American Fascists, Bill Whittle Channel via You Tube, March 23, 2016
(What will America be like in a few years? It’s unpleasant to contemplate. — DM)
American Fascists, Bill Whittle Channel via You Tube, March 23, 2016
(What will America be like in a few years? It’s unpleasant to contemplate. — DM)
AIPAC’S pathetic apology to Obama, New York Post, Seth Lipsky March 23, 2016
Donald Trump Photo: AP
‘Unprecedented” is the word the Washington Post is using for the apology issued by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for the applause given to Donald Trump at its conference this week.
AIPAC is shocked — shocked — that The Donald criticized President Obama from the lobby’s stage. And that Trump’s jibe was greeted with a gleeful ovation from thousands of pro-Israel activists.
It happened when Trump was marking the betrayals by the United Nations, which, he said, is “not a friend of democracy, it’s not a friend to freedom.” It’s not even, he added, a friend to America or Israel.
“With President Obama in his final year — yay!” The Donald exclaimed. “He may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, believe me, believe me. And you know it, and you know it better than anybody.”
That’s what prompted AIPAC’s president, Lillian Pinkus, to apologize. “We are deeply disappointed,” she said, “that so many people applauded a sentiment that we neither agree with or condone.”
Forgive me, but the right word for AIPAC’s apology is “chickens – – -.” And it’s not just because Hillary Clinton’s address, with her jibes at Trump and other Republicans, was the most partisan speech at AIPAC.
It’s also because AIPAC has always been a stage for putting things into sharp relief. Of course President Obama isn’t literally the worst thing that’s ever happened to Israel (we Jews have had more than our portion of woe).
It’s hard, though, to think of a presidency as disappointing to Israel as Obama’s has been. Who, after all, was that “senior Obama administration official” who used “chickensh – – -” to describe Benjamin Netanyahu?
The insult was reported by The Atlantic not long before Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress. The magazine reckoned it marked the moment when, as its headline put it, “the crisis in US-Israel relations is officially here.”
No one is placing bets on this driving Jewish voters out of the Democratic Party and into the arms of the GOP.
The landscape is littered with erroneous predictions that Jews are going to start voting Republican, a fact that I’ve learned from personal experience in the newspaper line.
It’s not too soon, though, to say that we’re at a remarkable moment. Before Trump made his appearance at AIPAC, after all, there were warnings of all sorts of protests and walkouts.
In the event, the man who’s been endorsed by David Duke (and belatedly repudiated it) received a warm reception, marked by standing ovations. It prompted the editor of one Jewish newspaper, Jane Eisner of the Forward, to write that she was “ashamed.”
“The applause,” she wrote, “began after he uttered his very first sentence.” Soon some in the crowd were standing and clapping. “And, when he threw the red meat that he brilliantly feeds his other crowds, there were cheers as they gobbled it up.”
And no wonder. Trump railed against the articles of appeasement on which the Obama administration agreed with Iran. And this is not a Likud-versus-Labor thing. Both Netanyahu and the opposition’s Isaac Herzog opposed the pact with the ayatollahs.
As does every GOP candidate who addressed AIPAC this year, including Ted Cruz most forcefully. John Kasich declared that in the wake of Iran’s latest missile tests he would suspend the agreement.
The only candidate at AIPAC who actually supports the Iran appeasement is Hillary Clinton. Her chutzpah is so thick that it could be carved up with a chain saw and used to make bomb shelters — a point well-marked in The Post’s editorial Wednesday.
At AIPAC, she warned against the Republicans. She said the GOP would give them a “glimpse of a potential US foreign policy that would insult our allies, not engage them, and embolden our adversaries, not defeat them.”
If AIPAC’s delegates seemed momentarily confused, it’s no doubt because they thought she was talking about herself again. Or the reset with Russia, the war she plumped for in Libya or her victories in Afghanistan.
No wonder Trump, Cruz and Kasich got so much applause. AIPAC knows deep down that the Democrats have been a disaster in foreign policy. If any apologies are owed, they’re by the Democrats — even if that would be “unprecedented.”
Too Late For GOP Moderates to Unite, Commentary Magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin, March 23, 2016
(Another member of the Trump Hater’s Club appears to concede defeat. — DM)
Image by © ERIK S. LESSER/epa/Corbis
Had anyone told you a couple of months ago that Jeb Bush would endorse Ted Cruz, you’d have said they were crazy. But that old cliché about politics and strange bedfellows is as true today as it ever was. Bush’s support for the Texas senator would have been a really big deal had it been announced at any point prior to Super Tuesday. But after Donald Trump’s impressive run of victories over the last several weeks that continued last night in Arizona, the grudging backing of the Bush clan for Cruz is a classic case of too little, too late.
Coming on a day after Trump issued a vile threat about “spilling the beans” about some dirt he would throw at Cruz’s wife Heidi, this might be considered a moment when Republicans of all political stripes might rally around the cause of stopping a candidate that seems bereft of a shred of common decency. Though some have expected Trump to start behaving like a future president now that the nomination is within his grasp, it is clearly too much to ask for him to act like anything other than a vulgar thug.
But given the fact that a host of other similar statements — all of which individually should be treated as disqualifying Trump for the presidency — the latest infamous Trumpism isn’t likely to shake his hold on the affections of a plurality of GOP voters. That’s why the Bush endorsement changes nothing about the race. The same can be said of the endorsement of the Club for Growth.It’s the first time the influential libertarian advocacy group has picked a favorite in a presidential race and would have been a big boost to Cruz earlier in the election cycle. But the Bush move and the willingness of GOP moderates like Senator Lindsey Graham to host a Washington fundraiser for the scourge of the Senate Republican caucus, these developments are meaningless when set beside Trump’s stunning ability to keep winning Republican primaries.
Cruz could take some solace in winning Utah by a landslide as Mormon voters registered their disgust with Trump’s vulgar style as well as his insults of Mitt Romney’s faith. But even though he managed to win all 40 Utah delegates, Trump’s sweep of all 58 delegates from Arizona puts him that much closer to the 1,237 he needs to secure the GOP nomination.
The next big test will come two weeks from now in Wisconsin but even if Cruz wins there — a big if considering that he will face competition from John Kasich for the anti-Trump vote — the rest of April will be filled with primaries in Northeastern states where both the Texan and the Ohio governor — whose lack of a rationale for staying in the race becomes more obvious with every passing day — may not be competitive. Though Cruz may keep fighting until California votes on June 7, his quest to deny Trump a majority and keep the hope of a contested convention alive may be done long before then.
But the Bush endorsement and the behind the scenes maneuvering that sought to also get Marco Rubio behind Cruz illustrates everything that was all wrong about the effort to stop Trump. According to Politico, some in the Cruz camp — including Utah Senator Mike Lee — reached out to Rubio about the possibility of a joint ticket. But Rubio wasn’t interested. Just as Bush wasn’t interested in backing his former friend after he dropped out when Rubio might have benefitted from that endorsement before the Florida primary.
Given that Bush was a total flop as a presidential candidate despite raising and spending record amounts of money, his endorsement doesn’t carry much weight with GOP primary voters. Nor is there any reason to believe that a Rubio endorsement of Cruz would change the electoral map. The so-called establishment lane for which Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Chris Christie were all competing didn’t turn out to have as many votes as many of us thought. It’s obvious that GOP voters wanted an outsider — whether a complete outlier like Trump or a Tea Party rebel like Cruz — not someone that could be depicted as a successor to Republican moderates like Romney or John McCain.
But all this back and forth involving Bush’s hurt feelings toward Rubio and Rubio’s possible resentment of Cruz just shows how clueless mainstream Republicans have been about the 2016 campaign. It was clear to some of us as early as last August that the GOP primary schedule could allow Trump to romp to the nomination by winning pluralities while his rivals divided the vote of Republicans that wanted a more qualified candidate. Yet throughout the campaign, the so-called moderate wing of the party was too caught up in the egos of the individual candidates and their delusions about Trump fading to draw some obvious conclusions.
Had counter-factual scenarios that involve an early Bush endorsement of Rubio or Rubio and Bush backing Cruz before Super Tuesday come to pass that might have produced a different result than Trump’s current ascendancy. But what’s misleading about this thinking is that it ignores the strength of Trump’s appeal to a critical mass of voters who don’t care about his lack of knowledge about the issues, his substituting empty slogans for serious positions, his lack of a presidential temperament or the fact that he is clearly bereft of any sense of personal honor (I’ll concede that’s an antique concept in our day and age, but it is one that the signers of the Declaration of Independence took seriously).
The notion of Trump inevitability is a narrative that was probably only enabled by the fecklessness of his opponents. There might have been a moment in this campaign when the squabbling band of GOP moderates could have made peace with Cruz and joined forces in a manner that might have made a difference. Bush, Rubio, Kasich and other Republicans that didn’t want their party to be led by a thug to a disastrous November rout should have put aside their egos and joined forces weeks, if not months ago. But to expect a consolidation of his opponents to alter the direction of the contest now that Trump is clearly on track to win the nomination outright is to engage in wishful thinking. When Trump ascends the podium in Cleveland to accept his party’s nomination — an event that seems more likely than ever today — GOP leaders will have no one but themselves to blame.
Poll: Most Republicans want the GOP to unite behind Trump, Washington Examiner,
More than half of Republican voters believe the GOP is best off choosing Donald Trump as its 2016 presidential nominee if he arrives at the convention with the most delegates, according to a new poll.
In the latest Monmouth University national poll of Republican voters, 54 percent say their party should nominate the current GOP front-runner if he continues to lead the delegate count come July. Another 34 percent would prefer a contested convention in which someone other than Trump emerges as the nominee.
Of the voters who oppose Trump’s candidacy, 55 percent want someone other than the billionaire nominated at the convention, while 31 percent of that group still believe the party should nominate Trump if he has the highest delegate count.
The candidate most Trump opponents want as their nominee is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Thirty-three percent of voters in favor of a contested convention would like Cruz to be the GOP nominee, 23 percent would like Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and 10 percent want Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Slightly more GOP voters would want former Republican nominee Mitt Romney to again represent the party in the general election than would former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
Should the Republican National Convention include multiple rounds of voting on the convention floor and lead someone other than Trump to secure the nomination, a combined 47 percent of Trump supporters would either vote for a third-party candidate or likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, or not vote at all in November.
Only 43 percent said they would commit to backing another candidate as the GOP nominee in the general election.
“A majority of non-Trump supporters seem to be in favor of a brokered convention process at this point in the campaign,” Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray said in a statement. “That would probably throw the party into turmoil with many Trump supporters abandoning the party.”
The same survey shows Trump holding a steady lead nationally over his remaining two opponents. The real estate mogul, who won the Arizona primary Tuesday night but lost to Cruz in Utah, draws 41 percent support among Republican voters. Cruz draws 29 percent – double what it last December – and Kasich draws 18 percent support.
Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, March 23, 2016
Authorities need look no further than Angela Merkel as the prime suspect for the latest carnage in Brussels.
More than anyone, it was Merkel who opened the floodgates to the migrants — armies of men without women posing as refugees from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan found trampling throughout Europe. When they are caught misbehaving, they smirk and say, “I am here as a guest of Angela Merkel,” and they are correct and nearly untouchable.
Merkel stands by her open borders policy, the safety of her people be damned.
Over the past 12 months, more then a million of them have already crossed into Germany alone; 300,000 have been given asylum.
Of Brussels at this hour, all Western Europe leadership is guilty with Merkel sharing the largest part of the blame. These are her pets.
“Don’t go out unless you have to” is the hot new message circulating throughout Europe now that the “refugees” have arrived. You could get raped.
You could also get killed, and that’s what happened when the citizens of Brussels dared to go out Tuesday morning during rush hour. Scores were slain and wounded from yet another Islamic terror attack and people all over want to know how to make this stop.
Stop the influx. How’s that for an idea that needs no Einstein? Deport them instead. Maybe starting with Merkel, who invited the stampede.
The Saudis and the princes from the other Gulf States have it neatly figured out.
(So does Trump who wants to stop it and saw it coming as did this must-read thriller.)
Those titled Arabs don’t want that crowd within 100 miles even though they are fellow Muslims. But they do not want that type entering their borders, bringing with them their license to rape, their rivalries and tribal feuds, hell no, so why not Europe, and Europe says, sure, why not? Bring them on!
How clueless!
This is how. Only a few days ago, there they sat around a big table in Brussels, the smooth rulers of the EU, congratulating themselves on the capture of the final “mastermind” behind the November attack in Paris that killed 130. The French president was there, the Belgium prime minister was there and all the rest together expressed joy to the world that Salah Abdeslam had been caught.
Merkel sent in her gratitude for the superb police work.
At the moment they were hi-fiving the one success, 10,000 more “refugees” streamed in, plenty of them likewise “masterminds.”
Can no one do the math?
We pass the point of absurdity when “open borders” imperils us all throughout the world. There is no stopping the mad dash across continents.
Nor can we stop the madness that afflicts the world’s leaders.
Merkel and the rest of you clueless rulers of Europe, your misguided liberal sympathies and migrant leniencies are killing us.
Hence, Obama has chimed in his condolences for the pain in Brussels. “The entire world must unite,” he said. Yeah, sure, thanks. Will do.
Now back to the game, Mr. President.
Employing European wisdom, he wants to bring more of them into the United States. Thanks again.
Likewise Hillary and Trudeau. First the condolences followed by “we must resist Islamophobia” and keep the influx coming.
Hillary demands that we bring in 65,000 of them. Trudeau is ahead of her. He’s already got them in Canada.
It takes no prophet to know what’s coming for Canada and what’s next for the United States.
Don’t blame the terrorists, only. They are murderers but they know what they are doing.
The same cannot be said for the men and women who run our world.
Message from BRUSSELS. I support Donald Trump! via You Tube, March 13, 2016
(H/t The Last Refuge. The video was posted eight days before the Brussels attack.– DM)
Cruz Hits Trump on NATO ‘Surrender’ in Wake of Brussels Attacks, Newsmax, Sandy Fitzgerald, March 22, 2016
(At least he didn’t blame the Trump rallies for the violence in Brussels. — DM)
(AP)
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Tuesday that Donald Trump was engaging in a “pre-emptive surrender” to Islamic terror by calling for a “withdrawal” from NATO on the eve of the Brussels terror attacks.
On Monday, Trump told CNN that the U.S. should greatly reduce its support of NATO.
“It’s too much and frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea,” Trump said of the US-European security alliance.
Cruz said he found it “striking” that the terror attacks occurred on the day after his rival candidate Donald Trump called for reducing the U.S. role NATO.
“We see Brussels where NATO is headquartered as the subject of a radical Islamic terrorist attack,” Cruz said in a press conference from Washington D.C.
“Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that America should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Vladimir Putin a major victory, and while’s he’s at it, hand ISIS a major victory.”
Instead, said the Texas senator, NATO would be crucial in any United States effort in “utterly destroying ISIS.”
“And I would note that NATO is ready to act in a way our president is not,” said Cruz.
“Donald Trump’s proposal to withdraw from the world, to withdraw from NATO and Europe is sadly consistent with his statement that he intends to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Cruz also said Trump’s approach was similar to Obama’s.
“We have seen for 7 years a president that cannot distinguish between our friends and enemies. A president that cannot distinguish between the nation of Israel and Islamic terrorists who seek to murder us, and it would be a mistake to elect another president who buys into the same left-wing moral relativism that equates the terrorist blowing himself you have and murdering innocent civilians to the brave soldiers and law enforcement officers risking everything to keep us safe.”
Cruz was not alone for criticizing Trump on his stand on NATO.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, appearing on Fox News Tuesday morning, said Trump’s plan for downsizing the U.S. role in NATO was dangerous as we confront the grave threat of Islamic terrorism.
Donald Trump’s AIPAC Speech, Power Line,
(Power Line’s authors have generally opposed Trump. — DM)
Donald Trump delivered his much-anticipated address to AIPAC this afternoon. You can read the speech here.
I thought it was a good speech. Apparently, the audience did too. Trump received applause that at times was raucous. He even brought many to their feet multiple times.
Trump’s focus was right where it should be — on the Iranian threat. “My number one priority,” he said, “is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”
Trump then outlined his three-part strategy for dealing with Iran. First, “stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region.” Second, “totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network.” Third, “at the very least. . .hold Iran accountable by restructuring the terms of the previous deal.” I liked it better when he said “dismantle the disastrous deal.”
Next, Trump attacked the United Nations. He described it as “a complete and total disaster” and insisted that the U.S. must never let the UN impose a deal between “Israel and Palestine.” As president he would use his veto to block such a deal, he promised.
After that, Trump lambasted the Palestinian government for its non-stop incitement of hatred against Israel, especially among children. He said:
When you live in a society where athletes and movie stars are heroes, little kids want to be athletes and movie stars. In Palestinian society, the heroes are those who murder Jews – we can’t let this continue. You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs. Glorifying terrorists is a tremendous barrier to peace.
One Fox News, one commentator, I think it was Charles Krauthammer, noted that Trump didn’t really describe what he would do about this situation. It’s unrealistic to suppose that the U.S. president can change the way Palestinian society educates children.
But Trump did make clear what he will not do, if elected president. He will not attempt to impose a settlement on Israel. He will not treat Israel’s elected leader like dirt. He will turn a blind eye to Iranian aggression and non-compliance with the nuclear.
In short, a Trump administration would completely reverse President Obama’s approach to Israel and the region in general. That’s good enough for me.
Speaking of Obama, Trump’s best moment was improvised. Reading from his speech, he said, “With President Obama in his final year. . .” Then, with perfect timing, he added “yea.”
The crowd went wild. Jewish activists of the kind who attend AIPAC’s meeting have treated Obama with respect for years. Judging by the reaction to Trump’s line, however, it looks like, deep down, many of them can’t stand the guy.
In this sense, Trump’s speech was liberating. I applaud him for it.
Recent Comments