 |
Cruz: Universities that boycott Israel should lose federal funding
NEW YORK -- Sen. Ted Cruz said Thursday that universities that boycott Israel should lose their federal funding.
Cruz's remarks were aimed at the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which is gaining traction on college campuses. It calls for U.S. companies and universities to divest from Israel. Cruz has spoken against BDS but sharpened his tone Thursday.
The nation needs a president who will ensure that "if a university boycotts the nation of Israel then that university will forfeit federal taxpayer dollars," Cruz said at the Champion of Jewish Values International Awards Gala here, where he received the Defender of Israel Award. "BDS is premised on a lie and it is antisemitism plain and simple."
Cruz never mentioned his presidential candidacy but sure talked a lot about what America's next president needs to do when it comes to Israel and Iran. That includes imposing sanctions on Iran, transferring bunker bombs to Israel if "Iran has not stopped marching toward nuclear weapons," moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and no longer fund the Palestinian Authority "as long as its engages in incitement" and is in a unity government with Hamas.
"If Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that president in 2017 should stand up to the world and explain very simply either Iran will stop or the United States of America will stop it," Cruz said.
Cruz continued to call the prospect of Iran securing a nuclear weapon the greatest threat to the security of the United States and Israel.
"The next 19 months are going to be perilous," he said. "But I commit to you to do everything in my power to speak out and stop any deal that will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons."
NEW YORK -- Sen. Ted Cruz said Thursday that universities that boycott Israel should lose their federal funding.
Cruz's remarks were aimed at the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which is gaining traction on college campuses. It calls for U.S. companies and universities to divest from Israel. Cruz has spoken against BDS but sharpened his tone Thursday.
The nation needs a president who will ensure that "if a university boycotts the nation of Israel then that university will forfeit federal taxpayer dollars," Cruz said at the Champion of Jewish Values International Awards Gala here, where he received the Defender of Israel Award. "BDS is premised on a lie and it is antisemitism plain and simple."
Cruz never mentioned his presidential candidacy but sure talked a lot about what America's next president needs to do when it comes to Israel and Iran. That includes imposing sanctions on Iran, transferring bunker bombs to Israel if "Iran has not stopped marching toward nuclear weapons," moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and no longer fund the Palestinian Authority "as long as its engages in incitement" and is in a unity government with Hamas.
"If Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that president in 2017 should stand up to the world and explain very simply either Iran will stop or the United States of America will stop it," Cruz said.
Cruz continued to call the prospect of Iran securing a nuclear weapon the greatest threat to the security of the United States and Israel.
"The next 19 months are going to be perilous," he said. "But I commit to you to do everything in my power to speak out and stop any deal that will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons."
Posted: 13 May 2015 09:49 AM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)
Hillary Rodham was, famously, a Goldwater Girl in high school. However, as David Brock showed in his 1996 book “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” she was a Rockefeller Republican when she arrive at Wellesley College. By the time she graduated, Hillary was a far-left radical.
Brock connects Hillary’s radicalism with the teachings of two extreme left-wingers of the day: Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky. Oglesby, a Marxist theoretician who became head of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), wrote for a radical magazine called motive, to which Hillary Rodham subscribed.
In a 1994 article in Newsweek, Hillary said she still had every issue of motive she received. According to Brock, she mentioned a piece by Oglesby that made an indelible mark on her. The piece was called “World Revolution and American Containment.”
In this piece, Oglesby asked, “What would be so obviously wrong about a Vietnam run by Ho Chi Minh [or] a Cuba by Castro. . .?” Oglesby also described the world he believed the U.S. wants:
[A] world safe for the American businessman to do his doings everywhere on terms always advantageous, in environments always protected by friendly or puppet oligarchies, by the old foreign grads of Fort Benning — or if push comes to shove, by the Marines themselves.
We want a world integrated in terms of the stability of labor, resources, production, and markets; and we want that integrated world to be managed by our business people. The United States, that, is an imperialist power.
This was the foreign policy analysis that Hillary Rodham found persuasive in 1966. And it was the analysis that Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently still considered impressive in 1994.
As for domestic politics, Saul Alinsky, leftist agitator and author of Rules for Radicals, was Hillary Rodham’s mentor. As her faculty adviser recalls, she “read all of Alinsky, and she was able to go and see him.”
It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Hillary was involved in bringing Alinsky to Wellesley to speak. She also interviewed him for her senior thesis, an analysis of Lyndon Johnson’s Community Action Program. Known as CAP, this was an anti-poverty program based on the idea of the federal government circumventing local politicians to some extent, and empowering radical community activists (or community organizers, if you prefer).
Alinsky’s thinking had inspired CAP. However, he was highly critical of the program because he thought it did not sufficiently empower the poor.
Hillary Rodham’s thesis was under lock and key at Wellesley when Brock wrote his book and, to my knowledge, still is. However, in 1993, she told the Washington Post that “I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right. . . .You know, I’ve been on this kick for 25 years.”
When Hillary Rodham graduated from college in 1969, Alinsky offered her a paid position as a trainee with a new institute he had founded to train activists. Alinsky died in 1972, but his institute would endure, helping to train generations of “community organizers.”
Hillary turned down Alinsky’s offer, opting instead for law school. In an interview with the Chicago Times, she said she agreed with Alinsky about the need to obtain political power with which to push for more radical change than the Great Society envisaged. However, she questioned whether fighting for such power from outside the system would work. As she put it, Alinsky’s approach would not go over well with “the kind of people I grew up with in Park Ridge.”
According to Brock, Hillary believed, instead, that the political power needed to bring about radical change could be seized by working within the system. Events have, I think, proven her correct up to a point.
What are we to make of Hillary Rodham’s radicalism? Plenty of college students in the 1960s flirted with these views. More than a few embraced the anti-Americanism of Carl Oglesby and/or the domestic leftism of Saul Alinsky.
However, Brock demonstrated through Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interviews with Newsweek and the Washington Post that she was still under these influences 25 years after graduating from college. As she said with regard to Alinsky’s critique of LBJ’s left-liberal Great Society, she has been on this kick for 25 years.
Has Hillary Clinton gotten off her left-wing “kicks” in the past 20 years? As a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she has not behaved as an uber-leftist. But to have behaved that way would have damaged her quest for political power — it would not have gone over well with the people she grew up with in Park Ridge.
Barack Obama’s example seems instructive. Initially, for example, he opposed gay marriage and executive amnesty, almost certainly in order to maintain his political viability. Now, he has shed these positions.
Hillary Clinton is also shedding. For example, she too has flipped on gay marriage and is no longer an avowed free-trader.
Some speculate that Hillary is moving leftward to improve her standing with the Democratic base. That’s quite possible, although she is running all but unopposed for her party’s nomination.
I think it’s likely — and not inconsistent with ascribing a political motive to her leftward tacking — that Hillary Clinton retains much of the radicalism that Hillary Rodham embraced in the late 1960s and that Hillary Rodham Clinton boasted of in the mid 1990s. At a minimum, it’s fair to ask her when she first rejected the thinking of Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky, whether the rejection is complete, and what prompted the rejection.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton isn’t answering questions more innocuous than these. Lately, in fact, she’s not answering questions at all.
It’s also fair to wonder whether, having compromised on so much over the years — both politically and personally — a President Hillary Clinton would want badly to reassert herself as Hillary Rodham, girl radical.
Brock wrote that because of her compromises, “Hillary’s struggle to preserve her dignity and integrity has become the central drama of her life.” I shudder to contemplate seeing this drama played out in the Oval Office.
Hillary Rodham was, famously, a Goldwater Girl in high school. However, as David Brock showed in his 1996 book “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” she was a Rockefeller Republican when she arrive at Wellesley College. By the time she graduated, Hillary was a far-left radical.
Brock connects Hillary’s radicalism with the teachings of two extreme left-wingers of the day: Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky. Oglesby, a Marxist theoretician who became head of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), wrote for a radical magazine called motive, to which Hillary Rodham subscribed.
In a 1994 article in Newsweek, Hillary said she still had every issue of motive she received. According to Brock, she mentioned a piece by Oglesby that made an indelible mark on her. The piece was called “World Revolution and American Containment.”
In this piece, Oglesby asked, “What would be so obviously wrong about a Vietnam run by Ho Chi Minh [or] a Cuba by Castro. . .?” Oglesby also described the world he believed the U.S. wants:
[A] world safe for the American businessman to do his doings everywhere on terms always advantageous, in environments always protected by friendly or puppet oligarchies, by the old foreign grads of Fort Benning — or if push comes to shove, by the Marines themselves.We want a world integrated in terms of the stability of labor, resources, production, and markets; and we want that integrated world to be managed by our business people. The United States, that, is an imperialist power.
This was the foreign policy analysis that Hillary Rodham found persuasive in 1966. And it was the analysis that Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently still considered impressive in 1994.
As for domestic politics, Saul Alinsky, leftist agitator and author of Rules for Radicals, was Hillary Rodham’s mentor. As her faculty adviser recalls, she “read all of Alinsky, and she was able to go and see him.”
It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Hillary was involved in bringing Alinsky to Wellesley to speak. She also interviewed him for her senior thesis, an analysis of Lyndon Johnson’s Community Action Program. Known as CAP, this was an anti-poverty program based on the idea of the federal government circumventing local politicians to some extent, and empowering radical community activists (or community organizers, if you prefer).
Alinsky’s thinking had inspired CAP. However, he was highly critical of the program because he thought it did not sufficiently empower the poor.
Hillary Rodham’s thesis was under lock and key at Wellesley when Brock wrote his book and, to my knowledge, still is. However, in 1993, she told the Washington Post that “I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right. . . .You know, I’ve been on this kick for 25 years.”
When Hillary Rodham graduated from college in 1969, Alinsky offered her a paid position as a trainee with a new institute he had founded to train activists. Alinsky died in 1972, but his institute would endure, helping to train generations of “community organizers.”
Hillary turned down Alinsky’s offer, opting instead for law school. In an interview with the Chicago Times, she said she agreed with Alinsky about the need to obtain political power with which to push for more radical change than the Great Society envisaged. However, she questioned whether fighting for such power from outside the system would work. As she put it, Alinsky’s approach would not go over well with “the kind of people I grew up with in Park Ridge.”
According to Brock, Hillary believed, instead, that the political power needed to bring about radical change could be seized by working within the system. Events have, I think, proven her correct up to a point.
What are we to make of Hillary Rodham’s radicalism? Plenty of college students in the 1960s flirted with these views. More than a few embraced the anti-Americanism of Carl Oglesby and/or the domestic leftism of Saul Alinsky.
However, Brock demonstrated through Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interviews with Newsweek and the Washington Post that she was still under these influences 25 years after graduating from college. As she said with regard to Alinsky’s critique of LBJ’s left-liberal Great Society, she has been on this kick for 25 years.
Has Hillary Clinton gotten off her left-wing “kicks” in the past 20 years? As a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she has not behaved as an uber-leftist. But to have behaved that way would have damaged her quest for political power — it would not have gone over well with the people she grew up with in Park Ridge.
Barack Obama’s example seems instructive. Initially, for example, he opposed gay marriage and executive amnesty, almost certainly in order to maintain his political viability. Now, he has shed these positions.
Hillary Clinton is also shedding. For example, she too has flipped on gay marriage and is no longer an avowed free-trader.
Some speculate that Hillary is moving leftward to improve her standing with the Democratic base. That’s quite possible, although she is running all but unopposed for her party’s nomination.
I think it’s likely — and not inconsistent with ascribing a political motive to her leftward tacking — that Hillary Clinton retains much of the radicalism that Hillary Rodham embraced in the late 1960s and that Hillary Rodham Clinton boasted of in the mid 1990s. At a minimum, it’s fair to ask her when she first rejected the thinking of Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky, whether the rejection is complete, and what prompted the rejection.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton isn’t answering questions more innocuous than these. Lately, in fact, she’s not answering questions at all.
It’s also fair to wonder whether, having compromised on so much over the years — both politically and personally — a President Hillary Clinton would want badly to reassert herself as Hillary Rodham, girl radical.
Brock wrote that because of her compromises, “Hillary’s struggle to preserve her dignity and integrity has become the central drama of her life.” I shudder to contemplate seeing this drama played out in the Oval Office.
Florida Senate race
JEB BUSH GIVES OBAMA ‘CREDIT’ ON IRAN; JAMES BAKER’S INFLUENCE AT WORK
Joel Pollack
Rand Paul may be “closest to Obama in his view on foreign policy,” as Dr. Charles Krauthammer put it on Tuesday, but he is facing stiff competition from Jeb Bush in that category. The former Florida governor praised Obama’s initial negotiating efforts with Iran on Tuesday, telling an audience in Denver that “we need to give him credit” for “bringing other people along and making it tougher.” The puzzling statement suggests the influence of James A. Baker III on the Bush campaign.
|
Posted: 08 Apr 2015 09:26 AM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)
Yesterday, in announcing his run for the presidency, Rand Paul demonstrated his unfitness for the office by calling for the repeal of any law that “disproportionately incarcerates people of color.” In effect, as John and I pointed out, Paul thereby called for the repeal of virtually every criminal law.
Paul’s team has now “clarified” his statement. The campaign told Byron York that the Senator’s words were misunderstood:
But Paul said he wanted to repeal “any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color,” (emphasis added) not just laws pertaining to nonviolent crimes. He may have misspoken, but his words weren’t misunderstood.
Attempting to support her assertion, Paul’s spokeswoman sent Byron brief descriptions of five bills Paul is sponsoring that deal with the criminal justice system and relate to non-violent crimes. None pertains to repealing criminal laws. Thus, they do not shed light on the scope of Paul’s call for repealing all criminal laws that disproportionately affect “people of color.” It’s difficult to see how Paul could have had these bills in mind when he called for repealing criminal laws.
It’s not far-fetched, though, to believe that Paul doesn’t want to repeal laws against murder and rape, for example — a position that would put him to the left of Al Sharpton. More likely, the Senator chose his words incredibly poorly, which hardly recommends him to be the GOP standard bearer in 2016.
Even with the clarification, Paul’s position remains inane and dangerous. Why should non-violent acts that now constitute crimes be legalized just because a particular group doesn’t obey the current prohibition? No criminal law should be subject, in effect, to a “criminals of color veto.”
Paul seems to believe that non-violent crimes are no big deal. This is rubbish.
The line between violent and non-violent crimes is not totally clear. However, non-violent crimes are generally thought to include:
I see no basis for repealing any of these prohibitions. But if there’s a case to be made, it shouldn’t be based on race.
Even with his backpedaling, Rand Paul is calling for a race-based criminal justice code. This should disqualify him from the GOP nomination.
|
Rand Paul’s Israel Problem Summed Up in One Telling Gif
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is learning the hard way that sometimes it’s not enough to just show up.
At least 50 House and Senate Democrats boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, but several right-leaning news sites and pundits were more focused on Paul’s lukewarm reaction to Bibi. The problem for Paul was that he looked very much like a man who didn't want to be at the speech, and the larger perception is that Paul was trying to split the difference between wanting to reach a deal with Iran (the opposite goal of the speech) and not wanting to seem like he doesn’t support Israel.
That dynamic was summed up neatly in gif form:
“Rand’s conservatarian straddle in one GIF: ‘What if I clap, but only half-heartedly?’” tweeted Allahpundit, a writer at the conservative website HotAir, referring to Paul's need to balance conservatism and libertarianism. Red State’s Dan McLaughlin called it the “Citizen Kane clap.” The National Review posted a short reaction story on the gif and the right’s negative social media response. The post argued that he was “less-than-enthused” due to “his outspoken views against foreign aid and a muscular foreign policy.”
Paul’s foreign aid stance came up last fall when he was asked if he’d ever proposed cutting aid to Israel. Paul said he hadn’t, but in 2011 he proposed a bill that would end all foreign aid, including Israel, according to Politifact. His father, former congressman Ron Paul, also opposed giving foreign aid. Three months later, Paul faced criticism for missing a Netanyahu speech (he said he stayed on the Senate floor to prevent Democrats from advancing the Patriot Act unanimously).
Through all of this, Paul’s response has been that Israel is a close friend and ally that has his support. After the speech, the senator released the following statement:
“Israel is and has always been America’s friend and ally. I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today, and join him in calling for peace and standing together for out mutual interests. It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of Radical Islam.”
But despite his vocal support for Israel, Paul may not be able to convince the right that he’s more enthusiastic about Israel than that gif implies. As Daniel Larison at The American Conservative wrote in January, “I know that Paul thinks he can thread the needle of placating ‘pro-Israel’ hawks without antagonizing the core supporters he expects to have in 2016, but I suspect that he is wrong about this. He will never be able to satisfy the ‘pro-Israel’ hawks, since they decided long ago that he was not one of them.”
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is learning the hard way that sometimes it’s not enough to just show up.
At least 50 House and Senate Democrats boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, but several right-leaning news sites and pundits were more focused on Paul’s lukewarm reaction to Bibi. The problem for Paul was that he looked very much like a man who didn't want to be at the speech, and the larger perception is that Paul was trying to split the difference between wanting to reach a deal with Iran (the opposite goal of the speech) and not wanting to seem like he doesn’t support Israel.
That dynamic was summed up neatly in gif form:
“Rand’s conservatarian straddle in one GIF: ‘What if I clap, but only half-heartedly?’” tweeted Allahpundit, a writer at the conservative website HotAir, referring to Paul's need to balance conservatism and libertarianism. Red State’s Dan McLaughlin called it the “Citizen Kane clap.” The National Review posted a short reaction story on the gif and the right’s negative social media response. The post argued that he was “less-than-enthused” due to “his outspoken views against foreign aid and a muscular foreign policy.”
Paul’s foreign aid stance came up last fall when he was asked if he’d ever proposed cutting aid to Israel. Paul said he hadn’t, but in 2011 he proposed a bill that would end all foreign aid, including Israel, according to Politifact. His father, former congressman Ron Paul, also opposed giving foreign aid. Three months later, Paul faced criticism for missing a Netanyahu speech (he said he stayed on the Senate floor to prevent Democrats from advancing the Patriot Act unanimously).
Through all of this, Paul’s response has been that Israel is a close friend and ally that has his support. After the speech, the senator released the following statement:
At least 50 House and Senate Democrats boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, but several right-leaning news sites and pundits were more focused on Paul’s lukewarm reaction to Bibi. The problem for Paul was that he looked very much like a man who didn't want to be at the speech, and the larger perception is that Paul was trying to split the difference between wanting to reach a deal with Iran (the opposite goal of the speech) and not wanting to seem like he doesn’t support Israel.
That dynamic was summed up neatly in gif form:
“Rand’s conservatarian straddle in one GIF: ‘What if I clap, but only half-heartedly?’” tweeted Allahpundit, a writer at the conservative website HotAir, referring to Paul's need to balance conservatism and libertarianism. Red State’s Dan McLaughlin called it the “Citizen Kane clap.” The National Review posted a short reaction story on the gif and the right’s negative social media response. The post argued that he was “less-than-enthused” due to “his outspoken views against foreign aid and a muscular foreign policy.”
Paul’s foreign aid stance came up last fall when he was asked if he’d ever proposed cutting aid to Israel. Paul said he hadn’t, but in 2011 he proposed a bill that would end all foreign aid, including Israel, according to Politifact. His father, former congressman Ron Paul, also opposed giving foreign aid. Three months later, Paul faced criticism for missing a Netanyahu speech (he said he stayed on the Senate floor to prevent Democrats from advancing the Patriot Act unanimously).
Through all of this, Paul’s response has been that Israel is a close friend and ally that has his support. After the speech, the senator released the following statement:
“Israel is and has always been America’s friend and ally. I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today, and join him in calling for peace and standing together for out mutual interests. It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of Radical Islam.”But despite his vocal support for Israel, Paul may not be able to convince the right that he’s more enthusiastic about Israel than that gif implies. As Daniel Larison at The American Conservative wrote in January, “I know that Paul thinks he can thread the needle of placating ‘pro-Israel’ hawks without antagonizing the core supporters he expects to have in 2016, but I suspect that he is wrong about this. He will never be able to satisfy the ‘pro-Israel’ hawks, since they decided long ago that he was not one of them.”
REPORT: ADELSON TURNS AGAINST JEB BUSH OVER ADVISER’S POSITION ON ISRAEL
Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a generous Republican donor and staunch supporter of Israel, has reportedlybecome “incensed” at former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush over comments that a Bush foreign policy adviser made about Israel.
Former Secretary of State James Baker, who is among Bush’s advisers, gave the keynote address last week to the D.C. gala dinner of J Street, a left-wing group that opposes the Israeli government and supports the Obama administration’s policy.
Baker told J Street that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to blame for the stalled Middle East peace process, that Netanyahu was too hawkish on Iran, and that the U.S. should not support an Israeli strike against the Iranian regime.
As Breitbart News reported last week, Jeb Bush invited Baker to join his list of foreign policy advisers, despite knowing that the Bush family ally had a checkered record on Israel and is distrusted by many Jewish voters because of alleged prejudice.
Exactly a year ago, Adelson hosted Jeb Bush at a private fundraising event in Las Vegas, coordinated with the Republican Jewish Coalition ahead of its annual spring meeting. The event was the most exclusive item on the weekend’s agenda.
Adelson’s apparent shift, reported by the New York Times, would be a major blow–although Bush has already raised so much money that he may not feel worried.
More and more people are finally realizing Obama is a pro Islamic jihadist.
The only logical possibility, based on plethora of evidence, Obama is a radical pro-Islamic, anti Israel jihadist.
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-admit.htm
Joe Walsh, former congressman on Chicago radio said it yesterday and is still on the air. Michael Savage says it regularly. Others are not there yet but it is slowly dawning on them. There is no other rationale explanation for his behavior. My uncle claims loads of people he knows voted for Obama 2x but now deeply regret it. Wonder how many? Last poll I saw is Romney would have won by 9% if election were held today. Catastrophic consequences of the misjudgement of so many. Just don't make the same mistake with Hillary. She's as radical and dangerous, and just as much as a liar.. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/04/hillary-would-be-obamas-3rd-term-on.html
The potential may now be open for another candidate to win Adelson’s favor.
Former Secretary of State James Baker, who is among Bush’s advisers, gave the keynote address last week to the D.C. gala dinner of J Street, a left-wing group that opposes the Israeli government and supports the Obama administration’s policy.
Baker told J Street that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to blame for the stalled Middle East peace process, that Netanyahu was too hawkish on Iran, and that the U.S. should not support an Israeli strike against the Iranian regime.
As Breitbart News reported last week, Jeb Bush invited Baker to join his list of foreign policy advisers, despite knowing that the Bush family ally had a checkered record on Israel and is distrusted by many Jewish voters because of alleged prejudice.
Exactly a year ago, Adelson hosted Jeb Bush at a private fundraising event in Las Vegas, coordinated with the Republican Jewish Coalition ahead of its annual spring meeting. The event was the most exclusive item on the weekend’s agenda.
Adelson’s apparent shift, reported by the New York Times, would be a major blow–although Bush has already raised so much money that he may not feel worried.
More and more people are finally realizing Obama is a pro Islamic jihadist.
The only logical possibility, based on plethora of evidence, Obama is a radical pro-Islamic, anti Israel jihadist.
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-admit.htm
Joe Walsh, former congressman on Chicago radio said it yesterday and is still on the air. Michael Savage says it regularly. Others are not there yet but it is slowly dawning on them. There is no other rationale explanation for his behavior. My uncle claims loads of people he knows voted for Obama 2x but now deeply regret it. Wonder how many? Last poll I saw is Romney would have won by 9% if election were held today. Catastrophic consequences of the misjudgement of so many. Just don't make the same mistake with Hillary. She's as radical and dangerous, and just as much as a liar.. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/04/hillary-would-be-obamas-3rd-term-on.html
The potential may now be open for another candidate to win Adelson’s favor.
The only logical possibility, based on plethora of evidence, Obama is a radical pro-Islamic, anti Israel jihadist.
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-admit.htm
Joe Walsh, former congressman on Chicago radio said it yesterday and is still on the air. Michael Savage says it regularly. Others are not there yet but it is slowly dawning on them. There is no other rationale explanation for his behavior. My uncle claims loads of people he knows voted for Obama 2x but now deeply regret it. Wonder how many? Last poll I saw is Romney would have won by 9% if election were held today. Catastrophic consequences of the misjudgement of so many. Just don't make the same mistake with Hillary. She's as radical and dangerous, and just as much as a liar.. http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/04/hillary-would-be-obamas-3rd-term-on.html
The potential may now be open for another candidate to win Adelson’s favor.
Tammy Duckworth: Political Hack, Professional Victim, Schoolyard Bully opposing Senator Kirk in Illinois 2016
-
As a firm believer that the government is our servant not our master few things set me off more than an elected official using the power of their position to bully someone. Yesterday that happened at a hearing on Capitol Hill when Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) unloaded on a private businessman over his VA awarded disability.
The businessman, Braulio Castillo, is the president and CEO of Strong Castle Inc., is the subject of concern by Darrell Issa’s House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. Issa feels that Castillo gamed a particular contracting category, the SBA HUBZone, to strike gold at the IRS. The IRS IG disagrees. I don’t know and really don’t care. These special carve-outs in contracting laws are wrong on every conceivable level, other than creating a feel good moment for the Congress, and one can no more be shocked, surprised, and upset when they are manipulated than one should be shocked, surprised, and upset when you are hit by a car when walking across the freeway. Maybe he gamed the system, maybe he defrauded the system, maybe he played the rules straight. I’m not only agnostic on that, I am completely uninterested in the answer.
If that had been what caused the juvenile outburst from Duckworth, it wouldn’t have bothered me. I understand political theater as well as the next guy.
But Castillo’s actions that brought him before the committee were not what set Duckworth into her rage-boy routine… something she hasn’t demonstrated against the parade of Obama IRS officials pleading the Fifth before this same committee. No, what got her mad was that Duckworth took umbrage at the fact that Mr. Castillo has a VA awarded service connected disability rating of 30%.
Stipulated: the VA system is broken. Stipulated: an industry exists to help veterans get a VA awarded service connected disability rating. Stipulated: the military services are a part of that system. Regardless of what “Doctor” Duckworth might think of Mr. Castillo’s injuries, the facts are that he applied for the disability rating and the VA granted him that rating. She doesn’t get a vote on it and no one should lionize her for her asshattery.
The fact that Duckworth was more unlucky than Castillo and doesn’t like the fact that he doesn’t look sufficiently injured to gain her respect is irrelevant. I wonder how she would treat someone suffering from PTSD?
I’ve been stunned to see people I generally respect applauding a member of Congress for heaping invective upon a private citizen who is not given the opportunity to respond without creating legal difficulties for himself. It doesn’t take a large person to hector a defenseless witness for the benefit of the cameras. To the contrary, it takes a small, petty, and vindictive person to abuse their position of power.
Duckworth’s talent is completely defined by her combat injuries. She is a political hack of the worst sort. She has coasted from obscurity to a House seat by toeing the Democrat party line and milking her injuries for all they are worth. Her supporters, like those of the unlamented Max Cleland, paint her opponents as anti-veteran simply because she is a disabled veteran. She is the poster child for how to use a service connected disability to mask your underlying mediocrity while playing the victim when challenged on policy matters.
Members of Congress are not our masters. They have no right to treat any American the way Duckworth treated Mr. Castillo.
As a firm believer that the government is our servant not our master few things set me off more than an elected official using the power of their position to bully someone. Yesterday that happened at a hearing on Capitol Hill when Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) unloaded on a private businessman over his VA awarded disability.
The businessman, Braulio Castillo, is the president and CEO of Strong Castle Inc., is the subject of concern by Darrell Issa’s House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. Issa feels that Castillo gamed a particular contracting category, the SBA HUBZone, to strike gold at the IRS. The IRS IG disagrees. I don’t know and really don’t care. These special carve-outs in contracting laws are wrong on every conceivable level, other than creating a feel good moment for the Congress, and one can no more be shocked, surprised, and upset when they are manipulated than one should be shocked, surprised, and upset when you are hit by a car when walking across the freeway. Maybe he gamed the system, maybe he defrauded the system, maybe he played the rules straight. I’m not only agnostic on that, I am completely uninterested in the answer.
If that had been what caused the juvenile outburst from Duckworth, it wouldn’t have bothered me. I understand political theater as well as the next guy.
But Castillo’s actions that brought him before the committee were not what set Duckworth into her rage-boy routine… something she hasn’t demonstrated against the parade of Obama IRS officials pleading the Fifth before this same committee. No, what got her mad was that Duckworth took umbrage at the fact that Mr. Castillo has a VA awarded service connected disability rating of 30%.
Stipulated: the VA system is broken. Stipulated: an industry exists to help veterans get a VA awarded service connected disability rating. Stipulated: the military services are a part of that system. Regardless of what “Doctor” Duckworth might think of Mr. Castillo’s injuries, the facts are that he applied for the disability rating and the VA granted him that rating. She doesn’t get a vote on it and no one should lionize her for her asshattery.
The fact that Duckworth was more unlucky than Castillo and doesn’t like the fact that he doesn’t look sufficiently injured to gain her respect is irrelevant. I wonder how she would treat someone suffering from PTSD?
I’ve been stunned to see people I generally respect applauding a member of Congress for heaping invective upon a private citizen who is not given the opportunity to respond without creating legal difficulties for himself. It doesn’t take a large person to hector a defenseless witness for the benefit of the cameras. To the contrary, it takes a small, petty, and vindictive person to abuse their position of power.
Duckworth’s talent is completely defined by her combat injuries. She is a political hack of the worst sort. She has coasted from obscurity to a House seat by toeing the Democrat party line and milking her injuries for all they are worth. Her supporters, like those of the unlamented Max Cleland, paint her opponents as anti-veteran simply because she is a disabled veteran. She is the poster child for how to use a service connected disability to mask your underlying mediocrity while playing the victim when challenged on policy matters.
Members of Congress are not our masters. They have no right to treat any American the way Duckworth treated Mr. Castillo.
Bush disagrees with James Baker’s critique of Israel, Netanyahu
(JTA) — Jeb Bush said he disagrees with critical comments on Israel made by former Secretary of State James Baker, his unofficial foreign policy adviser.
Baker, a close friend of the Bush family, said at the liberal group J Street’s conference on Monday night that he was “disappointed” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attitude toward a two-state solution.
“Frankly, I have been disappointed with the lack of progress regarding a lasting peace — and I have been for some time,” Baker said. He also said that when it comes to pushing for a two-state solution, Netanyahu’s “actions have not matched his rhetoric.”
In response, a spokeswoman for Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, said in an email on Tuesday, “While [Bush] respects Secretary Baker, he disagrees with the sentiments he expressed last night and opposes J Street’s advocacy.”
“Governor Bush’s support for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unwavering,” the email from Kristy Campbell continued, “and he believes it’s critically important our two nations work seamlessly to achieve peace in the region.”
Baker reportedly said “f*** the Jews” in a private conversation while serving as secretary of state for Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a speech on Monday announcing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination that he would stand “unapologetically with Israel.” Cruz is the first to declare his candidacy for 2016
(JTA) — Jeb Bush said he disagrees with critical comments on Israel made by former Secretary of State James Baker, his unofficial foreign policy adviser.
Baker, a close friend of the Bush family, said at the liberal group J Street’s conference on Monday night that he was “disappointed” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attitude toward a two-state solution.
“Frankly, I have been disappointed with the lack of progress regarding a lasting peace — and I have been for some time,” Baker said. He also said that when it comes to pushing for a two-state solution, Netanyahu’s “actions have not matched his rhetoric.”
In response, a spokeswoman for Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, said in an email on Tuesday, “While [Bush] respects Secretary Baker, he disagrees with the sentiments he expressed last night and opposes J Street’s advocacy.”
“Governor Bush’s support for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unwavering,” the email from Kristy Campbell continued, “and he believes it’s critically important our two nations work seamlessly to achieve peace in the region.”
Baker reportedly said “f*** the Jews” in a private conversation while serving as secretary of state for Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a speech on Monday announcing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination that he would stand “unapologetically with Israel.” Cruz is the first to declare his candidacy for 2016
When Jeb Bush helped launch a covert mission to rescue Ethiopian Jews from starvation
Jeb Bush this week has worked to assert his pro-Israel credentials after criticism from the right surfaced over comments James Baker, an adviser to Bush’s presidential campaign in waiting, made about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Bush first issued a statement distancing himself from Baker’s remarks, made to the liberal J Street on Monday, and on Wednesday, penned a National Review column bashing the Obama administration's relationship with Israel. This afternoon Bush's PAC put out anemail soliciting donations to support candidates who “stand with Israel against a nuclear Iran.”
What Bush hasn’t mentioned is his role in a little-remembered secret mission to rescue an obscure sect of Jews from starvation.
As head of the Miami-Dade GOP in the early 1980s, Bush became a fixer of sorts, "tooling around Dade in a silver Thunderbird," as a Miami Herald story put it. He was not shy about contacting the White House when issues arose, sometimes to the annoyance of officials there, including, it seems, Baker, who was President Reagan’s chief of staff.
“James Baker explained several times that the White House could not be involved in any exemption decision,” a presidential aide wrote in a memo after Jeb Bush passed along a complaint from a supporter about federal noise regulations at airports.
In 1984, Bush heard from a Miami attorney Ron Krongold about Ethiopian Jews, the Falashas, who had fled their homeland due to famine for a refugee camp in Sudan. Bush, according to a report a decade later in the Herald, tipped off his Vice President father and the U.S. got involved in a top-secret mission, “Operation Moses,” to rescue them.
Thousands of people were airlifted to Israel, though the U.S. involvement dealt with hundreds of those, according to news reports at the time.
Mar202015
Jeb Bush this week has worked to assert his pro-Israel credentials after criticism from the right surfaced over comments James Baker, an adviser to Bush’s presidential campaign in waiting, made about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Bush first issued a statement distancing himself from Baker’s remarks, made to the liberal J Street on Monday, and on Wednesday, penned a National Review column bashing the Obama administration's relationship with Israel. This afternoon Bush's PAC put out anemail soliciting donations to support candidates who “stand with Israel against a nuclear Iran.”
What Bush hasn’t mentioned is his role in a little-remembered secret mission to rescue an obscure sect of Jews from starvation.
As head of the Miami-Dade GOP in the early 1980s, Bush became a fixer of sorts, "tooling around Dade in a silver Thunderbird," as a Miami Herald story put it. He was not shy about contacting the White House when issues arose, sometimes to the annoyance of officials there, including, it seems, Baker, who was President Reagan’s chief of staff.
“James Baker explained several times that the White House could not be involved in any exemption decision,” a presidential aide wrote in a memo after Jeb Bush passed along a complaint from a supporter about federal noise regulations at airports.
In 1984, Bush heard from a Miami attorney Ron Krongold about Ethiopian Jews, the Falashas, who had fled their homeland due to famine for a refugee camp in Sudan. Bush, according to a report a decade later in the Herald, tipped off his Vice President father and the U.S. got involved in a top-secret mission, “Operation Moses,” to rescue them.
Thousands of people were airlifted to Israel, though the U.S. involvement dealt with hundreds of those, according to news reports at the time.
Mar202015
Chuck Grassley Looks Into Huma Abedin’s Mysterious Status
Seven reasons why Sen.
Marco Rubio is thriving
There is no doubt Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), once thought to be overshadowed and rendered to the sidelines by Jeb Bush, is on a roll. He is getting favorable press. He is wowing donors. He is taking strong stands on foreign policy. And he is not alienating any segment of the party. While not yet surging in the polls, we know enough to recognize they are not yet predictive of much. Moreover, it may be to his advantage to see an artificial battle between “top tier” candidates Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in which they point out each other’s flaws and take the brunt of the media attention.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the son of Cuban immigrants, expresses his disappointment in President Barack Obama’s initiative to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2014. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Why is it that so many people think Rubio has such potential? There are at least seven reasons.
1. His strong suit is foreign policy and the 2016 election may be the most focused on foreign policy in our lifetime. He knows his stuff and can deliver his message with crispness and passion.
2. He is the most dynamic speaker in the GOP. Period.
3. The worse Hillary Clinton looks, the more the GOP may appreciate the contrast he provides — young, endearing, not wealthy, no sense of entitlement. At CPAC when he said, “America doesn’t owe me anything. But I have a debt to America that I’ll never be able to repay,” it was about as far from the Clintonian imperiousness as one can get.
4. He has something to say on domestic policy other than cutting marginal rates. As others have noted, his expansive agenda very much rooted in reform conservatism makes him the most intellectually creative Republican out there.
5. With a low-key delivery, he can be funny and self-deprecating. Several of the other candidates seem like pompous stuffed shirts or else dour by comparison.
6. He is forceful without seeming mean or petty. If the party is looking for someone with a happy countenance he is one of the happier warriors.
7. With Jeb in the race (also with a pro-immigration reform stance) and Rubio’s emphasis on border security first, Rubio’s role in immigration reform legislation does not seem to be a nonstarter. By contrast, the promise of luring Hispanic voters into the race pleases voters most concerned about electability.
Like every candidate he has weaknesses, and some of them are the flip side of his strengths. With youth comes less experience and with a friendly demeanor come questions about his toughness and ability to throw a punch. But politics is graded on a scale. And with concerns — real or imagined — about Bush and Walker, Rubio may well be the candidate best positioned to move up if/when one or both falter. There is no Rubio “fatigue” or concerns about his grasp of foreign policy. He has stuck to his guns on immigration (willing to address border security first, but ready to reform the system and deal with those already here). His biggest challenge may be in finding an early primary where he can do well, but if he makes it through February 2016 he will be formidable.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.
Hillary's corruption. For more see https://www.facebook.com/HillaryClintondisaster
http://abcnews.go.com/…/hillary-clintons-personal-em…/story… Two days ago the scandal was the revelation she and Bill took millions from Islamic terror states WHILE she was Sec.State and still is and now this. So corrupt!
It appears that Hlllary Clinton was informed about five minutes into the Benghazi attack, that it was a terror attack, not a spontaneous protest against a never seen video.Then again, Hillary may have been distracted as she was helping collect foreign nation contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative, whatever that really is. If she makes it to the White House (perish the thought), will Hillary and Bill still have their greedy hands out for more “donations"? Why is Hillary lying about this?
Who are these Jews? boycotting the Netanyahu speech among Jewish lawmakers are Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) Sen. Al Franken, (D-Mn.)
What are they? Kapos -It was the Kapo's task to carry out the orders of the SS, appointed by the SS Nazi guards. On Purim eve, when we read about an impending Holocaust of Jews by an Iranian leader Ahasverosh and Hamen in 483 BCE, these Jews are the exact opposite of Mordechai and Esther. They do the evil king's bidding, bent on empowering a nuclear weaponed iran. These names will be remembered in Jewish history for their betrayal. http://dangerousdemocraticparty.blogspot.com/…/it-is-about-…
