RUTHFULLY YOURS

At the beginning of January 2016, an organization called NORPAC—a lobby whose mission is to support candidates and sitting members of Congress “who demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel”—invited its members to “an exclusive and intimate” cocktail reception for Hillary Clinton for people willing to pay $2,700 per individual or $5,400 per couple.

The invitation included a synopsis of Hillary’s credibility vis-a-vis Israel, stating that she had “been a supporter of the US-Israel relationship for many years…and, as Secretary of State, she had stood up against Israel’s enemies….”

Then, NORPAC promptly betrayed its pretense of impartiality by stating: “Please join us in support of Secretary Hillary Clinton for President and share your concerns about the US-Israel relationship with her at this pro-Israel event.”

Of course, all of this hype was pure fiction, but fully embraced by the leftwing Jews who have essentially abandoned genuine Judaism for the Social Justice causes embraced by the Democrat party, causes that make them feel like “good” people—everything from the redistribution of wealth (aka Communism) to saving the environment (from the colossal hoax known as climate change) to equality for women (except when it comes to speaking out against the vile abuses of Sharia law, the mass rapes by Muslims in Europe, and the rapacious behavior of one Bill Clinton) to the Holy Grail of leftism, abortion, which amounts to the de facto approval of the over fifty-eight-million infants murdered by this gruesome procedure since it became the law of the land in 1973.

But the subject here is not the magical thinking of leftists or the suicidal ideation of liberal Jews. Rather, it is to correct the decades-long fantasy that Hillary Clinton is even remotely supportive of Jews, Israel, Zionism, in fact anything to do with Jewish life.
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE…

“Amahl and the Night Visitors” is a one act opera by the late composer Gian Carlo Menotti….rsk
George Clooney: Political Fundraisers “Ridiculous,” Dollar Amounts “Obscene” George Clooney: Political Fundraisers “Ridiculous,” Amounts “Obscene”

“The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right,” Clooney told NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd in an interview taped today and airing tomorrow morning on the Sunday Beltway show. “It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely.”

Clooney and wife Amal co-hosted first dinner in San Francisco Friday, with the second planned for tonight in the couple’s L.A. home. The sold-out events pulled in an estimated $15 million combined – on par with the record-breaking event that the Oscar winner hosted for President Barack Obama back in 2012 achieved.
“Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money,” Clooney told Todd. “I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money”:

Republicans still haven’t learned. In the autopsy of the 2012 presidential campaign, the Republican National Committee concluded that the party needed to “improve its efforts to include female voters” and “represent some of the unique concerns that female voters may have.”

But the top two Republican presidential candidates — Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — have the lowest favorability ratings in the field among women. If nominated, Cruz would probably perform the same as Romney, whereas Trump would probably lose the women’s vote by the biggest margin in 50 years.

Trump recently tweeted, “Nobody has more respect for women than Donald Trump!” This is hard to believe. More than 3 million people have seen the anti-Trump ad in which women repeat real quotes about women from Donald Trump, such as “bimbo” and “fat pig.” Trump described Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her wherever” and mocked Carly Fiorina’s appearance by saying, “Look at that face.” He tweeted a picture of Melania Trump next to Heidi Cruz, as if potential first ladies are contestants in a Miss Universe pageant. And when asked whether women should be punished in the event that abortion became illegal, he suggested that they should be.

Women aren’t amused. Seven out of ten women (67 percent) have an unfavorable view of Trump, and only 26 percent view him favorably, according to a national Quinnipiac survey from late March. Other polls have his unfavorability ratings among women even higher, at 74 percent.

Cruz has capitalized on Trump’s missteps by not making similar misogynist gaffes (admittedly, this is a low bar). He also recently hosted an event — “The Celebration of Strong Women” — in Madison, Wis., featuring his wife, his mother, and none other than former competitor Carly Fiorina. “All issues are women’s issues,” said Cruz, in one of his most humanizing events of the campaign.

This is a very encouraging development, but Cruz too has a steep hill to climb with women voters. Three in ten women surveyed had a favorable view of Cruz (29 percent) and nearly half had an unfavorable view of him (46 percent), according to the same Quinnipiac survey from late March.

Not that the GOP’s leading candidates do particularly well with male voters. The majority of men (54 percent) view Trump negatively, and nearly half (48 percent) view Cruz negatively. But the favorability gap is more pronounced with women, especially for Trump.

Indeed, Trump’s gender gap (measured by the net favorable rating among women minus the net favorable rating among men) is larger than any remaining candidate’s, according to Gallup.

Bernie Sanders, with the regularity of a steam engine, has pounded away for months at the injustice, the wickedness, even the racism of “income inequality.” If ever there was a Johnny one-note on the American political scene, he is it. Yet almost nobody, and least of all his hapless opponent Hillary Clinton, has thought to call into question the ethical validity or inflammatory character of the covetousness this political slogan urges upon the public, with a recklessness that has visited untold calamities upon Europe. (Among politicians, Charlie Rangel of New York did have the temerity to say, “OK, income inequality… But does he [Sanders] have anything else to say?”) Has religious illiteracy now reached the point in America where the Tenth Commandment has been so entirely forgotten that the most blatant repudiations of it go unnoticed? Here it is, for the sake of those who have forgotten (or never knew):

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” — Exodus 20:17.

This last of the ten commandments, as Biblical commentators have often observed, differs from previous “negative” ones in that it prohibits not an action (murder, adultery, theft, false witness) but a state of mind—covetousness—that is at the root of most sins against our neighbors. No doubt John Stuart Mill, a far more literate liberal than Bernie Sanders, had it in mind when he complained that “’thou shalt not’ preponderates unduly over ‘thou shalt’” in Biblical morality.

The ethical wisdom of this commandment has all too often been demonstrated by the way in which covetousness expresses itself in the murderous character of “negative” politics, which directs the wrath of the covetous against a particular group. In Sanders’ typical stump speech, it is usually “Wall Street” or “the one percent.” In the rhetoric of the “Occupy Wall Street” and other “Occupy…” mobs that Sanders admires, it gets a bit more specific about attaching a name to “the one percent.” But most specific of all is Noam Chomsky, whom Sanders has praised as “a very vocal and important voice [sic] in the wilderness of intellectual life in America…a person who [sic] I think we’re all very proud of.” Chomsky, who has publicly endorsed his friend Sanders for the Democratic nomination, has strong views about just which group of Americans should be named as the chief target of an aggressive campaign of class warfare against “the rich and privileged” whom Sanders is daily berating. “Antisemitism,” Chomsky has declared, “is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.” To this does covetousness very often lead. Is it even remotely possible that Sanders doesn’t know?

Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton makes Donald Trump look like a saint.

In 2008, Hillary hated Obama, bad-mouthed him, and ran against him in the primaries. She failed. Now she praises Obama and says what a wonderful president he is and has been from day one. Was she phony when she attacked him, or is she phony now, when she tries to use him as moral support?

Hypocrisy, thy name is contradiction for the sake of votes.

Why Hillary thinks Obama, who is not very popular, will save her, God knows. He is not considered one of our best presidents except by racially homogenous blacks, liberal Jews, and the ideological blind.

It’s interesting that the two most famous people in the race, Hillary and Trump, are harsh and obnoxious. Only Trump is honest and direct and has a record of accomplishment. Hillary is a feminist who has used her popular husband as a wedge into politics.

All that Hillary has done has a dark underside to it, whether it is the barnacles clinging to failed Hillarycare or the revolution in Libya.

Hillary failed to fortify Benghazi and lied to the families about the cause of their loved ones’ deaths. She blamed a video rather than al-Qaeda, even though she knew the truth.

When Hillary said, “What difference at this point does it make?,” she was telling us that the administration’s lie to the public about the influence of the video was irrelevant because the American people are irrelevant.

Hillary is a crook with a degenerate legacy that she shares with her pedophilic husband. Everyone she has touched falls through her fingers like sand.

Hillary, our potential commander-in-chief, offered us the Russian reset, yet we are in another cold war. She and that weakling Obama are no match for Putin, and they could be responsible for the end of the world. It might turn out that weakness rather than strength will be apocalyptic.

Remember Reagan tearing down the wall. Hillary and Obama have invited the Muslims and the Russians to step on our faces.

Where you come down on the Hillary Clinton email scandal is likely a matter of political—or at least candidate—preference.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus believes Hillary Clinton will get indicted. So does former attorney general Michael Mukasey, a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration, as does the Senate majority whip, John Cornyn of Texas.

Many—perhaps even most—Republicans believe the former secretary of state will face some sort of legal consequence for keeping classified information on her private email system.

Republicans cite the cases of national security adviser Sandy Berger, CIA director John Deutch, and General David Petraeus to show clear precedent for prominent officials facing consequences for mishandling classified information. They point to the preponderance of public evidence clearly and indisputably showing a bevy of classified information was stashed on Clinton’s home-brew server.

Democrats, no surprise, are curious to know what Republicans are smoking. Bernie Sanders famously declined to make an issue of the emails in his campaign against Hillary Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination. Clinton herself recently said in an interview that Republicans “live in that world of fantasy.” She added, when an interviewer raised the possibility of a perp walk: “There is not even the remotest chance that it’s going to happen.”

Perhaps Clinton’s opinion is not uninformed—her ties to the Department of Justice are deep, a benefit of being married to an ex-president, being a former U.S. senator, and serving as a cabinet member in the Obama administration. Her key spokesman, Brian Fallon, was the top press wrangler at Justice, and Eric Holder, the former attorney general who is believed still to be close to the president, is a big booster of her presidential candidacy.

I do not like or respect Donald Trump….but it is wrong to demean America voters who support him…and this long column from the summer of 2015 explains why…..Now, if he would only shut up and go away with John Kasich….rsk
Donald Trump is a troubling figure. The voters (temporarily) surging to him are deluding themselves. But the politicians and media who want to blame Trump or his supporters can find the real culprit in their own mirrors.

Donald Trump has gained political traction by demagoguing on an issue more responsible leaders have neglected.

Why has the Donald Trump candidacy—which so many professionals and pundits at first dismissed as a joke—flared this summer? In the first week of July, 15 percent of Republicans supported Trump for president in a YouGov poll. By the third week, that support had almost doubled, to 28 percent—with another 10 percent listing him as their second choice.

Something happened in July to send Trump’s numbers soaring. That something may have been the murder of Kathryn Steinle.

On July 5, the 32-year-old Steinle posed with her father for a photograph on a San Francisco pier at 6:30 on a Wednesday evening. Suddenly there was a pop. Steinle crumpled. She died in hospital two hours later.

The stunningly random killing left behind a devastated family—and a confessed killer: Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had been convicted of seven previous felonies and five times been ordered deported from the United States.

In 2009, Lopez crossed the border into the United States again, was caught, and was sentenced to four years in federal prison. After his federal sentence was served, Lopez-Sanchez was handed over to San Francisco authorities to face trial for a local drug charge. The local court dismissed the charge and ordered the Lopez-Sanchez released into the community. Nobody notified federal immigration authorities, because San Francisco law forbids such cooperation.
Altogether, 104,000 people who by law should have been deported were instead allowed to remain on American soil.

It’s often remarked that Donald Trump appeals to angry voters. That’s surely true. Yet there is a delicate discomfort about mentioning exactly the issue those voters—at least, those Republican voters—say they are most angry about: the breakdown of immigration enforcement. Trump holds a 2-1 lead over Jeb Bush among Republicans who want an immigration policy that focuses on enforcement and deportation.

Many leading politicians have expressed concern over Kathryn Steinle’s sad death. They typically represent the crime as something aberrational. Hillary Clinton, for example, said that San Francisco authorities “made a mistake” when they released Lopez-Sanchez into the community. Jeb Bush said, “The system broke down for [Steinle] and her family, and you can see why people are upset about that.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-see-it-Mussolini-vs-Lucrezia-Borgia-There-is-an-alternative-451287
American Jews are horrified by the choice they think will face them at November’s presidential election. If they adjust their perspective, however, there is another option.

Traveling in the US last week I found Jews, like many others, in a state of extreme agitation.

The Trump phenomenon, they raged, was beyond belief. How could America be doing this to itself, possibly nominating as a presidential candidate a man who was a crude and unstable know-nothing, a bigoted authoritarian and potential despot, a threat to America’s future and the entire world? They might have no option, said Republican Jews in despair, but to vote for Hillary.

No! cried others who were equally despairing.

How could you even think of voting for Hillary, what with the email scandal, with her past support for the PLO and the bullying way she treated Israel while she was secretary of state, with the Muslim Brotherhood types and other Israel-bashers in her close circle? Yes, granted, said the first group, but at least she’s an experienced politician, at least she’s kinda done the job already, at least she knows how to behave in government. What, came the response, after Benghazi? After the murder there of the ambassador and three others on her watch, the attempt to sanitize the atrocity and then the cover-up of that attempt, after her “What difference does it make” outburst at the congressional hearing? So it went on back and forth with voices raised: Trump vs Hillary, the unspeakable versus the uneatable, Mussolini versus Lucrezia Borgia. There was, it seemed, no alternative. None.

Um, what about, I asked in a very small voice, Ted Cruz? Wouldn’t he be an acceptable alternative? Both sides looked at me in horror. On this they were agreed. Ted Cruz was totally, but totally, unacceptable. Why? Because he was an ultra-conservative, evangelical Christian.

They’d all rather have even Hillary than Cruz as president. Really? So Hillary was not such a threat to America, the Jews and the world after all? I hold no particular brief for Cruz. I observe him from afar, and my information is necessarily inadequate as a result. But if you really believe that both Trump and Hillary pose such a threat to all we hold dear, what on earth does Ted Cruz stand for that makes him even worse than those two priceless specimens? I understand that many American Jews are socially liberal. I understand that, for them, social liberalism is in fact their religion. But in the context of today’s terrifying world, to consider a socially conservative viewpoint to be the biggest threat of all takes some explaining.

One obvious reason is the profound antipathy felt by many American Jews toward evangelical Christians. This is strange given that such Christians are the most stalwart and passionate supporters of Israel in the world today, far more so than Diaspora Jews.

Nevertheless, many American Jews regard them as a dire threat to the Jewish people.

The much-stated reason is that they want to convert the Jews at the “end of days.” Well, some evangelicals do and others don’t. And with those who do, I don’t know about you but I’ll take my chances on that when the apocalypse finally arrives.

Ah, say the American Christophobes, but these evangelicals are theologically anti-Semitic.

Well, many of these Jews’ liberal friends are politically anti-Semitic, singling out Israel as they do for blood libels and demonization. Is that perhaps a tolerable form of anti-Semitism in these Jews’ minds? To put it another way, which is better – the anti-Semite who hates Israel or the supposed anti-Semite (who may not be that at all) who loves Israel? Of all the presidential candidates, Cruz is the one who takes Israel’s part with the greatest clarity, passion and absence of any equivocation. He really gets it.

Last weekend, he wooed the Republican Jewish convention in Las Vegas and received a warm reception but from a wary crowd.

I love the New York Post…since we used to get The Bronx Home News which merged with The New York Post in 1948. It was delivered to our “stoop” on Bryant Avenue along with The Jewish Forward and the Herold Tribune. The “stoop” in those days was the flight of steps leading to the front door of a building….large or small, against which we played “stoop ball.”

Now the word “stoop” means ” to lower one’s moral standards so far as to do something reprehensible.”

And that is what the newspaper has done in it’s endorsement of a cur:
New York Post Criticizes ‘Rookie’ Trump in Scary Endorsement By Tyler O’Neil

“You can love Ted Cruz or hate him, but the Texas senator is actually clear on what he supports. John Kasich, who just received the endorsement of former New York Governor George Pataki, is a little fuzzier, but even he actually has a few concrete proposals. The Donald shifts in the political wind, and his supporters actually like that.

Like many Trump backers, the Post admits that The Donald is “a divisive, coarse, amateur,” as New York’s competing newspaper, the Daily News, shot back. The candidate will turn 70 years old this year, and they are expecting him to mature in record time, before the election.

“This endorsement of a man, in spite of himself, for the most powerful position in the world, is a shameful reflection not on what makes America great, but what makes us dumb as hell,” the Daily News’ Shaun King concludes.”

What Does John Kasich Think He’s Doing? By Matthew Continetti —

When John Kasich departs this earthly vale of tears, he ought to donate his brain to science. It could teach us a lot about irrational thinking.

The Ohio governor has won a single state: his own. He has 143 delegates. That puts him fourth in the count behind Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — who is no longer a candidate.

To win the nomination on the first ballot of the Republican convention, Kasich would have to win 138 percent of the remaining delegates. This is impossible. Even a politician should be able to do that math.

To win on the second ballot, Kasich would have to outmaneuver Ted Cruz and his impressive delegate operation. That seems, let us say, beyond implausible.

To win on a subsequent ballot, when the nomination is up for grabs, Kasich would have to do something over the next two months that he seems constitutionally incapable of doing: show the slightest bit of selflessness and concern for the cause and the country and put those feelings ahead of his own narcissism, vanity, condescension, and sneering disdain for the party he seeks to lead.

What does that mean for Kasich in practice? Running against Trump where he’s strongest and ceding ground to Cruz where he’s weakest.

Kasich helps Trump. He can’t pretend otherwise. For months the anti-Trump forces have wanted nothing more than the ability to coalesce around a single challenger. One goofy man has stood in the way all along. He bit into Bush’s vote, into Christie’s, into Rubio’s. Now he’s biting into Cruz’s.