Trump and Obama at the Barbershop

Trump is shaking Obama’s hand on the fuzzy screen of the big television hanging precariously over an empty barbershop chair.

It’s a hot day outside. The limp flag of the barbershop hangs low. Inside a circle of black and Latino men peer up at the television and shake their heads. “Sheeit,” one says, dragging the sound out.

It’s not hostile. It’s as much wonderment as anything else. Like the rest of us, they are seeing the impossible.

“It’s like a miracle,” another says. “I stayed up all night and I couldn’t believe it.”

The noise of three barbers, black men working their trade in the second most hallowed neighborhood institution after the Baptist church, makes it hard to hear what Obama and Trump are saying to each other.

Despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party machine, there’s no hostility toward Trump here. There’s bafflement, amusement and respect. “Sick” is a common term of approbation for him.

The media had sought to depict Trump’s birth certificate comments as racist, but few here buy that.

“He did what he had to do,” one says. “He played the game.”

There’s nothing personal about it. Trump did what he had to do to win. Just like they do what they have to do. The election was a rap battle where you can say anything you want about the other guy, but it doesn’t matter. It’s just machismo and bravado. It’s a game. Trump was a player. And they’re not gonna be playa haters. Even if it’s the biggest game in the world.

Trump and Obama compliment each other in a scene that strikes much of the country as surreal. But not at the barbershop.

“When it’s out there, they fighting. When it’s just the two of them, they good,” one says.

“They gonna smoke a blunt together,” another says and laughs.

There’s a holographic picture of Obama at his first inauguration on the wall. When you tilt your head, he almost seems to be coming out of it. Next to him is an old black and white of Martin Luther King. To reflect the neighborhood’s changing demographics, there’s another one of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, one of Caesar Chavez and an Asian man in a khaki suit that I can’t even begin to identify.

The live Obama on the television looks old and shrunken compared to his holographic doppleganger. Like today’s Bill Clinton, you wonder that he ever seemed so vital a nemesis once upon a time.

Obama is still an icon in the black community. He’s the first black president. But nobody here expected that to last forever. They still like him and his picture will hang on walls for generations.

But they’re also moving on.

Trump is the kind of Republican they can understand and respect. “We need money,” one man chants. “We don’t wanna be on welfare. We want the money.”

A barber takes a call while working on a customer. “Gotta get that money,” he says apologetically.

The Koch Brothers flavor of free market education would fall flat here. But Trump’s kind of capitalism they can get behind.

“He’s got his own plane. He’s got an air force,” a customer observes.

“If I were a billionaire, I’d be an asshole too,” says another.

Trump thanks Obama. The event wraps up. “That’s all,” Obama tells the press.

“You tell ’em to get out,” a barber shouts. “That’s right.”

The media tried to get men like this to hate Trump. But black turnout lagged. At the barbershop they don’t hate Trump. They didn’t vote for him, but they respect him. They want to pull together now.

They want the country fixed and made right again.

The violent freeway protests, the shutdowns and fires, the vandalized police cars, baffle them. “What are they trying to do?” they wonder.

The left has lost nationally. But its grip even in places like this was always shaky. The left excelled at manipulation. It played on grievances and offered freebies. But there’s a hard ambition here and a culture that the left never had a grip on. The barbershop is one of the more conservative outposts of the black community, but it’ll never fly the elephant or vote GOP. But it has much more culturally in common with Trump and his voters than it does with the left that waged war against him.

Black culture has been crippled and twisted, but it’s still about ambition and achievement. The left has seduced the black community, but it doesn’t truly understand it or control it.

israels-heartland

Originally posted on Sultan Knish.

[huge_it_share]

 

If Hillary Wins There Will Be War With Russia and If Donald Wins There Will Be War With Soros

As the first election results are set to be released, it is clear that the two candidates stand far apart on major issues.

Hillary Clinton has not shied away from sharp rhetoric when it comes to Russia’s Putin.  She has just about blamed him for most of the world’s troubles.  She has made it clear she will push for a no-fly zone in Syria which would bring the USA and Russia into direct conflict.

Putin is watching the election closely and will react very differently if Hillary wins.  One thing is for certain, Hillary has just about guaranteed that Putin will become enemy number one during her Presidency. If you think fighting a direct war with a fellow nuclear power is a good idea make sure to vote for Hillary Clinton.

As far as Donald Trump, his war is against the Wall Street backed elites.  He has tremendous disdain for people like George Soros who Trump believes has his hand in undermining the very fabric of the USA.  Trump has made it clear that his war begins in DC and Wall Street. If you want to drain the swamp and reset America, vote Trump.

[huge_it_share]

lev-haolam-international-pressure

INTO THE FRAY:The Elections are for President—Not Pope

“You knooow…C’mon Who do you think is out of touch?” – Barack Obama, commenting derisively on Hillary Clinton, 2008

“Hillary Clinton, she’ll say anything and change nothing” – I am Barack Obama…and I approve this message – From a 2008 Obama election campaign ad.

“The fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering and you…are going to have to make sure that we push it in the right direction.”  Barack Obama, urging voters to support Hillary Clinton, November 3, 2016

It would, indeed, be in no way an exaggeration to describe next week’s US elections as perhaps the most significant in recent history, a real “fork in the road” for the future of the over 200-hundred year Union.

Waning adherence to founding principles?

This Union proved to be a remarkable socio-political creation. Largely because of its founding values, as articulated in its founding documents and later amendment’s, it developed into the most influential, prosperous powerful country on the planet.

Indeed, in great measure, by holding fast to those values, it managed to maintain its position of primacy since the early decades of the last century.

But in the last decade this began to change perceptibly. Adherence to the underlying fundamentals–its Anglo-Saxon cultural roots and its Judeo-Christian (indeed Judeo-Protestant) ethical foundations—has begun to wane. Identification with, and belief in, what made America, America began to erode and fray—and with it, the coherence of the identity that made it exceptional.

Clearly, it was not America’s natural resources and mineral wealth that generated its unparalleled success. After all, numerous other countries have been endowed by nature with vast riches but none of them were able to harness the enormous creativity and productive energy of their population on a similar scale/intensity as America did.

What set America apart was the manner in which it managed to mobilize its human resources and facilitate opportunity for talent, ingenuity and industry to flower.

There is no way to decouple this remarkable accomplishment from the original organizing principles set out for the nation at its founding. Similarly, there is no way to decouple these organizing principles from the civilizational foundations from which they were drawn.

Clearly then, as America of today diverges increasingly from identification with those principles and civilizational foundations, and the spirit that they were imbued with, it will increasingly jeopardize the key to its own exceptionalism—and the exceptional achievement that accompanied it.

Diversity is strength, but diffusion is weakness

Of course I can already hear the howls of outraged indignation that this kind of talk borders on bigotry, and reflects gross ignorance as to sources of American strength and success. They will, no doubt, point to the enormous contributions made by immigrants, who hailed from civilizational backgrounds far removed from any traces of Judeo-Protestant influence—from East Asia to Latin America. They will of course recite the worn-out mantra that “diversity is strength” and underscore how Americans of Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic and other origins have all been part of the American success story.

This is all entirely true—and equally irrelevant to the point being made. For it was only in the environment created by the unique societal foundations of America, and the opportunities it afforded, that allowed the immigrants, drawn to its shores from other socio-cultural settings, to blossom. After all, if this was not the case, why would they leave their countries of origin?

So, as long as these foundations remained the dominant determinant of societal realities in America, the country could continue to absorb productive forces from other societal backgrounds, without jeopardizing the sustainability of its past success.

This, however, is not the case when large bodies of immigrants flow into the country and wish to establish communities which retain—indeed, actively sustain—much of what they left behind in their countries of origin, and which, presumably, comprised much of the motivation for them to leave. It is then that dynamic diversity begins its decline into dysfunctional diffusion.

Tolerance vs self-abnegation

To illustrate the point somewhat simplistically: It is one thing if a Mexican immigrant arrives in the US, integrates into American society and becomes a productive American. It is quite another, if waves of Mexican immigrants arrive in America and transform significant parts of it into Mexico.

Thus, when immigrants from diverse socio-ethnic backgrounds blend into the dominant culture, the result might well be a synergetic outcome beneficial to both. But this is unlikely when largely discordant immigrant cultures begin to impose themselves on the dominant host culture, which begins to forego important parts of its identity for fear of “offending” new comers, who were attracted to it precisely because of what that dominant culture offered them.

Accordingly, while tolerance of diverse minorities is clearly enlightened self-interest, self-abnegation to accommodate discordant minority predilections is, no less clearly, a detrimental denial of self-worth. What has all this to do with the upcoming elections on Tuesday?

Well, a great deal! Indeed, in many ways it lies at the heart of the decision for whom to cast one’s ballot. It not only separates out sharply between the two candidates’ declared platforms and campaign pronouncements, but more profoundly–-far more profoundly—it separates out between their prospective constituencies and the long-term vested interests of the respective political Establishments that support them.

lev-haolam-international-pressure

Real “fork in the road”

Accordingly, one does not require advanced degrees in political science to grasp just how the relevant political landscape lies as the crucial ballot approaches.

It is beyond dispute that, because of the demographic composition of its support base, any Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton included, will be exceedingly loath to curtail significant influxes of largely unregulated and un-vetted immigrants from the Mid-East, Latin America and elsewhere. For this reluctance will clearly find favor with many of her current constituents and prospective new ones – particularly in light of the astounding electoral practice in the US which requires no photo ID to allow one to choose who will have access to the nation’s nuclear codes—while such identification is obligatory for a myriad of other far less significant purposes.

By contrast, whether or not one lends credence to Donald Trump’s strident declarations on severe restrictions he plans to impose on immigration across the county’s southern border and from Muslim countries, it is clearly very much in his political interest to act along such lines—since this will deny his adversaries the potential expansion of their political base.

So those, then, are the real stakes in these elections – the real “fork in the road”: A choice between a candidate, whose vested political interests induce her to permit changes that will permanently alter the character and composition of America, or one whose political interests compel him to resist this.

The elections as “damage control”

In many ways—most of them, regrettable—these are elections that are significantly different from virtually all previous ones.

Indeed, there is unprecedented dissatisfaction with—even, disapproval of—both candidates.

Thus, Clinton is hardly an ideal candidate—even for Clinton supporters; and Trump far from an ideal candidate—even for Clinton opponents.

Accordingly, far more than a choice of whom to vote for, these elections will be dominantly a choice of whom not to vote for. They will be far less a process that determines whom the voters want to ensconce in the White House, and far more about whom they want prevented from being ensconced in it.

Thus, rather than what they hope their preferred candidate can do for the country, their ballot will be determined by what they fear the other candidate will do to the country.

In this sense, these elections are largely an exercise in damage control.

Or at least that is what it should be: A choice, foisted on a largely dismayed electorate, to install the candidate least likely to be able to inflict irreparable damage on the Republic, until American democracy can somehow recover and offer the voter a more appealing selection of candidates in the future.

A relatively simple choice

In this respect, the choice ought to be relatively simple. For regardless of what one might believe as to what either candidate has in his/ her heart, it is clearly Trump who has a greater interest in keeping America American; while Clinton has a vested interest in endorsing the burgeoning inflow of immigrants, who, rather than embrace the founding values of America, are liable to exploit them to change the face of US society beyond recognition.

Indeed, one should be bear in mind that there is nothing “universal” about the noble values on which America was founded and evolved. Quite the opposite. After all, the spirit of liberty and tolerance they reflect are not the hallmarks of many—perhaps even most—of the countries around the globe. So, unless these values are diligently preserved, they could well be mortally undermined. It is difficult to think of anything that could undermine the values of a society more fundamentally than the massive influx of largely unregulated un-vetted newcomers, for whom those values are not only foreign, but often antithetical, to those of the countries of origin—something countries like Sweden and Germany have sadly discovered to their great detriment.

But that, of course, is precisely what should be expected if Clinton wins. It would require hefty doses of unbounded, and largely unfounded, optimism to expect any outcome other than increasingly severe erosion of societal values that have defined America in the past.

Specter of irretrievable change

But it is not only the structural bias of Clinton’s political interests that makes her potentially the more permanently damaging incumbent to the character of the American Republic, but also her ability to do so. For, as a seasoned politician, well-versed in the corridors of governmental power and machinations of the political Establishment, she has far greater capacity and reach to ensure that her ill-conceived and detrimental policies are implemented and durably entrenched, than the inexperienced maverick novice Trump. After all, he would undoubtedly require many months “learning the ropes”, before he manages to implement and entrench any allegedly injurious policies that perturb his detractors.

As I wrote in last week’s column, the 2009 Obama administration set a course for America substantially different from those set by his predecessors, and in important ways highly discordant with them. Obama’s 2012 reelection helped solidify the anomalous (the less charitable might say “perverse”) change in direction along which he took the nation.

The election next week of Clinton, who is firmly committed, indeed virtually compelled, to continue with Obama policies is more than likely to make that course irretrievable, and the US—much like several luckless EU countries—will be set on an inevitable downward spiral toward third-world status…from which a growing portion of its population hoped to extricate itself

Obama is right—but Obama is wrong

So President Obama was right when he declared at a North Carolina rally (November 3, 2016): “The fate of the republic rests on your [the voters] shoulders…The fate of the world is teetering…” For these elections will indeed have momentous consequences both for the US and across the world. He is, however entirely mistaken as to the direction in which he urges them “to make sure…we push it” (See introductory excerpt)

Sadly, however, despite the fact that these are likely to be the most consequential elections in modern history, it appears (if the conduct of the campaign is to be any guideline) that they may well be decided because of the most inconsequential reasons. For it seems, it will not be the strategic direction in which the country will be taken that will determine the outcome, but rumors and innuendo as to the character defects of Trump and his alleged crude indiscretions with women. Given the stakes, this seems almost inconceivable. Trump should be elected not because of what may occur if he is, but because of what will almost certainly occur if he is not. He should not be judged on what his incumbency might achieve, but what his incumbency must prevent.

So in weighing the grim alternatives, the US electorate would do well to bear in mind that these elections are for the Presidency not the Papacy. They must choose who is best suited (or the least unsuited) to be President – not the Pope.

[huge_it_share]

“A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand”

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”

-Abraham Lincoln, 1858

No matter who wins today, it is clear that by all accounts America is heading towards the 21st Century version of 1860.  True there is no longer chattel slavery, yet the feeling of deep divisions within the country can no longer be ignored or dismissed.

Millions of Americans feel the federal government is too involved with personal decisions.  These same people see an economy that only works for the 1%. Factories have closed, skills are outdated, and new jobs pay far less than before. Blue collar workers, inner cities, and millennials feel disenfranchised.

As a dual American/Israeli citizen who grew up in the USA, worked in politics,traversed the country and now lives in Israel’s biblical heartland, I look at the country where I was born and grew up in from a different vantage point.  For me looking in from the outside, America is a radically different place. It has strayed far from the compass that the Founders built for it.

It is true the United States has been on the edge before, but there were always external forces that unified the nation or a cause that empowered one side to over take the other.  With nothing of the sort, America heads for a long era of division and social disintegration.

Yet, despite all of this, the ideals  of the Founding Fathers and a moral electorate live on.  Perhaps not within the confines of a single country, but rather in those individuals seeking to strive for a better world through personal freedom based on biblical roots.

The way forward as America and the West transitions into unchartered and dangerous waters is to cling to the Creator and his light.

lev-haolam-international-pressure

[huge_it_share]

Trump’s True Opponent

As these lines are being written it is Thursday morning in the US. Wikileaks announced hours ago that it is about to drop the mother lode of material it has gathered on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Previous Wikileaks document drops set the stage for FBI director James Comey’s letter to Congress last Friday, when he informed lawmakers that he has ordered his agents to reopen their probe of Clinton’s private email server, which he closed last July.

One week on, the FBI probe still dominates election coverage. If Wikileaks is true to its word, and even if it isn’t, Clinton and her campaign team will be unable to shift public attention away from the ballooning allegations of criminal corruption. This will remain the story of the election when polls open Tuesday morning.

The focus on Clinton’s alleged criminality in the final weeks of the election brings the 2016 presidential race full circle. Since the contest began in the summer of 2015, it was clear that this would be an election like no other.

After eight years of Barack Obama’s White House, America is a different place than it was in 2008, when Obama ran on a platform of hope and change.

Americans today are angry, scared, divided and cynical.

The outcome of this presidential election will determine whether Obama’s fundamental transformation of America will become a done deal. If Clinton prevails, the Obama revolution will be irreversible.

If Republican nominee Donald Trump emerges the winner, America will embark on a different course.

But even support or opposition to Obama’s revolution is not what this election is about. The anger that Americans’ feel is more powerful than mere policy differences – no matter how strongly felt.

More than a referendum on Obama, Tuesday vote will be a vote about Republican nominee Donald Trump and what he has come to represent. Voters on Tuesday will have to decide what they oppose more: Trump or what he stands for.

Trump is without a doubt a morally dubious candidate.

His prolific record of trash talking make the allegations of sexual harassment leveled against him by multiple women in recent weeks ring true. So too, his willingness to truck in racially charged rhetoric, like his accusation that the Mexican government is sending its rapists and violent criminals across the border for Americans to deal with, has made him toxic for millions of American voters.

But for his supporters, who Trump is, is less important than what he represents.

What he represents is the voters’ rebellion against the American establishment – not just the political establishment, but the full spectrum of the American elite. From Washington to Wall Street, from college campuses to the media, tens of millions of Americans believe that their establishment is rotten to the core. And they support Trump because he is running against the establishment.

Popular resentment and animosity towards the powers that be was enough to win Trump the Republican nomination. And as he closes the gap with Clinton in the lead up to Tuesday, chances are rising that it will be enough to get him into the White House as well.

How did we get to this point?

Trump’s rise has been in the making for a decade.

During the Bush administration, many Republicans quietly fretted that George W. Bush and his advisers didn’t know what they were doing in Iraq. They were angered even more by Bush’s bank bailout in 2008 and his massive increase of the national debt.

But as angry as they were at Bush, Republican anger at their leaders has grown exponentially during Obama’s tenure in office.

Since Obama entered office he has used the powers of his office to seize powers no president had ever dared to claim. And Republicans – who bore the brunt of the damage his policies caused – expected their presidential nominees and congressional representatives to protect them. They expected them to curb Obama’s perceived abuses at the IRS, the EPA, at the border with Mexico, the Justice Department, in the healthcare industry, the military, the State Department and beyond.

lev-haolam-international-pressure

In both the 2008 and 2012 elections, millions of Republican voters were appalled by their successive nominees’ refusal to go on the offensive against Obama. In 2008, Sen. John McCain refused to mention Obama’s deep and longstanding ties with radical political and social forces, including his decades’ long relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who regularly preached hatred for America from his pulpit.

In 2012, Mitt Romney simply choked. He couldn’t make a competent case against Obama or withstand media criticism, that as the Republican nominee he should have expected.

Republican voters walked away from their party’s defeat with the sense that their candidates cared more about what media said about them than they cared about winning.

Republican voters took an even dimmer view of their congressional leadership. In both the 2010 and 2014 congressional elections, Republicans won big in both houses of Congress. The voters’ clear wish was for their lawmakers to check Obama. But instead, the Republican leadership lashed out at their own voters while failing time after time to check Obama’s perceived abuse of power.

Case in point of course was the Republican Senate leadership’s failure to view Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran as a treaty, despite the fact that it clearly met the standard to be so viewed. By going along with Obama’s lie that the nuclear deal, which destroyed 70 years of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in one fell swoop, was a mere presidential agreement, the Senate leaders enabled Obama to implement his radical deal with little difficulty.

Trump was elected to be the Republican presidential nominee because Trump is the opposite of McCain, Romney and their counterparts in the GOP’s congressional leadership ranks. Trump isn’t merely running against Democrats and the liberal establishment. He is running against the Republican establishment as well. And his supporters love him for it.

Trump began building his anti-establishment credentials as soon as he announced his candidacy. At the first Republican primary debate in August 2015, he effectively declared war against the Republican establishment when he refused to pledge to support whatever candidate the party elected to serve as its nominee.

And the establishment understood that he was the gravest threat to their power and began attacking him.

What they didn’t understand was that he had goaded them into a fight that they could only lose.

The secret of Trump’s success has been a simple logical calculation. As the anti-establishment candidate, he has managed to castigate every criticism launched against him – no matter how valid – as the ravings of the corrupt establishment.

The establishment has not thrown in the towel though. According to one analysis, 91 percent of the media coverage of Trump’s campaign has been negative.

But the negative press has only strengthened his supporters’ conviction that he is the man of the hour.

But the attacks, again, have boomeranged.

A poll taken by USA Today earlier this week demonstrates this point. The poll asked likely voters, “What do you think is the primary threat that might try to change the election results?”

For months, the Clinton campaign has claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is interfering in the election on Trump’s behalf. Yet a mere 10 percent of voters polled said that “foreign interests such as Russian hackers,” would try to steal the elections.

On the other hand, 46 percent said the news media would. Another 21 percent said “the national political establishment” was intervening in the elections to shift the vote in the direction they wish.

In other words, 67 percent of voters believe that the establishment Trump is running against is trying to steal the elections.

Anti-Trump voters can be grouped into three often overlapping categories. First, of course there are the Democrats. These voters want Clinton to win. They support what Obama has done as president. They support Clinton because they want to see Obama’s policies continued and because they think she is the best candidate for the job.

Second, there is the establishment itself. In August The Washington Examiner polled Washington elites.

Among members of the Beltway establishment, support for Clinton is overwhelming. She beat Trump 62-22 percent. Twenty percent of Washington Republicans said they support Clinton.

These first two groups of anti-Trump voters support Clinton because they are more or less satisfied with the way things are.

The third group of anti-Trump voters oppose him because they believe that he is unfit to serve. They are Republicans and Independents.

It is this third group that brings us to the greatest anomaly of the election. According to Real Clear Politics’ average of polling data, Trump is trailing Clinton in national polls in a four-way race 43-45 percent. But at the same time, a mere 38 percent of Americans have a favorable view of him. In other words, millions of Americans who cannot stand Trump intend to vote for him on Tuesday.

This anomaly is explained by the public’s revulsion with the establishment. And this brings us to the Wikileaks documents and the FBI’s reopening of its criminal probe of Clinton and her team.

Clinton’s support levels have not dropped in the polls in the week that passed since Comey informed Congress that he had reopened the email probe.

On October 28, the Real Clear Politics poll average placed voter support for Clinton at 44.9 percent. On November 2, it had risen to 45.3 percent.

In the same time period, Trump’s support level rose from 41 to 43.6 percent.

Trump is rising because Republicans who have been undecided or have supported Libertarian Gary Johnson have decided to make their peace with him.

The renewed investigations against Clinton are not driving her voters away from her. As Clinton herself argued hours after Comey’s decision became public, her supporters have already factored in her legal difficulties. Trump is rising because with every new report of Clinton’s alleged corruption, Republican and Independent voters are reminded of how corrupt the establishment has become.

Their view of the lesser of two evils is shifting.

By Wednesday we will know whether the Republicans and Independents who are now accepting Trump will be enough to put him over the top. But what is clear enough today is that the voters who reject the establishment and view it as incurably corrupt will give Clinton no quarter if she manages to eke out a victory. At the same time, the establishment’s hatred of Trump will foment Washington battles the likes of which we have never seen, if he wins on Tuesday.

There is a lot hanging in the balance in this election. But only one question will determine the outcome.

If Trump wins on Tuesday, it will be the establishment he defeats.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

[huge_it_share]

What Comes with Hillary

As the US Presidential Election day nears, I thought it would be a good idea for US voters who care about Israel to better focus on the choice at hand – between voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. (makes so little sense to vote for the other two clowns, I’m not even going to address it.)

Of course, when it comes to voting, you can’t always know what you are going to get. Years ago, Israelis voted for a right-wing Ariel Sharon and instead got a pathetic imitation of  Abu Mazen. Thus its impossible to say what will be with one of the candidates as President, but we have to do the best we can and make the best decision based on the facts that are available.

I personally do not think that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton are anti-Israel (certainly not like the current President).  Yes, in the past, Clinton has done some pretty piss-poor things, but they were done at the behest of others. I suppose she could have refused, but its a little much to ask of someone with no personal connection to the situation. As a Senator her record was pretty good on Israel. Since Donald Trump has no previous political experience, not much to go on with past actions. His declarations on Israel have been amazing, but it remains to be seen how much of that would actually be implemented – like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Not our first rodeo on that one.

So what are pro-Israel voters to do? The solution is to ask the most important question: Who comes with the candidates to the White House? For Trump, its consistent pro-Israel champions like David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt. The likes of Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would probably join many other stellar pro-Israel figures in a Trump Administration. Contrary to liberal spin, its highly unlikely (putting it mildly) anyone like David Duke or any other open anti-semite would play any role in any Trump policy.

What about a Clinton Administration? Safe to assume there would be some holdovers from the Obama Administration. Howerver, there would be others. And those others are the ones that are most concerning – folks like Martin Indyk, Sid Blumenthal, Dennis Ross and the worst – Daniel Kurtzer. To get the point across, let’s just focus on Kurtzer a bit. You never know, maybe the others did teshuva (although it would be ridiculous to assume that). Kurtzer conveniently just published a piece yesterday attacking the Jewish Presence in Judea and Samaria. You can read the full article here. (before you begin reading, make sure you are near a bathroom.)

I’m not going to go through the entire article and pick it apart for all its distortions and inaccuracies – that would take some time. However the worst part of the article is his heartfelt advice to the US Government on how to try and convince Israel to remove Jews from their homes in parts of their ancestral homeland. He advocates a combination of anti-Israel legislation at the UN, tying US aid to Israel with Israeli Government funding spent in Judea and Samaria and boycotts of Jewish goods (similar to in Europe -both now and in the 1930’s/40’s).

Don’t want to give it away, but here’s the best part of the article – the end (and not just because if finally finishes). Kurtzer writes:

“All of these options will be difficult to pursue politically in Washington. Strong bipartisan support for Israel has tended to drown out debate about how the United States should deal with Israeli policies…”

He already admits that none of these things will happen. What a loser!This is the kind of loser that comes with Hillary Clinton. And there are plenty more of them as well. One thing that can be guaranteed about Trump – he ain’t bringing Daniel Kurtzer with him to the White House. For the pro-Israel voter, the proper choice on election day is quite clear. 

[huge_it_share]

lev-haolam-international-pressure

Keith Olbermann Goes Full McCarthy Against Trump

In a last ditch hope to try to change the narritive away from Hillary’s federal investigation to something completely crazy, leftists like Keith Olbermann have thrown out the “Donald Trump is a Russian Agent” line.  Will it work?  No way.  MacCarthyism never works.  Not to mention Olberman’s attack looks desperate, especially in reaction to something far more concrete, a very real FBI investigation on Hillary Clinton.

Watch Keith Olberman’s rant below…if you can stomach it.

lev-haolam-international-pressure

[huge_it_share]

Will Barak Obama Void the Election in Light of Hillary Clinton’s Scandal?

Up until recently a title like the one above would be seen as merely click bait, but all of can admit that the events of the last few days (i.e. Hillary’s emails) should lead one to consider the possibilities open for Obama to take advantage of.

Remember, Obama has already said that Trump should be disqualified for office. Despite the tightening polls Hillary was looking like she was going to still win.  With Friday’s disclosure by Comey Hillary’s future looks bleak. For the first time in American history a President is about to be selected by a default.

With Comey’s reopening, Obama has the ammunition he needs to stop a Trump Presidency, especially if there are enough Americans that “turn out” against Trump’s victory the day after.

How Can He Do This?

The laws surrounding martial law and its enaction are vague.  Essentially, the President or Congress has the right to suspend either part of the constitution or all of it during a war or civil unrest.

Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.” Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution.

After November 8th expect large-scale civil unrest no matter who wins. However, a Trump win after the Comey disclosure would give Obama a trigger for issuing martial law.

Will it happen? In this election season we are finding out that anything is possible.

[huge_it_share]

Break the BDS

Hillary Clinton, Israel, and the Collapse of American Hegemony

With the FBI announcing they have decided to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails a spectre of uncertainty has fallen on the outcome of the upcoming elections.  Never before has a major party candidate been under federal investigation at the time of the elections, but this is where things have gotten to in the USA.

No matter who wins America is in decline.  It’s true Trump would go after the political class like no one before him, but the globalists that have run the system inside the Beltway won’t go quietly.  That fight will paralyze the USA for the forseeable future.

If Hillary wins, her administration will be so tainted by these late game revelations, her ability to rule effectively and lead America through the current series of global conflicts and potential conflicts could be permanently damaged.  This is why America will either continue to recede from the Middle East and the Far East or decide (if its Clinton) to not go down without a fight and literally take on Russia and China.

Where Does this Leave Israel?

With the world heading towards complete chaos, Israel finds itself more and more alone.  This is not to say Israel has no friends; it does. However, America on the downside of its cultural and economic peak means Israel will have to go it alone on all issues or decide to take the leap into the Russian orbit, which it has so far resisted.

With Putin breathing down Israel’s Northern border and a direct conflict between the USA and Russia almost certain, Israel has little time to figure out how to stay neutral in a conflagration that threatens to not only destabilize the Middle East, but the world as we know it.

American Uni-polar Control is Gone Forever

With corruption running rampant in many areas of American governance, a debt of 19 trillion dollars, and the American military embroiled in conflicts throughout the Middle East, its one time post Cold War global control appears to be indefinitely smashed.

Hillary Clinton’s open disdain for the system of law in America is a symptom of something far more wrong and apparantly dangerous than any single threat America faces. Its slide towards mediocrity means it cannot sustain the type of global dominance it once took for granted. Countries like China and Russia are far too willing to capitalize on an America in decline and stake out centuries old claims to regional dominance in their prospective spheres of influence.

Israel will be forced to decide how to partner with a corruption ridden Clinton adminstration if she wins and remains out of jail or Donald Trump who will be busy trying to pull America back together again. The truth is, the multi-polar world we are finding ourselves in has been around for sometime now.  It is in this world that Israel will have to learn how to rise to the challenge of regional leadership without picking a fight with any of the new global powers to be.

[huge_it_share]

 

Break the BDS

More Islamist Money Flows to Hillary Clinton

Originally published at the Middle East Forum.

The Middle East Forum’s “Islamist Money in Politics” (IMIP) project has recorded an additional $12,061 in campaign contributions from Islamist sources to Hillary Clinton since releasing its list of the top ten recipients of Islamist money for 2015-2016 on October 20. The new figures come from just-released FEC filings from August and September.

Mrs. Clinton has padded her lead atop the list, accepting $53,226 from prominent Islamists. This includes $16,216 from individuals associated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group with deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. MPAC’s current president, Salam al-Marayati, was kicked off a congressional commission in 1999 when his defense of terrorist groups came to light.

Presidential candidate Evan McMullin has vaulted to sixth place on the list, accepting $5,400 from Islamists in August and September. Among other current presidential candidates, Jill Stein has accepted $250; Donald Trump and Gary Johnson have not received any Islamist money.

For full details of all Islamist contributions in a sortable database, click here.

While the amounts of Islamist donations are relatively small, the information: (1) holds politicians accountable for accepting funds from soiled sources; (2) signals the Islamist lobby’s affections and intentions; and (3) tells voters who takes money from individuals linked to enemies of the United States and its allies.

Islamists – be they violent or lawful – seek a caliphate and imposition of Shari’a law. This is what Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS believe in.


Islamist Money in Politics shines a light on Islamist influence in U.S. politics by making public the campaign contributions of 1,356 leading figures in America’s most important Islamist groups. To date, IMIP has documented 3,005 Islamist contributions worth $1.45 million.

Launched in 2014, the non-partisan project continually updates contribution data to educate politicians themselves and the public.

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests through intellectual, activist, and philanthropic efforts.

[huge_it_share]

Break the BDS