Obama's @TheIranDeal twitter shill tweets a link to anti-Semitic website
Among anti-Semitic websites, one Jewish one stands out: Mondoweiss. Don't take my word for it. Listen to MJ Rosenberg writing on the Far Left Tikkun website:
Lately I have been struck by the raw anti-semitism evinced on
anti-Israel websites (most egregious example, Mondoweiss).
http://mondoweiss.net/
There is nothing novel about it. It’s not “the new anti-semitism”
that the Anti-Defamation League likes to talk about. But the old kind,
masquerading as anti-Zionism but manifesting itself as support or, at
least, sympathy for every group or individual hostile to Jews: from Pat
Buchanan to Hizbullah.
On Tuesday, @TheIranDeal, which is the official White House twitter account that shills support for Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran, tweeted this:
The White House is targeting Jewish groups in its latest push to
blunt congressional criticism of an Iran deal that observers expect to
be sealed in the coming days, according to a recording of a strategy conference call obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and experts familiar with the call.
The White House’s liaison to the Jewish community on Monday advised
dozens of progressive groups to push a poll commissioned and distributed
by the liberal fringe group J Street, which has been defending a deal
with Iran.
Matt Nosanchuk, an official in the White House Office of Public Engagement, who also serves as Jewish liaison, cited J Street’s poll and urged liberal activists present on the call to cite its numbers when defending a deal with Iran.
The private strategy call, which included more than 100 participants, was organized by the Ploughshares Fund,
a liberal group that has spent millions of dollars to slant
Iran-related coverage and protect the Obama administration’s diplomatic
efforts.
Nosanchuk told participants there is support for the deal “within the
Jewish community, where J Street has recently done a poll that shows
even in that community when you describe the terms of a deal you have
upwards of 78 percent of respondents supporting it.”
Virtually all polling stretching back several months, including
polling featured on conservative and progressive outlets, shows that
while Americans are divided on the wisdom of negotiations, they believe
that a deal would not prevent Iran from constructing a nuclear weapon.
Critics of J Street’s poll have pointed out that it polled respondents on a hypothetical deal that does not actually exist.
The Ploughshares Fund's efforts to promote a nuclear Iran are led by Robert Creamer, a convicted felon
who served time for fraud and tax charges in 2006-07. Creamer is married to none other than "J Street Jan" Schakowsky (D-Il). This is from the first link in the paragraph.
[Washington Free Beacon's Adam] Kredo obtained an audio recording of the call. “Progressive leaders
on the call told participants to prepare for a ‘real war’ and repeatedly
declared that “the other side will go crazy” in the coming days,” he
reported.
White House officials stressed “the importance of this to the
president,” and Creamer told activists they should be “blitzing the hell
out of the Hill,” particularly Democrats. His wife, self-styled
“pro-Israel” Rep. Schakowsky, reportedly shouted her
encouragement during the call.
Creamer rose to public attention in 2009, when Breitbart News revealed
that he had written the political blueprint for passing Obamacare while
serving time in federal prison. Anticipating the election of a
“progressive” president in 2008, Creamer had advised a campaign for
“universal health care” that would serve as the first of several radical
policy changes aimed at transforming America and the world. Creamer, a
community organizing guru in Chicago, had advised the Obama
campaign upon leaving prison.
Writing in Israel Hayom, Richard Baehr notes that Creamer
and fellow activists aim to reduce the Iran deal to political terms:
“This is to be all about party loyalty, and supporting the president
and his agenda, because this is very important to him,” Baehr notes. “In time, after the critics make their case, the deal will likely be sold as a choice between war and peace…”.
Given that the emerging deal favors Iran, Baehr adds, the left-wing
activists backed by the White House are effectively lobbying for the
regime.
This post is being presented in the interest of knowing your enemy.
J Street Jan Schakowsky attacks former rival Joel Pollak for being 'Orthodox' Jew
Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Il) thanked J Street for backing her Congressional campaign in 2010, and took the opportunity to attack her long-gone rival Joel Pollak for being 'Orthodox.' Pollak has moved to California and become an editor at Breitbart.com (Hat Tip: Mike P).
Schakowsky begins by thanking J Street for its backing of her positions when it comes to Israel.
“I’d like to begin with just a great thank you for J Street. I have
to tell you that the courage to take positions that I’ve been able to
take are [sic] really because of the space that, in a very short time, J
Street had opened for members of Congress to expand political
discussion about the State of Israel and our relationship to it.”
In the video—which was provided by Paul Miller, who served as a
senior policy adviser for Pollak’s campaign and is now the executive
director of the Salomon Center—the Democratic Rep. from Illinois rips
into the Breitbart editor.
“In 2010, I had an election… an election within our community. That
is, I ran against a Jewish-Orthodox, Tea Party Republican who made it
very clear that actually Jan Schakowsky was anti-Israel because of the
positions that she took,” the Congresswoman said of Pollak.
“J Street came to my rescue,” she added. “Not just with money, but
with the kind of moral support that was able to assure a substantial
victory in that election.”
Schakowsky represents a heavily Jewish district in the Chicago area. I hope that any Orthodox Jewish constituents will respond to her. She's disgusting.
Trying to make sense out of the fight over Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to Congress, Mitchell Bard spouts a lot of nonsense.
Netanyahu’s decision to speak before Congress still makes little sense. In addition to angering Obama and Democrats in Congress,
Obama was 'angry' at Israel long before Netanyahu decided to come and speak. Look at the history of this relationship. Obama's bona fides as a supporter of Israel were being questioned long before Netanyahu became Prime Minister in 2009. Obama is angry at Israel because it exists. Neither Binyamin Netanyahu nor anyone else in Israel did anything to bring about that anger. Netanyahu's speech has nothing to do with this. Recall that Obama called Netanyahu chickens**t long before this speech was ever announced.
As to the supposed anger of Democrats, mainstream Democrats - like Menendez and Schumer and Dershowitz - haven't expressed a whole lot of anger. The anger comes from the Congressional Black Caucus (which brands any questioning of Obama as 'racism') and from Democrats who take money from J Street and other far Left organizations. Those people - and the people who vote for them - are the ones who are driving down the percentage of Democrats who sympathize with Israel. They were never in Israel's court from the start. Netanyahu's speech is just flushing them out. Even if they still insist on calling themselves 'Israel supporter.'
he has undermined the legislation that he was coming to support.
Netanyahu is not coming to speak in support of the sanctions legislation. It already has a veto proof majority once it is brought to the floor. Netanyahu is coming to speak out against making a bad deal with Iran in which all red lines are abandoned. A deal in which Iran is allowed to retain its nuclear facilities, retain its uranium enrichment plants, keep the centrifuges spinning and - yes - still get relief from sanctions. It's a deal against which most of Washington seems to be tongue-tied.
The prime minister’s speech also has an air of desperation; he
apparently realizes that he cannot prevent Iran from getting nuclear
weapons.
It's not that Netanyahu cannot prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons - it's that Obama won't let him. So yes, there is some desperation here. Netanyahu is desperate to stop Obama from officially declaring that Iran can do whatever it pleases when it comes to nuclear weapons - to leave the door open for another President or another day. Because Iran can be stopped - just not without military action, or at least a credible threat of military action.
But Netanyahu isn't the only desperate one here. So is Obama. Obama is desperate to stop the Prime Minister he called a chickens**t from undermining what Obama believes will be his signature foreign policy achievement for his second term, if not for his entire Presidency: appeasing Iran, bringing it back into the 'family of nations' and turning it into a regional power in the Middle East which can offset Israel and force Israel to start whistling to the Arabs' tune. The fact that Obama is clearly expending far more energy on stopping Netanyahu's speech than he is on stopping Iran's drive for nuclear weapons shows that Obama is also desperate. Let's call it desperate for a legacy.
The argument here is whether Obama's Munich-like philosophy will prevail or whether Netanyahu's vision of an acknowledged Israeli right to take independent action against Iran will prevail. By stiffening opposition to the deal, both in and out of Congress, Netanyahu is increasing the (admittedly slim) likelihood that Congress will stand up to Obama and scuttle the deal. No, Netanyahu won't persuade the Schakowsky's or the Rangel's or the Durbin's, but he might give Chuck Schumer - for example - the backbone to say that he cannot in good conscience vote with the administration on this and not welch as Schumer has done in the past. And he's also increasing the likelihood that when and if Israel decides it has no choice but to act, Obama will not have the political backing to stand in the way.
it is difficult to see what purpose the prime minister’s speech will
serve since he has been sounding the same alarm now for years. His views
are no secret to anyone and will have no greater impact if they are
presented before Congress.
That's actually not true. Most Americans could not even name the Prime Minister of Israel until this controversy started, let
alone recite his views on a deal whose details are slowly coming out in the media. Israeli opposition to the
deal is the only context in which Americans are discussing the
substantive problems with Obama's appeasement. Netanyahu's speech is already
helping to raise the profile of opposition views to the deal. And unlike in Israel, where it is being delayed for five minutes on the bogus claim that there might be partisan thoughts, the speech is likely to be viewed live in the United States by millions.
Israel has good reason to be alarmed at the direction the nuclear talks
have taken, even though it appears unlikely Iran will except any deal.
Unless you equate Iran with the 'Palestinians,' who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, it seems to me that at this point a deal is highly likely. Obama has already conceded almost everything Iran wants.
Did Netanyahu think speaking in Congress would help his reelection
campaign? Perhaps, but this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Incumbents always
blur the lines between policymaking and campaigning. When Obama ran for
reelection his speeches were meant to help his campaign regardless of
whether they were labeled as campaign events. Furthermore, the fact that
Obama reacted so angrily, as did many other Democrats, may hurt
Netanyahu’s chances if Israeli voters decide that they don’t want a
prime minister who has worsened ties with their principal ally.
No, this is not about the Israeli elections. I am sure that Netanyahu would have a much better chance of gaining votes by staying in Israel and campaigning. Ask Buzi Herzog.
Zionist Union co-chairman Isaac Herzog said Tuesday that he had
declined AIPAC's invitation to address its conference, saying that while
American Jews are very important to him, it was clear that replacing
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was just as critical and his main
mission now.
In a press conference with foreign media, Herzog
said that Netanyahu's spin on the question of who's going to Washington
has to stop. Every Israeli and American official - including the U.S.
President - knows his stance against the Iranian nuclear program, Herzog
added.
Herzog told the reporters that when he becomes
prime minister, he will travel all over the world to preserve the
security interests of the citizens of Israel – but for now, he has to
decline the invitation to focus on that goal.
So who is the statesman and who is running an election campaign?
Netanyahu has only two options: He can surrender to the Iranian nuclear bomb, pretend that everything is nice with the White House until the next crisis, and echo White House propaganda that ISIS is the big problem. Or he can play the cards he has and work the only realistic opportunity to stunt Obama’s planned appeasement and preserve an Israeli military option against the Iranian weapon. Which would you choose if you were him?
Probably inevitable: J Street Jan will skip Netanyahu speech
Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Il) has announced that she will skip Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress next Tuesday. And she still has the gall to describe herself as an 'Israel supporter.'
I suspect that having seen one member after another of the Congressional Black Caucus announce that they will boycott Netanyahu, we will now see one recipient of J Street's Soros money after another announce that they too will boycott.
Honestly, I'm not convinced that it matters anymore who shows up and who doesn't. The real point of this speech has become for Netanyahu to be able to speak directly to the American people. It's something that both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have done to hand-picked audiences of Israelis. Funny how no one objected then.
The delegation led by J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami
included donors to the organization and spent six days in Israel meeting
with Israeli and Palestinian officials and activists. The congressional
delegation consisted of Reps. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Hank Johnson
(D., Ga.), Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.), and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.). All
except Johnson are members of the House Progressive Caucus. None sit on
the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Details of the February trip were provided to the Free Beacon by sources in the Israel Defense Forces and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Lee, a former Black Panther volunteer, was the only member of
Congress to vote against a resolution authorizing President George W.
Bush to use force against terrorists after the Sept. 11th, 2001,
attacks. At the time Lee said, ”We must not rush to judgment,” and warned, “Let us not become the evil that we deplore.”
Johnson sought formal congressional punishment of Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) for his “You lie!” outburst during President Barack Obama’s 2009 address to a joint session of Congress. If Wilson went unpunished, Johnson said, “We will have people with white hoods running through the countryside again.”
Johnson achieved his greatest notoriety in 2010 when, during a congressional hearing, he told the
admiral in charge of the U.S. Pacific Command, “My fear is that the
whole island [of Guam] will become so overly populated that it will tip
over and capsize.”
Grijalva, according to GovTrack,
is the single most left-wing member of Congress. (Lee is ranked as the
second-most liberal.) Grijalva, who in college was a leader of several
radical Hispanic groups, favors United Nations monitoring of United
States elections and blamed the Gabby Giffords shooting on Sarah Palin.
Anyone still want to argue that J Street is mainstream?
For more on Schakowsky (pictured, but not discussed in the article), go here.
Well, Dr. Ben Carson did say in his speech that he thought doctors should get involved in politics. Carson was blasted on CNN on Sunday morning by J Street Jan Schakowsky (D-Il).
Schakowsky accused Carson of using political correctness, rather than
fighting it: “Well, I think that there’s a political correctness that
he was trying to use to appeal to a conservative audience,” she said,
shaking her head. She went on to criticize Carson for making a
“political speech” in front of Obama and in a specifically religious
context.
I think it’s really--not really an appropriate place to make this
kind of political speech, and to invoke God as support for that kind of
view. But I think of most of all the kind of message that he was giving
shows a real empathy gap with where the American people are right now,
and I think it’s reflective of where many of the Republicans and Tea
Parties are right now, that we need to have an economy that works for
everyone.
In his address, Carson had specifically avoided taking a partisan
point of view, noting that the American bald eagle needed both a “right
wing” and a “left wing” to take flight.
Go back and watch the Carson video and notice that Michelle Obama was applauding at the end of the speech. Maybe Michelle didn't get it? Nah, that can't be. She's a genius....
You may recall that in the 2010 elections, Republican Joel Pollak was defeated by Democrat 'J Street Jan' Schakowsky in Illinois' heavily Jewish 9th Congressional district. Now, things have gotten so bad that the Jews of Chicago's northern suburbs are finally voting Republican (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad via Twitter and Instapundit).
Mitt Romney is receiving support from Jewish voters not seen for a Republican candidate in 24 years. Although a sizable majority of Jewish Americans will still cast their ballots for Barack Obama, the erosion of Obama’s solid foundation in the Jewish community is a political phenomenon worthy of commentary. It is also one that can make a striking difference in an electoral race polling within sampling error.
Nowhere is this phenomenon as visible as in Chicago’s heavily Jewish and Democratic northern suburbs. There, the Jewish embrace of the Republicans has reached such significant numbers that the Daily Herald, Chicago’s largest and most prestigious suburban newspaper, ran the topic as its lead story in its Sunday edition (July 8): “More suburban Jews turning to the Republican Party.”
Beneath the headline ran a picture of Arie Friedman, a prominent pediatrician and Republican candidate for the Illinois state Senate in the 29th district. Friedman — like Jewish candidate Jonathan Greenberg, an ordained rabbi who is running for the state house in the newly formed 57th district — is a fiscal conservative who is strong on national defense and liberal on social issues.
But while both candidates are Jewish in districts with large numbers of Jewish voters, they are not running on Jewish issues. They are running against a runaway fiscal policy that has ruined a great state. Illinois’ bloated pension system, mountain of debt, and soaring taxes are as much local issues as they are national. What propels Jews toward Romney also propels them toward the local Republican candidates. The hope of the local candidates is that Democratic identifiers who vote for Romney will continue to vote for Republicans at the local level and for the same reasons.
When pundits speak of Jews deserting Obama, his tenuous policies on Israel come to mind. Yet Paul Miller, a political consultant to both the Greenberg and Friedman campaigns who has long been involved in Illinois politics (disclosure: he is a relative), sees things differently. To Miller, Jews are first and foremost experiencing politics as would any American citizen, and Illinois rivals California for the state in the most dire economic condition.
And in a bit that could have been written by my regular commenter, Sunlight...
Jews are slowly beginning to understand that compassion and social justice cannot mean a coerced transfer of the benefits of their labor to someone else. The concepts of tzedakah (charity) and tikkun olam (repairing the world) are moral obligations of the individual, not obligations imposed on the individual by the state. As Jews see the administrative costs of government, the debt, and the economic chaos, they are beginning to understand unrestrained leftism has nothing to do with their values. One can better repair the world by creating economic conditions where people have the opportunity to prosper.
Well, those of us who study the sources saw that a long time ago.... J
ews are beginning to untie their Democratic moorings, because this is now not the party of JFK, but of Jimmy Carter. That is Barack Obama’s unique contribution to the transformation of the Jewish vote.
...
Most Jews will vote for Obama, but American elections generally have been about the margins. And the difference between 88% and 60% of the Jewish vote certainly can make a difference, especially if that translates to other contests down the ballot.
Indeed.
Now, lest you all get your hopes up, I asked Joel Pollak a while back if he would consider challenging Schakowsky again. Joel, who is now at Breitbart.com, told me that, for now at least, he's not thinking about it. Maybe we can get him to reconsider?
2010's top 10 uncomfortable moments for 'pro-Israel progressives'
The Republican Jewish Coalition's Noah Silverman has compiled a list of the ten most uncomfortable moments for 'pro-Israel progressives' in 2010. Here are some of the highlights.
1. September: J Street's Soros Ties/Lies Exposed
2. January: 54 U.S. House Democrats Urge Obama to Seek Reversal of Measures Instituted to Prevent Rocket Attacks from Hamas-ruled Gaza
3. March: 'Yes, we can' snub our Israeli friends
4. June: Helen Thomas flames out
Read it all. I wonder why he left Jan Schakowsky off the list. Hmmm.
Here are some very interesting remarks by Joel Pollak about his recent election battle with J Street Jan Schakowsky.
Let's go to the videotape.
Joel has also written an article about his campaign. There's one small line about Israel.
We also sent a powerful message to the Obama administration about the need for stronger U.S. support for Israel. While Israel was never the focus of the campaign, it was an important priority. We led a nationwide push-back against the far-left J Street organization, which supported Schakowsky lavishly. In so doing, we helped Republicans defeat J Street Democrats in races across the country, further marginalizing the group.
On his Facebook page, Joel Pollak expresses surprise that Jan Schakowsky felt that an Israel forum that the two attended was 'an enemy camp.' Schakowsky defeated Pollak in Illinois' 9th Congressional district on Tuesday.
It’s an odd description, considering that she had reserved 200 seats for her supporters, and that J Street also reserved 100 seats for her cheering section. Some of the people in attendance were undecided as to whom they would support.
So what made it an “enemy camp”? Here is her full, unedited quote:
“It was the oddest feeling, that somehow I was in an enemy camp. It was really unsettling. He was saying some really awful things. I mean, I went to Zionist camp as a kid.” (Source: http://blogs.forward.com/mitz-vote/132805/#ixzz14K7DBZJW)
Those who wish to debunk Schakowsky’s ridiculous description for themselves should review the video of the forum at: http://www.youtube.com/toprotectourheritage
Schakowsky also says that my position on Israel was "an effort to try to pander to Jewish donors, voters, to split off the Jews." That shows, more than anything else, how little she understands the issue.
...
The reason Israel is becoming a partisan issue is not because of Republican criticism of the Obama administration’s policy, but because of the policy itself, and the way it is being pushed through groups like J Street and far-left ideologues like Schakowsky.
If you oppose, or even criticize, that policy, you are an “enemy.” President Obama himself has used similar language to describe opposition.
(J Street's supporters complain that Israel's defenders treat them the same way. I disagree, but if anything, J Street and Schakowsky have shown that they are at least as bad as those they oppose.)
It's a pity that she won and he lost and that so many Jews voted for her. Hopefully in 2012 the result will be different.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
