Donald Trump Wins in Israel

With 30,000 absentee votes counted, exit polling suggests Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States, if American expats were the only ones deciding. Donald Trump wins the Israel primary with 49% of the vote.

Complete results of the exit poll, which includes state-by-state results, will be given out on Thursday. This exit poll was taken from Monday to Wednesday of this week.  It included 1,140, and has a 3% margin of error.

Surprisingly voting was down in Israel compared to years past.

“I think that a lot of people expressed a lack of enthusiasm about either candidate,” Eitan Charnoff, iVoteIsrael executive director stated. “It will be interesting to see if that is reflected in the voting in the US next week as well.”

The results were also very different from 2012. In the previous election, iVoteIsrael’s exit poll found that 84% of Americans in Israel voted for Republican Mitt Romney and 14% voted to reelect US President Barack Obama.

[huge_it_share]

lev-haolam-international-pressure

J Street Attacks Trump for Being…Pro-Israel

We have reached a point in the US Presidential elections where absurd is the norm.  In an attempt to sway Jewish voters from leaving Hillary and moving to Trump, J Street, that nefarious anti-Israel organization that pretends to eb pro-Israel attacks Trump for being pro-Settlement which they claim is actually anti-Israel.  Yes, their absurdity knows no bounds.

Check out the ad below:

Break the BDS

[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

INTO THE FRAY: Condell on Clinton

By presenting the divide between Trump & the post-Obama surrogate, Clinton, as an “America vs Europe” one, Pat Condell understates the true nature of the dichotomy

It is unusual for American voters to get a real choice in a presidential election but this is a genuine fork in the road for America—and the world. It’s one direction or another from here.

Pat Condell, America’s Moment Of Truth, October 25, 2016

The upcoming US presidential election has been a topic I have tried to refrain from writing about. Indeed, I wished to avoid expressing any opinion of the depressing debacle of the US elections, consoling myself with the thought that, in comparison, Israeli politics look like a dignified exercise of the democratic process.

Condell on Clinton

Arguably, there has never been an election in which American voters have been asked to choose between two candidates , who—for very different reasons—are  clearly so hopelessly unqualified  and undeserving of their nation’s highest office.

Appalled at the choice with which the world’s most powerful democracy has presented its electorate, I was loathe to take a position for, or against, either of these deeply flawed candidates—neither of whom I, as a non-US citizen, can vote for anyway.

What changed my mind, and convinced me to take up the challenge of writing something I felt I could take a clear stance on, without compromising my journalistic integrity, was a withering anti-Clinton video put out by another non-US citizen – the ever-incisive British political satirist, Pat Condell.

Actually, this was not one of Condell’s best videos.  Moreover, I did not agree with everything he said in it. However, it did crystallize for me that what was really at stake on November 8, was something that went far beyond a choice between two rather unappealing (to gravely understate the case) individuals.

It is, in effect, a choice between two incompatibly divergent socio-political paradigms, with historic and probably irrevocable significance—for both the US and the global community.

Two divergent socio-political paradigms 

Condell characterized the sharply contrasting alternatives confronting voters as follows: “In broad terms you could describe it a choice between the American way and European way…” 

Although I understand why he chose to frame the issue in this manner, I am not sure that I entirely agree. Indeed, I believe that the choice is even starker than he suggests. In essence, it is a choice between a chance to preserve a society based on traditional Western values and Judeo-Christian foundations to which they are tethered; or irreversibly abandoning that prospect.

I realize of course that some might find it a little “over-the-top” to attribute such epic dimensions to a clash between two such eminently unimposing and decidedly “unepic” protagonists, but—perhaps perversely—that is precisely how the matter stands.

For these elections are less about the candidates themselves, and more—much more—about the realities they herald…and those they don’t.

Please, don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting for a minute that Clinton or Trump is genuinely committed to the policies they espouse.  It doesn’t matter that neither of them really embody the views that they profess to ascribe to, or even really believe in them.

For whatever their real personal political proclivities may (or may not) be,

  • the adversarial socio-political milieu that envelops their perceived political “identity”;
  • the rivalrous political allegiances they have formed to sustain their political careers,
  • the opposing political machinery which drives their political activities; and
  • the political constituencies on which they draw for political support;

will, after the elections  almost deterministically, sweep them each along their divergent paradigmatic paths.

Extending “Obama-ism

Condell elaborated on his “American vs European” dichotomy: “For the past eight years President Obama has tried to make America more European because he is a European social democrat at heart…

He added acerbically: “He belongs over here in Europe with the rest of the open borders “nothing to do with Islam” crowd making life more dangerous for ordinary people for virtuous reasons. It’s what he tried to do in America with his so European reluctance to even name, let alone confront, Islamic terrorism.”

Regarding Clinton, he warned: “And his chosen successor, Hilary Clinton, if elected intends to up the ante on that score when she brings in all those third world Muslim migrants who are waiting in the wings…”

The perception of Clinton as an extension of the Obama incumbency is crucial for grasping the stakes in the coming election. In many ways, his 2008 victory was a point of inflexion in American history.

With the opportunity to undo it lost in 2012, its detrimental impact began to solidify.  A Clinton victory will all but make that impact indelibly irremovable. After all, Clinton has not only by and large endorsed all of Obama’s past policies—regardless of their calamitous consequences—she was in fact a co-author of a considerable portion of them.

A deeper dichotomy

But as I mentioned previously, by presenting the divide between Trump and a post-Obama surrogate, Clinton, as an “America vs Europe” one, Condell understates the true nature of the dichotomy.  Indeed, it is a dichotomy that goes far beyond a difference of perspectives within prevailing Western civilization.  It is a dichotomy between what have been traditionally deemed “Western values” and values which are “non-Western”.  Indeed, the less charitable might say, “anti-Western”.

Accordingly, as I wrote just prior to the 2012 presidential elections, this latter set of values display “the same strains of resentment and envy, suspicion of others’ achievement, the belief that the success of some was necessarily the product of exploitation pervades much of the anti-colonial, anti-American – and yes, anti-Zionist – philosophy of many members of the Non-Aligned Movement.”

 As a result, I cautioned: “[Obama’s] interpretation of the international role the US should play, the nature of the country’s interests, and the manner in which they should be pursued; his perception of friend and foe and the attitudes that should be adopted towards them, all seem to entail dramatic and disconcerting departure from that of most of his predecessors” adding that: “In this regard, he is the first US president who is explicitly … unmoored, both cognitively and emotionally, from the bollards of America’s founding Judeo-Christian heritage….”

Deeper dichotomy (cont.)

In a piece entitled “Will the West withstand the Obama presidency?” published just after the ill-conceived Iran nuclear deal, I warned: “For anyone who understands that the US Constitution is not a Sharia-compliant document … it should be alarmingly apparent that the Obama-incumbency is a dramatic and disturbing point of inflection in the history of America and its ‘Western’ allies”,clarifying that: “By ‘Western’ I mean countries whose political practices and societal norms are rooted in Judeo-Christian foundations in a cultural rather than in any religious sense.

 

Indeed, almost 18 months earlier I asserted: “In many ways, the election of Obama in 2008 was a watershed… not so much because for the first time a man of color was elected to the US’s highest office…[but] because for the first time, the person elected was someone whose political credo coalesced in an environment where many of its formative influences (both personalities and ideologies)… differed sharply (arguably antithetically) … from those that historically made America, America.”

As Obama’s perceived successor, Clinton will be bound to preserve and promote—whether of her own volition or not—these political perspectives, simply because of the political milieu in which she will be compelled to operate, the political interests she will be compelled to serve and the political allegiances she will be compelled to maintain.

Deceptive first appearances

Of course, at first glance, one could make a plausible claim that Clinton is eminently qualified to serve as president—certainly far more so than the current incumbent was prior to his election. After all, she was First Lady for eight years (1993-2001), served as a US senator (2001-9) and as Secretary of State (2009-13).

This makes an impressive résumé indeed—until one begins to delve into the details.

Putting aside for the moment all the earlier scandals that have plagued her and her spouse, in the last eight years, either as Secretary of State, as contender of the Democratic Party nomination and as a candidate for the US presidency, she has either been actively involved in formulating policy for the Obama administration, or endorsing its policies.  She certainly has not distanced herself publically in any way from them—and hence must be inextricably tied—either directly or by association—to the succession of failures and fiascos of his administration—both domestically and abroad.

On the home front, this includes soaring levels of debt, plunging levels of workforce participation, yawning budget deficits and a failing health care reform, Obama’s  signature domestic policy initiative, which earlier this month none other than Bill Clinton dismissed as  “the craziest thing in the world”.

On the international front, things are, if anything, far worse, with debacle being followed by yet more debacles, and US influence and stature plummeting across the globe.

Failures and Fiascos

Thus, whether in Egypt or Libya, in Syria or in failed endeavors to “reset” relations with Russia, US policy and reputation are in tatters worldwide: The appalling Iran deal, allowing the tyrants of Tehran to acquire mountains of cash to finance global terror and weaponized nuclear capability, in exchange for a promised deferral , the estrangement from Saudi Arabia, the heightening tensions with the Kremlin.

These are all disasters that Clinton is tainted with—whether they occurred “on her watch” as Secretary of State, or as Obama’s designated replacement.
But gross policy failures are not the only disqualifying stain on Clinton’s candidacy.

 Arguably, even more damaging is the perception of corruption/corrosion of the organs of governance that are associated with her.  This was perhaps best highlighted by the embarrassing House hearing with FBI director James Comey,  when  he inexplicably recommended   Clinton not be indicted, while actually citing a litany of reasons why she should be!  Indeed, the absurdity of the situation prompted Congressmen Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to exclaim disapprovingly:  “…my real fear is…this double track justice system that is… perceived in this country…if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be….

 Clintonesque corruption

 In an acerbic analysis of the Clinton candidacy, Indian-born commentator Atul Singh writes: “Hillary Clinton is a deeply damaged candidate with far too many skeletons in her cupboard.” And skeletons galore there are: The Email scandal, the Benghazi tragedy, and “pay-to-play” allegations surrounding massive donations to the Clinton Foundation  from Mid-East tyrannies ,whose societies reflect the very antithesis of the values Clinton professes to stand for.

Singh makes the withering observation: “She has been in power far too long and, as someone wise once said, power corrupts… Earlier this year, she ironically delivered a speech on income inequality in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket. It evoked Marie Antoinette’s apocryphal comment about the starving sans culottes: “If they have no bread, let them eat cake.” Actually, the irony is worse because the Clintons claim to represent les sans culottes while gorging on foie gras…”

 Of course none of this should be construed as a portrayal of Donald Trump as a paragon of virtue. Quite the opposite. Singh again: “While Trump might be a lying braggart and an obnoxious bully, Clinton [is] a wolf in sheep’s clothing and would persist with a status quo that is untenable.”

Indeed, much opprobrium can he heaped on Trump.  He is vulgar, petty, easily distracted and I am far less convinced than Condell, who extolls Trump’s sincerity and commitment, as to the depth of his conviction in his own political pronouncements.

But what would you rather have—Trump’s glaring character defects, or Hilary’s declared intention to flood the country with un-vetted and unregulated immigrants from the Mid-East and South America?

Trump: Cut from the same cloth as “Brexit”

In many ways, Trump is the creation of Obama and Clinton – a reaction of millions of Americans to the unwanted metamorphosis of their nation. Indeed, he is cut from the same cloth as Brexit. He is a response—undeniably an inelegant one—to what is perceived as an attempt to decouple America from its roots and its heritage.

However, as such, it is a response that is relatively benign. If it is rebuffed—brace yourselves for far more drastic ones in the future. For as Condell points out, Trump is a “necessary antidote to the poison of political correctness … destroying Western society’s immune system”.  If this antidote fails to be administered, its successors are guaranteed to be far more virulent.

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org)

[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

The Coming War Maybe the Last

With a resurgent Putin and ascending China one wonders how the global structure that has existed since the end of the Cold War will continue to exist.  Most people view events through a lens of national interests mixed with political bravado.  These cross interests usually line up.  Due to this alignment we rarely have the disconnect we currently have in the West.  During the Cold War, anti-Soviet sentiment coincided with both the political and economic needs of the West’s establishment and everyday person.

No one in Washington or Brussels imagined a world where both Russia and China would reemerge as serious challengers to the West’s financial and geopolitical control, yet this is precisely what has happened. With Putin on the move in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and countries like the Philippines changing sides to China, the elite in the West have begun to panic. This is the cause of Hillary’s break with Obama’s policy when it comes to these new rising powers.

Goldman Sachs Speeches are Key to the Coming Confrontation 

Hillary is bought and sold by the banks. Her speeches make it clear she works for them and is essentially their pupet in the White House. Like always wars are far more about economy and financial control than anything else.  True there is an element ideology or nationalism at play, but choosing confrontation rarely has to do with that.  Hillary and her backers see Russia and China as a serious threat for their continuing monopoly on global finance.

With this at play, the interests of main street and the elite diverge drastically. Most Americans don’t care about Russian moves in the Middle East or Eastern Europe.  This is why Trump’s foreign policy is attractive. However, Trump is not the President whether or not he wins may not stave off a major confrontation between the USA/EU/Britain and Russia/China.

The financials in the West see a direct confrontation now, even at risk of full-blown WW3 levels rather than a proxy war as better to make sure their control stays in tact. Putin is not waiting either and this makes the “Great Game” far more dangerous than ever. For Putin and even China they understand the West is not going to let them steam roll their new world order.

When Will This Happen?

If Tump pulls an upset and wins, look for Obama to push towards an open confrontation now.  If Hillary wins, Putin will want to move fast in order to throw her foreign policy off before she gets in office.  The war will start, but on Putin’s time-table.  Either way, the stakes are so high this next war maybe the world’s last.

[huge_it_share]

Break the BDS

“Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia”

Well we know we’ve got a problem when the Green Party candidate is more honest than the Democratic Nominee. Jill Stein is absolutely correct.  Hillary Clinton is fully willing to start a war with Russia at the behest of her neoconservatie backers.  Hillary Clinton may be a socialist at heart, but her foreign policy is based on neoconservative ideas rooted in America’s role in being an active change maker for the globalist agenda.

All of this Trump has been very much on target about. The challenge has been that his campaign has been derailed for now by the national media’s obsession in covering for the Clintons.

A New Chapter for America

Why is Hillary Clinton so dangerous?  The answer to this can be found in her ability to weave corporatist money into a socialist sort of control over the economy. She is one of the architects of many of the current globalist goals which learned to blend coroporate wealth with a mutated version of socialism.

Hillary envisions a world that is transformed and governed by corporate interests that are molded in the halls of government in a way where everyone is a dependent on a buearcracy so intertwined with the financial interests of the 1% that it will be hard to see the difference between Goldman Sachs and Capital Hill. Marx wins in a most ironic way. Instead of the government being the arbiter of the choices of the masses it becomes the tool of the corporations that are he true arbiters.

Why the Hate for Russia?

Once we understand that all neoconservative goals lie in the belief that it is only the American military that can truly bring stability to the world then we can understand the driving force behind this way of thinking. It is in fact these corporate elements that fund the security super structure at the heart of America’s globalist arm.  Hillary is unabashed in being “in bed” with this group in a way Obama was always uncomfortable about.  The corporate elements in the West view Putin and his backers as dangerous to their profit margins and would like to put them in their place before Russia becomes unstoppable.

If Trump loses on Nov. 8th, duck. Putin will not wait to be relegated to a defensive posture when Hillary takes over. He will look to grab important areas in Ukraine and other eastern European countries while Obama is still in office.

[huge_it_share]

Break the BDS