RUTHFULLY YOURS

Key figures at six of America’s most prominent Islamist organizations have favored Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

An analysis of federal campaign contributions finds that key figures at six of America’s most prominent Islamist organizations have favored Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This trend began with multiple donations to Cynthia McKinney dated September 11, 2001, reversing a previous pattern that had seen Islamist officials spend slightly more on Republicans. Their preference for Democrats has solidified during the past 13 years and shows no signs of waning. What does this say about the politicians who benefit from Islamist largesse?

Islamist Watch [1], a project of the Middle East Forum [2], recently launched Islamist Money in Politics [3] (IMIP [3]), to monitor Islamists’ influence in the halls of power, inform the public about which politicians accept their tainted money, and hold accountable those who do. IMIP’s inaugural data release [4] focuses on the national organizations of six Islamist entities [5] — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR [6]), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA [7]), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA [8]), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA [9]), Muslim American Society (MAS [10]), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC [11]) — as well as CAIR’s many local chapters.

Names of important personnel [12], both current and former, were mined from the groups’ Internal Revenue Service filings and/or website listings, some going back more than a decade. The Federal Election Commission’s online database [13], which spans the late 1990s to the present, was then searched for donations to candidates, joint fundraising committees, relevant political action committees, and parties. IMIP employed biographical information to select only those contributions that could reasonably be attributed to the individuals of interest, rejecting ones likely to have been made by unrelated persons who share their names. See IMIP’s description of methodology [14] for details and a discussion of the challenges.

As of now, the IMIP database [3] tabulates nearly $700,000 in donations. Surely many more people and contributions remain to be added, but the data already constitute a large and representative sample that is sufficient for an initial pass at quantifying Islamists’ political affinities.

The Obama Administration is disappointed, insulted, unhappy and even downright angry with the government of Israel. This isn’t news, and hasn’t been almost from the time President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu both came to office in 2009. But the feud is increasingly bitter and out in the open, thanks to a series of Administration leaks and snubs.

The latest eruption began last week, after a visit to Washington by Moshe Yaalon. The Israeli Defense Minister met with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and agreed that Israel would buy a second squadron of F-35 jets in a $2.75 billion deal. That’s good news for defense contractor Lockheed Martin , which has struggled to persuade foreign customers like Canada to stick with the troubled fighter.

The visit was also supposed to be an opportunity for Mr. Yaalon to make personal amends to John Kerry for remarks earlier this year when he called the Secretary of State “obsessive and messianic” and lamented that U.S. policy toward Iran was “showing weakness.” The remarks were made in private, and Mr. Yaalon publicly apologized.

Instead, Mr. Yaalon was denied a private meeting with Mr. Kerry, as he was with Vice President Joe Biden . (He did meet with U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who apparently didn’t get the memo that the Israeli was under quarantine.) For bad measure, Administration officials leaked the story of the snubs to an Israeli newspaper as Mr. Yaalon was returning to Israel—guaranteeing his public embarrassment.

Then on Tuesday Jeffrey Goldberg—the Administration’s media spokesman on Israel—reported a conversation with a senior Administration source who described Mr. Netanyahu, a former elite commando who was wounded in a 1972 hostage rescue operation, as a “chicken—.”

Another official quoted by Mr. Goldberg called Mr. Netanyahu a “coward” on the Iranian nuclear issue, presumably because Israel has done what the Administration asked and not bombed Iran’s nuclear installations, especially before the 2012 election. On Wednesday Press Secretary Josh Earnest tried to disavow the comments, but the damage was done.

This public show of condescension makes no sense for an Administration facing multiple Mideast crises and struggling to keep the friends it has. It makes even less sense if Mr. Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran next month. The White House has leaked that it intends to bypass Congress to conclude a deal, but it cannot unilaterally overturn sanctions passed by Congress. Broadcasting its dislike for the Jewish state won’t instill confidence in Congress and the public that such a deal won’t mortally threaten Israel.

So we hear that Hillary Clinton ’s Wall Street admirers are concerned about her comments last week, at a rally with Senator Elizabeth Warren, that businesses don’t create jobs. They better get used to it, because this is only the beginning of Mrs. Clinton’s dance with Liz as the former first lady adapts to the leftward shift of her party while making another run at the White House.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs,” Mrs. Clinton said in Boston. She added that “I love watching Elizabeth, you know, give it to those who deserve to get it.” She didn’t say who deserved it, but Sen. Warren has a long target list.

Mrs. Clinton tried to backtrack on Monday. “Trickle down economics has failed. I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades,” she said. “Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out—not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Bill Clinton must have helped on that one, and it’s nice to know she thinks some businesses create jobs. But the real importance of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign remarks is what they say about the direction of the Democratic Party since she and Bill lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Democratic economic policy has moved sharply to the anti-business left. President Obama ’s soak-the-rich rhetoric has led the shift, but even he hasn’t gone far enough for the Warren wing. This accounts for the Massachusetts Senator’s star status on the stump this year, as she bashes bankers and proposes even higher taxes on business.

One tongue-in-cheek question that began circulating after Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic quoted an anonymous American official bad-mouthing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week is: “How do you say ‘chickenshit’ in Hebrew?”

The Israeli media did not bother too much with the translation, mostly using the English phrase and providing a few parenthetical synonyms for “cowardice.” They did, however, devote endless discussion to the significance of such an expression of disdain toward Netanyahu coming from the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu responded by setting the record straight about his illustrious military history, and pro-Israel commentators at home and abroad juxtaposed this with President Barack Obama’s past as a dope-smoking radical.

What neither Netanyahu nor his defenders emphasized, though, was the paradoxical nature of the slur. On the one hand, the Israeli leader is ostensibly a wimp because he will not take risks for peace. On the other, he is hesitant to go to war, and missed the opportunity to bomb Iran.

Oh, and he cares about keeping his job — unlike, say, every politician who ever lived.

In other words, nothing Netanyahu does or does not do is acceptable to the Capitol Hill crew.

Ironically, this latest display of hostility from Washington gave a boost to Netanyahu’s popularity. Even his opponents had to admit that calling the prime minister “chickenshit” was distasteful.

Where the political divide lies is over the issue of whom to blame for the ever-souring relations between the U.S. and Israel. The left side of the spectrum is faulting Netanyahu for “provocations,” such as housing construction. The Right is reiterating its mantra that Netanyahu should ignore the admonitions of an anti-Israel White House and State Department, and safeguard the interests of his own people.

With midterm elections just days away, it is worth considering money in politics and attempts to curb speech. Both Parties want money out of politics…but only that which flows to the other. There has been no Court decision in recent times that has upset Democrats so much as Citizen’s United in 2010. The irony is that their reasoning is illiberal. Their objection had to do with the fact that the Court considers corporations to be similar to unions and other political entities. Democrats, naturally, see nothing wrong with public sector unions feeding the machine that is essentially collusion between those unions and favored politicians – jobs for votes and money.

According to the FEC (Federal Election Committee), $5.3 billion was spent in 2012 on federal elections, double what had been spent a decade earlier – a rate of increase that is roughly triple the rate of inflation. Numerous attempts to curtail spending on elections have failed. Placing limits on spending inevitably favor incumbents – individuals, supported by taxpayers, over whom they exercise power and from whom they are increasingly alienated.

More importantly, when we rue the amount of money spent on political campaigns we unwittingly support efforts to curtail speech. Certainly we do not want the process to become any more corrupted than it already is, but that is why we have federal anti-bribery laws that prohibit quid pro quo dealings between officeholders and donors. If anything, existing rules should be enforced more aggressively. Congress should mandate full disclosure of all contributors that donate to political campaigns, including those to PACs and so-called “dark pools.” That would make it easier for federal attorneys to prosecute incidences of political bribery, and would have the secondary, beneficial consequences of providing greater transparency and would likely reduce overall campaign spending.

I may think George Soros is foolish and mistaken in his political beliefs (which I do), but he has every right to spend his money as he wishes. In like manner, the Koch brothers have every right to express their opinions. When Senator Harry Reid refers to them as “un-American,” it is he who is acting un-American, as he seeks to bend the Constitution in his favor.

The effect of this brouhaha has been to raise the spectre of limiting speech. Like most federal bureaucracies, the FEC has been expanding its reach. Recently Vice Chairperson Ann Ravel announced her intent to forge new rules regarding on-line political speech. Under current rules, any political content that is not posted on-line for a fee is not subject to regulation. However, half the six members of the FEC wish to subject all blogs and internet postings, with political content (presumably including this one), to FEC-mandated controls.

To be honest, the name Jeffrey Goldberg is new to me. Wait. Not quite true. In my neighborhood back in Montreal, especially around St. Urbain Street, there were quite a few Goldbergs and one or two of them may even have been named Jeffrey, as in Jeffrey Goldberg.

All of them, I later learned, even the ones who were up to no good at the poolroom on Fairmount Street, turned themselves into great physicians. (Who knew?)

So we are talking about somebody else, a Jeffrey Goldberg from New York who became a journalist. So from now on when we say Jeffrey Goldberg we are referring to a journalist who originally made a name for himself, Jeffrey Goldberg, by taking part in blogging shameful innuendos about Sarah Palin, otherwise known as deranged Sarah Palin syndrome.

But that was before – though still the same Jeffrey Goldberg when we wonder how come he is suddenly so famous?

Everywhere you look, it’s Jeffrey Goldberg. What did he say? What did he do? Did he discover the cure for some disease?

No, that would be Jeffrey Goldberg from Montreal.

This Jeffrey Goldberg – did he find a way to end war? No. Did he find a way to start a war?

Maybe he did, and this too takes some doing.

Each day another damning detail emerges about President Obama’s deliberate assault on every facet of America’s institutions and the potentially dire effects on Americans. With the burgeoning host of diseases now entering the U.S., courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama, what impact does this onslaught have on the blood supply and its quality? Let’s consider the witch’s brew now facing America’s health care system.

Judicial Watch uncovered Obama’s stealth operation to “actively formulate plans to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States for treatment within the first days of diagnosis.” Yet it is “unclear who would bear the high costs of transporting and treating non-citizen Ebola patients.” In fact, “the plans include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.”

Bryan Preston notes that the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report or MMWR, “is the Centers for Disease Control’s premiere journal for reporting and tracking infectious diseases in the United States.” And, yet, the MMWR for the week ending October 4, 2014 made no mention of the Ebola case in Dallas. Puzzling, indeed, since Ebola is a viral hemorrhagic fever and the CDC specifically lists it as a notifiable disease in a 2010 report.

And as we have come to expect from the least transparent administration, the “Obama administration has shunned multiple requests to respond to the report exposing its secret plan to admit Ebola infected foreigners into the United States.”

Then there are the illegals coming from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador with their myriad collection of diseases, many of which have not been encountered in this country. Dengue fever occurs in Central and South America and has led to 1/2 million hospitalizations and 25,000 deaths. According to Winton Gibbons in his article entitled “Blood Screening/Transfusion Future Product Market Concepts” of September 2013, “[o]nly 13% of low income countries have a national hemovigilance system to monitor and improve safe blood transfusion.”

Which brings me to Dengue fever. Dengue is endemic in more than 110 countries. According to a June 2011 article entitled “Dengue antibodies in blood donors,” the authors conclude that “the results of the current analysis show that the introduction of quantitative or molecular serological methods to determine the presence of anti-dengue antibodies or the detection of the dengue virus in blood donors…should be established so that the quality of blood transfusions is guaranteed.” And while the authors assert that “the current research suggests that blood donors were not actively infected with the dengue virus…it is well known that methodologies for virus detection also include the more efficient viral RNA and NSI antigen investigations for the dengue virus which eliminate the immunological window period. The current study may not have identified anti-dengue IgM antibodies [.]” It should be noted that while a testing kit has been produced that can identify Dengue within 15 minutes at an 80 percent success rate, there is no vaccine available for Dengue Fever.

The global demonization of Israel and the Jewish people is gathering terrifying pace and ferocity, not least on university campuses.

The global demonization of Israel and the Jewish people is gathering terrifying pace and ferocity, not least on university campuses.

During last summer’s war in Gaza, the Western media uncritically promulgated as truth the inflammatory Hamas lie that Israel was willfully killing Palestinian children and most of Gaza’s war casualties were civilians.

The result was an eruption of hatred and violence against Diaspora Jews in Britain and Europe.

Galvanized by this rout of reason, Palestinians have felt emboldened to ratchet up their incitement against Israel.

So Mahmoud Abbas has been inflaming the violence and rioting that has been escalating in Jerusalem by making false and incendiary claims that Israel was attempting to desecrate the Aksa Mosque.

On Western university campuses, the demonization of Israel and intimidation of Jewish students has similarly shifted onto an even more intense and vicious level.

According to a report by the Anti-Defamation League, more than 75 anti-Israel events have been reported on US college and university campuses this autumn, more than twice as many as last year and accelerating after Operation Protective Edge.

Yehudah Glick has spent the better part of the last 20 years championing the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem – Judaism’s holiest site. On Wednesday night, the Palestinians sent a hit man to Jerusalem to kill him.

And today Glick lays in a coma at Shaare Zedek Medical Center.

Two people bear direct responsibility for this terrorist attack: the gunman, and Palestinian Authority President and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas. The gunman shot Glick, and Abbas told him to shoot Glick.

Abbas routinely glorifies terrorist murder of Jews, and funds terrorism with the PA’s US- and European-funded budget.

But it isn’t often that he directly incites the murder of Jews.

Two weeks ago, Abbas did just that. Speaking to Fatah members, he referred to Jews who wish to pray at Judaism’s holiest site as “settlers.” He then told his audience that they must remain on the Temple Mount at all times to block Jews from entering.

“We must prevent them from entering [the Temple Mount] in any way…. They have no right to enter and desecrate [it]. We must confront them and defend our holy sites,” he said.

As Palestinian Media Watch reported Thursday, in the three days leading up to the assassination attempt on Glick, the PA’s television station broadcast Abbas’s call for attacks on Jews who seek to enter the Temple Mount 19 times.

While Abbas himself is responsible for the hit on Glick, he has had one major enabler – the Obama administration. Since Abbas first issued the order for Palestinians to attack Jews, there have been two terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. Both have claimed American citizens among their victims. Yet the Obama administration has refused to condemn Abbas’s call to murder Jews either before it led to the first terrorist attack or since Glick was shot Wednesday night.

The inaugural session of the Abu Dhabi Strategic Debate took place last week, with scholars coming from around the world to participate in two days of discussion on a plethora of topics. Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief for Al Arabiya News, subsequently published a lengthy summary of the proceedings on Al Arabiya’s website, and reading it, I was struck by the absence of certain topics one might expect to feature prominently. Egypt, Iran, oil, ISIS, Turkey, Russia, the U.S., and Islamic extremism were all there. But in 1,700 words, the Palestinians weren’t mentioned once, while Israel appeared only in the very last paragraph–which deserves to be read in full:

Finally, it was fascinating to attend a two day conference about the Middle East in times of upheaval in which Israel was mostly ignored, with the only frontal criticism of her policies delivered by an American diplomat.
And this explains a lot about the current U.S.-Israel spat. President Barack Obama entered office with the firm belief that the best way to improve America’s relations with the Muslim world was to create “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, and for six years now, he and his staff have worked diligently to do exactly that. Nor was this an inherently unreasonable idea: Even a decade ago, Arab capitals might have cheered the sight of U.S. officials hurling childish insults at their Israeli counterparts.

The problem is that the Arab world has changed greatly in recent years, while the Obama administration–like most of Europe–remains stuck in its old paradigm. Granted, Arabs still don’t like Israel, but they have discovered that Israel and the Palestinians are very far down on their list of urgent concerns. The collapse of entire states that were formerly lynchpins of the Arab world, like Syria, Iraq, and Libya; the fear that other vital states like Egypt and Jordan could follow suit; the rise of Islamic extremist movements that threaten all the existing Arab states; the destabilizing flood of millions of refugees; the fear of U.S. disengagement from the region; the “predicament of living in the shadows of what they see as a belligerent Iran and an assertive Turkey” (to quote Melhem)–all these are far more pressing concerns.

And not only has Israel fallen off the list of pressing problems, but it has come to be viewed as capable of contributing, however modestly, to dealing with some of the new pressing problems. Last month, Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute published his impressions from a tour of the Mideast, including of Israel’s deepening strategic relationships with Egypt and Jordan. “Indeed, one of the most unusual moments of my trip was to hear certain Arab security officials effectively compete with one another for who has the better relationship with Israel,” he wrote. “In this regard, times have certainly changed.”