Displaying posts published in

2016

My Say :Reversal of fortune for the Democrats By Ruth King

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/reversal_of_fortune_for_the_democrats.html

Only a few weeks ago the #NeverTrump folks were moaning that any other Republican could have beaten Hillary Clinton, and now the Clinton supporters must be wondering if another Democrat could have beaten Donald Trump.

I was an early antagonist, but when Trump was the last man standing among a batch of senators, governors, a former congressman, a neurosurgeon, and a clever and gifted businesswoman, I made the decision to support him.

He won and he is the candidate, and may win despite an unprecedented barrage of ridicule, smear and bias from the media and the unconscionable Republicans who enabled Hillary Clinton by bailing from what they perceived to be a sinking ship.

The Republicans may be right and possibly another candidate would have bettered Hillary Clinton. The initial Comey report gave her a pass and her misdeeds were airbrushed by the media, obsessed with Trump’s vulgarity and accusations against him.

Now the tide has turned with a reopened investigation by the FBI. Even the biased media are taking note of the ethical and moral bankruptcy of Hillary Clinton, and bashing Comey cannot clear her reputation. Now the polls are trending against her. How could this happen just days away from a major election? Hillary was the odds-on favorite and her coronation was set.

The Democrat primaries were a joke. Hillary Clinton needed a tip from Donna Brazile to beat Bernie Sanders? Apparently, the hacked emails from John Podesta included a message from Ms. Brazile on the day before a CNN-sponsored Democratic primary debate in Flint, Mich., in March. It reads: “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash.”

This disclosure must be giving both women hives.

But, now the question is which Democrat could have won against Trump?

Let’s start with early contenders. Lincoln Chafee, a political tranny from Rhode Island who was for “Prosperity Through Peace”; Larry Lessing (who?); Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland whose impressive campaign slogan was “Stand Against Hate”; and former Senator James Webb a decorated veteran and political maverick.

They were all trounced early in the primaries.

Hillary Clinton Becomes the Unsafe Hand In the last few days, she’s traded places with Donald Trump as the high-risk candidate. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

It’s hard to generalize about Hillary Clinton’s email situation except that she tried to afford herself an extraordinary privilege as a high-ranking official, and then caused for herself exactly the problems (and worse) that she presumably was trying to avoid.

It’s the White House Travel Office, the Rose Law Firm billing records, the Seth Ward option (don’t ask), the health-care task force, etc., all over again.

Mrs. Clinton is a screw-up. And when a trait takes such trouble to announce itself, note must be taken.

Complicating the legal question, of course, is the fact that she didn’t exactly hide her behavior. The State Department knew she was conducting business on a private server. Her boss, the president, exchanged emails with her via what was self-evidently a private email account.

All this being so, many Americans probably would have been happy to see the difficulties bypassed by Mrs. Clinton simply returning all her emails and devices intact to the State Department. This she did not do. In response to reasonable and unavoidable questions about whether her arrangement and subsequent actions violated the law, the Obama administration had no choice but to launch a criminal investigation.

Now a simple home truth is that Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, from day one, were hardly indifferent, objective observers of the process. They did not want Mrs. Clinton charged.

In our imperfect world, most will understand the dilemma before FBI Director James Comey: Would it be more damaging for the country, FBI and personal reputation to actively intervene in the election by indicting Mrs. Clinton or to passively intervene in the election by giving her a pass?

A non-act is somehow easier to pass off than an act. Yet events of the last few days point to the absurdity of him clearing Mrs. Clinton when he still hadn’t seen 33,000 pieces of evidence. By definition, unless the FBI is full of remarkably unsuspicious cops, the emails that Mrs. Clinton and her aides deleted would seem the ones most likely to contain evidence of improper activity.

Mr. Comey perhaps failed also to foresee how the server issue would become entangled with the WikiLeaks theft of Clinton Foundation emails, contributing to a rather more multidimensional view of the back-scratching and buck-raking world the Clinton entourage inhabited. CONTINUE AT SITE

Op-Ed: Park Slope Food Coop – Stick to Food, Not Politics By Susan B. Tuchman, Esq. and Morton A. Klein

When the Park Slope Food Coop in Brooklyn was founded in 1973, it had a worthy mission: to make healthy and affordable food available to everyone who wanted it. But recently, the Coop appears to have lost its way. In April, it suspended four loyal, long-time members for a whole year – three of them members from the Coop’s inception. The reason? Allegedly, the four disrupted a Coop meeting. But in reality, they were singled out from among hundreds of Coop members who vociferously objected to a hateful and bigoted anti-Israel presentation at a Coop meeting, which was aimed at getting the Coop to boycott an Israeli company called SodaStream.

This wasn’t the first time that an anti-Israel boycott was proposed at the Coop; the membership had already considered and soundly rejected one in 2012. But the Israel-bashers were persistent, this time displaying inflammatory anti-Israel photos at a Coop general meeting. The photos weren’t verified, they had no context, and the boycott proponents did not even establish their connection to SodaStream. Members at the meeting reported that not only was Israel viciously attacked; Jews were, too, with outrageous and incendiary comments like “Jews are aggressive toward black children.”

The four suspended Coop members were no doubt passionate and vocal about their objection to this anti-Israel boycott effort, and they had good reason to be: A boycott of Israeli products such as SodaStream would violate New York State law and could subject the Coop to liability.

New York’s Human Rights Law prohibits boycotts based on national origin, among several other protected categories. The law doesn’t require evidence of a formal boycott campaign; it’s enough if there’s a pattern of conduct that commercially disadvantages members of a protected class, which describes the anti-Israel vendetta at the Coop.The four suspended Coop members were no doubt passionate and vocal about their objection to this anti-Israel boycott effort, and they had good reason to be: A boycott of Israeli products such as SodaStream would violate New York State law and could subject the Coop to liability.

‘BDS pogrom was like stormtroopers during 1930s’ Anti-Israel activists reportedly targeted female students making their way to pro-Israel event. David Rosenberg

Anti-Israel protesters who crashed a pro-Israel event in London last Thursday targeted female students planning to attend the event, physically attacking Jewish girls both on the way to and inside of the venue.

The event, held at the University College London, featured a talk by former IDF soldier Hen Mazzig.

As previously reported, BDS activists stormed the event, trapping participants in a room. Police ultimately intervened, warning those trapped not to attempt to leave the room before officers gained control of the situation.

The protesters, however, apparently did far more than merely trap those participating in the event.

According to The Algemeiner, the pro-BDS activists targeted female students both outside of and inside the event, physically attacking them in a scene a senior official at the Simon Wiesenthal Center said was reminiscent of pogroms by Nazi street gangs in the 1930s.

The guest of the event, Hen Mazzig, a former IDF officer and veteran who served in Judea and Samaria, said he was shocked by the assault.

“I don’t think that even in my days in the IDF it was as bad as it is right now. It’s really scary. I hear that they have been attacking some girls, Jewish girls that came to support and to [hear] my talk.”

Several female students, including Devora Khafi, director of the local Stand With US branch, and Liora Cadranel, co-president of the local Israel Society, told the Jewish Chronicle that protesters “weren’t afraid to hurt girls.”

Khafi said while she was accustomed to aggressive opposition by anti-Israel groups, the incident on Thursday “was unbelievable.”

“I go to a lot of Israel events. This one was very different. These people are not afraid to do anything. It was unbelievable. This was the worse experience I’ve ever had at an Israel event on campus.”

Later, in a letter obtained by The Algemeiner, the Simon Wiesenthal Center international relations director Shimon Samuels described the attacks to the UCL’s Vice Chancellor, writing that the scene was “redolent of a 1930s Nazi storm-trooper ‘pogrom,’ or of budding Jihadi volunteers serving ISIS on a British university campus.”

“The thugs first attacked female students on their way to the event…Their screams. ‘Intifada, Intifada, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,’ bore witness to their violent intent in championing the cause of a ‘Palestine’ built on the ruins of the state of Israel.”

The Reemergence of Tribalism By Herbert London President, London Center for Policy Research

For those who believe in a “one-world” thesis – the union of people in a harmonized legal system – these are unsettling days. Rather than singing kumbayah each morning, tribes are displaying a form of loyalty bred in the bone. In fact, tribalism is alive and well and driving political judgments across the globe.

Whether it is Brexit or the manifestation of the post Sykes-Picot Middle East geography, tribalism reigns. If tribalism is defined as variable combinations of kinship, reciprocal exchange, economic circumstances, then the desire to impose an overlay of internationalism or globalization is bound to face formidable opposition. Intense feelings of common identity promote tribal connections.

While a full-scale analysis of the Brexit vote has not yet occurred, my suspicion is that tribal factors, namely class and station, had a profound effect on the vote. There was a union of culture in Britain, a subterranean belief that the elitists working in financial emporiums in London didn’t have the foggiest idea of how ordinary people are obliged to deal with the migration issue or even the pettifogging matter of requirements for electric product use.

Globalization has hastened the reemergence of tribalism, in large part, because of a public refusal to accept homogenization. The obvious point that people aren’t all the same is lost on supra-democrats who believe they can and should impose their will on an uninterested and ignorant populace.

Although the setting is different from the UK, tribalism was and remains the definitive character of the Middle East. Attempts to impose national structure on tribes only works to the extent each of the tribes believes it is being treated fairly. It turns out that appeals to nationalism rest on this thin reed. When consensus breaks down, as it did in Iraq and Syria, tribal warfare ensues.

Now They are Going After Jewish Summer Camps By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Camp owners were shocked by the comparison of Jewish campers emulating IDF exercises with Hamas terrorist training camps.http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/ny/now-they-are-going-after-jewish-summer-camps/2016/11/02/

Camp Mesorah is a co-educational Modern Orthodox sleep-over camp sprawling across more than 100 acres in New York State’s Catskill Mountains. The camp focuses on sports, Torah, Jewish unity and love for Medinat Yisrael. Some people can’t stand that last part – especially any suggestion that the Israeli Defense Forces should be respected and emulated.

Why? Because the IDF, you know, is a military force and if Jewish campers in upstate New York emulate IDF troops while engaging in team-building and obstacle courses, that really is akin to glorifying torture and violence. In fact, “it’s like the Hamas camps.” At least that’s what some non-affiliated busybodies are claiming.

It’s absurd, but that’s how some Israel-denigrators – even Jewish ones – play the game. Even when it comes to attacking a team-building summer activity for Jewish campers.

Founded in 1990, Mesorah hosts approximatly 800 campers throughout the summers, starting from rising fourth graders through the tenth grade. Nearly one hundred of those Mesorahans come from Israel, and the camp has strong Zionist roots. Campers are encouraged to learn about and learn to love Israel, and making Aliyah is viewed as a positive aspiration. As Joseph Stansky, Mesorah’s co-owner, told the JewishPress.com on Tuesday, “many campers have IDF t-shirts and sweatshirts which they bought at novelty shops on Ben Yehudah [Street in Jerusalem].”

A brief visit to the camp’s website reveals hockey rinks and basketball courts, baseball diamonds and tennis courts, a lake for boating, and two shuls, a kollel, learning gazebos and a library. The owners have brought the camp into the digital age with a section on the website for parents and other family members to regularly see pictures and videos of the campers. There are also promotional videos for interested families.

The promotional videos are rolled out one at a time over the course of the post-summer year, in anticipation of the next summer’s season. One video rolled out just after the Jewish holidays this year focused on the camp’s “IDF-Paintball Program,” which shows campers in camouflage gear engaged in an intensive (by American Jewish camp standards) obstacle and team building course. Many of the campers are wearing their IDF t-shirts.

WikiLeaks Reveals Clinton Poll Oversampling Scheme By Frank Salvato

As we approach Election Day, there will be an incredible amount of talk about the polls. Mainstream media pundits will expound on the lead that Hillary Clinton has and how it is something that, in the short time left, can’t be overcome by Donald Trump. But is this “lead” that Hillary Clinton is said to possess and accurate reflection of the electorate?

Emails released by WikiLeaks last week prove that the Clinton team applied an enormous amount of pressure (as if it were needed) on the mainstream media into systematically and deliberately over-sampling Clinton-friendly demographics in their polling. The emails, that originated with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, included a detailed 37-page manual on how to go about most effectively skewing the polling results so as to give the Clinton campaign the numbers they needed to claim a lead.

It was their game plan all along to propagandize huge leads in the polls – through the Clinton-friendly mainstream media – to depress voter turnout for Donald Trump. A simple reading of Podesta’s email and the attached manual prove this beyond any doubt.

This is the inherent danger in a politically corrupt; a politically biased mainstream media. By creating “scientific polls” that, through the use of oversampling, skew the perception of a candidate’s popularity, they are manipulating the masses into thinking there is no reason to show up at the polls. To date, or at least until WikiLeaks exposed the scheme, the Clinton team strategy was working.

This scheme of the Clinton campaign to propagandize the polling data just before Election Day, quite successful until it was exposed, is exactly what Donald Trump and his surrogates are talking about when they make the argument that “the system is rigged.”

The Clintons — At the End of All Things Epic greed, power, and pride: Where’s the bottom? With Bill and Hillary, there’s no telling. By Victor Davis Hanson —

What was the Clinton telos? The end point, the aim of all their lying, cheating, criminality, dishonor, and degradation?

Given the latest Wiener scandals coming on top of the latest WikiLeaks scandals, we wonder, what did the Clintons really wish to end up as — and why? Are they Goethe’s Faust or tortured souls crushed by the weight of their money bags in Dante’s Fourth Circle of Hell?

For a few criminals, remorse comes with old age; but for the Clintons, near-70 was to be the capstone, the last chance to trump all their prior shenanigans. They were artists of amorality, and the election of 2016 was to be their magnum opus.

Collate the FBI reopened investigation, WikiLeaks Podesta trove, revelations about the Clinton Foundation, the e-mail–server scandal, the DNC disclosures, and the various off-the-cuff campaign remarks of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and one then ponders what was the point of the Clinton shakedowns, the loss of reputation, the crude lawbreaking, as they neared their seventh decade. To paraphrase Barack Obama, in his progressive sermonizing on making enough money, did the two ever think they had enough money, enough honors, enough power already?

The Hillary/Bill fortune — generated by pay-for-play influence peddling on the proposition that Bill would return to the White House under Hillary’s aegis and reward friends while punishing enemies — hit a reported $150 million some time ago, a fortune built not on farming, mining, insurance, finance, high-tech, or manufacturing, but on skimming off money. The Clintons are simply grifters whose insider access to government gave them the power to make rich people richer.

Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation.

Obama Won’t Vote With America at the UN Under Obama, the United States won’t defend the United States. November 1, 2016 Daniel Greenfield

A generation ago the Communist tyranny in Cuba demanded that the United Nations condemn America for the embargo. The brutal Castro regime’s rant accused the United States of threatening “nuclear annihilation,” “countless acts of sabotage and plans to assassinate Cuban leaders.”

On a cold day in October, the European left-wing activist serving as UN Ambassador announced to applause that her administration would no longer be voting to defend the US at the UN.

“UN Member States have voted overwhelmingly for a General Assembly resolution that condemns the U.S. embargo and calls for it to be ended. The United States has always voted against this resolution. Today the United States will abstain,” Samantha Power said.

“Thank you,” she added, acknowledging the applause.

Under Obama, the United States would no longer defend the United States. A generation ago the Communists had been in Cuba. Now they were in Washington D.C.

Instead of defending America, Obama’s chosen representative agreed that our Communist enemies had a point about our lack of human rights and our imperialist foreign policy.

“Let me be among the first to acknowledge – as our Cuban counterparts often point out – that the United States has work to do in fulfilling these rights for our own citizens. And we know that at times in our history, U.S. leaders and citizens used the pretext of promoting democracy and human rights in the region to justify actions that have left a deep legacy of mistrust,” she said.

If the Cuban representative had been in her place, he could not have done much better. Communist Cuban propaganda was now being parroted by Ambassador Power. If the Castro dictatorship wanted to save money, it could shut down its propaganda department and outsource the labor to Washington D.C.

The Cuban ambassador boasted that Cuban Communists had “rid ourselves of US imperialism” and proclaimed that, “We will never go back to capitalism.” He declared that the resolution was a powerful message to “the peoples of the world.” The message is indeed unmistakable.

Ben Rhodes, the close Obama adviser who sold the media on the Iran sellout, curtly tweeted his justification, “No reason to vote to defend a failed policy we oppose.”

Who is this “we”?

How Trump Happened How the #NeverTrumpers sunk themselves. Bruce Thornton

The chorus of NeverTrumpers is wailing ever louder as election day and Hillary’s supposed victory approach. After more than a year of complaining about Trump crashing their political soiree, the Republicans attacking Trump still don’t seem to get how their own behavior contributed to the perception that they are out-of-touch elites disdainful of the Republican masses.

A recent example comes from premier NeverTrumper Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal. In his column Stephens bids farewell to a Republican Party stupid enough to nominate Trump, contrasting it with his imagined Golden Age of Republican policy excellence that Trump and his followers have destroyed. One policy in particular, immigration, reveals the distance between the political and pundit elite and the voting masses that helped make Trump the nominee:

At a 1980 Republican primary debate in Houston, candidates George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were asked whether the children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public schools for free. Mr. Bush said they should. “We’re creating a whole society of really honorable, decent, family-loving people that are in violation of the law,” he lamented.

Reagan agreed. Instead of “putting up a fence,” he asked, “why don’t we . . . make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then, while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here.” For good measure, Reagan suggested we should “open the border both ways.”

Where, in the populist fervor to build a wall with Mexico and deport millions of human beings, is that Republican Party today?

Take Bush senior’s statement first. It repeats basically the same clichés that the bipartisan Gang of Eight recycled in 2013 during their push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, another euphemism for amnesty. All those hard-working, family-values illegal immigrants are embryonic conservatives, we were told, who just need legal status and social recognition so they can “come out of the shadows,” as John McCain said, and start voting Republican. The political apple doesn’t fall far from the tree: son Jeb ended his presidential ambitions by calling illegal immigration an “act of love.”