Cartoons and Videos of the Day

Posted December 17, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: "Fake news", Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Israel, Media, Obama, Russian hacking, Snowflakes

Tags: , , , , , ,

 

Via Media Research Center

 

Via LATMA-TV

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

donkey

 

flacks-kg

 

travel-trunk

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

alleged

 

H/t Power Line

trump-salve

 

alien-dems

 

notmyfault

 

obama-putin

 

nbc-fake

 

161212-pajama-boy

 

pollster-end

 

H/t Tom Fernandez’s Blog

notbuying

 

PA claims it got no US aid in 2016, when it really got $357 million

Posted December 17, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: American funding of PA, Palestinian Authority

Tags: ,

PA claims it got no US aid in 2016, when it really got $357 million, Jihad Watch, 

(Perhaps the PA will be correct after the Trump administration takes over. — DM)

War is deceit,” said Muhammad.

“PA claims it got no US aid in 2016. In fact, State Dept. gave Palestinians $357 million. And that’s not all,” by Dov Lieber, Times of Israel, December 16, 2016:

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah claimed last week that his government has received no aid from Washington in 2016, accusing the US of imposing a “financial siege” on the Palestinians. But the State Department has in fact provided Ramallah with over $357 million in financial assistance in the past year, according to information given to The Times of Israel by a US State Department official on Thursday.

Additionally, in 2016 alone, the US contributed $355,177,827 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNWRA), of which $95 million was earmarked for the West Bank and Gaza. UNWRA also operates Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

In total, therefore, the US gave around $712 million in aid to Palestinians in 2016, and is the world’s largest supplier of such aid.

Hamdallah told the official PA radio station the Voice of Palestine on December 8 that his government has not seen any of the aid money approved by the US in 2016. He described this as part of a “financial siege” on the Palestinian government. That allegation against the US of failure to pay, according to figures and explanations received by The Times of Israel, is a cynically skewed misrepresentation of the reality.

“Since last year, there is a financial siege on the Palestinian government… For example, let’s speak frankly, the US approved $263 million in 2016 as aid to the government. Look, 2016 is about to end, no shekel or agora, or dinar or dollar has been paid, if we speak frankly. We hope that this aid money will be paid,” he said, according to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch.

Hamdallah then listed and praised countries that he said have given aid to the PA in 2016, and excluded the US.

“The countries that have given their aid, and we always thank them, are the European Union, which always [gives] consistently and according to what is expected. When we plan the budget we know that the EU will pay. We thank Saudi Arabia, as President [Abbas] said at the Seventh Fatah Conference, and we thank Algeria. These are the countries that actually support our budget,” Hamdallah said.

The largest amount of money given to the PA annually from Washington is channeled through the USAID program.

In 2015, the State Department allotted $290 million to the Palestinians through USAID. This money formed the major part of the overall total of $357 million given to the Palestinians in 2016, and was dispensed after congressional approval. That one year delay between the allotment of aid from the USAID program and the actual transfer of the money to the Palestinians has been in place for over a decade.

The sum of $263 million which Hamdallah said the US approved in 2016 but claimed it has not given, therefore, was presumably a reference to the sum allotted by the State Department for payment in 2017, pending congressional approval. In fact, the actual sum Congress is being asked to approve for dispensation in 2017 is $261 million….

Obama to Putin: Cut It Out!

Posted December 17, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Obama and Russia, Obama and Russian hacking

Tags: ,

Obama to Putin: Cut It Out! Power Line, John Hinderaker, December 16, 2016

[W]hy didn’t President Obama tell Vladimir Putin to cut it out back in 2014? If all it took was a stern warning by our president to bring Russian cyberwarfare to a halt, why didn’t Obama tell Putin to stop it two years ago? If he had done so, following his own logic, the Russians would have behaved and there would have been no Wasserman-Schultz hack two years later. Who knows, Hillary Clinton might be our president-elect!

**********************

Barack Obama has spent the last eight years resisting the idea that Russia is an adversary of the United States. First we had the “reset”; next the cancellation of the Eastern European missile shield; then we had Obama assuring President Medvedev that he would be able to give away the store, but the Russians would need to wait for his second term; and then the presidential debate where Obama mocked Mitt Romney’s statement that Russia is our number one geopolitical rival by saying that the 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back. In between, we had a foreign policy that was supine in the face of Russian aggression in Crimea and Ukraine.

Now, in a typically head-snapping 180-degree turnabout, Obama and his fellow Democrats portray Republicans as soft on Communism Russia. It’s a throwback to the 1970s, but with the parties’ roles reversed.

In his press conference today, Obama described the stern measures he supposedly took after learning that the Russian government was involved in breaking into Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s email account:

And so in early September when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that did not happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, there were going to be some serious consequences if he did not.

And in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. But the leaks through Wikileaks had already occurred.

So all it took, apparently, was for President Obama to tell Vladimir Putin to cut it out.

This is what I don’t understand: in October 2014, the Russian government hacked into both the White House’s and the State Department’s computer systems. For an unknown period of time, weeks if not months, the Russians were reading White House and State Department emails–a far more significant security breach than the accounts of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta. The Obama administration never did discover that its communications had been compromised, but an ally (I suspect it was Israel) alerted the administration to the Russian intrusion. The White House’s computer system was down for weeks while experts tried to deal with the Russian hack and improve security.

What was President Obama’s reaction to this hack, which could reasonably be seen as an act of war? There was none, apparently. The administration downplayed the significance of the intrusion. The Russian government had been reading White House and State Department emails? No big deal! The liberal press followed suit. The newspapers that are now hysterical about the alleged Russian hacking of Wasserman Schultz’s email account dutifully kept quiet about what happened in the White House and the State Department. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Democratic Party newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times remained silent because the midterm election was just a few weeks away, and the story reflected badly on the Obama administration.

So this is what I don’t get: why didn’t President Obama tell Vladimir Putin to cut it out back in 2014? If all it took was a stern warning by our president to bring Russian cyberwarfare to a halt, why didn’t Obama tell Putin to stop it two years ago? If he had done so, following his own logic, the Russians would have behaved and there would have been no Wasserman-Schultz hack two years later. Who knows, Hillary Clinton might be our president-elect!

This question is so blindingly obvious that one can only wonder why not a single reporter at today’s press conference thought to ask it.

I am just kidding, of course. The news outlets that covered up the Russian hack of White House and State Department computers in 2014 are not about to challenge their fellow Democrat today.

For background on the 2014 intrusion, which the Obama administration attributed to Russia after the fact, go here, here, here, here, here and here.

Dr. Jasser reacts to news of a Muslim teen’s hate crime hoax and calls for a caliphate in the UK

Posted December 17, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Islam and females, Islamic caliphate, Islamic hoaxes, Islamist objectives, Islamist radicalization, Islamist terror - justifications, Islamists in America, Islamists in Britain, Zuhdi Jasser

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Jasser reacts to news of a Muslim teen’s hate crime hoax and calls for a caliphate in the UK, American Islamic Forum for Democracy via YouTube, December 16, 2016

Fake News

Posted December 17, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: "Fake news", Media and "Fake News", Media and Hillary Clinton

Tags: ,

Fake News, Bill Whittle.com Via YouTube, December 16, 2016

U.S. Accused of Training Iranian-Tied Forces in Iraq

Posted December 16, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran - Iraq war, Iranian proxies, Iraq war, Iraqi military, Islamic State, U.S. Military

Tags: , , , , ,

U.S. Accused of Training Iranian-Tied Forces in Iraq, Washington Free Beacon, , December 26, 2016

(It all depends on what “Iranian-tied” means. — DM)

pmfIraqi government-backed Popular Mobilization forces take part in a joint military parade with Iraqi security forces in Baghdad / AP

“There are militiamen, Sunni, Shias, and Christians who are not part of the Iranian-backed network in Iraq and are not necessarily amenable to Tehran’s influence,” he said. “However, these are dwarfed, out-financed, and out-gunned by the IRGC-backed militias, who promote the brand of Islamic identity as espoused by the IRGC, and openly display ideological loyalty to the velayat-e faghih (the Islamic Republic’s founding ideology) and Iran’s supreme leader.”

*****************************

The United States military is facing accusations that it has been training Iraqi militia fighters who are tied to Iran, a charge that military officials who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon denied this week while insisting that the United States and Iran share common goals in the war-torn country, as both sides fight to eradicate the threat of Islamic State terrorists.

The latest charge that the United States may be directly involved in the training of Iranian-backed militia fighters has reignited concerns that America is becoming too cozy with Iranian interests operating in Iraq, an issue that highlights the difficultly facing U.S forces as they seek to counter the influence of ISIS.

Video recently emerged of U.S. military advisers training Iraqi militia fighters in Makhmur. Some foreign policy observers assessed that these militia fighters may have ties to Iran, which controls an increasing number of Iraqi militia fighters taking on ISIS.

The charge was picked up this week in a lengthy Los Angeles Times exposé claiming, “The U.S. is helping train Iraqi militias historically tied to Iran.”

Senior military sources who spoke to the Free Beacon denied the United States is directly working with Iranian forces, but acknowledged the United States and Iran do share similar goals in Iraq when it comes to combatting the threat of ISIS.

“In Iraq, with regards to ISIL, our interests and Iranian interests have some convergence,” said one senior military official who spoke to the Free Beacon on background, using another acronym for the Islamic State.

Iranian influence over militias in Iraq continues to be a challenge for the United States, which is barred by law from working with any such group. Foreign policy insiders who spoke to the Free Beacon about the issue warned that U.S. intervention against ISIS in Iraq is serving to bolster and legitimize Iran’s regional influence.

During last spring’s campaign in Fallujah, the U.S. provided air cover to Iraqi fighters, some of whom came from militias tied to Iran. Iranian media reported that some of the fighters belonged to Iran’s state-controlled militia.

“The forces that the LA Times observed in that story are not affiliated with Iran,” Col. John Dorrian, a spokesman for the U.S. Joint Task Force operating in Iraq, told the Free Beacon. “They are approved as hold forces ‎for terrain that has been liberated by the Iraqi Security Forces. They are being trained by coalition forces. They are local forces, and they represent diverse ethnic and sectarian backgrounds. The local tie is a key element in their acceptance by the population they are going to keep secure.”

Dorrian added that the headline on the LA Times article discussing the training of these militias “is very misleading.”

“There’s a lot of good information ‎in the article but the Iranian tie is nonexistent,” Dorrian said. “The Government of Iraq has enrolled these forces as Popular mobilization forces. I think LAT conflated that fact with Iran. Despite my telling them there’s no tie, they went with that headline.”

Multiple other military officials, Obama administration sources, and outside experts familiar with the matter told the Free Beacon that the militia fighters depicted in recent videos have no ties to Iran.

However, they said the United States and Iran share common goals in Iraq, where the threat of ISIS has sparked sectarian battles and endangered the Western-backed government.

A State Department official authorized only to speak on background told the Free Beacon that the United States does not train any Iranian-tied fighters, even if they are officially backed by the Iraqi government.

“The U.S. provides support to the Iraqi Security Forces, and those aligned with the Iraqi government,” the official said. “The U.S. does not, and will not, provide direct support to any group proscribed by American law, or which does not operate under the aegis of the Iraqi government.”

Much of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMFs, are comprised of Shia Muslim fighters, many of whom are ideologically aligned with Iran’s hardline regime.

Maj. Adrian J.T. Rankine-Galloway, a Defense Department official, confirmed to the Free Beacon that some Iraqi units have been barred from receiving U.S. training due to their inability to pass background checks.

“Some Iraqi units have been restricted from receiving assistance because their commander didn’t pass vetting,” Rankine-Galloway said. “Because that quarterly report is classified, we cannot release which units were disqualified from receiving ITEF assistance.”

Rankine-Galloway further maintained that the United States has not changed its policy with regards to training in Iraq.

“U.S. government support to the counter-ISIL campaign remains by, with, and through the central Government of Iraq—and only to forces under the command and control of the Iraqi Security Forces,” Rankine-Galloway said. “Department of Defense policies on the provision of military assistance to foreign military forces have not changed. Iraqi Security Forces units who receive Iraq Train and Equip Fund assistance are strictly vetted” for ties to terror groups and the government of Iran.

Critics of the Obama administration’s policy in Iraq charge that even if the forces are not directly under the Iranian government’s orders, they are influenced by its senior military leaders.

“For proof the Obama administration treats our enemies like friends, look no further than their efforts to train armed militias loyal to Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC-Qods Forces, in Makhmur,” said one senior congressional aide who works on the matter. “Incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn knows intimately what Iran is capable of, so it’s hoped that he and the Trump administration will reverse this disgrace.”

Amir Toumaj, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that militia fighters tied to Iran far outnumber other fighters in Iraq.

“There are militiamen, Sunni, Shias, and Christians who are not part of the Iranian-backed network in Iraq and are not necessarily amenable to Tehran’s influence,” he said. “However, these are dwarfed, out-financed, and out-gunned by the IRGC-backed militias, who promote the brand of Islamic identity as espoused by the IRGC, and openly display ideological loyalty to the velayat-e faghih (the Islamic Republic’s founding ideology) and Iran’s supreme leader.”

“Key leaders” in the PMF “are beholden to Qassem Soleimani,” a top Iranian military leader, Toumaj said. “For example, the PMF operations commander is Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, Iran’s number one man in Iraq who has been designated as a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury and has overseen lethal attacks against U.S. soldiers during the occupation of Iraq. Iraqi militia and party leaders openly travel to Iran, and have received royal treatment, such as Akram al Kabi, head of Harakat al Nujaba, or the Movement of the Noble. The group under his command has committed war crimes and summary executions of women and children in east Aleppo this past week, according to the U.N.”

“The law legalizing the PMF has been welcomed in Iran. When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei this past week received Ammar Hakim, head of the National Alliance Shia party that helped passed that bill, he called the PMF a ‘great wealth’ for Iraq that should be ‘supported and consolidated.’”

“The current U.S. policy of defeating the Islamic State above all else is empowering the IRGC-backed network, which has worked to infiltrate the Iraqi government and cement itself into a part of the state and establish an Iraqi version of the IRGC, crystallized in the PMF,” Toumaj said.

President Obama Holds a Press Conference

Posted December 16, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Obama and The World

Tags:

President Obama Holds a Press Conference, White House, via YouTube, December 16, 2016

(Obama on life, the universe and everything. Fun with numbers, fun with facts. Obama did everything he should have, it worked and he is Great. — DM)

 

Now is the Time. A Bad U.S.-Cuba Policy With a Good U.S.-Latin American Policy

Posted December 16, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Human rights, President Elect Trump, Trump and Cuba, Trump and Latin America

Tags: , , ,

Now is the Time. A Bad U.S.-Cuba Policy With a Good U.S.-Latin American Policy, Center for Security Policy, Luis Fleischman, December 16, 2016

obamaandche

Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor warned President –elect Donald Trump that reversing the normalization process with Cuba could have harmful consequences.

Mr. Rhodes gave a number of reasons including that the death of Fidel Castro  offers an opportunity for a political transition as  Raul Castro, the current president announced he will retire in 2018. He also added that closing off Cuba now is likely to embolden the hardliners. In addition, Rhodes believes that closing the doors to Cuba at this juncture could harm relations between the United States and other Latin American countries.

Interestingly enough, President –elect Trump never spoke of stopping the normalization process or specifically returning to the situation before December 17, 2014. Mr. Trump, through his spokesman pointed out that he will demand religious and political liberalization for the island including liberation of political prisoners.  However, Rhodes suggested that insistence on demanding respect for human rights in Cuba has only led to more repression.

The arguments brought by the Obama Administration are difficult to sustain.  According to Pedro Roig, a Cuba expert, who published a detailed report in 2014, there is an entire structure in place aimed at guaranteeing the continuity of the regime even after Raul Castro leaves office or dies.

The regime secured key supporters in the armed forces and in the government bureaucracy. The armed forces control 65% of the economy. More than half of the 14 members of the Politburo are military men. Furthermore, there is a younger generation of people in high office that are also part of the central committee of the Communist Party. By the same token, Fidel and Raul’s children as well as members of their extended family and children of other high officers, occupy important positions. Many of them are in their fifties. As such they are likely to keep the regime in place for many years, if not decades to come.

Therefore, neither Raul’s retirement nor his eventual death can secure a transition as the Obama Administration asserts.

By the same token, Obama’s contention that relations with countries in Latin America would be at risk if the normalization process changes course is false.

For more than a decade and a half the left dominated the political scene in Latin America and indeed they pressured to de-isolate Cuba and reintegrate it into the family of the Americas. However, the political scene has now changed.

Most recently, Cuba’s strongest ally in the region, Venezuela, was suspended from MERCOSUR, the South American common market trade block.

The suspension was due to Venezuela’s lack of compliance with MERCOSUR’s rules and violations of human rights and democratic governance.

In two other key countries, Brazil and Argentina, the left is no longer in power. In Uruguay a moderate left-wing government also voted to suspend Venezuela.

The bottom line is that Venezuela has become isolated after 16 years of stealing the limelight. Therefore, it is logical that Cuba may no longer enjoy the regional status it once did. The MERCOSUR decision on Venezuela is a powerful sign of this development. The countries that still remain zealous supporters of Cuba are Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, all part of the Bolivarian Alliance and led by authoritarian leaders.

A Trump Administration is in a position now to take the upper hand in relation to Cuba as well as to Venezuela and their allies. This is a perfect moment to apply pressure on Cuba to change human rights policy. It is also a great moment to develop an overall new strategy aimed at neutralizing countries that still maintain the legacy of Castro and Chavez. Such a legacy is still highly problematic, to say the least, as these countries maintain relations with Iran, with terrorist elements and with drug cartels.

Trump’s appointment of General John Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security is an encouraging sign. Kelly has denounced a Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards presence in Latin America which are mostly harbored by countries associated with Cuba and Venezuela. He also understands very well that ISIS can take advantage of the vulnerable American Southern border. Most recently Southern Command confirmed the infiltration of Sunni Arabs to the U.S. through that border.

A new policy in the Western Hemisphere will require a strong diplomatic effort and cooperation from Latin American countries.

We do not need to treat the Western Hemisphere as a battlefield. Latin America is about more than this. However, treating the hemisphere only in commercial terms, ignoring all the issues mentioned above, or making a reconciliation policy with Cuba a centerpiece of what requires a much larger approach, should not continue to be our official policy.

Facebook to Label ‘Fake News’ with Help of Partisan ‘Fact Checkers’

Posted December 16, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: "Fake news", Facebook

Tags:

Facebook to Label ‘Fake News’ with Help of Partisan ‘Fact Checkers’, Breitbart, Ben Kew, December 15, 2016

BERLIN, GERMANY - FEBRUARY 25: Martin Schulz, Mark Zuckerberg and Mathias Doepfner attend the presentation of the first Axel Springer Award on February 25, 2016 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Frank Zauritz - Pool /Getty Images)

BERLIN, GERMANY – FEBRUARY 25: Martin Schulz, Mark Zuckerberg and Mathias Doepfner attend the presentation of the first Axel Springer Award on February 25, 2016 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Frank Zauritz – Pool /Getty Images)

Facebook has announced it will introduce warning labels on stories they deem to be “fake news,” with the help of partisan “fact checking” organisations such as Snopes and PolitiFact.

Stories deemed to be false will now be “flagged” by Facebook, with an accompanying red label claiming the story is “disputed by 3rd Party Fact-Checkers.”

Users will then have the option to “learn why this is disputed” to receive an explanation as to why Facebook believes the story is false.

“We’ll use the reports from our community, along with other signals, to send stories to these organizations,” Facebook VP Adam Mosseri wrote in the Facebook news blog. “If the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why.”

Mossieri insists that the company will not prohibit users from posting anything deemed “fake,” but “you will see a warning that the story has been disputed as you share.”

Furthermore, Facebook will prohibit paid promotion of stories that have been marked as disputed.

In the announcement, Facebook confirmed that it will be working alongside organizations that are signatories of “Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles.”

Business Insider reports that these organisations will include the likes of Snopes, ABC, Politifact, and FactCheck.org, all of which have records of left-wing partisanship — particularly throughout the 2016 election.

For example, PolitiFact infamously said it was “mostly false” when Donald Trump claimed in a presidential debate that Hillary Clinton wanted “open borders.” PolitiFact made this ruling despite Clinton being on the record at a paid speech saying “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

Trump also said that Russia has 1,800 nuclear warheads and has expanded its arsenal while the U.S. has not. PolitiFact admitted that Trump’s claim was factual, but it rated the statement as “half true” for supposedly “missing the big picture.”

In both of these cases, PolitiFact went beyond mere fact-checking and moved the goal posts in ways that benefited Clinton’s candidacy. This type of ideological “fact checking” went beyond parody during October’s presidential debates, with NBC taking Trump’s statement that Clinton “acid washed” her emails (a reference to the data deletion tool “BleachBit”) 100% literally and declaring the statement “false.”

FACT CHECK: Trump says Clinton “acid washed” her email server. She did not.
More fact checks: http://nbcnews.to/2c6w8lx 

 Meanwhile at ABC, George Stephanpoulos — a former campaign operative and top White House staffer to Bill Clinton — led the network’s election coverage, never disclosing this fact in his on-air appearances. Stephanopoulos’s wife said the pair would “leave the country” should Donald Trump be elected to the presidency.

Anti-Israel Lefties Freak Out Over Trump Pick for Ambassador to Israel

Posted December 16, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: David Friedman, Israel, J Street, Leftists, Palestinian Authority, President Elect Trump, Trump agenda, Trump and Israel, Trump's ambassador to Israel

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Anti-Israel Lefties Freak Out Over Trump Pick for Ambassador to Israel, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield. December 26, 2016

(There are other “problems” with Friedman: not only is he Jewish, he even speaks Hebrew. Secretary Kerry suffered from neither deficiency. Instead, he reflected Obama’s sense of balance toward Israel and what he hoped would become the sovereign state of Palestine, spreading from sea to shining sea. Seriously though, why would it be detrimental to America, or even to Israel, to help to keep the only democratic, non-Islamic nation in the Middle East alive? — DM)

hitlercries

There’s a fresh wind blowing through a stale room full of embittered lefties. The US Ambassador to Israel isn’t supposed to be pro-Israel. He’s supposed to represent the compelling US interest in the PLO.

Lisa Goldman of the truly vile hate site 972 really loses her mind.

“David Friedman’s views lie to the right of Meir Kahane’s. Trump naming him as Amb to Israel is a FU to the 70% of US Jews who vote Democrat,” she rants.

No, but it is an FU to the 2% of US Jews who vote for the Green Party and hate the Jewish State. But there’s more…

“This is true. It’s on the record. Trump’s ambassador to Israel called fellow Jews who support a 2 state solution “worse than kapos.”

The Kapos often didn’t have a choice. If Not Now and JVP’s howlers of hate do. And they chose to be what they are. We must never forget that.

Jill Jacobs of the anti-Israel group T’ruah is also most unhappy..

“New ambassador to Israel insults all liberal Jews, esp @JeremyBenAmi,” Jacobs whines.

Oh no. Not poor Jeremy Ben Ami. And Jeremy is also discommoded.

“Lord help friends of Israel if someone like David Friedman is making US policy on Israel rather than John Kerry,” Jeremy squeals.

That would indeed be the clearest sign that the Lord is helping Israel.

But David Friedman’s pick has caused a complete meltdown in the underground volcanic cavern serving as J Street’s HQ. J Street was already running back and forth waving its arms over a move of the embassy to Jerusalem, blocking Bolton and freaking out over the Chanukah party.

Now it’s losing what little is left of its ugly little mind.

“Trump’s pick of Friedman for Israel Amb is anathema to values that underlie US-Israel relationship. We’ll fight this with all we’ve got,” Jeremy Ben Ami rants.

The official J Street statement declares, “J Street is vehemently opposed to the nomination of David Friedman to be Ambassador to Israel.”

It’s hard to think of a better recommendation for Friedman than that.

“Well Friedman, the group (@jstreetu) you once called “worse than Kapos” is going to make this a hard 4 years for you,” Brooke Davies of J Street threatens.

“One idea from @jstreetdotorg: The Senate should block the confirmation of this dangerous extremist,” Logan Bayroff demands.

You can see them sweat.