Trump decries 'great disloyalty' of Jews who vote for Democrats

Image result for trump

President Trump said Tuesday that Jews who vote for Democrats were either ignorant or disloyal.

Trump was asked if the United States should reconsider its policies toward Israel after the country refused to permit two Muslim-American U.S. congresswomen to enter.

“Any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” said Trump. It wasn’t clear what he meant by “disloyalty” — and whether it be to Israel, the United States or their faith.

Although Trump has many prominent Jewish supporters and won in 2016 in some heavily Orthodox neighborhoods of New York City, the majority of American Jews have supported Democrats for generations, and continue to do so.

Trump has spent much of 2019 attempting to paint the Democratic Party as anti-Semitic, picking fights with two Muslim-American congresswomen, Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, both freshman Democrats who were denied entry by the Netanyahu government, at Trump’s insistence, when they sought to visit the West Bank. Tlaib was eventually granted a humanitarian waiver to visit family but she declined, saying the conditions Israel attached were unacceptable.

“The Israeli government used my love and desire to see my grandmother to silence me and made my ability to do so contingent upon my signing a letter — reflecting just how undemocratic and afraid they are of the truth my trip would reveal,” said Tlaib in a statement.

Slideshow preview image
Four Democratic Congresswomen of Color Call Themselves 'The Squad'
According to a Pew Research study, 79 percent of Jewish voters went for Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Pew said this number has varied over the years, from 87 percent in 2006 to 66 percent in 2014. In presidential races, the Jewish vote since 2000 has ranged from 69 percent to 79 percent for Democrats, with Hillary Clinton getting 71 percent against Trump in the 2016 race.

The president himself has trafficked in “dual loyalty” accusations, referring to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu as “your prime minister” when talking at a conference of Jewish-Americans and has called Israel “your country” at a White House Hanukkah celebration. Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric was blamed by some Jews for inspiring a terror attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue in which 11 people died last year.

While Trump and several Republicans have accused the congresswomen of being anti-Semitic, IfNotNow, a progressive Jewish group that has supported both Tlaib and Omar, sees the president as the one spreading hate.

“American Jews see through Trump’s lies,” Emily Mayer, IfNotNow’s spokeswoman, said in a statement to Yahoo News. “We watched as his 2016 campaign regularly used anti-Semitic tropes and inspired the rise of white nationalism. We’re still watching as he spews anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Oval Office, inspiring mass violence — and putting so many Americans, including our community, in real danger.

“Rashida has been one of the strongest allies of the Jewish people,” Mayer added. “Trump is once again cynically weaponizing our community’s pain to brush aside legitimate criticism of Israel’s human rights violations.”

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, converted to Judaism when she married Jared Kushner and their children are Jewish. Trump has called himself “the least anti-Semitic person you’ve ever seen.”



Harris campaign faces crossroads

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) energized Democratic fundraisers over the weekend with her enthusiasm and prescription for defeating President Trump, according to donors who attended her events. 

“I'm convinced she's the next president of the United States,” one longtime Democratic fundraiser told The Hill after attending a sold-out gathering at director Spike Lee’s home on Martha's Vineyard, the Massachusetts island where dozens of Democratic power brokers spend the summer. The fundraiser was one of three events held for the senator over the weekend.  

Other donors echoed the sentiment, praising Harris’s exuberance and ability to excite people in the room.

The former California attorney general has long been seen as a candidate with crossover appeal who can win over moderates and liberals alike and who has the ability to catch fire in the race. 

But her campaign has lost steam nearly two months after an electric performance at the first Democratic debates, strategists and political observers say. 

Five polls taken after the second round of Democratic debates put her in the single digits, consistently behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).  

As a result, Harris’s trip to an enclave of the Democratic base at the height of the summer vacation season comes with her campaign at something of a crossroads. 

The daughter of an Indian mother and Jamaican father, Harris has an inspiring background and life story that seems to speak to the times. 

She has strengths that compare favorably to all of her main rivals, from her age, her ethnic background and even her state: She’s a Californian to the core, growing up in a state that is now a bastion of Democratic power. She’s a relatively new face to the national political stage, but she also has experience as a former attorney general and now senator. 

Yet Harris also has some weakness, some of which strategists say have been exacerbated by her campaign to date. 

She’s positioned herself as both a progressive and a moderate, causing her to be viewed as “inauthentic,” said one Democratic strategist. 

“I still don’t think anyone really understands why she’s running,” the strategist said. “And if you’re running for president and you don’t know why you're running, no one else will either.” 

Earlier this month, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver said Harris “seems to be stuck in between Joe Biden, on the one hand, and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on her other more left-leaning hand.”

“And that’s starting to show up in the numbers,” Silver said. 

He pointed to a Quinnipiac Poll which showed that “there’s no single group of Democrats—say wealthy or young or black” among whom Harris is polling at higher than 10 percent.” 

The large field, which includes two dozen candidates, has also made it tough for Harris, political observers say.

“It's so hard in a field of two dozen to capture attention on a relatively regular basis and if you don't have that attention you tend to drift downward,” said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University. “And really it's happened to almost everyone.”

Jillson said while Harris had her breakout moment in the first debate, when she challenged Biden’s opposition to federal busing, the electorate’s “second sense of it was more mixed.” 

A Harris campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. 

Another strategist, who is not attached to any of the campaigns, said Harris has suffered because she’s been “very cautious with her approach” drawing comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s cautious campaign in 2016. 

Basil Smikle, who served as the executive director of the New York State Democratic Party and is a former aide to Clinton, said Harris has been unable to overcome the initial perception of her candidacy.

“To her detriment, many voters initially viewed Harris as a good VP pick for someone like Biden and she didn’t have the built-in national constituency that Biden, Warren or Sanders possessed,” Smikle said. 

But Smikle said there’s time for Harris to recover. 

“She’s well-established in the top tier of candidates and benefits from any slippage in Biden’s black voters and redistribution of support when others drop out of the race,” he said, adding that as of now, “Harris has the money to stay competitive through the early states and perhaps until super Tuesday when her home state of California gets to vote.”  

Another factor that could work in Harris’s favor: Biden’s recent verbal gaffes. 

“His lead is a bit tenuous,” Jillson said.  “And once you get below him there are negatives with Sanders and Warren with some people who think they’re too far left. 

“What that means for Kamala Harris is be as solid as you can be to always be there for a second look,” he added. “Some people that look beyond Biden and see Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, will keep looking.”



This Is The Most Important Result Of Donald Trump's Election

All Americans should take some comfort from the revelations of the scheme by top officials across the Obama administration to subvert the 2016 election. It has a very important silver lining. Donald Trump’s improbable election turned a klieg light on the termite-infested foundation of our Republic. Some of those vermin are mighty big.

The exposure of the Clinton Campaign/Fusion GPS/John Brennan/James Comey/DOJ/FBI/State Department cabal to undermine the will of the American people in the 2016 election exposed the vast corruption at the highest levels of our kleptocratic establishmentarian government. 

In fact, I think a conservative case could be made that the most important result of Donald Trump's 2016 election had nothing to do with Trump at all. It had nothing to do with Mr. Trump’s very important pro-growth tax and regulatory policies, which have supercharged our economy, or with his strengthening our military and setting our international adversaries back on their heels with his projection of American strength. It had nothing to do with him unleashing our military to crush the Islamic State in a matter of months, a blight on the Middle East that the Obama administration had fostered and allowed to fester by pulling American troops from Iraq. It didn’t even involve the phenomenal, and phenomenally large, set of fine conservative jurists that President Trump has placed on the federal bench.

No, the greatest result of the 2016 election was the exposure of corruption so vast and so profound within and across the highest levels of our government that the American people (or those who are thinking anyway) had their breath taken away. 

Imagine where our country would be had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. Although the exposure of her secret unsecure email server began before the election, you can bet your bottom dollar that all investigations into it would have been shut down immediately on November 9, 2016. 

There would have been no Justice Department Inspector General’s report into the FBI whitewash investigation of Hillary’s illegal private email server. DOJ IG Michael Horowitz would have remained a relatively obscure government figure looking into abuses of G-cars by federal agents, or maybe sick leave abuse by DOJ employees. All Hillary and her cronies' trafficking of highly classified government information and wheeling and dealing on behalf of the corrupt Clinton Foundation would have been brushed under the proverbial rug. In fact, her Foundation would probably be flourishing right now, with dump truck loads of dollars from foreign officials lining up to buy favors from Uncle Sam.

And that whole phony, Russia-Trump “collusion” counterintelligence investigation launched against Donald Trump and his campaign? At best, it would have continued along quietly and then, just as quietly, fizzled out, having done its job of casting an ominous cloud over the Republican candidate, and having ensured Mr. Trump’s loss. Perhaps the FBI would have issued a quiet press release, probably around June 2017, saying that it found no basis for charging Mr. Trump or any of his campaign officials with colluding, conspiring, whatever, with Russians. Or perhaps, being a counterintelligence investigation, which traditionally have never been given any publicity by the Justice Department, it would have just died a completely silent death.

I marvel every day at how it was that America dodged this Clintonian bullet. The reckoning that Attorney General Barr and his top prosecutor, John Durham, are undertaking to examine this whole saga could not be more timely for the health and continuing viability of America as a functioning Republic, nor more profound. By all rights, it should usher in enormous changes in our government. Those changes should include the restructuring of the FBI, the FISA court system, and the Justice Department, to ensure those institutions are never again weaponized for political purposes.

Similarly, it becomes increasingly evident that the State Department, the National Security Agency and the CIA were, to one degree or another, compromised as well. Consideration must be given to putting systems in place to ensure that they too are never again put into the service of one political party against another.

Given the enormous technological powers that the federal government possesses today to spy on Americans – virtually each of whom now carries a device that can be used to track and listen in on them – the timeliness of this whole Barr/Durham exercise could not be more significant. The ability to gather vast quantities of information on all of us and put it to nefarious purposes, particularly if there is an alliance between giant tech companies like Google and Facebook with one political party or the other, poses a direct threat to our freedoms and democratic institutions. 

We are already seeing such tech industry-political party collaboration. Consider “Google’s remarkably close relationship with the Obama White House,” in the words of none other than the leftist publication The Intercept, which reported 427 separate visits by Google staffers to the Obama White House between January 2009 and October 2015. Now what on earth could all those visits have been about?

Let’s put aside for the moment the information collection capabilities of these companies, like Google, and how that could be used to advantage a political party.  Consider their ability to influence voters by, in the case of Google, altering its search algorithms to help certain candidates, or in the case of Facebook, by sending out targeted “Go Vote!” messages only to Democratic voters. 

Self-described Hillary supporter and non-conservative, psychologist Robert Epstein, former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, has written extensively and testified before Congress about the dangers of tech companies favoring one candidate over another. (His testimony to Ted Cruz is a must-see.) And he knows whereof he speaks. He conducted an academic study on this issue, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the impact of search engine manipulation on voting. Notwithstanding his liberal leanings, Dr. Epstein believes that almost all of Hillary’s popular vote margin over Donald Trump in 2016 could be attributed to Google influencing undecided voters through search engine manipulation, with that manipulation accounting for 2.6 million of Hillary’s votes. 

As Dr. Epstein told PJ Media: “This is not a problem for conservatives. This is a problem for humanity. Who gave a handful of executives in Silicon Valley the right to decide what billions of people around the world can see and cannot see? Who gave them that power?" Dr. Epstein’s research in this area is now the subject of a documentary, “The Creepy Line.” Dr. Epstein emphasized the ability of the tech companies to influence voters is almost invisible to the public. The numerous tools available to tech companies to influence our election may have shifted more than ten million votes to Hillary in 2016, Dr. Epstein asserts.

The corruption that has been exposed, both by those within the government willing to weaponize it for political purposes, and by their alliances with tech companies willing to manipulate us, is a direct threat to our form of government. The exterminators better be on the way, or 2016 may have been our last (at least partially) fair presidential election.


National Weather

Click on map for forecast

The Opinion Poll

Yes - 75%
No - 18.8%
Undecided - 6.3%