RUTHFULLY YOURS

Maybe she doesn’t want to run in 2016, top Democrats wonder. Maybe she shouldn’t.
“Due respect, Clinton’s problem isn’t a lack of staff. It’s a lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency.”
Maybe she should stay at the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, where the former secretary of State could continue her life’s work of building stronger economies, health care systems, and families. Give paid speeches. Write best-selling books. Spend time with Charlotte, her beloved granddaughter.

Because she doesn’t seem ready for 2016. Like a blast of wintry air in July, the worst of 1990s-style politics is intruding on what needs to be a new millennium campaign: Transparent, inspirational, innovative, and beyond ethical reproach.

Two weeks ago, we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from the Obama administration and Clinton aides that no donations were made during her tenure as secretary of State were proven false.
I called the actions sleazy and stupid. Sleazy because any fair-minded person would suspect the foreign countries of trying to buy Clinton’s influence. Stupid because the affair plays into a decades-old knock on the Clintons: They’ll cut any corner for campaign cash. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and his top aides used the White House as a tool to court and reward big donors.

Now The New York Times is reporting that Clinton used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of State, an apparent violation of federal requirements that her records be retained.

Exposed by a House committee investigating the Benghazi Consulate attack, Clinton brazenly dug in her heels. Advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal email and decided which ones to release: Just 55,000 emails were given to the State Department.

Those are our emails, not hers. What is she hiding?

Israel’s prime minister delivered a sober reminder of the risks of dealing with Iran—and painted Obama as naive in the process.

Congressional Republicans haven’t had many victories in their lasting conflict with President Obama, but Tuesday brought one. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s somber, provocative speech to Congress checked all the boxes.

It called into question the efficacy of any deal the administration might strike with Iran over its nuclear program; it likely renewed momentum for another round of Iranian sanctions on the Hill; it positioned the GOP politically as the party more worried about Israeli security, and, despite the White House’s best efforts, made the president appear petty and churlish.

Obama, in an interview with Reuters, had dismissed the speech as a “distraction,” and aides made sure everyone knew he would be too busy to watch it. But if the president didn’t cast an eye at a TV, he might have been the only person in Washington not to. And that’s the problem.

In his speech to Congress on March 3 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a straightforward, simple, and extreme position on Iran’s nuclear program: there is to be none, or else there should be war. He does not want that program kept limited to civilian purposes, or internationally supervised; he wants it eliminated totally, permanently, unconditionally.
Netanyahu claimed that Iran wants to destroy Israel and the Jewish people, and called on Congress to help him stop Iran’s “march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.” All those seeking an agreement with Tehran were naïve or foolish. Iran “will always be an enemy of America,” he said. “Don’t be fooled.” Netanyahu was scathing about the strategy pursued by the Obama Administration and other four members of the Security Council plus Germany: “That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; it will all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons.” He claimed that no agreement could be effectively monitored: “Iran has proved time and time again it cannot be trusted.”

The problem with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress March 3 was not the risk of offending Washington, but rather Washington’s receding relevance. President Barack Obama is not the only leader who wants to acknowledge what is already a fact in the ground, namely that “Iran has become the preeminent strategic player in West Asia to the increasing disadvantage of the US and its regional allies,” as a former Indian ambassador to Oman wrote this week.

For differing reasons, the powers of the world have elected to legitimize Iran’s dominant position, hoping to delay but not deter its eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. Except for Israel and
the Sunni Arab states, the world has no desire to confront Iran. Short of an American military strike, which is unthinkable for this administration, there may be little that Washington can do to influence the course of events. Its influence has fallen catastrophically in consequence of a chain of policy blunders.

The best that Prime Minister Netanyahu can hope for is that the US Congress will in some way disrupt the Administration’s efforts to strike a deal with Iran by provoking the Iranians. That is what the White House fears, and that explains its rage over Netanyahu’s appearance.

How delightful would it be if the “poster boy” for the GOP were a Democrat? It would give them hives.

How about Harry Truman, the accidental president who faced an incredible challenge when Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, almost seventy years ago as the end of World War 2 was in sight? As Eleanor Roosevelt said to Harry Truman on delivering the news that her husband had died: ” Is there anything we can do for you? You are the one in trouble now.”Without benefit of a college degree Harry Truman rose to every challenge before him.

His obituary in The New York Times: “Harry Truman- Decisive President”(http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0508.html) said the following:

For Truman, a hitherto minor national figure with a pedestrian background as a Senator from Missouri, the awesome moment came without his having intimate knowledge of the nation’s tremendously intricate war and foreign policies. These he had to become acquainted with and to deal with instantly, for on him alone, a former haberdasher and politician of unspectacular scale, devolved the Executive power of one of the world’s mightiest nations.”But now the lightning had struck, and events beyond anyone’s control had taken command,” Truman wrote later.These events, over which he presided and on which he placed his indelible imprint, were among the most momentous in national and world history, for they took place in the shadow and the hope of the Atomic Age, whose beginning coincided with Truman’s accession. And during his eight years in office, the outlines of the cold war were fashioned.In war-ravaged Europe in those years, Truman and the United States established peace and held back Soviet expansion and built economic and political stability through the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In the Mideast he recognized the State of Israel. In the Far East the President imposed peace and constitutional democracy on the Japanese enemy, tried valiantly to save China from Communism and chose to wage war in Korea to halt aggression. In the United States, Truman led the nation’s conversion from war to peace, while maintaining a stable and prosperous economy.”

Now that sounds like the perfect role model to me…..rsk

The failed state of Libya has become easy prey for ISIS. The terrorist organization has announced that it is planning to use Libya as a gateway to Europe.

From Sabratha and Sirte, ISIS is able to launch attacks on Italy and Malta.

There is also the threat of attacks on maritime targets, such as cruise liners on the Mediterranean.

The Office of Migration in Rome confirms that there could be as many as half a million people in camps waiting to come to Italy.

Last week, Toto Martello, a spokesman for the fishermen of the Italian island of Lampedusa, sounded the alarm. “The Mediterranean is becoming the world’s powder keg,” he said. He demanded that the Italian government declare a state of emergency in Lampedusa and Linosa, two islands halfway between Italy and Libya. “We are frightened of our boats being boarded by terrorists,” Martello said.

“British Mandate Part 4: Illegal Immigration” is now available. You can see it directly via the following link:

http://zionism101.org/NewestVideoVimeo.aspx

Or log in at www.zionism101.org

“British Mandate Part 4: Illegal Immigration” describes the desperate efforts of Jews to reach Palestine even as the British cruelly bar the country’s gates. Indeed, the first two people killed by the British on the opening day of World War II are not Nazis, but two Jews aboard the SS Tiger Hill.

We are now a 501(c)3 charitable organization. All donations are tax-deductible. Help us reach our goals by donating to Zionism 101. Please visit: http://zionism101.org/donate.aspx

We encourage you to share information about “Zionism 101” with your friends, family, and co-workers, plus anyone else who is interested in learning about the most important development in modern Jewish history.

If you haven’t already, please watch our completed video courses.

We welcome questions and comments.David Isaac
Executive Director
Zionism101.org

P.S. To ensure delivery of our emails, please add the following to your contacts list: mailer_response@emailcounts.com.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/reform-judaism-a-betrayal-of-israel-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Aaron Shuster (Writer/Producer), Ari David (Host, The Ari David Show Podcast) and Barak Lurie (Host, Barak Lurie Show).

The guests gathered to discuss Reform Judaism: A Betrayal of Israel?, pondering what is Jewish about Jews who supports Israel’s enemies. The discussion occurred within a focus on Reform Judaism: Is It a Bad Thing?

(The dialogue was an extension of last week’s show, The Psychology of Left-Wing Jews.)

When a large number of foreign-policy experts—both Republicans and Democrats—falsely attribute many of the world’s ills to the Jewish state, they are channeling an ancient hatred. The time has come to say so.
Schizophrenia is a much-abused metaphor. Those of us who have ever cared about someone who suffers from the illness have a hard time with all those pundits who get it wrong, confusing it with split-personality disorder, and then applying it metaphorically to anybody who carries two contradictory thoughts.

But knowing about the disease can still be helpful in talking about politics—giving us a much better metaphor to describe the conversation about Israel taking place in Washington today.

Schizophrenics suffer not from multiple personalities, but from an inability to tell the difference between things they encounter or imagine on the one hand and reality on the other. It’s been described as a kind of filtering problem: If they overhear someone on television saying, “the court awarded me $5 million,” a schizophrenic may easily believe she is owed that money and say so repeatedly for years. Schizophrenics also suffer from all manner of delusions, believing things happened that never did. And if they are also paranoid, they will try to convince you that secretive people and forces are conspiring to hurt them.

Our immigration laws and our borders are America’s first and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals and other foreign nationals whose presence in the United States would undermine national security, public safety and the overall well-being of America and Americans.

Yet the president has decided that the political component of this issue justifies his issuing edicts that contradict current laws. He has also apparently decided to “double down” when, during an interview on MSNBC made it clear that any Border Patrol agent or any ICE agent who attempts to enforce the immigration laws that contradict his illegal edicts would face serious consequences. This is a not-so veiled threat. Once again we find that we live in a thugocracy (sic).