The Democrat Campaign is programmed to demonize the Trump demon so they do not have to come up with solutions better than Trump's. The problem the Democrats have is,there are no solutions to many of America's self-induced problems because we have gone too far in the wrong direction. It took Obama 8 years to transform America and Trump has only been in office half that time and Biden has been in for forty plus years.
So attack Trump, play off his foibles and hope you can finesse the great unwashed into believing Trump's personality transcends his accomplishments. Focus on his hair, tweets, unorthodox style of management and insecurities not what he has done and can do if re-elected and is given a co-operative Congress and dealt a balanced hand by the mass media.
Keep tearing demon Trump down, focus on his bullying and boorish behaviour so Biden can remain hidden in the basement out of sight so no one thinks about Biden's obedient march toward the left with strings being pulled by the radicals who have become the face of the Democrat Party.
It is a sick approach, lends itself to doom and gloom rhetoric, which is what the first two Democrat Virtual Convention days is all about. Democrats are mostly an unhappy lot, always finding fault, always carping . If everything was going well Democrats and radical liberals would have little reason to exist.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/st
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Michelle Obama accused Trump of ripping children from their parents and placing them in cages. What she purposefully failed to tell her audience is that her own husband built those cages.
Democrats have perfected identity politics, accuse their opposition of what they themselves do and are shameless hypocrites. In pursuit of power, Democrats will do and say anything because that is what their political gamesmanship is all about and that is why it, so often, attracts the scummiest of societal dredges to their ranks. I offer Obama, the Clinton's, Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters et al as breathing evidence, along with an assorted number of their faithful minions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good friends are reliable and prone to support you knowing you have their back as well. Our good friends are more interested in commercial opportunities and therefore, are willing to ignore Iran's support of world terrorism.
With friends like these…
Key European allies side with Tehran, Moscow and Beijing
Iran’s rulers characterized what happened at the U.N. Security Council last week as a “heavy defeat for Washington,” and I can’t say they’re wrong. Most distressing: It was not America’s enemies who were responsible. It was some of America’s closest friends.
At issue was a simple question: Should it be legal and easy for the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to buy and sell fighter jets, attack helicopters, battle tanks, naval platforms – all and any conventional weapons?
The U.S. said no.
Russia and China, permanent Security Council members, said, in effect: “Yes, absolutely! Such weapons, which we’ll happily sell to Iran’s rulers, will only kill people we don’t care about, for example, in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel.”
The leaders of Britain and France, also permanent members of the Security Council, along with Germany, Belgium, and Estonia, temporary members, abstained.
Because they found the question a headscratcher? Or, as I fear, because they have adopted a policy of accommodation and appeasement vis-à-vis threatening regimes? Keep in mind that Iran’s rulers and their de facto foreign legion, Hezbollah, have been responsible for multiple acts of terrorism on European soil.
A little background: The U.N. Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Iran’s rulers 13 years ago. That ban is due to expire on Oct. 18. The U.S. therefore proposed a resolution to extend it “until the Security Council decides otherwise.” Nine votes were needed for it to pass. Russia and/or China would then have cast vetoes. But by making them do that, our European allies would have demonstrated solidarity and backbone.
Last week’s defeat might yet turn out to have been merely a setback. I’ll explain why as succinctly as I can.
President Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was fatally flawed, at best marginally slowing but certainly not preventing Iran’s revolutionary rulers from acquiring nuclear weapons, and missiles to deliver them to targets anywhere on earth. Worse, his negotiators put together U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which created the crisis at hand: a series of expiration dates for all restrictions on Iran, including the embargo on conventional arms.
Team Obama did do one thing right, however: They made sure UNSCR 2231 gave the U.S. the prerogative to unilaterally extend the expiring arms embargo, and “snapback” all other international sanctions.
Five years ago this month, in a major address touting his Iran deal and the mechanism by which the U.S. could reimpose sanctions on Tehran, Mr. Obama emphasized the point: “We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snap back on our own.”
Russia and China are now arguing that Washington gave up that option when it withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. But a stipulation to that effect is nowhere to be found in UNSCR 2231. Whether all or any negotiators understood that at the time it passed is irrelevant. A Security Council resolution is a contract. And a contract is a contract.
There’s also this solid legal basis for the snapback: multiple Iranian violations of the JCPOA. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s own nuclear watchdog, Iran’s rulers have nearly tripled their stockpile of enriched uranium since November. Other transgressions include exceeding enrichment limits, testing advanced centrifuges, and restarting enrichment at Fordow.
Russia and China have minimized or ignored such conduct. That Britain, France and Germany have followed their lead is, bluntly, shameful.
The reluctance of European nations to restrict Tehran’s military power puts them at odds not only with the U.S. but also with Arab countries. Not without reason do the Saudis, Bahrainis and Emiratis regard Tehran as an existential threat.
As a result, all have quietly developed closer relations with Israel, their only neighbor strong enough to frustrate the Islamic Republic’s imperialist ambitions.
Last week, just prior to the defeat in New York, President Trump scored a significant victory in the Middle East, announcing that the United Arab Emirates and Israel have agreed to “full normalization of relations.”
In exchange, and to the relief of the Arab states, Israel will refrain from extending sovereignty – “annexing” is the more common, if less precise term – to parts of the West Bank that were taken from Jordan in a defensive war but could become part of a future Palestinian state.
Until now, only two of the 21 member-states in the Arab League have exchanged ambassadors with the lone Jewish state, and those instances of peace-making came about a generation ago, following failed attempts by Arab armies to wipe Israel off the map.
The agreement between the UAE and Israel – named the Abraham Accord for the father of the Judaism, Christianity and Islam – includes extensive trade, and cooperation in such realms as health care and science. Other Arab nations whose leaders appear to have concluded that tolerance is not anti-Islamic – Bahrain, Morocco and Oman come to mind – could soon follow suit.
The leaders of Germany, France and Britain now have an opportunity to advance a serious peace process. All that would require is for them to tell Palestinian leaders to stop dreaming about destroying Israel, and resume – after a hiatus of over a decade – serious negotiations aimed at a two-state solution.
Palestinians would have to agree to peacefully coexist alongside an ancient people exercising its right to self-determination in part of its historic homeland. Is that really too high a price to expect Palestinians to pay?
Our European friends should be equal to this task. Unless, as I fear, their overriding goal is to make themselves inoffensive to those determined to damage and diminish the West.
Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.
Pundicity: http://www.pundicity.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If The Democrat Party wishes to tilt far left that is their business but, in dong so, taking America over the cliff with them, needs to be rejected.
Caroline Glick - Harris, Omar and the party's great march leftward
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joe Biden’s decision to name Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate
has to do with only one thing: Identity politics.
(August 16, 2020 / JNS) Last Tuesday, two notable events occurred in
the Democratic Party. Joe Biden announced that he had selected
California Senator Kamala Harris to serve as his running mate in
November; and Rep. Ilhan Omar won her primary, all but guaranteeing
her return to Congress for a second term.
On the face of things, Harris’s selection seems like the more
significant of the two events. But actually, Omar’s primary victory
was far more momentous.
Traditionally, presidential candidates have selected their running
mates based on electoral considerations. For instance, in 2016,
then-Indiana governor Mike Pence was an easy choice for Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump for two reasons that had everything
to do with electoral calculations.
Indiana, like neighboring Wisconsin and Michigan, is a swing state. As
a vice-presidential candidate, Pence was well positioned to sell swing
voters in those states on the Trump-Pence ticket. Moreover, as a
devout evangelical Christian, Pence was able to assist Trump in
securing the support of that critical Republican demographic.
Unlike Pence, Harris hails from California, a progressive, deep-blue
state. As a progressive, wealthy native of northern California, Harris
has little ability to mobilize supporters in places like Detroit or
Pittsburgh. Moreover, Harris has not distinguished herself as a great
vote-getter. Last year, when Harris entered the Democratic
presidential primaries, she enjoyed enthusiastic support from the
media and deep-pocketed progressive donors. But despite these
advantages, she failed to win over significant support for her
campaign even in her native state. Her campaign fizzled out very
quickly.
While the progressive media refers to Harris as a “moderate,” since
her election to the Senate in 2016 Harris has racked up one of the
most radical voting records in the upper house. She supports revoking
all limitations on abortions. She supports harsh limitations on the
right to bear arms. She supports banning oil fracking and ending
energy exploration on federal lands.
While popular with the Democrat base in California and other deep-blue
states, Harris’ extreme positions render her incapable of winning
votes in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Indeed, she is
likely to be more of a drain than an asset to Biden’s bid to win over
these critical states.
So why did Biden choose her for his running mate?
In two words: Identity politics.
While progressives are more likely to be atheists than conservatives,
they are religiously political. And one of the things they sanctify is
identity politics. Recognizing this, Biden chose Harris not because of
the votes she can bring, but for the support she can garner from the
Democratic base. In other words, Biden chose her because she is a
woman rather than a man and because as the daughter of a father who
immigrated to America from Jamaica and a mother who immigrated from
India, Harris is not white.
Biden himself doesn’t sanctify identity politics. On the contrary—some
of Biden’s statements on the campaign trail have been arguably racist.
In the past week alone, Biden committed two racial gaffes. He asked a
black journalist if he was a junkie and he said that “with notable
exceptions” all black people think the same way.
Biden is probably not a racist and he certainly isn’t an ideologue.
The only thing that Biden is most assuredly is a weather vane. For
more than 40 years Biden has consistently adapted his “convictions” to
the prevailing winds in his party. When the party was opposed to
abortion, Biden was an anti-abortion Catholic. Now that his party
supports unlimited abortion on demand, Biden does too.
Back in the day, Biden opposed illegal immigration. Now that the
Democrat Party has embraced open borders, Biden supports giving
illegal immigrants free healthcare and schooling.
Harris is cut from the same cloth. Her “evolving” views on Israel
demonstrate this clearly. Harris was considered the most “pro-Israel”
candidate among the women Biden was considering selecting as his
running mate. Her pro-Israel credentials derived mainly from the fact
that she did not speak at the anti-Israel lobby J Street’s annual
conference and that she agreed to address AIPAC’s policy conference in
2017.
But as the Democrat Party openly adopted an increasingly anti-Israel
position over the intervening years, Harris reduced her support. In
2018, as the midterm election raised the profiles of radical
Israel-hating candidates, Harris only agreed to speak at the AIPAC
conference on the condition that her remarks not be made public.
Along with all the other Democrat presidential hopefuls last year save
for Mike Bloomberg, Harris refused to speak at the AIPAC conference on
any terms.
Not only has Harris refused to condemn Reps. Omar and Tlaib for their
repeated anti-Semitic statements. Harris warned the Jewish community
against protesting Omar’s anti-Semitism, saying that “the spotlight
being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”
The fact that Omar’s unbridled anti-Semitism was putting American Jews
at risk apparently made no impression on Harris.
Like Biden and the rest of her party, Harris supports renewing Obama’s
nuclear deal with Iran, which will put nuclear weapons and billions of
dollars in the hands of Iran’s genocidal ayatollahs. Harris doesn’t
support the BDS movement but she opposed a senate bill that would have
harmed the campaign to boycott the Jewish state and discriminate
against American Jews.
As California’s attorney general from 2011-2017, Harris received
numerous requests to take action against California’s public
universities for having allowed their campuses to become hostile
environments for Jewish students. Harris ignored their entreaties.
On the other hand, her husband is Jewish.
The slavish devotion that both Biden and Harris have demonstrated to
their party’s grassroots is a dangerous omen for Jewish Americans
because the organizations that comprise a large part of those
grassroots are openly anti-Semitic.
For instance, on Tuesday more than a hundred progressive groups signed
a letter calling on the “progressive community” to boycott the
Anti-Defamation League. Among the various reasons they gave for their
boycott call was the ADL’s criticism of Black Lives Matter for its
anti-Semitic charter. The BLM charter accuses Israel of committing
“genocide” against the Palestinians and refers to the Middle East’s
only liberal democracy as an “apartheid” state.
The charter endorses the anti-Semitic BDS movement and firmly places
the self-declared black civil rights movement in the camp of the
virulent anti-Semites who reject the Jewish state’s very right to
exist.
Other crimes the progressive groups accused the ADL of committing
included criticizing Omar for her anti-Semitism and opposing the BDS
campaign against Israel and American Jews.
The progressive groups’ sudden denouncement of the ADL is as ironic as
it is foreboding. In recent years the American Jewish community’s
best-funded organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism received
significant criticism for its unwillingness to seriously confront
anti-Semitism emanating from the political left and its exaggeration
of the threat that far-right anti-Semitism poses to Jewish life in
America.
Under the leadership of Obama White House alumni Jonathan Greenblatt,
in recent years the ADL has tried to reinvent itself as a progressive
group that focuses mainly on criticizing the other side of the
political divide.
The ADL’s fervent efforts to ingratiate itself among progressives
places in stark relief the “Open Letter to the Progressive Community”
signed by more than a hundred groups calling to ostracize it. It shows
that today’s Democrat party is unwilling to accept Jews or politicians
who are both progressive and pro-Jewish.
This brings us to Omar’s primary victory. It wasn’t particularly
surprising that Omar won the poll. Her national profile has made her a
lightning rod in national politics. While as a bigot she is
justifiably hated by many, leftist donors and activists adore her and
back her as an anti-Semite.
While predictable, three aspects of her win are particularly
significant. First, the main difference between Omar and the
progressive black opponent she defeated is that unlike Omar, Antone
Melton-Meaux isn’t an anti-Semite. Rather than drawing praise from
progressives for his lack of bigotry, Melton-Meaux was decried by
progressive activists who accused him of being controlled by Jews.
The second significant aspect of Omar’s win is that despite her open
anti-Semitism, her reelection bid—and that of her anti-Semitic comrade
Rashida Tlaib—was endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi even
donated $14,000 to Omar’s campaign from her political PAC. Pelosi was
long viewed as a friend to both American Jews and to Israel. The fact
that she monetarily supported an out-and-out anti-Semite speaks
volumes about the direction of the party.
The final significant aspect of Omar’s win is that it was a testament
to the rapidly growing power of the radical left in the Democrat
Party. Two years ago, four female radicals with harshly anti-Israel
positions were elected as first-time lawmakers. The joined together,
called themselves “The Squad” and proceeded to drain all the air out
of the policy discourse in their party.
As the squad’s members rose in power and prestige, moderate Democrats
insisted their voice was out of sync with their actual power. To be
sure, the moderates argued, the likes of Omar and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez have the loudest microphones, but they represent but a
fraction of the party’s congressional delegation.
So far, Tlaib and Omar handily won their primaries and three new
candidates with their same brand of radical, anti-Israel positions
just won their primaries, replacing moderate lawmakers who either
retired or were defeated. These victories point to two things. First,
the squad has already nearly doubled its numbers in one congressional
term, and two, they have become, without a doubt, the rising force—and
with Pelosi’s backing, the dominant force in the Democrat Party.
In light of all of this, it is self-evident that Omar’s primary
victory was far more significant than Biden’s selection of Harris as
his running mate. Biden and Harris, weather vanes both, will not lead
their party. They will follow their party’s grassroots and donors as
they lead the Democrats every further along on their great march into
the anti-Semitic leftist abyss.
Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of “The
Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.”
This article first appeared in Israel Hayom.
No comments:
Post a Comment