I wonder what Hitler would have thought about medical marijuana

Posted on September 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Gerard J. Perry: Hitler was anti-pot but pro-meth.

hitler_07

Miriam: “What would Hitler think”, is that your equivalent of Christian’s “WWJD?”

Joshua Pitterman: I always ask myself what would Hitler think before I do anything important, I feel hashem loves Irony.

Miriam: Ha! This made my day. Thank you.

Posted in Adolf Hitler | Comments Off on I wonder what Hitler would have thought about medical marijuana

What Next For The Goy?

Posted on September 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek writes: What next, for Goy-America, once they fall short with Trump? Time for serious thinking and practical action, as only a Jew (I wish to be the Leon Trotsky of the alt-right) can conceive. For starters, the goy must learn how to boycott corporations that work against his interests, which these, days, are most of them. Big, popular, powerful corporations, like Disney, the NFL/NBA, and many others that keep the goy entertained and passive.
The goy must also elect wise men and women to high office who are smart enough to create ad hoc alliances with some-time foes when and where doing so advances goy interests. For example: alliances with the Left against corporate power in America, alliances with Muslims against Hollywood’s Hebrew Homosexuals, alliances with Hollywood’s Hebrew Homosexuals against the gay Jew-hating Muslim invaders, alliances with Black Men against Hispanic invaders, alliances with Hispanics against certain black groups, alliances with black Americans against Asian Americans (e.g. by supporting certain kinds of affirmative action programs), alliances with Asian Americans against those they regard as their racial inferiors (e.g. blacks), etc.
In other words, the goy must learn to think like what he has allowed himself to become in the land of his fathers: a minority group with special interests of his own. The goy must learn to think like a Jew. Is the goy up to that task? This Liberal Upper West Side Jew thinks not.

Posted in America | Comments Off on What Next For The Goy?

WP: Why even Republicans think Clinton won the first debate

Posted on September 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

I thought Trump did fine and I expect him to keep rising in the polls.

All the Republicans the Post quotes have been strongly against Trump from the beginning of his presidential run, but the newspaper does not note this. They are hardly disinterested observers. They are invested in Trump losing.

Frank Luntz tweeted that Trump was winning the first half of the debate. Trump had a strong first 25 minutes. I thought Hillary tired about an hour in and became less articulate, though she finished strong. I thought Trump lost his discipline about 25 minutes in and missed many opportunities to score.

The experts have been wrong about Trump since last summer. I think they are wrong about him again today with their opinions on the debate. Average Americans will keep responding positively to Donald Trump.

WP: “Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton lacked stamina. But guess who wilted in the debate?”

I thought Trump was high energy the whole debate even though much of it was two against one (with the moderator, Lester Holt, challenging Trump much more aggressively than Clinton and delivering commentaries such as “the records shows otherwise”, etc,). Clinton wilted in the middle and then came back strong.

The Washington Post thinks otherwise:

THE BIG IDEA: The consensus that Donald Trump badly lost the first debate gelled overnight. Liberals predictably panned the GOP nominee’s performance on Long Island, but some of the harshest reviews are coming from conservative thought leaders who had been starting to come around.

— Instant reaction:

Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of undecided voters in Pennsylvania. Sixteen said Hillary Clinton won. Five picked Trump, per CBS News.

In a Florida focus group organized by CNN, 18 of 20 undecided voters picked Clinton as the winner.

Not one of 29 undecided voters in an Ohio focus group organized by Park Street Strategies thought Trump prevailed, while 11 picked Clinton and the rest said neither. By a two-to-one margin, the group thought Clinton had the better tone and, by a three-to-one margin, they thought she came across as more knowledgeable candidate on the issues.

A CNN/ORC flash poll found that 62 percent said the Democrat won, compared to 27 percent who picked Trump. That’s on par with 2012, when Mitt Romney was seen as the winner of the first debate.

In a separate instant-poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, 51 percent said Clinton won and 40 percent picked Trump.

Eight in 10 insiders in the key battleground states thought Clinton performed better, including 57 percent of Republicans, according to the Politico Caucus survey.

reporters during a gaggle. “Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room. I wonder, was that on purpose?” There was no clear problem with his microphone during the debate, Jose DelReal notes.

Trump was supposed to stop by the Nassau County Republican Committee’s watch party on his way home. He skipped it. Clinton, meanwhile, celebrated with hundreds of supporters in Westbury.

And Rudy Giuliani, a top Trump surrogate, even suggested that Trump should skip the next two debates unless he gets concessions. “If I were Donald Trump I wouldn’t participate in another debate unless I was promised that the journalist would act like a journalist and not an incorrect, ignorant fact checker,” he said.
— It was a debate about Trump. Like the whole 2016 cycle, the GOP nominee sucked up all the oxygen. Facebook says eight in 10 posts about the debate focused on him. Twitter said 62 percent of debate-related tweets were about him.

— But Trump’s lack of preparation showed. There were too many missed opportunities to count.

“I’m not positive Hillary actually won the debate. But I’m sure Trump lost it. He choked,” writes Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol.

“Even if you are a Trump supporter, you have to think that he left a lot on the table,” writes GOP supper lobbyist Ed Rogers, a veteran of the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses. “He didn’t see the openings and he didn’t swing at the softballs that came his way. He never used the word ‘change,’ he didn’t bore in on Hillary’s email scandal and he never got around to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s suspect integrity. Trump was inarticulate and rarely hit the bull’s eye.”

 “He was exciting but embarrassingly undisciplined,” writes New York Post conservative columnist John Podhoretz. “He began with his strongest argument — that the political class represented by her has failed us and it’s time to look to a successful dealmaker for leadership — and kept to it pretty well for the first 20 minutes. Then due to the vanity and laziness that led him to think he could wing the most important 95 minutes of his life, he lost the thread of his argument, he lost control of his temper and he lost the perspective necessary to correct these mistakes as he went. By the end … Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking.”

“After the first 20 minutes, it may have been the most lopsided debate I’ve ever seen — and not because Clinton was particularly effective. But you don’t need to be good when your opponent is bad,” writes National Review’s David French, who considered running for president as an independent. “Why didn’t he have a better answer ready for the birther nonsense? Has he still not done any homework on foreign policy? I felt like I was watching the political Titanic hit the iceberg, back up, and hit it again. Just for fun.”

The Fix’s Chris Cillizza notes in his piece on the night’s winners and losers that Trump never even mentioned the phrase basket of deplorables. “Trump was simply not prepared well enough for this debate,” says Cillizza. “His [birther answer] was like watching a car accident in slow motion.”

As Dana Milbank writes, “Trump ostentatiously avoided preparation — playing the proverbial high school slacker drinking beer behind the bleachers while the teacher’s pet was in the library. But Monday night was the revenge of the nerd.”

From the chief strategist of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign:

From the chief strategist of John Kasich’s 2016 campaign:

Trump’s web site was not even ready for the deluge of traffic. It crashed.

— Trump got worse with each passing exchange. “In the early stages, Clinton and Trump seemed evenly matched, but the longer it went on, the more she was able to score against him,” writes Dan Balz, The Post’s chief correspondent.

Trump took the stage subdued, trying to show he’s serious, but he became peeved as he allowed Clinton’s attacks to get under his skin. “Within minutes of the opening bell, Clinton’s attacks forced domesticated Donald to go feral – he bellowed, interrupted her repeatedly, grunted, and toward the bedraggled end, became muted and pouty,” writes Politico’s Glenn Thrush.

“’I did not! I did not! I do not say that,’ he shouted as Clinton accused him of calling climate change a hoax, which he has said on numerous occasions,” Jenna Johnson recounts. “‘Facts!’ he yelled as Clinton began to question the accuracy of his assertions. ‘Wrong! Wrong!’ he said as Clinton stated that he initially supported the Iraq War, which he had. ‘Where did you find it? Oh really?’ Trump said as Clinton referred to a beauty pageant contestant who has accused Trump of calling her ‘Miss Housekeeping’ because she is Latina.”

“Trump needed to conceal his temper … and appear ready to be president. He didn’t,” writes conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin. “There were too many instances in which the real Donald showed through. Clinton wasn’t emotive, but she was cool and efficient in drawing blood.”

“If her goal was to get under Trump’s skin — you know, sniff out his weakness, and bait him into losing his temper — it worked,” adds conservative columnist Matt Lewis. “She got under that thin skin by talking about his inherited wealth and questionable status as a billionaire.”

— Trump played to his base. He did nothing to win over fresh converts or reassure recalcitrant Republicans. Sean Hannity’s audience is not who he needs to win over.

“Unpersuaded college educated white women didn’t come away from this debate — at least not in large numbers — feeling reassured by Trump,” conservative Jonah Goldberg writes in National Review. “Clinton was narrowcasting at the voters she needs. Trump was broadcasting to the voters he already has. … If you’re truly pro-Hillary or pro-Trump it doesn’t matter what you thought tonight. Your vote is baked in. But if you’re on the fence or thinking about not voting at all, your impression matters — a lot. And in this regard, I think Clinton was the winner.”

“Hillary was well-informed and unflappable; Trump got across his major themes but was probably too Trump to widen support,” National Review executive editor Rich Lowry concludes. “I thought Trump might save a weak substantive performance with some big moments, but he didn’t have any that cut his way.”

“It is hard to imagine that there was a single moment in the debate that would have convinced a wavering college-educated woman in the Philadelphia or Cincinnati suburbs to vote for Trump,”  writes Roll Call columnist Walter Shapiro. “In fact, Trump seemed to be debating with the single-minded goal of turning his gender gap into a canyon. … In 1973, a trash-talking, over-age self-described ‘chauvinist pig’ named Bobby Riggs took on Billie Jean King in a tennis match in the Houston Astrodome that was billed as The Battle of the Sexes. King won in straight sets. History repeated itself Monday. … Clinton defeated Trump in straight sets.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on WP: Why even Republicans think Clinton won the first debate

The Debate Begins

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Both candidates look dialed in.

* Trump needs a tissue.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Just by remaining on her feet for more than 90 minutes, Hillary Clinton won the debate with her freak-flag flying high. Since her Sept. 11th collapse in New York, her candidacy has been bleeding profusely. Tonight, she managed to apply a fresh bandage to her electoral prospects – – – she’s upright and fighting and back in the game! But if she disappears for several days, her physical resillency will once again become a matter of pressing concern. The palsy or Parkinson’s was evident in various facial ticks at about 9:50PM and became more aggressively pronounced between 10:15PM and 10:20PM. But for most of the debate, Trump was diffuse while Mrs. Clinton was focused.

Trump was the usual Trump – – – jumping all over the place and getting lost in the weeds. You’ve got to hand it to Hillary : she knows how to lie and go down with her ship of lies, if need be, without batting an eye. An average debater (Trump is sub-par by any measure) would have been able to easily expose her prevarications but Trump is all wrapped up in himself, as ever the blind egotist, sweating and sweating to get an irrelevant word in at all costs.

Mrs. Clinton, tonight, may not have managed to appear likable but at least she managed to appear tolerable. Trump’s incredulous glance kept darting in her direction the whole time. He seemed to be hoping for the physical collapse of his opponent but Hillary Clinton’s medical staff was in top form tonight. Whatever Frankenstein concoction Mrs. Clinton took in the hours before 9:00PM, it kept her going until 10:35PM! BRAVO, Hillary! Risen from the political dead and back from the flim-flam grave! Try not to stumble, though, before November 8th, otherwise you’ll find yourself falling right back in!

* They say the extended release version of Adderall lasts about four hours. But even with instant release, once you’re “in the zone” you can sometimes stay there long after the effects should have worn off- especially if you’re a tad (or more than a tad) hypomanic to begin with.

* The choice of a moderator was interesting. I’d not seen him before. A black AA hire is generally going to be a loyal Democrat. He was obviously anti-Trump, and did not hide it by going after Clinton in even a token fashion. This was the usual MSM we have come to know and resent.

Although Trump did win on trade and crime, it was a bit like a soccer game where the striker gets an open goal several times and can’t convert. When Hillary mentioned as part of a demonstration of her stamina, her ability to withstand congressional hearings for 12 hours, she was a sitting duck although that was practically an own goal on her behalf. It was as if Nixon or Clinton were to argue about their stamina to go through the impeachment process. Sometimes the lemons are so bad one should not even consider making lemonade. The openings were there to nail her on several occasions, and he didn’t.

Trump did nail her on other occasions. I agree that one of his most effective points was that she has been part of the government for a while now, with nothing but failure to show for it.

Overall I think Trump came out looking better. Hillary’s health is still questionable. Towards the end there was a moment where she came dangerously close to the “I should be 50 points ahead!” tone. And it’s always easy to criticize from the sidelines.

* That’s the media’s love hate relationship with populist politicians. On the one hand they hate Trump from an ideological point of view, but on the other hand they find him entertaining and newsworthy.

Your critics seem to forget that we live in a capitalist society where the media needs ratings to attract advertisers and make money. The MSM may be biased but it isn’t a government funded sociology department.

* I have no doubt this debate took a supreme effort from Hillary and her doctor. If she is as sick as some pointed out, this debate took a lot out of her and something she can’t recover from very rapidly.

Remember right after the DNC convention, Hillary and Veep were planning on touring the mid-west in a converted Greyhound bus. FoxNews even made a big show of it. It didn’t happen, she just vanished.

I just wonder if Hillary will do the same again. Or go to ground for about a week then show up for fund raisers and rigged TV shows for a 20 minute sit down.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Debate Begins

Playing By The Rules

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

A friend says: Guys like us would have done better by smoking a bit of weed and drinking more alcohol (or in my case, any).

There comes a time when a man must own up to what has not worked out for him e.g., abstinence, prudence, caution, obeying all the rules.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Playing By The Rules

Trump Vs Hillary Open Thread

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

I have listened to an hour of CNN commentary prior to the debate and not a word about the importance of her looking healthy.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Trump should say that ending illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration will put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of foreigners. Trump should say that Hillary Clinton sides with foreigners instead of the American people.

Women voters know that mass immigration and illegal immigration swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals, lowers wages and destroys cultural cohesion. Women voters know that mass immigration allows the infiltration of radical Islamic terrorists. Women voters know that mass immigration brings crime, infectious diseases and multicultural mayhem.

Trump might say: “Hillary Clinton and the Democrats want to erase the US border. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats want to give amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal alien invaders. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats will leave the United States vulnerable to radical Islamic terrorism. I will defend and protect the United States of America.”

* All through the 2015/2016 Election season I’ve kept thinking… where have I seen this movie before? It finally hit me. Donald Trump IS Daniel Larusso. His rise in 2016 is the story of The Karate Kid.

We meet the main character first. Trump grew up just outside Manhattan. So did Daniel-san. Both have a personality that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. First impressions are hard for them. Frankly, so are second impressions. And third impressions. They make lots of social mistakes. And when you’re new, and you show up with a different look, people make fun of you.

In the beginning, outsiders like Trump/Daniel have to go it alone. It looks like a very long road. You know what the movie is about but it seems so unlikely. President/karate champ? At the outset, it seems impossible. I mean, they have flirted with politics/karate a little in the past. But they have no formal training. In the beginning, Trump/Daniel-san see one tenuous possibility for a special connection. They want Elizabeth Shue/voters to fall for them.

Now, Shue/voters used to date Johnny. Who is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Johnny/Clinton is a mean looking blonde who knows everything there is to know about karate/politics. Doesn’t matter. Trump/Daniel-san have to pursue that which they love…

For showing interest in Shue/voters, Trump/Daniel draw fire. Not just from Johnny/Clinton, but from the whole Cobra Kai Dojo/Political Establishment. Which is overseen, obviously, by John Kreese/the mainstream media. Theoretically, everyone in the dojo/Establishment should have a shot at winning, but Kreese/media clearly favors Johnny/Clinton. It seems odd that Kreese/media is giving Johnny/Clinton all these advantages. Why? Is it necessary? Isn’t Johnny/Clinton the best? Hmmm…

It’s particularly crazy that Kreese/media lock in on, and malign some long-shot outsider like Daniel/Trump early on. Johnny/Clinton becomes obsessed with Daniel/Trump too. Huge mistake. Instead of focusing on their own work (messaging and policy/karate) they waste energy heaping scorn on their rival. Is it really necessary to swarm this new guy on bikes in skeleton costumes/ writing endless op-eds about everything he says? No. It’s insane. But that’s just the way with Daniel/Trump. They’re the main character of any story they’re in. They’re magnetic somehow. Still. Clinton/Johnny seem poised to crush Trump/Daniel.

But Trump/Daniel-san have an ace in the hole. They glean wisdom from a mentor who had been in the arena before. Mr. Miyagi… and Ann Coulter. Coulter, like Miyagi, is a loner. And basically a wizard at sparring even though you’d never know it to look at them. These mentors instill values, and offer tactical advice that seems crazy to other experts in the field of politics/karate.

It starts, in both cases, with the construction of a big beautiful barricade. Paint the fence. Build the wall. In both cases, it’s getting done for cheap.

All the seemingly unrelated skills Trump/Daniel acquire through hard work ultimately translate to politics/karate. Waxing cars, sanding floors… managing a real estate empire, becoming a reality TV star… It all adds up. When the fighting starts in earnest, they are way more prepared than their enemy thinks. Than anyone thinks.

The Republican Primaries. The All Valley Karate Tournament? Same difference. It’s just Trump/Daniel shocking the world by plowing everyone in sight. Who saw it coming? Jeb! and Kasich, Fiorina. So many vanquished foes writhing on the floor. Utterly shocked at their humiliating defeats. It had to be a fluke right? Nope.

Daniel/Trump change the game with unconventional moves nobody has ever seen before. There’s a lot less feignting and jabbing and dancing around than all the other challengers.

But Trump and Daniel are very human. They’re vulnerable. Especially to dirty tricks. It’s hard to win a tournament when the biggest powerbroker in the sport (Kreese/media) hate your guts. They try to knock Trump/Daniel out any way they can. Gold star dad! Sweep the leg! David Duke! Put him in a body bag!!!

Trump/Daniel look wounded. Honestly, how can they still even be standing up? But these guys (Trump/Daniel) are just relentless. They love Shue/voters. And they see Shue/voters are starting to love them back. And it gives them strength.

They get in the arena, stand tough, square up, and after a brief misdirect… kick Johnny/Clinton straight in the face. Clinton/Johnny are basically out on their feet. They wobble and hit the deck. And just like that… it’s over. That’s what is about to happen tonight.

By the way, in the sequel, Daniel/Trump, having defeated all challengers in the States, go rep their country abroad… And they defeat Asians at their own game. Watch out, China.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Trump Vs Hillary Open Thread

Would I Stay Quiet For $100?

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Friend: If I paid you $100, do you think you could manage not to watch, read or comment on the upcoming debate?
Luke: No
Friend: $1,000?
Luke: No
Friend: Lol, I figured. Enjoy your “sex.”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Would I Stay Quiet For $100?

Heidegger Was A Nazi

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

I don’t know why this is any more shocking than that many of the greatest scientists and generals of the 20th Century were Nazis.

There is nothing inherently unphilosophical about Nazism, a movement of ethno-nationalism. If Germany would have won WWII, Nazism may well have become the dominant Western philosophy of the 20th Century. The Nazis were people like you and me. They loved their people and they wanted it to prosper, even at the expense of other people.

Murder, conquest, racism and dictatorship were not unique to the Nazis.

A Jewish friend says: “It really bugs me the self righteousness of critics of those who fell under the sway of Nazism. We are all products of our time and circumstances. It takes a really brave and unusual person to stand up against the tides of conformism, peer pressure, and social, economic, professional advancement. That someone is a brilliant philosopher doesn’t provide immunity. All this shows is that Heidegger was human and subject to human needs and wants.”

Adam Kirsch writes:

One of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century was a Nazi. There is no disputing this stark fact: Few people would argue Martin Heidegger’s claim to preeminence, and his Nazism, at least at first, was public and enthusiastic. In the spring of 1933, a few months after Hitler took power, Heidegger joined the Nazi Party and was elected rector of Freiburg University, where his expressed goal was Gleichschaltung—the “alignment” of the academy with the new party-state. At his inaugural ceremony, the audience gave the Hitler salute and sang the Horst Wessel Song, the anthem of the Nazi party, before Heidegger spoke about “the glory and greatness of this new beginning.” Just what was involved in the “glory and greatness” of National Socialism was already on full display: Dachau opened in March, Jewish businesses were boycotted in April, and Heidegger was sworn in as rector in May. He lasted only a year before he was outpoliticked by cruder and more aggressive Nazi academics, and for the rest of the Third Reich he made no overt political statements. Yet Heidegger never publicly apologized for his early endorsement and service of Hitler, nor fully reckoned with what his Nazism meant for his legacy as a thinker.

Yet for some reason among philosophers and intellectuals there seems to be perpetual amnesia about this subject. Heidegger’s Nazism was common knowledge to anyone who lived through the 1930s. After World War II, he was banned from teaching by the Allied occupation authorities because of his Nazi allegiances. But when biographers Victor Farias and Hugo Ott wrote about Heidegger’s political involvement in the 1980s, the world of thought, especially in Germany and France, greeted it as an explosive new discovery. The same thing happened in 2005, when Emmanuel Faye unearthed Heidegger’s course lectures from 1933-35 and showed that he had, in Faye’s terms, accomplished “the introduction of Nazism into philosophy.”

…Why is this 80-year-old story still able to shock? The reason must be that, no matter how much we find out about Heidegger’s Nazism, it still seems like a contradiction in terms. After all, we think we know what Nazis are like and what philosophers are like, and the two identities simply don’t match. Thinkers are supposed to be idealistic, moral defenders of the highest values of civilization; fascists are brutal, barbaric, appealing to humanity’s lowest instincts. Nazis burn books; philosophers write them. But Heidegger did both. In 1927, he published one of the most influential books in the history of philosophy, Being and Time; six years later, as rector of Freiburg University, he presided over a public bonfire of “un-German” books, proclaiming, “Flame, announce to us, light up for us, show us the path from which there is no turning back.” Like the famous optical illusion in which the same figure is both a duck and a rabbit, then, we keep twisting and turning our image of Heidegger, trying to see in him both the Nazi and the philosopher at the same time.

…Of course, Heidegger’s thought does not lead directly to fascism. On the contrary, his most important readers were French existentialists like Sartre and Camus, who believed the ideal of freedom called for commitment to the anti-Nazi resistance. But in an important sense, Heidegger leaves the door open for fascism, because he values the intensity and authenticity of a belief over its goodness or truthfulness. In a world defined by nihilism, any source of strong new beliefs and convictions is potentially redemptive. That is why, in the early days of the Hitler dictatorship, Heidegger could take the new Nazi regime as a potential source of new values—an assertion of will that would create an entirely new spiritual and philosophical world.

This hope is expressed again and again in the “Black Notebooks” for 1933, the year Hitler took power and Heidegger became rector of his university. “A marvelously awakening communal will is penetrating the great darkness of the world,” Heidegger writes. Nazism, with its rhetoric of destiny and rebirth, was going to define new coordinates for human life, simply by the authenticity and confidence of its self-assertion. These coordinates might be upside-down, from the perspective of conventional morality; Nazism might call murder, conquest, racism and dictatorship good, where the old Judeo-Christian morality thought them bad. But because values are determined by conviction, not vice versa, the Nazis could succeed in bringing into being a new world in which evil actually was good.

…A central part of the new Nazi “essence of truth,” of course, was anti-Semitism. When the accounts of Heidegger’s Nazism are drawn up, it has usually been counted in his favor that he was not a racist anti-Semite, as though this demonstrated the refinement of his own version of Nazism.

Posted in Nazi | Comments Off on Heidegger Was A Nazi

Was Benjamin Netanyahu’s Meeting With Donald Trump Another Case of Electoral Meddling?

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

J.J. Goldberg writes: The prime minister regards handling Israel’s international relations as one of his strong suits. And indeed, after meeting Donald Trump Sunday morning and Hillary Clinton that afternoon, he was able to assure Israeli citizens, as he told Army Radio, that “no matter the election results, we will have a friend in the White House.”

The last time he tried this was before America’s 2012 election. That was when he publicly embraced Republican candidate Mitt Romney and infuriated the sitting president, Barack Obama, a Democrat. Romney proceeded to lose the election, of course, and the prime minister was left with a sworn enemy in the White House.

That’s why Netanyahu insisted this time, after agreeing to a get-acquainted meeting with Trump, that Clinton be added to his schedule. Not that he needed to get acquainted with Clinton. They’ve known each other since his first term as prime minister, when she was first lady. More recently, she spent countless hours as secretary of state jawboning him, trying to advance a vision of peace that he didn’t share. They know each other all too well.

No, the main purpose of Netanyahu’s Sunday meet-the-candidates program was to give Trump an opportunity to look presidential. In a week when 100-plus world leaders were gathered in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, dozens wanted to touch base with the former secretary of state. Only two took the time to meet with Trump: Netanyahu and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah a-Sisi.

Nearly as important to Trump, meeting with the Israeli leader should help score points with pro-Israel conservatives in the Jewish and Evangelical communities. Trump’s poll numbers are strong in both of those voting blocs, but the support is uneasy. Both groups are giving him strong backing primarily because he’s not a Democrat and won’t appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But he’s not exactly a Republican either, at least in the normal sense of the word. Among his widest deviations from GOP doctrine are on foreign policy, abortion and gay rights. Those happen to be the top priorities of Jewish and Evangelical conservatives. Accordingly, a photo op with Prime Minister Netanyahu is worth its weight in super PAC donations.

The actual content of the two meetings was decidedly secondary.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Was Benjamin Netanyahu’s Meeting With Donald Trump Another Case of Electoral Meddling?

The Ultimate Jewish headline: “Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed Candidate — Just Like God”

Posted on September 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek: I’ll go one up on you: “. . . Except that Hillary is Real”

“Rabbi Avraham Bronstein has served at The Hampton Synagogue and Great Neck Synagogue and is a frequent writer and speaker on contemporary issues in Jewish thought.”

He writes: “The rabbis, according to Weiss, rejected an imperial conception of a God who is always correct and rules dictatorially, in favor of a God with whom we might experience the depth and power of an intimate covenantal relationship. A month after Rosh Hashanah, we should do the same when we choose our president.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on The Ultimate Jewish headline: “Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed Candidate — Just Like God”