.jpg)
Has the time arrived a third party can finally form and sink Biden?
If anyone can do it Cornel West and Sen. Manchin would make formidable opponents.
It is critical, the radical Democrat Party be severely wounded.
+++
+++
More evidence is about to be be revealed. Hunter was given special treatment by this Justice Department according to a Biden insider who will testify before Congress beginning Wednesday.
In time the truth will emerge. Congress seems to be inhabited by dentists because getting at the truth is worse than pulling teeth.
The rest of this Memo will mostly feature WSJ editorials and Op Ed's I was unable to post while away. They are still relevant.
+++
The ‘Ongoing Investigation’ Dodge on Hunter Biden
In the Justice Department’s handling of the case involving the president’s son, all we know for sure is that someone is lying.
By William McGurn
Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss says he’s willing to answer Congress’s questions about the Hunter Biden case—but not yet. On Monday he again invoked an “ongoing investigation” as a reason for why he won’t do so now. The problem for Mr. Weiss going forward is that there is no “ongoing investigation” exemption for refusing Congress.
His latest comments come in a reply to Sen. Lindsey Graham, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who had asked what actions Mr. Weiss had taken in regard to an informant’s accusation that Joe Biden had accepted a $5 million bribe from a Ukrainian energy company while he was vice president. Mr. Graham also wanted to know whether Mr. Weiss had sought special counsel status. Mr. Weiss answered that he had neither “requested” nor been “denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.” This contradicts what IRS investigator Gary Shapley testified that Mr. Weiss told six witnesses at an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting.
Remember what this is all about. It began with Republican questions about what exactly Biden family members did in exchange for millions apparently paid to them by overseas companies. Then we learned about the alleged bribe. Each bit of new information only raised more serious questions.
Notwithstanding the partisan sniping and media catcalls, Congress has done a decent job of unearthing specific information that the Justice Department and FBI didn’t want public. Their stonewalling now presents the ultimate oversight issue: Did the FBI and Justice properly investigate? Or did the Biden name prevent that?
Attorney General Merrick Garland insists Mr. Weiss was free to bring whatever charges he wanted anywhere he wanted to bring them. Mr. Weiss’s public statements back that up.
But Mr. Shapley testified that Mr. Weiss stated, in the presence of six witnesses, “I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed.” He further said Mr. Weiss “shocked us” with the news that “the Biden-appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves would not allow him to charge in his district.” Finally, Mr. Shapley testified that Mr. Weiss had admitted he’d “subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main DOJ at that time and was denied that authority.”
Mr. Garland insists there was no interference and Mr. Weiss was free to bring charges in any district he saw fit.
All we know is that someone is lying. The Republican House committees rightly want Mr. Weiss to come in and clear it all up.
Alas, Mr. Weiss isn’t cooperating. And too many are letting him off with his “ongoing investigation” excuse.
“The executive branch response of ‘ongoing investigation’ is really a political objection, rather than a legal one,” says Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney. “There is no ‘ongoing investigation’ privilege.”
The “ongoing investigation” dodge is particularly troublesome here, because the issue now is the integrity of Justice and the FBI. The suspicion isn’t that Mr. Weiss is protecting his case. It’s that he’s trying to shield the investigators and prosecutors from accountability for what they did and did not do.
It’s true there are prudential reasons why prosecutors and investigators don’t discuss ongoing cases—mostly for fear of jeopardizing them. But legitimate concerns can be accommodated, such as by holding a closed-door hearing.
Much of the information Congress has already unearthed, moreover, should be relatively easy to confirm or refute. On Sunday, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley released his own letter with six questions for Mr. Weiss to answer. They range from whether he’s still investigating the bribery allegations against President Biden to why IRS agents were shut out of a key Justice and FBI briefing in 2020.
That’s oversight. It’s maddeningly slow. Right now the House committees are trying to squeeze information from federal authorities. They are also beginning to depose the people involved under oath, such as those named by Mr. Shapley. Then come subpoenas, maybe even for Mr. Weiss and Hunter Biden.
That won’t be until they’ve got enough of those involved on the record to have a fair idea of what’s left to ask. In the past, Congress might have deferred to concerns about an ongoing investigation. But the FBI and Justice have lost the credibility that made that possible. They themselves are the issue now, and Congress has a duty to get answers.
The process isn’t perfect, but it beats dumping everything on another special counsel. Former Attorney General William Barr told Fox News last month that the Justice Department’s indictment of Donald Trump (which he says was justified) “really demands that the department assure everybody that the investigations into the Bidens was thorough and that the final decisions reached were reasonable.” They should accordingly view Mr. Comer’s committee as “a good opportunity to do that.” It’s in Mr. Garland’s and Mr. Wray’s interest to cooperate with Congress fully.
But only if they have nothing to hide.
++++
The Bidenomics Blather
His populist policies are similar to Donald Trump’s, albeit without the wall.
By Andy Kessler
In Chicago last month, President Biden hailed “Bidenomics,” which throws free trade and free-market capitalism under the bus in favor of centralized government controls. Be afraid. He’s already declared himself “the most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history.” His minions got the message.
In January, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, to an approving Davos crowd, called for a “new economic world order” that was “worker-centered,” which means wage floors and price controls. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg wants to solve railroad safety with more paid sick leave. Gina Raimondo at Commerce is doling out $39 billion of pork from the Chips and Science Act, imposing requirements on daycare, foreign investment, union workers, buyback limits and even profit-sharing. I long for the days when lawmakers couldn’t spell “semiconductor.”
Then there was national security adviser Jake Sullivan’s April speech at the Brookings Institution declaring a “new Washington consensus” that government should control parts of the economy. That was some shortcut from discussion to consensus. It includes a “global labor strategy that advances workers’ rights” and “targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.” China calls these “encouraged industries.” Heck, the Energy Department has a $400 billion slush fund for greenie loans, perhaps what Mr. Sullivan means by “crowding in private investment.” In other words, free markets are dead.
According to Mr. Sullivan, government is “making long-term investments in sectors vital to our national well-being—not picking winners and losers.” Classic doublespeak. Government is trying to pick winners and losers from electric vehicles and batteries to biomass. He explains, “When [Mr. Biden] hears ‘climate,’ he thinks ‘jobs.’ ” That’s funny, because I hear “boondoggle.” He then sprinkles in the obligatory social engineering of “inclusiveness,” and voilà, he serves up the administration’s populist mantra. But it’s anti-economics.
This is a “modern American industrial and innovation strategy,” Mr. Sullivan coos. He didn’t dare say “industrial policy” without required trigger warnings, after synfuels, Solyndra and Lordstown Motors. But he isn’t fooling anyone. All that’s missing from his “new Washington consensus” is Soviet-style Five Year Plans. Give him time. Government control of industry never works. It distorts price signals by either fixing wages or messing with prices via tariffs or environmental edicts.
I suppose what I find most distasteful is the “government knows all” attitude. These technocrats are control freaks trying to micromanage chips and electric vehicles and energy and gas stoves. Like this summer’s “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts,” it’s the rise of the expert class, though its members are neither expert nor classy.
I wouldn’t trust these folks to run a lemonade stand. They would organize middle schoolers via collective bargaining, freeze prices, institute $25-an-hour “fair” wages, cap sugar levels, place tariffs on “flavored drinks” from other neighborhoods and then tax parents to subsidize the inevitable losses.
Meanwhile, the press squeals with delight. On cue, a piece on the front page of a recent Sunday New York Times ran online with the headline “Why It Seems Everything We Knew About the Global Economy Is No Longer True.” The piece all but declared free markets dead because “globalization hastened climate change and deepened inequalities.” So, government to the rescue.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin writes that “ ‘Bidenomics’ is transformative,” and Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times declares that euro types love all these worker-centric controls. She’s happy that Ms. Tai wants to weaken the U.S. and hates “bigs,” especially tech, because, well, they’re too big. Only government should be big, get it? Mr. Biden’s destroying free markets and crippling the U.S. economy will make Europe, with its expensive labor and energy, and which legally considers crickets food, look better.
The Biden gang shouldn’t have its hands on the tiller of the economy. Some of this has to do with his team’s Keynesian schooling—tax and spend and tax and spend—but more because it’s all so unimaginative. Mr. Biden’s industrial policy—sorry, strategy—is simply doubling down on the Trump administration’s worst mistakes, like tariffs. Or the USMCA free-trade agreement that’s not free at all because, if you read it, it’s actually a progressive labor and environmental power play.
Think about it. Isn’t this “new Washington consensus,” “worker centered,” labor-focused agenda the same as Donald Trump’s anti-big-tech, nationalist, nativist populism just without the wall?
The PR blitz pushing Bidenomics will soon become deafening. Elections need issues, after all. There is no mention of Bidenflation and falling real wages. Ms. Foroohar states that “paradigm shifts begin with narrative shifts.” That’s precisely why voters are being sold a tall tale bashing free trade and free markets. Back in the real world, I’d trust markets over the first 2,000 people in the White House telephone directory.
++++
Practical Democrat has some issues with Fink's ESG.
+++
Florida’s New Law Helps Investors Consider Real ESG
Environmental, social and governance factors can be material but it’s obscured by political histrionics.
By Robert G. Eccles
I’m a Democrat and was the founding chairman of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, a U.S. nongovernmental organization focused on helping companies disclose financially material environmental, social and governance information to investors. Nonetheless, I support Florida’s new law limiting government and corporate activism within the ESG movement.
ESG has become an extremely politicized term, but there are environmental, social and governance factors that have real financial effects on companies and investors. That was what SASB, now part of the International Sustainability Standards Board, worked to identify when it created voluntary standards to help companies who wanted to report performance on ESG issues to investors.
What’s relevant to the bottom line varies by industry. For example, social and governance issues such as product quality and safety and supply chain management are material to apparel, accessories, and footwear companies. Banks, on the other hand, need to focus on different governance issues such as data security and systemic risk management. Meanwhile, environmental practices such as water and wastewater management are germane for agricultural products.
While these factors fall outside traditional accounting standards, they aren’t “woke” issues or masked ideology. They can affect a company’s stock price, which is why thousands of companies worldwide now report on their industry’s SASB-defined material issues in their public reporting.
The Florida bill is wreathed in a lot of partisan language, but all its main two provisions would do is make sure that investors only pay attention to ESG issues that are actually material when investing state money. First, investment decisions can be based on only “pecuniary factors,” defined as a factor that the CFO or another party authorized to invest on his behalf “prudently determines is expected to have a material effect on the risk or returns of an investment based on appropriate investment horizons consistent with applicable investment objectives and funding policy.” Second, it requires that this investing “does not include the consideration of the furtherance of any social, political, or ideological interests.” What’s not to like in this, whatever your political persuasion?
The GOP rhetoric on the bill is over the top:. Gov. Ron DeSantis’s lectern at the signing ceremony read “Government Of Laws, Not Woke Politics.” But it’s true that the ESG movement today engages in some practices that hurt financial value. Ideologically based fossil-fuel stock divestment, for instance, is economically destructive. While our energy mix clearly needs to change, the reality is that we will need fossil fuels for years to come. This should include a large proportion of natural gas and be from American companies with high environmental standards of production. Undermining responsible investment in U.S. fossil fuels only hurts companies, investors and consumers—along with American energy security. We don’t want to be getting our energy from a despotic country like Saudi Arabia.
But we don’t want to stop investors from limiting fossil-fuel investment when it makes financial sense, either. While divestment advocates are being unreasonable, so are red states that punish investors for factoring material ESG issues into their decisions. Legislation excluding fund managers that state governments believe are boycotting fossil-fuel stocks from managing government investments is political theater that is, again, financially self-defeating. In fact, the big three asset managers—Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard—all have substantial investments in fossil fuels. Limiting the supply of asset managers only raises costs for red-state pension funds and lowers their returns.
These sorts of histrionics permeate the debate about ESG. Take the Biden administration’s amendments to the Labor Department Erisa Rule, which sets standards for employer-sponsored retirement plans. Under President Trump, pecuniary was defined as having a “material effect on the risk and/or return of an investment based on appropriate investment time horizons.” This was exactly right. The Biden administration changed that language, creating an uproar on the right and celebration on the left. But, as I’ve written elsewhere with the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Tim Doyle, the political reaction on each side vastly exceeded the substantive changes in language. Pecuniary is now defined as “relevant risk and return factors,” which may include ESG issues but only if they do “not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries (such as by sacrificing investment returns or taking on additional investment risk) to objectives unrelated.” That’s about the same as the Trump definition.
Whether you’re on the left or right, it’s time to stop arguing about ESG and start talking about factors that are financially material to value creation. The Florida bill might come with some political theater of its own, but on the substance, it gets us one step closer to doing that.
Mr. Eccles is a retired, tenured professor at Harvard Business School and a visiting professor at Oxford’s Saïd Business School.
++++
Hunter Biden’s Smear Strategy
The president’s son launches an attack against the IRS whistleblowers.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Hunter Biden has adopted a legal strategy of threats and character assassination. It was on display in his legal team’s recent letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith. The 10-page screed was a broad condemnation of the committee’s decision to release the interviews of two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers who worked the Hunter investigation and claim irregularities in the process that produced Hunter’s recent plea deal. Hunter lawyer Abbe Lowell complained the release violated the “spirit” of “tax laws” that protect “private” taxpayer information. That letter should have come from Donald Trump’s lawyers to House Democrats, who in December set a precedent by voting to release Mr. Trump’s returns.
The real targets of Mr. Lowell’s polemic were the whistleblowers themselves, and the letter is filled with inaccuracy and innuendo. Just one example: Mr. Lowell insinuates the whistleblowers might have lied, since he claims the committee “purposely” didn’t issue them the standard warning about falsehoods. This is flatly refuted by the transcripts, which show both men were told upfront that “false testimony” would subject them to “criminal prosecution.”
The letter deploys the standard impugning of motives—suggesting the IRS men are “biased” and “aggrieved” agents turned “self-styled” whistleblowers. It also slings suggestions of illegal behavior. It intimates whistleblower Gary Shapley might have broken a law prohibiting the disclosure of grand-jury material—even though the transcript shows Mr. Shapley explaining that he couldn’t talk about or provide to the committee covered material.
The letter also suggests the whistleblowers might have illegally leaked information about the investigation to the press. It provides one example: An Oct. 6, 2022, Washington Post story said prosecutors thought they had “sufficient evidence” to charge Hunter with tax and gun crimes. Yet the anonymous whistleblower says in his testimony (under penalty of perjury) that he didn’t leak. Mr. Shapley’s lawyers noted it was their client who referred that leak to two inspectors general. If that isn’t enough, Mr. Shapley filed an affidavit to the committee declaring he isn’t the leaker and releasing the Post from any obligation to maintain his confidentiality if he is.
These smears are in keeping with what the media reported in February was an “aggressive” new Hunter plan to attack critics. That included a flurry of letters—also from Mr. Lowell—to state and federal prosecutors and the IRS demanding investigations of those involved in disseminating the contents of Hunter’s laptop. Yet the attack on the whistleblowers is in a different category, and more reprehensible. The entire point of whistleblower statutes is to protect those who report government malfeasance from retribution.
It’s bad enough the Hunter team made the letter public, putting a target on the backs of both men. The past letters also raise the possibility that Hunter’s team has similarly sent these accusations of whistleblower criminality to the Justice Department with a demand for action. It would be truly outrageous if the president’s son is urging his father’s Justice Department to harass government workers who blew the whistle on potential political favoritism in his plea deal.
Few mere mortals would get away with such behavior, but it’s good to be a Biden. And don’t think confidence in the name isn’t a central tenet of Hunter’s legal strategy. One of Hunter’s lawyers told prosecutors that charging Hunter would be “career suicide,” according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony. And anyway, who is going to call it out? The press cheered the smear, with Axios gloating: “Hunter Biden’s lawyer roasts IRS whistleblowers.” The New York Times, days earlier, buried its confirmation of one of Mr. Shapley’s key claims: that a Joe Biden-appointed California prosecutor had refused to bring charges against Hunter.
Then there’s the Washington Post, which in its own story on the Lowell letter quoted a line claiming Mr. Shapley engaged in “leaks.” It somehow failed to tell its readers that the one concrete leak Mr. Lowell cites appeared in its own newspaper—which means the Post knows the actual source, and therefore presumably knows that it isn’t Mr. Shapley and that the letter’s accusations are untrue. Especially as the same reporter worked on both stories. Instead, the paper aids the Hunter narrative. As someone once said, democracy dies in darkness.
Hunter’s problem is that the evidence the two whistleblowers provided is detailed, consistent and potentially damning. So his team is going to the old James Carville playbook against Bill Clinton’s accusers and impugning the source. And betting the Biden name lets them get away with it.
++++
This Democrat Governor blatantly sold his soul and proves unions own the Democrat party even if means kicking black children down the stairs among other undereducated kids.
++++
Josh Shapiro’s School Choice Sellout
The Pennsylvania Governor sides with unions over poor children in failing schools.
By The Editorial Board
So much for Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s gutsy support for school choice. After backing a Senate proposal for school vouchers for K-12 students—one of his 2022 campaign promises—the Democratic Governor caved this week to his party and the unions and will nix the scholarships from the state budget.
“We stand at an impasse largely over one provision of this budget,” Gov. Shapiro said in a Wednesday statement, adding that Democratic House Majority Leader Matthew Bradford “has made clear” the vouchers do not have “the support of the House.” Mr. Bradford has only a one-seat majority but nearly all Republicans back vouchers. Rather than keep the pressure on, Gov. Shapiro gave Democrats cover by promising to kill the scholarships with his line-item veto.
What an embarrassing surrender. The $100 million scholarship plan would have helped lower-income students in the state’s worst-performing district schools find other education options. Students in K-8 would have received $5,000, high-schoolers $10,000, and special-needs students $15,000 vouchers for private school tuition and related expenses. EdChoice polling finds that 63% of Pennsylvania residents support school vouchers.
Republicans who run the state Senate made several concessions to the Governor on the vouchers, including creating a separate fund for them that wouldn’t touch public-school money. They also set an income-eligibility cap of 250% of the federal poverty line.
All they got in return is a lousy promise from Mr. Bradford to “carefully examine and consider” school choice options. The Majority Leader has promised hearings, but Senate Republicans know they’ve been sold out.
“Governor Shapiro has decided to betray the good faith agreement we reached,” said a statement from Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward, Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Scott Martin. “It is a shame the governor does not have enough respect and standing within his own party to follow through with his promise.” Shame is the right word.
They also point out that the budget process isn’t over. The Legislature must pass additional “enabling” legislation to implement new programs funded by the budget. This includes programs that are priorities for Democrats.
“If they pull out our priorities and the Governor’s priority, you’re going to see a very slimmed-down, scaled-back budget,” said Ms. Ward when the Senate budget passed, according to the Daily Item. “There were a lot of things in this budget that we didn’t really want to do. If they send it back without something, the agreement is null and void.” Let’s hope Republicans repay Democrats in kind.
Why did Mr. Shapiro sell out? His excuse about the Democratic Legislature doesn’t wash since he should be at the height of his political clout and he only needed to turn a vote or two in his own party. The more likely reason is that he was squeezed by the teachers unions. The Governor has presidential ambitions, and passing school choice would have put him on Randi Weingarten’s enemies list.
The Governor hasn’t renounced his support for school choice, but what matters is what he does in office. Mr. Shapiro has covered his political posterior at the expense of the most vulnerable children in the state.
++++
World War III Will Be Fought With Viruses
A two-front biological and cyber attack could lead to a U.S. defeat before we know what hit us.
By Richard A. Muller
Vladimir Putin’s losses in Ukraine and the rebellion of the Wagner Group have increased the chances that the Russian president will lash out and expand the 17-month-old conflict. But World War III may not be what you expect. The current paradigm of escalating nuclear conflict was articulated 60 years ago by physicist Herman Kahn, founder of the Hudson institute, but other technologies have come a long way since then. Conventional guns, bombs, missiles or troops may not figure in World War III at all. Biological and computer viruses are likely to be the weapon of choice.
Covid wasn’t a deliberate attack, but it quickly and successfully damaged the American economy. Any nation thinking of using a deadly virus as a weapon of war would first need to immunize its own people, perhaps under the guise of a flu vaccination. Long-term population-level immunity would require the virus be sufficiently optimized, before release, to reduce the probability of further mutation.
The novel coronavirus was sufficiently optimized so that no serious mutations occurred for nine months. The Delta variant appeared in India in October 2020. A weaponized virus would also need to incorporate an immune suppression gene—Covid had ORF8—that reduces early symptoms, facilitating spread by asymptomatic carriers. For a covert attack to be successful, the virus would need to be released not in the country of origin but in the target country, perhaps near a biological facility so the world would falsely conclude it came as a leak from a surreptitious domestic program.
Recall that early Covid panic came from Italy’s inability to care for all of its infected patients. Thus, for maximum disruption, the second thrust of any aggression might be a cyber attack on hospitals, perhaps disguised as ransomware. Again, the trick would be to make it seem as if the attack were originating outside the aggressor’s country. In other contexts this is called a “false flag” operation. The target country might not even recognize it as part of a two-front, synergistic attack of biological and computer viruses.
Ransomware could simultaneously target energy grids, power plants, factories, refineries, trains, airlines, shipping, banking, water supplies, sewage-treatment plants and more. But hospitals would be the most salient targets. Avoiding obvious military targets would enhance the illusion that World War III hadn’t begun. The attacker or attackers might falsely claim their own systems are also under siege. Misdirection can be more effective than a smoke screen.
This isn’t some far-fetched disaster scenario cooked up by Hollywood screenwriters. Biological and cyber viruses have been, in a sense, field tested. The great value to the attacker of a two-pronged biological and cyber attack is the possibility of achieving destructive goals while keeping the whole operation covert.
Deterring such an attack will require a clear, credible and articulated promise to respond to aggression. It can’t be covert. If China, Russia or both attacked the U.S. this way, how would we react? Policy makers need to come up with an answer. An economic embargo seems suboptimal. Many would interpret nuclear retaliation as disproportionate. Developing a retaliatory virus would take time, and responding this way would clearly violate the Biological Weapons Convention.
Defense matters too. It is essential to be able to develop vaccines rapidly using a viral backbone so that they can be retargeted with minimal additional testing. Hospitals and other critical infrastructure need to harden their cyber defenses.
If deterrence fails and an attack takes place, correctly identifying the perpetrator has to be the first priority. This may or may not be easy, but retaliating against the wrong actor risks making an already bad situation worse. Reopening the Covid-19 origin investigation would provide good practice. Confiscation of the foreign assets of the attacking nation could be effective. A strong cyberattack capability aimed at the enemy’s military and industry is key. Hospitals should be spared, lest the victim of an attack appear to become the aggressor and lose the moral high ground.
There are many reasons why an adversary may want to launch a covert attack on the U.S. economy. America’s leaders need to take seriously the prospect that their country could be defeated without being invaded or even knowing it is under attack. The way to deter such an attack is to convince potentially hostile actors that success is impossible and the consequences for the attacker will be swift and severe. The U.S. needs to make it clear that its commitments to North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, Ukraine, Taiwan and others won’t waver even if the American economy falters.
Mr. Muller served as a Jason National Security adviser for 34 years. He is a professor of physics emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include “Physics for Future Presidents” and “Energy for Future Presidents.”
++++
Biden is a bully: and DeSantis has the guts to say so.
+++
DeSantis: Biden should 'butt out' of Israeli politics
Florida governor slams US administration's treatment of Jewish State, accuses progressive left of 'scapegoating' Israel.
Florida Governor and 2024 US presidential candidate Ron DeSantis accused US President Joe Biden of "horrendous" treatment of Israel and stated that the US should stay out of internal Israeli affairs such as the controversy over the government's planned judicial reforms.
Addressing the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Summit today (Monday), DeSantis said that Biden should “butt out” of Israel’s internal politics and “let Israel govern itself.”
In a dig at Biden for not inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House until today, DeSantis said: “As president, I will welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to come visit the White House and we will welcome being able to go to Israel."
He accused the BDS movement of being antisemitic for solely targeting the world's only Jewish State for boycotts and sanctions.
“When you concoct a movement that focuses all of your ire at the only Jewish state in this world, at the exclusion of all these other things that are going along you don't care about boycotting the CCCP, you don't care about boycotting all these rogue regimes you only care about applying disfavor treatment to the State of Israel. That is antisemitism and that is wrong," he said.
Speaking to the Daily Mail at the conference, DeSantis said that the administration's treatment of Israel is "horrendous" and accused far-left Democratic lawmakers of "scapegoating" Israel.
Finally:
The voice of the Democrat Party has been taken over by anti-Semites and the party's leadership remains unwilling to challenge those who are leading the party.
Wake up liberal Jews
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment