr. Biden’s previous legislative victories, like the 1994 crime bill promoting tougher sentences and increased funding for more police officers, are now the subjects of nasty fights in the Democratic primary race.
Like a rooster taking credit for the sun rising, Mr. Obama gladly took credit for reducing CO2 emissions while the economy grew. He preferred to ignore the fracking revolution that made natural gas more plentiful and affordable and thus displaced coal use and helped to reduce CO2 emissions. You can see why fracking didn’t excite Mr. Obama—increasing use of natural gas, and the continued use of zero-emissions nuclear energy, didn’t require the heroic leadership of liberal politicos. Mainly it required getting out of the way.
Politicians know their legacies will be burnished by grand gestures and not incremental reforms. Statues are built and schools renamed to honor those who boldly spend other people’s money. Besides, there is little downside for government overresponding; there is no real accounting for the blank check liberal politicians get from a sympathetic media. Nobody gets blamed for describing the crisis on the horizon and responding with a public emergency declaration, new health or education programs, or an elevated homeland threat level, even if the crisis proves illusory or impervious to the promised solutions.
Politicians get credit for trying to do something, but they’re usually out of office before the results can be measured. The failure of previous progressive reforms merely provides the rationale for the next round of government initiatives. The federal and state education departments are filled with decades of failed blue-ribbon reports on how to improve student performance, the one constant being that more government spending and intervention are required. The one lesson progressives never seem to learn is the futility of their previous interventions. No wonder Reagan (borrowing a line from South Carolina politician and judge James F. Byrnes) quipped the closest thing to eternal life on earth was a government program.
This is not to suggest the world—or America—is perfect. Yet voters should have confidence in the continued success of the American experiment despite, not because of, politicians. Political parties can hardly campaign on uninspiring pledges to keep government out of the way, tinker around the edges, and avoid screwing things up. But that is often what’s needed. The Founders had it right: The people can be trusted, and government is there to secure, not create, their rights.
Mr. Jindal served as governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and was a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination
1a) The Democrats’ Dilemma
A ‘normal’ candidate might defeat Trump, but beyond Joe Biden, there is no Plan B.
By Daniel Henninger
It’s too late to turn back now. The 2020 presidential campaign is underway, which means the American people are about to have their second, mass out-of-body political experience.
By now, most of us have become accustomed to the psychological dislocation of Donald Trump. But how to explain the Democrats? Ten Democrats will be onstage in Houston Thursday evening for another antic three hours of paying obeisances and tribute to the party’s left wing.
There is an air of weirdness around the party’s candidates. One explanation for how it got so crazy is that after Hillary Clinton ’s loss in 2016, many Democrats concluded that the realities of presidential campaigning had shifted, that the only way one can command the attention of the media and electorate is to act “like Trump.” Which is to say, be anything but normal. Lucky us.
While it’s understood by now that Mr. Trump routinely issues outrageous claims to keep the fact-checkers’ union employed, the Democratic candidates’ lurch into fantasy during the CNN town hall on “the climate” was something to behold. The only thing missing was a Texas cattle auctioneer to conduct the bidding.
Elizabeth Warren bid $3 trillion to save the planet, and Beto O’Rourke upped that to $5 trillion. Andrew Yang matched his $5 trillion and Julián Castro raised the bid to $10 trillion. Naturally Kamala Harris matched his $10 trillion. Then Bernie Sanders, God love him, blew away the bidding with $16 trillion, which he said would “pay for itself.”
Sen. Harris, under pressure from Sunrise Movement climate activists and their allied CNN “news” anchor, blurted in quick succession that yes, she’d ban fracking, red meat’s gotta go and certainly plastic straws, though at this point, her brain wilting, she said, “I’m going to be honest: It’s really difficult to drink out of a paper straw—like, if you don’t gulp it down immediately, it starts to bend, and then the little thing catches it. So, we gotta kind of perfect that one a little bit more.”
It is virtually impossible to have a conversation with a Democrat older than, say, 40, who doesn’t go into eye-rolling over this slate of candidates. Most of the nation’s Democrats hold political beliefs that run rightward to the horizon from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and most likely would agree the sanest thing said in that climate town hall’s seven hours came from Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “I think you’ve got to be honest with people about how you’re going to get the money and what you’re going to spend it on, or it’s going to be really hard to bring along those people that we need to win in the middle of the country.”
Oh, them. She means all the millions of blue-collar workers whose jobs are in some way connected to energy production, and who will re-elect Mr. Trump if their alternative is a Democrat nominated by the Sunshine Movement.
But Sen. Klobuchar’s polling support among Democrats is, at most, 2%. For many Democrats, that makes their default choice Joe Biden, the party’s front-runner and, they hope, the choice of every voter of any party affiliation who believes that four more years with Donald Trump would be intolerable.
With Mr. Trump’s approval rating stuck permanently in the low- to mid-40s, and 57% thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction, one would expect Democrats to be buoyant. Not the nonactivist Democrats I talk to. They’re depressed.
They like Mr. Biden, but it’s striking how many don’t think he’ll make it to the nomination. And if he falters, for them there is no Plan B unless Mr. Biden (or in their dreams, the sainted Barack Obama ) were to throw his support to one of the “normal” Democrats at the bottom of the standings—Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Michael Bennet, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock or perhaps an undeclared candidate such as Ohio’s left-leaning but blue-collar Sen. Sherrod Brown. History’s most reluctant dark horse, Michael Bloomberg, might even re-emerge in a post-Biden vacuum.
Their frustration is born of the belief that a “normal” Democratic candidate should be able to beat the increasingly mercurial Mr. Trump. It’s a plausible scenario, but what really depresses many Democrats is the expectation that a normal candidacy isn’t going to happen.
It won’t happen because the Democratic left holds the commanding heights of politics now—traditional and social media, whose combined powers of candidate intimidation (as CNN’s climate group-think proved) seem impossible to overcome. Building out from this “base,” the Democratic left thinks it has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to win the presidency.
Any such victory won’t have much to do with the beliefs or policy preferences of the electorate. Instead, the progressives—again with the Trump 2016 campaign as their model—will turn the election into a spectacle. They’ll make it a bullfight. The incumbent president is the bull. They’ll let the picadores of the press enrage and enervate him with barbs until the raging bull stumbles into defeat before the relentless Elizabeth Warren. It could happen.
Write henningerSen. Harris, under pressure from Sunrise Movement climate activists and their allied CNN “news” anchor, blurted in quick succession that yes, she’d ban fracking, red meat’s gotta go and certainly plastic straws, though at this point, her brain wilting, she said, “I’m going to be honest: It’s really difficult to drink out of a paper straw—like, if you don’t gulp it down immediately, it starts to bend, and then the little thing catches it. So, we gotta kind of perfect that one a little bit more.”
It is virtually impossible to have a conversation with a Democrat older than, say, 40, who doesn’t go into eye-rolling over this slate of candidates. Most of the nation’s Democrats hold political beliefs that run rightward to the horizon from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and most likely would agree the sanest thing said in that climate town hall’s seven hours came from Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “I think you’ve got to be honest with people about how you’re going to get the money and what you’re going to spend it on, or it’s going to be really hard to bring along those people that we need to win in the middle of the country.”
Oh, them. She means all the millions of blue-collar workers whose jobs are in some way connected to energy production, and who will re-elect Mr. Trump if their alternative is a Democrat nominated by the Sunshine Movement.
But Sen. Klobuchar’s polling support among Democrats is, at most, 2%. For many Democrats, that makes their default choice Joe Biden, the party’s front-runner and, they hope, the choice of every voter of any party affiliation who believes that four more years with Donald Trump would be intolerable.
With Mr. Trump’s approval rating stuck permanently in the low- to mid-40s, and 57% thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction, one would expect Democrats to be buoyant. Not the non-activist Democrats I talk to. They’re depressed.
They like Mr. Biden, but it’s striking how many don’t think he’ll make it to the nomination. And if he falters, for them there is no Plan B unless Mr. Biden (or in their dreams, the sainted Barack Obama ) were to throw his support to one of the “normal” Democrats at the bottom of the standings—Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Michael Bennet, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock or perhaps an undeclared candidate such as Ohio’s left-leaning but blue-collar Sen. Sherrod Brown. History’s most reluctant dark horse, Michael Bloomberg, might even re-emerge in a post-Biden vacuum.
Their frustration is born of the belief that a “normal” Democratic candidate should be able to beat the increasingly mercurial Mr. Trump. It’s a plausible scenario, but what really depresses many Democrats is the expectation that a normal candidacy isn’t going to happen.
It won’t happen because the Democratic left holds the commanding heights of politics now—traditional and social media, whose combined powers of candidate intimidation (as CNN’s climate group-think proved) seem impossible to overcome. Building out from this “base,” the Democratic left thinks it has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to win the presidency.
Any such victory won’t have much to do with the beliefs or policy preferences of the electorate. Instead, the progressives—again with the Trump 2016 campaign as their model—will turn the election into a spectacle. They’ll make it a bullfight. The incumbent president is the bull. They’ll let the picadores of the press enrage and enervate him with barbs until the raging bull stumbles into defeat before the relentless Elizabeth Warren. It could happen.
1b)
Tulsi Gabbard: The Rest of Democratic Primary Field Has Embraced ‘Open Borders’ By Jack Crowe
Posted by Ruth King
Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) derided her fellow Democratic presidential candidates during a recent interview for embracing permissive immigration policies, accusing them of support for “open borders.”
Asked if she believes “open borders” is a fair descriptor of the positions embraced by her Democratic primary opponents, Gabbard told YouTube host Dave Rubin that it was an accurate label and dismissed the oft-repeated Democratic rejoinder that conservatives use the phrase to tar their political adversaries.
“I don’t support open borders. Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country,” she said. “And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say ‘well, open borders that’s a conservative argument and that’s not really what’s being advocated for’ — if you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re advocating for, it is essentially open borders.”
Long-shot presidential contender Julian Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development under President Obama, managed to pull the Democratic primary field leftward on immigration during the campaign’s first debate, by asking those on stage to commit to decriminalizing illegal border crossings. All ten candidates on stage, with the notable exception of Beto O’Rourke, endorsed Castro’s plan, as did eight out of the ten candidates who took the stage the following night.
Gabbard — who failed to qualify for the third Democratic primary debate, scheduled for Tuesday night — has grown increasingly vocal in her opposition to the Democratic establishment.
Appearing on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight last month, Gabbard slammed the Democratic National Committee, charging that there is a lack of transparency in the process that determines who makes the debate stage.
“I think the bigger problem is that the whole process really lacks transparency,” Gabbard said. “People deserve having that transparency because ultimately it’s the people who will decide who our Democratic nominee will be.”
The Army veteran went on to suggest that the lack of transparency furthers the perception that a group of connected political elites effectively chooses the president by winnowing the field absent voter input.
“Really what they see is a small group of really powerful political elites, the establishment making decisions that serve their interests and maintaining that power while the rest of us are left outside. The American people are left behind,” she said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Actual letters to Dear Abby..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1. Dear Abby, A couple of women moved in across the hall from me. One is a middle-aged gym teacher and the other is a social worker in her mid twenties. These two women go everywhere together, and I've never seen a man go into or leave their apartment. Do you think they could be Lebanese?2. Dear Abby, What can I do about all the sex, Nudity, Fowl Language and Violence on my VCR?3. Dear Abby, I have a man I can't trust. He cheats so much, I'm not even sure the baby I'm carrying is his.4. Dear Abby, I am a twenty-three year old liberated woman who has been on the pill for two years. It's getting expensive and I think my boyfriend should share half the cost, but I don't know him well enough to discuss money with him.5. Dear Abby, I've suspected that my husband has been fooling around, and when confronted with the evidence, he denied everything and said it would never happen again.6. Dear Abby, Our son writes that he is taking Judo. Why would a boy who was raised in a good Christian home turn against his own?7. Dear Abby, I joined the Navy to see the world. I've seen it. Now how do I get out?8. Dear Abby, My forty year old son has been paying a psychiatrist $50.00 an hour every week for two and a half years. He must be crazy.9. Dear Abby, I was married to Bill for three months and I didn't know he drank until one night he came home sober.10. Dear Abby, My mother is mean and short tempered. I think she is going through mental pause.11. Dear Abby, You told some woman whose husband had lost all interest in sex to send him to a doctor. Well, my husband lost all interest in sex and he is a doctor. Now what do I do?
3)
For second night in a row, IDF strikes Hamas targets in Gaza
Israeli air strikes in response to firing of three rockets at kibbutzim in southern Israel from the terrorist enclave. Home in Moshav Netiv Haasara sustains damage in attack.
The Israel Defense Forces attacked military installations belonging to the Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip, Wednesday night. The attack was carried out in response to the firing of rockets from the coastal enclave into Israeli territory Thursday afternoon, one of which caused damage to a home in Moshav Netiv Haasara.
The IDF attacked Hamas positions on Wednesday shortly after several rockets hit Israeli territory.
Code Red sirens were sounded in Kibbutz Zikim and Moshav Mavki'im late Wednesday evening in what the IDF Spokesperson's Unit called a false alarm. A 77-year-old woman was injured while running to a safe room.
Rocket sirens were heard around 1 p.m. in kibbutzim around the northern Gaza Strip, with several residents reporting an explosion
IDF officials said three launches were detected and that an Israeli tank fired on Hamas positions in the Gaza Strip shortly after the attack.
Earlier on Wednesday, Israeli aircraft attacked 15 Hamas targets in the Gaza Trip, including a tunnel used for potential attacks. The aerial attack was in response to a Hamas provocation on Tuesday that saw rockets fired toward Ashdod and Ashkelon while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was holding an election rally.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) A true rags-to-riches story (Obama)
Easy to jump on the current guy, and actively seek to remove him from office, while maintaining your own wonderfulness, but...
A true rags-to-riches story of a community organizer...
Former President Barack Husein Obama, and former first lady Michelle are purchasing a multi-million dollar mansion and private island in Martha’s Vineyard, off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. It was reported that the Obamas are purchasing the property, which has 29 beachfront acres and seven bedrooms, for a discounted price of $14,850,000. The former first family rented that same property last summer and enjoyed it so much they decided to purchase it. The house also includes a pool, a Jacuzzi, and an outdoor fireplace.
The Obamas currently reside in an $8.1 million mansion in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington, D.C., which they bought in May 2017, according to Town & Country Magazine. Despite the Obamas’ taste for the high life, they have criticized the wealthy for living extravagantly and have pushed back against income inequality.
In June 2017 the former president gave a $7,700-a-minute speech to the Chamber of Commerce in Montreal, warning that the world must do more to COMBAT income inequality! (Don't ya love it?)
Obama’s net worth is estimated to be about $40 million. Just for the record, when Obama was running for President in 2007, he was making $80,000 as a Senator from Illinois and $32,000 as a lecturer (teacher?) at the University of Chicago Law School. When he became president, he had a salary of $400,000. Michelle had no income because she was DISBARRED as an attorney (now claiming to be a "stay at home mom"). Interestingly, Barack gave up his license to practice because he had no plans to practice law after leaving his position as Senator, and his election was assured.
Go figure. From $112,000 to $40 Million in eight years. What’s wrong with this picture?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) We can’t wait for tonight. The Top 10 Corrupt Liberals will take the stage at 8 PM tonight and debate on which of their plans would ruin our country the most.
Here’s a list of the top things we expect to hear the Democrats debate tonight:
5) We can’t wait for tonight. The Top 10 Corrupt Liberals will take the stage at 8 PM tonight and debate on which of their plans would ruin our country the most.
Here’s a list of the top things we expect to hear the Democrats debate tonight:
- Banning plastic straws
- Destroying all fossil fuels
- Banning fracking everywhere
- Raising your taxes to pay for illegal criminals
- No more offshore drilling - taking jobs away from tens of thousands of people
- Light bulb ban
- And, no more cheeseburgers!
Before these wacky candidates start arguing about who’s WORSE for America, President Trump wants to get your critical input on a few important matters and has asked to see all responses submitted before the Dem Debate tonight.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) John Bolton’s Integrity
What we should want in a public official.
By John Podhoretz
John Bolton has never trimmed his sails in pursuit of power or authority. He is who he is and always has been. He believes in the efficacy of American power and the need to project it to make America safer and improve its position in the world. And he believes that we should confront antagonists rather than seek to find common ground with them.
He was this person the day before Donald Trump appointed him national security adviser, and he remained that person throughout his tenure. He argued internally for exactly the policies and ideas he had advocated before he was installed in the West Wing.
Love his views or hate his views, isn’t this what we want from our public servants—what might be called “intellectual transparency?” Those who disagree with Bolton’s worldview are right to celebrate his departure, but they only know they are right because Bolton is not a prevaricator or a careerist. I have had my differences with him in the past. In 2007, he spoke at a COMMENTARY dinner at which he went through the possibilities of salutary American military action in the Middle East without bothering to confront the argument that the mess in Iraq pretty much precluded any further action along the lines he was laying out.
That said, consider the difference between Bolton’s White House tenure and that of, say, Samantha Power—a person who rose to prominence arguing heatedly and with the zeal of an Old Testament prophet that failure to stop genocides was the moral stain of our age and who then sat there like a tower of Jell-O in the Obama White House as a genocide went on in Syria.
From what we can tell, Bolton never stopped pushing his positions on American strength and not coddling our enemies, on the reasonable assumption that this was what he was there for. Or perhaps because, as a man of integrity, he could do no other. At a time when people are twisting themselves into ideological pretzels to keep their jobs and stay in good with the boss, John Bolton kept his honor and his integrity. And in the end, what else does a public intellectual have but those?
John Podhoretz is the editor of Commentary.
6a) Analysis Why Netanyahu and Dermer Have Kept Silent About John Bolton
The prime minister heaped praise on another Trump aide who recently left the administration – but he has good reasons to stay silent on Bolton’s dismissal
By Amir Tibon
On Tuesday night, hours after President Donald Trump announced his firing of National Security Adviser John Bolton, the Israeli Embassy in Washington hosted its annual reception ahead of the Jewish High Holy Days. The timing of the event made it more interesting than most other years, as many of the guests wondered what might be said about the dramatic personnel changes in the White House.
To the disappointment of some drama-craving guests, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, didn’t mention Bolton in his speech. He did thank and praise Jason Greenblatt, the other senior Trump aide who recently announced his departure from the administration, for his work — which made the omission of Bolton’s name all the more noticeable.
Greenblatt worked closely with the Israeli government over the past two and a half years on the administration’s Middle East peace plan, and he is well-liked and appreciated by Dermer and his boss, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But his warm relations with Netanyahu and Dermer pale in comparison to the pair's years-long alliance with Bolton, which began when Greenblatt was still working as Trump’s personal lawyer in Manhattan.
The day Bolton became Trump’s national security adviser in April 2018 was one of the best days for Netanyahu and Dermer since Trump entered the White House — second only to when the U.S. president declared his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Bolton replaced H.R. McMaster, who was considered one of the more moderate voices around Trump and was known for opposing the drastic step of withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal. When Bolton replaced him last year, it became clear that Trump would indeed withdraw from the deal — presenting Netanyahu with a major public relations achievement.
Bolton’s assistance to Netanyahu didn’t end with his influence on Trump regarding the Iran deal. That was just the beginning.
For the past 17 months he was closely coordinated with Dermer on everything related to Iran and the Americans’ “maximum pressure” campaign against the regime in Tehran. Bolton made several trips to Jerusalem — including one in January, in the lead-up to this year’s first election, which Netanyahu used in his campaign propaganda to highlight his close ties with the Trump administration.
In recent weeks Bolton was the main contact point inside the White House for Netanyahu’s attempts to organize a last-minute “election gesture” from Trump — one that would help him secure another term in office. Netanyahu wanted to bring Bolton and his Russian counterpart over for a high-profile meeting in Jerusalem before Election Day. A similar gathering already happened in June, at the beginning of the “do-over” election campaign. Netanyahu publicly mentioned this idea just a week ago, when Bolton’s job was still considered safe.
With Bolton out of the White House, it’s unclear if Netanyahu will succeed in getting any kind of public gesture from Trump before next Tuesday. The White House helped Netanyahu several time during the April election campaign, most notably with Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. This time, despite heavy pressure from the Israeli side, Trump still hasn’t delivered anything for Netanyahu — although there are still six days left, which is an eternity in Israeli political terms.
Perhaps that’s why on Tuesday night, despite the Israeli disappointment over Bolton’s dismissal, Dermer didn’t utter a single word about the friendly national security adviser. Netanyahu, who was quick to thank Greenblatt publicly when his departure was announced last week, also remained silent about Bolton on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, despite the gratitude he has for Bolton’s role on Iran.
One thing Dermer did say in his speech, however, hinted at the growing concern in Jerusalem regarding Trump’s wishes to start new negotiations with the Iranians. Dermer said now wasn’t the time to ease the pressure on Iran and instead urged Trump “to stay the course, stand up to Iran’s aggression and continue ratcheting up the pressure.”
Bolton isn’t the only Iran hawk inside the administration, of course.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was one of the toughest critics of the Iran deal when he was a member of Congress, and the State Department under his watch has taken a tough line against Iran in multiple arenas. But Pompeo is also a politician with his own personal ambitions, and at this point in his career he is viewed as personally loyal to Trump more than to any coherent ideological line.
This was evident on Tuesday when, shortly after Bolton was fired and during a press conference announcing new sanctions against Iran and several terror organizations, Pompeo was asked if Trump could soon meet with Iranian President Hassan Rohani. His response was that such a meeting was possible and Trump would agree to it “with no preconditions.” Bloomberg repo
One can only imagine what Congressman Pompeo would have said in 2016 if President Barack Obama had agreed to meet the Iranian leader “with no preconditions,” less than 48 hours after the Israeli prime minister had released information about suspected nuclear sites in Iran.
The current assessment in Israel, as reported earlier this week by Amos Harel, is that a meeting between Trump and Rohani is a question of when, not if. But another question should also be raising concern in Jerusalem: Who will replace Bolton, and how different will that person’s views be from those of Netanyahu’s ousted ally.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7) Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein and ZOA Chairman Mark Levenson, Esq. released the following statement:
Horrifyingly, the race for the presidency seems to be turning into a race to the bottom, to see who can hire the worst antisemitic Israelophobic bigots. It is particularly painful that Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders is (again, as he did in 2016) employing vicious Jew-hater and terrorism promoter Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate. Sanders is also using Sarsour in new campaign video ads, touting Sanders’ “transformative” foreign policy for Palestinian-Arab “self-determination” (meaning, usurping land lawfully designated for the Jewish homeland to create an empowered terrorist Iran-Hamas-Fatah Palestinian-Arab state dedicated to Israel’s destruction).
Not to be outdone, Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren (who hails from the U.S. state with the second highest percentage of Jews) hired vicious Israelophobe and Hamas-lover Max Berger to be her “Director of Progressive Partnerships.” ZOA previously urged Senator Warren to fire Berger. (See “ZOA Urges Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Fire Hamas-Loving, Israel-Hating “IfNotNow” Co-Founder Max Berger,” July 9, 2019.)
ZOA likewise urges Senator Sanders to immediately disassociate himself from vicious Jew-hater Linda Sarsour.
ZOA has frequently catalogued and condemned Sanders-surrogate Linda Sarsour’s repeated, hateful antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-women, anti-Muslim-reformer statements and Sarsour’s incitement to violence and promotion of anti-Jewish boycotts. Among other things:
- Sarsour tweeted that the Palestinian-Arab terror wars against Jews, the intifadas “are invaluable on many fronts.” Palestinian-Arabs maimed or murdered approximately 12,000 innocent Jews in the first two intifadas.
- Sarsour recently falsely accused pro-Israel American Zionists of marching alongside the Ku Klux Klan.
- Sarsour posted and glorified a photo of an Arab child holding rocks to throw at Israelis as “the definition of courage.”
- Ms. Sarsour aligned herself with, shared a podium with, and extolled convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who murdered two Jewish college students in a 1969 supermarket bombing in Israel and was deported for concealing her terrorist crimes on her U.S. immigration forms. Sarsour gushed that she was “honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.”
- Sarsour defamed the Jewish homeland’s right to exist, tweeting that “nothing is creepier than Zionism.” Sarsour also tweeted “[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is a waste of a human being.”
- Sarsour attempts to exclude Jews from the women’s movement, asserting that Zionists cannot be feminists.
- Meanwhile, Sarsour viciously attacks genuine feminists such as Brigitte Gabriel, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who fight for women’s rights and for ending female genital mutilation in repressive Muslim societies. Sarsour tweeted: “Brigitte Gabriel – Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking for an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take away their vaginas – they don’t deserve to be women.”
- Further, Asmi Fathelbab, a woman employee at the Arab American Association of New York (AAANY) headed by Linda Sarsour, described how Sarsour threatened and raged at Ms. Fathelbab, and enabled continued assaults, when Ms. Fathelbab reported being repeatedly sexually assaulted by a male AAANY employee.
- Sarsour praised brutal Iraqi dictator and mass-murderer Saddam Hussein as a “hero” and moaned that “my [Sarsour’s] Arab pride was hurt” when Saddam Hussein was captured. Sarsour especially lauded that Saddam Hussein “supported the struggle against Israel.” (Saddam Hussein shot scud missiles into Israel, killing and injuring innocent Israelis and doing enormous property damage; systematically gave $25,000 checks to families of Palestinian-Arab suicide terrorists’, including the bomber of the Moment Café, who murdered 11 innocent Israelis and injured 51 innocent Israelis; trained Palestinian-Arab terrorists; and operated the terrorist “Palestinian Liberation Front” terror group.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment