Archive for the ‘2016 presidential debates’ category

Possibly the most pro-Israel president ever

November 3, 2016

Possibly the most pro-Israel president ever, Israel National News, Michael Green, November 3, 2016

Last week, Donald Trump’s supporters held a rally in Jerusalem, during which, a short, taped message from Trump was shown.  In it, Trump said he loved Israel – but of course, he says he loves everyone – and that he would work to bridge the gap between Americans and Israelis and help restore security to both countries. 

The question is, can we really trust that Donald Trump will be pro-Israel? Have we not seen past Presidential candidates make pro-Israel declarations only to change their tune once elected? Furthermore, it seems that Trump has flip-flopped on some of his statements about Israel. 

What makes a pro-Israel President?

First, a President who respects Israel’s strategic predicament in the Middle East and allows Israel to make its own decisions –  regarding peace and war –  without putting undue to pressure on it.

Second, a President who sees Israel as a strategic asset and thus pursues opportunities for joint cooperation and increased cooperation in various areas.

Third, a President who stands by Israel diplomatically at the UN and in other international forums.

If elected, Donald Trump might be the most pro-Israel President in US history, and this assessment has virtually nothing to do with anything he has said about Israel. It is based on his character traits and the central message of his campaign – both of which bode well for Israel.

Donald Trump appreciates strength, distinguishes between the bad guys and the good guys, loves to enjoy life, and is frugal with his money.    Trump has spoken often about the need for strength, for a strong military, for toughness against US enemies, even his wife talks about the need to be strong. Trump understands who the good guys and bad guys are.  He isn’t confused by certain ideologies which justify terrorism or even give it some credence due to socio-economic or other conditions.  He understands the connection between Islam and terror and their hatred for people who are not like them.

This bodes well for Israel since he will appreciate the strength of the Israeli army in dealing with all of its enemies, and the resolve of the Israeli people not to be affected by terrorists trying to destroy their lives.  He will appreciate the valuable assets that Israel provides as a strategic ally, and understands that a strong Israel not only makes the U.S safer, but allows for the U.S. to have a reduced footprint in the Middle East.  Furthermore, his sense of right and wrong allows him to correctly understand the fundamental difference between Israel trying to defend itself and the Palestinians who educate their children to hate while training them to be terrorists.

Trump’s love of life and its pleasures makes him particularly averse to terrorists and criminals.  For him, not only are they bad people, but they disturb people who want to enjoy life.  This is why one of Trump’s strong messages throughout his campaign has been restoring law and order, so everyone can enjoy life.

Trump comes to political life without a set ideology.  While some parts of his character are more conservative, others are more liberal, but in general he is a problem solver.  Thus, he has no preconceived notions about the Middle East nor is he obligated by how past US Presidents have viewed the Middle East.  He is not bound by the idea of land for peace, or a two state solution, he calls the Middle East as he sees it, which is that there are lot of ‘bad dudes’ and there is one normal, peaceful democratic country in the whole area.

Piers Morgan once commented that Trump looks at everything in life like a deal, and he likes to make good deals as he said thousands of times throughout the campaign. Part of his ‘deal-making’ is paying as little as possible and getting maximum returns.  Throughout the campaign he has bragged about spending so much less than his opponents but still winning. He has managed to spend less money on buying media coverage by noting that he receives so much free media.  The fact that he is raising most of the money for his campaign from small donors only reinforces this notion of trying to spend as little money as possible. Additionally, he has attacked NATO partners for not paying their fair share, and explicitly criticized the US for defending other nations without receiving anything in return.

If Israel looks to take the lead as a regional power in the Middle East, Trump will have no objection.  He will also not object to Israel doing what is necessary to make itself safer, which for Trump means reducing the power of the bad guys.  Trump will be more than happy to save American money and lives while letting Israel advance its agenda.  Moreover, in the event of an attack on Iran, Trump would be more than happy to let Israel take the lead.

Trump is running for President to make America great by focusing on America’s issues.  Trump’s only interest in foreign policy is to protect America from those whom he believes rip off the US in trade, bombing ISIS and stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Therefore, Trump will not be embarking on adventures worldwide for world peace and certainly will not be wasting his time forcing Israel into negotiations, or into deals that it is uninterested in.

In short, because of his character traits and his central agenda, Trump will allow Israel to make its own decisions, while simultaneously understanding there is much to gain through increased partnering with Israel.  He will back Israel unwaveringly at the UN since he understands that Israel and America have shared goals and interests, and because of his common sense approach, he really has no problem with Israel building on whatever land is under their control, especially since he is aware that the land that has been given up by Israel has been used as a launching pad for attacks.

But its not only his character traits and campaign themes which signal a stronger relationship in the next 4 years, it’s also his many advisers – VP Pence, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Dr. Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, who are all either outright pro-Israel or who understand the realities of the Middle East in the sense that the Middle East is laced with problems and the central issue is radical Islam and not the Palestinian Arabs.

A Trump Presidency will be a time where Israel becomes stronger and expands its partnership with America, and a time where Israel and the US will stand shoulder to shoulder facing the many evils of the world.

And as Mike Pence has said many times: “If the world knows nothing else, let it know this – America stands with Israel.”



Scarborough Rips MSM Hypocritical ‘Freak Out’ Over Trump Refusing to Blindly Accept Election Result

October 20, 2016

Scarborough Rips MSM Hypocritical ‘Freak Out’ Over Trump Refusing to Blindly Accept Election Result, MSNBC via YouTube, October 20, 2016

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails

October 20, 2016

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, October 20, 2016

Source: National Review

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks

. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.

My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.

Clinton tried to defend the DNI/DHS statement by repeating the myth that U.S. intelligence officers are completely insulated from politics. She must think Americans will forget how the CIA crafted the politicized Benghazi talking points in 2011 and how SOUTHCOM intelligence analysts were pressured to distort their analysis of ISIS and Syria to support Obama foreign policy. And that’s just under the Obama administration. Politicization of intelligence goes back decades, including such blatant efforts by CIA officers to interfere in the 2004 presidential election that the Wall Street Journal referred to it as “The CIA Insurgency” in an August 2004 editorial. I discussed the problem of the politicization of U.S. intelligence and the enormous challenge a Trump administration will have in combating it in an August 18, 2016 National Review article.

Maybe the Russians are behind the WikiLeak hacks of Democrat e-mails, possibly to influence the 2016 presidential election. I’m not convinced of this. I’m more concerned that these constant leaks of Democratic e-mails demonstrate that Democratic officials appear to have no understanding of the need for Internet security. This makes me wonder if John Podesta’s e-mail password is “password.” These are the people Clinton will be giving senior jobs with high-level security clearances. That is the real security scandal that no one is talking about.

Morning Joe highlights liberals, Democrats claiming 2000 and 2004 elections were unfair, stolen

October 20, 2016

Morning Joe highlights liberals, Democrats claiming 2000 and 2004 elections were unfair, stolen, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, October 20, 2016

Trump beats the Big Fix in Vegas

October 20, 2016

Trump beats the Big Fix in Vegas, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, October 20, 2016

Donald Trump had a good night, here in Vegas at the third and final debate, but was it good enough – would anything be good enough – to stop the Clinton Machine?

The Clinton Machine, since time began, is a colossus that is prepared to run over and demolish everything in its path by use of an unholy alliance – a compliant media in cahoots with government agencies that have been fully corrupted to meet Hillary’s every need, truth and integrity be damned.

Trump is right to be worried about playing against loaded dice.

Americans ought to be worried that the White House may be won by means of theft.  FBI files and Wikileaks provide evidence of double-dealing on a massive scale.

Trump started off slowly but he got stronger, much stronger as the debate moved along and he did respond on the question as to whether he actually did take it that the system is rigged against him. He said that the media are “one-sided against my campaign. They even admit that it’s the case.”

Then, on the topic of women and the flurry of accusations against him, Trump pivoted to add: “That’s all fiction started by Hillary, just as her campaign hired thugs to commit violence at my rallies. That is a fact now out in the open.” Trump spoke in declarative sentences.

Clinton spoke in prepared paragraphs that amounted to rehearsed speeches, and when finally he’d had enough of her barbs, remarked, “Such a nasty woman.”

If that wasn’t the quote of the night, then it was Trump saying, “Given what she did destroying those emails, Hillary Clinton has no right to be running for president.”

Trump was unsparing on her email scandals, noting that a four star general was going to jail for committing the same offenses but to a far lesser degree.

The crowd in Vegas gasped when Trump said, “I’ll keep you in suspense,” as to whether he would support her if she won.

He left that open-ended by calling attention to all the corruption being exposed against her through Wikileaks.

He accused her Clinton Foundation of being a “sleazy operation” that took “millions from countries like Saudi Arabia where they throw gays off buildings.”

He turned to her directly: “Why don’t you give back the money? It would be a great gesture.”

Moderator Chris Wallace challenged her on the Foundation, but she passed to make a speech about something else

This writer finds her a nightmare to quote. The mind wanders for all that political gobbledygook. Throughout, she emphasized her experience nationally and on a global scale and, in political posturing at its finest, mentioned everything she would do for women and children and yes, “undocumented people.”

“You had 30 years and you did nothing. All talk, no action,” said Trump.

He blamed her (and Obama) for American failures in Iraq and Syria. “You created ISIS,” he said. “They are now in 32 countries, thanks to you.”

As for the Iran deal, and likewise bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian migrants, “Wait till you see what’s coming,” he said. “ISIS for sure.”

On our overseas ventures in general, Trump said, “We’re being played, by China, Russia, Iran, everybody.”

Trump had a good night, even a terrific night. He was calm, but firm, and did not fall for the usual traps.

Clinton, in a word, was boring. She came across as a prepackaged politician, prepared and scripted to the point of being mechanical and cute.

Sixteen months ago a gambler rolled the dice and shot for all the works. That gambler was Donald Trump. He should have remembered Rule #1.

The House always wins. In political terms the House is the Clinton Machine.

Last night Donald Trump beat the House.

The Third Debate: ‘What Kind of Country Are We Going to Be?

October 20, 2016

The Third Debate: ‘What Kind of Country Are We Going to Be? Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, October 20, 2016


The peculiar self-contradiction of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was on abundant display Wednesday night during her third and last presidential debate with Donald Trump: running as the anointed heir of a two-term president in whose administration she served, she has to maintain both that everything is going great and that the nation in general  is in drastic need of repair. Above all, amid all the bluster and platitudes, she and Trump took up opposing sides on virtually all the major fault lines of contemporary America, emphasizing yet again that this election is for all the marbles: either the U.S. will continue on the road to socialist internationalism, or recover a sense of itself. This may be the last time that question is at stake in a presidential election.

“What kind of country are we going to be?,” Hillary Clinton asked near the beginning of the debate, and that indeed was the question. The Supreme Court, she told us, needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on side of the wealthy. What would a Supreme Court that stood on the side of the people, rather than the plutocrats, look like? Why, of course it would be one that said no to Citizen’s United, and yes to Marriage Equality and Roe vs. Wade: as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, anyone who stands for traditional values is simply not of the people, or any people she has any interest in representing. Nor, presumably, among Hillary Clinton’s people are those who respect and want to uphold the Second Amendment – in which she firmly believes, she assured us Wednesday night, as long as it is gutted of any actual substance.

Trump, on the other hand, affirmed that he would appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution as written, repeal Roe v. Wade and return the abortion question to the states, and protect gun rights. Chicago, he pointed out, has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, yet also has more gun violence than any other city. This was a telling point; in response, Clinton promised she would give us both the Second Amendment and “reform,” but did not explain how this sleight-of-hand would be performed.

The situation was the same when the topic turned to immigration. Trump spoke of the need for strong borders, pointing to the drugs pouring into the country over the Mexican border as the reason why a border wall was needed, and declaring: “We have no country if we have no border.” In response, Clinton spoke about not wanting to send illegal immigrant parents away from their children who are citizens – an answer that may have tugged at Leftist heartstrings, but left the drug problem unaddressed.

Clinton danced all night. When moderator Chris Wallace quoted her earlier statement saying she wanted open borders, Clinton turned the question into one about Wikileaks, and pressed Trump over whether he would condemn Russia, which she insisted was behind the leaks, for meddling in an American election. “That was a great pivot,” Trump noted drily, “from her wanting open borders.”

Once Clinton had brought up Putin, Trump bored in, charging: “She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her in every way.” In response, Clinton promised to work with our allies all over the world. That highlighted her campaign’s nagging contradiction again, leaving unanswered the question of why the world is so aflame today after eight years of Barack Obama, who came into office with similar promises to mend America’s relationships with friends and foes alike globally – promises that were taken so seriously that he won the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything at all. (What’s left to give President Hillary Clinton as she begins herefforts to bring peace to our troubled world? Sainthood?)

There was so much that he had heard before. Clinton promised to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Some enterprising and independent-minded historian should research the history of that shopworn phrase, used by so very many Democratic presidential candidates before Hillary. Who was the first to use it? Certainly not Barack Obama, although he made the same promise, or John Kerry or Al Gore, who did as well, or Hillary’s husband. Was it Mike Dukakis? Jimmy Carter? Harry Truman? Woodrow Wilson? Grover Cleveland? How far back does this phrase go, and why, after eight years of Barack Obama, are the poor soaked rich still not paying their fair share? If he couldn’t make them pony up, how will Hillary accomplish it?

That was the rub, on all the issues Trump and Clinton discussed Wednesday evening. She pledged to eradicate the Islamic State, whereupon Trump noted that it was the vacuum created in Iraq by the precipitous Obama/Clinton withdrawal from Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Trump pointed out that the U.S. is pouring money into Syrian rebel groups of doubtful reliability, and noted that if they overthrow Assad (“and he is a bad guy”), Syria might end up with a regime’s worse than Assad, and noted that the chaos in Syria has “caused the great migration, the great Trojan Horse,” with “many ISIS-aligned” coming into the U.S. “Thanks a lot Hillary,” he said acidly, “thanks a lot for doing a great job.”

Indeed. If she didn’t get all this right when she was Secretary of State, how can Americans be confident she will get it right the next time, particularly when all she is offering is more of the same, more of the same failed foreign policies that have gotten the world into the fix it’s in today — with the centerpiece being the denial of the nature, magnitude and motivating ideology of the jihad threat?

That is what is ultimately the choice Americans face: more of the same, or a drastic change of course. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, and the mainstream media is in a frenzy to do all it can to make sure that she is, Americans will at very least know what they’re getting, and a great many of them will applaud it. Ultimately, however, politically correct fantasies will collapse under the weight of reality. If that happens while she is president, there will be more of the same in another way as well: many Americans who applauded her platitudes, generalities, and appeals to sentiment on Wednesday night will be looking for ways to blame the Republicans.

DNC Chair Unravels During Megyn Kelly Interview, Claims ‘Persecution’ Over Accusation of Feeding Clinton Town Hall Question

October 20, 2016

DNC Chair Unravels During Megyn Kelly Interview, Claims ‘Persecution’ Over Accusation of Feeding Clinton Town Hall Question, Washington Free Beacon, October 20, 2016

Interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile struggled to answer Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s questions Wednesday night about a video showing Democratic activists discussing how to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and whether she tipped off the Clinton campaign to a question before a CNN town hall.

Kelly started the interview by asking Brazile about the recent Project Veritas video, which shows Scott Foval, a Democratic organizer, discussing how planted party activists instigated fights at a Trump rally in Chicago earlier this year. The other person in the video is Bob Creamer, a long time Chicago-based Democratic operative who had been contracted by the DNC for the 2016 election.

Brazile told Kelly that the contract between the DNC and Creamer’s group was not signed until June 2016 and then tried to discredit James O’Keefe, the man who made and distributed the video.

“When you have a convicted criminal sneaking around your office with imposters that try to—” Brazile said before Kelly cut her off.

“Are you referring to Bob Creamer, the head of Democracy Partners?” Kelly asked.

Brazile said she was referring to O’Keefe. Kelly then informed the viewers of Creamer’s conviction of fraud and also his relationship with the White House, which he has visited upwards of 300 times since Obama came to office. Creamer has announced his resignation from Democracy Partners after the video was released.

Brazile appeared visibly uncomfortable with the conversation and pivoted to Hillary Clinton’s performance in Wednesday night’s debate. She then accused Kelly of “feeling strongly” about the O’Keefe video, to which Kelly said that she “had said nothing about her feelings.”

Kelly then asked Brazile whether she could verify the veracity of the video, but the DNC chair claimed the videos are doctored.

“You’re dodging,” Kelly interjected.

“I’m not dodging. I don’t play dodgeball. I play basketball,” Brazile responded.

Kelly moved on and brought up the revelation from the hacked WikiLeaks emails that Brazile passed along a question to the Clinton campaign before a CNN town hall in which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) also participated.

“How did you get that question, Donna?” Kelly asked.

Brazile claimed that she “did not get any questions from CNN.”

“Where did you get it?” Kelly asked.

“As a Christian woman I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted. Your information is totally false,” Brazile said. She would not verify the content of the email and instead pointed out that the emails were stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Kelly did not let Brazile ignore the question and proceeded to read off a statement from CNN’s Jake Tapper in which he said that passing along the town hall question was unethical and upsetting.

“Who gave you that question?” Kelly again asked.

“I am not going to validate falsified information,” Brazile answered. “I have my documents. I have my files. Thank God I have not had my personal emails ripped off from me.”

“In my 14 years at CNN I have never received anything,” Brazile later asserted. “I never get documents from CNN.”

Kelly pressed her repeatedly about why the email shows her passing along the question.

“When you said from time to time I get the questions in advance what were you referring to? Because in that email you offered the exact question that one of the moderators, Roland Martin, asked the next day,” Kelly asked, quoting the email.

“A lot of those emails I would not give the time of day. I have seen so many doctored emails,” Brazile said. “If there is anything I have I will share.”

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election

October 20, 2016

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election, American ThinkerSelwyn Duke, October 20, 2016

Crooks on the left, cowards on the right. Where do we go to find integrity?

One of the most talked about parts of last night’s final presidential debate was Donald Trump’s statement that he’d let us know on election night if he’d accept the balloting results. An NBC commentator expressed her bubble-headed opinion that the statement lost him the election. Worse still, “conservative” commentator John Podhoretz wrote that Trump’s comment was “a shocking and cravenly irresponsible thing to say, the sort of thing that threatens to rend our national fabric, and for that alone, Trump has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” But Podhoretz’ criticism is what’s shocking and cravenly irresponsible — and reflective of profound ignorance.

Are some of us living in an alternate-reality universe? We just saw NYC’s Democrat election commissioner, Alan Schulkin, caught on video admitting “there’s a lot of vote fraud,” as he talked about how people are “bussed” around to vote illegally. This was followed by a Project Veritas sting video showing a Democrat operative slug named Scott Foval giving advice on how to commit the fraud, saying that it has been going on for 50 years and that it “doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this m****rf****r.”

There was also the WikiLeaks released email showing that Clinton allies, also Democrats, presumably, believe that Obama forces committed vote fraud in 2008. Then there’s another WikiLeaks email in which Clinton campaign manager John Podesta wrote that “if you show up on Election Day with a drivers [sic] license with a picture [and 12 states and D.C. allow illegals to get licenses], attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.” Add to this the 2012 Pew study showing that approximately “24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. [And] [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state,” and what does it add up to?

Reality # 1: There is vote fraud.

Reality # 2: Since there’s vote fraud, it’s possible an election — especially a close one — could be stolen.

Yet the three-little-monkey coward-cons think that, somehow, it’s noble and healthy to view a possibly stolen election and say “Nothing to see here; move along.” Maybe if we pretend hard enough, everything will be okay.

I have no idea how Trump’s statement will play out, given that he didn’t explain the matter well and we have coward-cons doing the jobs (real) Americans wouldn’t do, but I suspect the average person doesn’t share Podhoretz’ concern over violation of a twisted view of propriety. But here’s the answer I would have given debate moderator Chris Wallace when he stated, to Trump, that we have a “tradition” in this country of a peaceful transfer of power:

Yes, sir, and we have another American tradition: it’s called the “rule of law.” And when you suspect an election has been stolen, and allow it to go unanswered, you become complicit in the undermining of our rule of law. Moreover, vote fraud that swings an election thwarts the people’s will. You may not care about that. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t care about that. But if I have reasonable suspicion that the Nov. 8 contest has been stolen, I will stand against the thwarting of the rule of law and the people’s will — even if I’m the only person in America to do it.

I cannot tell you how disgusting I find the coward-cons’ cravenness. It is, sadly, a common failing of man to prefer to rationalize, or stick one’s head in the sand, than to face up to tough challenges and hard truths. This is the mentality causing coward-cons to tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio not to look into Obama’s birth certificate and judges to refuse to hand down anti-establishment rulings for fear of opening “that can of worms.” But tolerating criminality gets you more criminality. This is, mind you, a hallmark of Third World nations. Corruption is rife, tolerated, and many pretend it isn’t going on. You want to descend fully into Third Worldism? Listen to the coward-cons.

What the coward-cons miss, in their infinite lack of wisdom, is that unanswered corruption means our national fabric is already being rent.  And their prescription is to allow corruption to fester, to grow, to become status quo? It’s as with cancer: attacking it early involves some pain, perhaps enduring nauseating treatments or an operation to excise a malignant tumor. But ignoring it, refusing to face reality, means a metastasis that will consume the whole body and lead, ultimately, to death. Tolerate a bit of visible rending now — or risk having nothing left to rend later.

The coward-cons are the people who get elected to office…and then get nothing done; they’re the weak sisters who never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose. If you suspect your vote has been negated by electoral fraud, would you want those charged with ensuring the system’s integrity to look the other way? Or would you want the matter sifted to the very bottom?

If the coward-cons would choose the former, then they’ve earned their place in the history of American ignominy.


Clinton’s ‘foreign intervention’ hypocrisy

October 11, 2016

Clinton’s ‘foreign intervention’ hypocrisy, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, October 11, 2016

During the second U.S. presidential debate on Sunday night at Washington University in St. Louis, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did her best to sidestep the issue of the tens of thousands of emails she deleted from her private server.

This she tried to accomplish by urging listeners to”fact-check” on her web site.

But then, co-moderator Martha Raddatz asked a question — posed by a social media user — surrounding alleged excerpts, released by WikiLeaks, from her exorbitantly paid speeches. In one such address to Wall Street bigwigs, Clinton purportedly said to the hosts she pretends in public to revile, “You need both a public and private position on certain issues.”

Is it okay, Raddatz asked on behalf of the person who had submitted the question, “for politicians to be two-faced?”

Clinton’s response was to compare her double-dealings with America’s 16th president — or at least to Steven Spielberg’s rendition of Abraham Lincoln in the Oscar-winning film.

“I was making the point that it is hard, sometimes, to get the Congress to do what you want to do,” she said. “And you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln, [in] trying to convince some people … used some arguments; convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great … display of presidential leadership.”

This analogy was so ridiculous that even Hillary knew she had better squirm her way out of it. “But, you know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, Martha,” she said, self-correcting and diverting attention to her Republican rival. “Because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks — the hacking of American accounts — to influence our election.”

Indeed, she declared, “We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election, and … they’re not doing it to get me elected. They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.”

One could almost hear Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei laughing out loud at this assertion. Why in the world would they want to throw a wrench into the good thing they have going with America in a state of weakness? What could possibly possess them to wish to rock the boat? Iran is getting billions of dollars in cash and renewed business deals; Russia is starting to realize its dream of becoming a superpower again. Furthermore, with a Clinton White House, radical Islamists would have an easy time entering the U.S. — as “refugees” — to wreak havoc on the “Great Satan.”

Now, Hillary may be no dummy, but she is a great hypocrite. This was evident during the debate not only in her assault on Trump’s escapades with women and wealth. Even more striking was her shock and awe about foreign powers attempting to influence the upcoming U.S. election.

As a former member of the Obama administration, she ought to know a thing or two about such a practice. Yes, her pals in the White House and State Department invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a concerted campaign to prevent the re-election last year of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They did this by funneling “grant” money to a far-Left, pro-Palestinian nongovernmental organization called OneVoice.

A Senate investigation revealed that the activities and political leanings of OneVoice were well known. In addition, as the Washington Free Beacon reported in July, a senior State Department official admitted that he had deleted several email exchanges pertaining to the administration’s coordination with OneVoice, whose grants and oversight were done by then-U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Michael Ratney.

“It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed … against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who chaired the subcommittee that investigated the fiasco.

Not to worry, though. Private money from Hillary’s billionaire friends, such as the virulently anti-Israel George Soros, was also spent on the effort to keep Netanyahu from winning the election. Another organization, established specifically for this purpose, was V15 (victory 2015).

Founded by an Israeli named Nimrod Dweck, V15 hired U.S. consulting firm “270 Strategies” — comprised, as the website World Net Daily reported — mostly of former top staffers for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Dweck told World Net Daily that it was OneVoice that persuaded him to hire the firm.

The attempt to topple Netanyahu by bolstering the Israeli Left failed abysmally, much to the dismay of Obama and cohort Democrats. But theirs was a blatant example of foreign intervention in the election process of another country.

I guess Hillary thinks that’s okay, as long as it’s her team running the interference.

Liberals Wanted to Talk about Islamophobia at the Debate, but the Real Problem is Terrorism

October 10, 2016

Liberals Wanted to Talk about Islamophobia at the Debate, but the Real Problem is Terrorism, Conservative Review,  Nate Madden, October 10, 2016


Amid the tawdry, ad hominem cacophony that was the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were forced to contend with the implications of a supposed “rise in Islamophobia.” However, a quick look at the facts show that the question and implication really need some context.

Sunday night’s debate was, as expected, laden with pro-Clinton bias from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. However, several of the questions submitted by the randomly-selected panel of undecided voters on the stage also carried the hallmarks of prepared layups for the Democrat nominee.

One such topic in particular, asked by one of the attendees, Gorbah Hamed, put the candidates on the spot about how they would deal with “Islamophobia” as president (per the Washington Post):

There are 3.3 Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being a threat to the country after the election is over?

To his credit, Trump bridged the question directly to recent terror attacks, and the importance of Muslims patrolling their own communities. Meanwhile, Clinton criticized Trump’s views on immigration from Muslim-majority nations while hypocritically espousing religious freedom for foreign nationals from those nations, despite her own deplorable positions on free exercise for anyone who disagrees with her views on marriage and abortion.

Furthermore, while Clinton made a very big point of agreeing with Trump’s premise that American Muslims need to be “part of our eyes and ears” on the front lines, and bragged about her work with Muslim groups in the U.S. and how she intends to use that experience to defeat ISIS. But she failed to differentiate how her approach to the Muslim community is going to differ from President Obama’s, whose analogous “countering violent extremism” program has already been found as a “catastrophic failure,” according to a recent report.

But I digress. While the issues of Middle Eastern immigration and jihadist terror in the 2016 election cycle have sparked a chorus of concern from the Left over so-called “Islamophobia,” the concerns ignore reality of how big a threat it actually is.

The question hearkens back to a few weeks ago when the Hamas-and-Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in the wake of a jihadist stabbing that they were afraid of the blowback from the attack.

“We are concerned about the potential for backlash,” CAIR’s Minnesota executive director Jaylani Hussein said, per, following last month’s Minnesota mall stabbing. “[Muslims] are being made to suffer for [the terrorists’] acts. They are minorities in our faith. Islam is peace.”

Well, here’s the real story about that blowback.

According to FBI data, ACTUAL incidents of Islamophobia pale in comparison to incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. Numbers from December indicate that in the previous year saw, 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, and the rate of Jewish victims was nearly four times that of Muslim victims at a proportion of roughly 57 percent to 16 percent.

Even in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — the deadliest Islamist attack in American history — 2002 data from the FBI shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes totaled a grand total 174 for the year. These are, of course, dwarfed when compared to the 1,084 cases committed against Jews, and the 237 committed against “other.”

And it doesn’t stop there: America’s college campuses have become seething hotbeds of anti-Jewish activity. Meanwhile, a report from February finds, attacks on free exercise of religion across the board have doubled in the waning years of the Obama administration.

There was no mention of how America’s Jewish population (with nary a notable terrorist attack attached to its name) is under increasing fire — and has been so for years. Furthermore, recent jihadist terror attacks in San Bernardino to Orlando to Manhattan have taken scores of American lives and have left all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, under siege.

Yet, the question that both candidates were forced to contend with is one that clearly targeted the Republican nominee’s focus on the security concerns that mass migration from Muslim-majority countries generates in relation to America’s national security.

When we look at this issue earnestly, the real threat to American Muslims from the specter of Islamophobia are far less than the threats faced by all Americans from the threat of global jihadism. They’re far less than what American Jews have to deal with both on and off the university campus. And they’re far less than what anyone who runs afoul of the government’s views on marriage, abortion, and contraception face on any given day.

Finally, when it comes to the havoc created by ISIS and other terror organizations that commit atrocities in the name of Allah, President Obama and company are quick to point out that most of the victims of jihadist violence around the world are Muslims themselves. But when it comes to the the same threat posed to those on our own soil, such concerns are nowhere to be found. Rather, they find themselves drowned out by those that worry about a so-called “Islamophobia” epidemic rather than the threat faced by every person in the civilized world, Muslims included, when they leave their homes every morning.

What exaggerated concerns about “Islamophobia” actually do, however, is dull, silence, and distract from the message of those who actually voice that there is indeed a centuries-old problem within Islam — that it creates legitimate security concerns, and that these realities have to be addressed in bold and earnest terms. Those terms might hurt someone’s feelings, after all.

In sum, the “Islamophobia” question was endemic of a host of concerns that the Left has thrown at anyone who dare raise questions about the Islamic nature of jihadist terrorism, or about the safety of the Obama administration’s immigration and refugee policies. However, in light of the numbers and the real security threats faced by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, that the debates chose to focus on “Islamophobia” really ought to be put into context.