US on the Brink: Will Attorney General Sessions Drain the Sewer or Fall In It?

A moment of truth will hopefully be told at the Friday press conference held by Attorney General Sessions. We will know whether the US will turn towards a constitutional republic or will remain an oligarchy empowered by the deep state. While the mainstream media focuses on the circus like atmosphere at the White House, more historic events are taking shape.

Republicans in the US House Judiciary committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week to recommend an investigation into the crimes of Hillary Clinton. Among the potential charges are ‘unlawful international dealings’ of the Clinton Foundation. This comes days after President Trump tweeted that Attorney General Sessions has taken a ‘very weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes’. While some conservative pundits expressed outrage over the President’s critique of a loyal campaign supporter, this criticism has merit. Outgoing Congressman Jason Chaffetz last month said he didn’t see much difference between the Trump and Obama administrations and that AG Sessions was ‘worse than what I saw with Loretta Lynch in terms of releasing documents and making things available’.


President Trump has done everything within his legal right to abide by his promise to ‘drain the swamp’  (now upgraded to ‘drain the sewer’). While it is the AG’s job to open an investigation, AG Sessions is aware of the oft-mentioned ‘Clinton body count’ and the recent suspicious murders involving the DNC lawsuit. He is also mindful of the assassination attempt on Congressman Steve Scalise after announcing his efforts to stop human trafficking. It is unclear if prior to his nomination he engaged in some sort of backroom deal with his fellow Senators where he agreed not to prosecute any former colleague(s) including Secretary Clinton.

A growing segment of the US has become completely disillusioned with the two-party system. They are beyond frustrated with politicians who personally enrich themselves, promise one thing when they campaign and do the exact opposite after they get elected. They are outraged at a system that allows Speaker Dennis Hastert to get by with a 15-month sentence after committing horrific criminal acts. For all of President Trump’s indiscretions, his supporters hate the DC political establishment even more.

Opposing View

Opponents of President Trump say that any prosecution of a political opponent is petty, divisive and politically motivated. Richard Painter, a former Bush ethics lawyer, suspiciously claims that the President has committed an ‘impeachable offense’ and that ‘Congress must act now’. Perhaps, those in the prior Bush administrations know that they are next.

Bombshell Interview

In the past, sordid rumors of crimes by the Clintons were relegated to ‘right-wing media’. Now, former critics to the President are demanding justice. During a CNN interview two years ago, lawyer Elizabeth Beck said that President Trump had an ‘absolute meltdown’. Now, ignored by the mainstream media, she appeared on pro-Trump site Infowars to make shocking statements linking the Clinton Foundation to the Mayo Clinic. Ms. Beck unquestionably looks petrified at the information she has come across. She even says, ‘sometimes evil is so powerful there is nothing we can do’. I would like to remind her of Edmund Burke’s quote that ‘the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’.


Perhaps, since Attorney General Sessions is a religious individual, he will take note of a biblical verse that is applicable. As quoted from the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy), Chapter 1, verse 16-17,

I instructed your judges at that time, saying, “Listen among your brethren and judge righteously between a man and his brother or his litigant. You shall not show favoritism in judgement, small and great alike shall you hear; you shall not tremble before any man, for the judgement is G-d’s’’


If AG Sessions refuses to open an investigation against the Clinton Foundation, he will be forced to resign. There is no possibility of a future Attorney General to be confirmed by the Senate that is unfriendly to the deep state. The US would continue to be gripped by chaos and confusion. It would be clear that there are effectively two sets of laws – one for the privileged few and one for everyone else. The US will be equivalent to an oligarchy instead of a functional constitutional republic where rule of law exists. Frankly, there is no domestic issue of greater importance.

Some would say that the US has become a laughingstock of the world. I would argue that a country run with a moral compass, led by the rule of law with liberty and justice for all does not need to feel shame. Instead, its citizens can feel proud and thereby lead other nations by example.

Originally Published on News with Chai.

Hillary’s Back (and Jill Stein Also?) In the Set Up to Chaos

Well if you thought this was over, the recount effort pushed forward by Jill Stein in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is picking up steam and money as well.  Hillary Clinton’s camp has taken notice and decided its time put their weight behind the effort.

“We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount,“ Marc Elias of the Clinton Camp said. “But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”

Meaning, Hillary Clinton fully understands that any recount effort will not hand her the presidency, but will create chaos and further division in an already divided country.

With the recount already in the works for Wisconsin, backers of both Clinton and Stein plan on renewing their push for the other key battleground states.  Although as Elias says, there is little chance the recounts could hand Clinton the victory, anything is possible.  Afterall there has been tampering in the past and with Trump trailing by 2 million in the popular vote there will be tremendous pressure from outside groups.

Jill Stein has already raised more than $5 million in her campaign for recounts.  Now that Hillary’s team is onboard expect chaos if any of these states flip over.

First the Chaos, Then the Pusch

With recounts in the offing, Electors threatening to break and vote against Donald Trump, and Soros funded Organizing for America being led by Obama, the left is bent on ripping apart America by using Donald Trump as the foil.

While it is true these efforts won’t change who is sworn in on Jan. 20th they will se the stage for an America in perpetual divide.  Actions the Trump administration will take to lead America to a better future will be challenged with the help of the media, but bother Obama and Clinton in open political war fare.  Expect protests on a constant basis and violent riots when necessary.

By 2020, either the left wins the election or they pull the country apart trying.

How Can Trump Battle Back?

The first thing President-Elect Trump must do is not get caught up in each attack and play aloof.  He must show quick movement on his 100 day plan now that both houses of Congress will be with him.  Appointing a very conservative justice will be key.

If Trump can come through quick then the Soros funded left will have far fewer numbers in support of their antics.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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. 


After November 8th the King is Coming

The world is about to be thrown into a level of chaos of unknown proportions. None of this depends on the outcome of the elections in America.  Either way the path ahead post elections is fraught with danger.  The prophecies in the bible are clear.  When the nations of the world gather and come against Israel’s control of Jerusalem, the Almighty himself will intervene and save his children.  This prophecy can, like all prophecies be revealed in a variety of ways.

It is almost guaranteed that Obama will, especially if Trump wins come against Israel in the UN. Eventhough the UN Security Council vote will not come with a force of arms attached to it, the coming vote (which Obama will not veto) will lay down the “final boundaries” of a “Palestinian” State. This will include Israel’s biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria and “East Jerusalem.”  Expect the Old City to fall under international control.

With three months left in Obama’s term there will not be enough time for the world to send forces against Israel. However the vote itself will fulfill the prophecy in both Zecharia and Yechezkiel. What will happen afterwards are events that have already been set into motion. The nations of the world instead of destroying Israel will fight one another as it says, “Jerusalem will be a Cup of Poison.” Russia is already preparing for war against the USA, as is China. Europe is preparing to repel an invasion from Russia.  Iran and Syria are ready to attack Israel and Saudi Arabia is ready to defend against attacks from Iran.

Chaos is coming, but we know that chaos leads to order as it always has. Afterall in creation, night comes first followed by the day.  Night represents chaos and day represents order. Noah and his children experienced intense chaos and yet when the door to the Ark opened, the world was ready to be put back together again by their descendents.

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov tells us the Messiah, descendent of King David will conquer the world without firing a shot. He will fight with prayer as “prayer is his main weapon” (Lekutei Mohran, Lesson 2).  In a moment when the world has exhausted itself and G-dlessness reigns he is revealed to teach us that it is in fact the Creator who directly has done, does, and will do everything in the world for our good. The Messiah will open our hearts so we can worship the true King, G-d Almighty directly.

In Rebbe Nachman’s lesson concerning Tzohar (Lekutei Mohran, Lesson 112) the light in the Ark, he teaches that all holiness comes to the world surrounded by evil. We ourselves find it hard to allow the Creator’s light into our lives. The flood of anti-holiness and G-dlessness has gripped the world. However desperate things appear, Rebbe Nachman teaches that any of us can break through the layers of darkness and despair by making an opening to the Creator’s light within our own lives.  Afterall, there is no despair in the world at all since everything is done for our own good.

What is coming may be scary, but it is the final moment of chaos and darkness before the greatest light is revealed. The Midrash in Yalkut Shemoni relating to the End of Days says: “Do not be afraid my children. Everything I have done I have done for you.”

Buckle your seatbelts, the King is coming.

Break the BDS


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. 



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 ( is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (







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.


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.



Break the BDS