The Democrats in the media and the federal bureaucracy are now full partners. After they are done with Trump, they will turn their attention to Israel.
By Caroline Glick, B. ISRAEL HAYOM
Nearly every week, the Democrats reach new heights of radicalism. Israel has good reason to be deeply worried.
Until 2000, the peaceful transition of power in the wake of elections was a feature of American democracy that everyone took for granted. In 2000, the Democrats shifted: They refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave George W. Bush his victory in the state, and through it, in the electoral college, until the Supreme Court ruled that the results were legitimate. Even after that ruling, many Democrats considered Bush’s victory and his presidency illegitimate.
In retrospect, the Democrats’ refusal to accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election results marked the beginning of the party’s radicalization.
The day after the election, Democrats coined a new term in American politics: “resistance.” Until then, the side that lost a presidential election was the “opposition.” But the Democrats don’t simply “oppose” Trump, they “resist” him.
The distinction is profound. An opponent recognizes the basic legitimacy of the person he opposes. A resister does not. The purpose of the anti-Trump resistance is not to offer an alternative path for governing. It is to nullify Trump’s presidency by, among other things, delegitimizing and dehumanizing Trump his family, associates and supporters. The resistance seeks to paralyze Trump’s presidency to prevent him from wielding the power of office and oust him from that office as quickly as possible.
To this end, for instance, the Democratic minority in the Senate has used procedural rules to slow roll Trump’s appointments to senior positions in the executive branch and impede his ability to govern.
The resistance is not limited to the partisan arena. During the 2016 elections, and to an even greater degree in their aftermath, Democrats in the US media and in the federal government – particularly in the intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic arms of government – joined Democratic politicians in their efforts to nullify the Trump candidacy and later presidency. Like the politicians, they have used the power of their positions to undermine and subvert Trump’s presidency to foment his departure from office.
We saw extra-political resistance in action with the attempt by senior FBI, CIA and Justice Department officials to criminalize Trump as a Russian agent through the use of the Clinton campaign’s so-called Steele dossier. The senior federal officials used the dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele for the Clinton campaign as a means to open an investigation against Trump’s campaign and against Trump himself and then cause the appointment of a special counsel to investigate their partisan-financed, false allegations.
As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in his book “Ball of Collusion” which examines the Russia collusion investigation, the liberal establishment in Washington “exploited its control of law enforcement and intelligence to help Clinton and undermine Trump. This is a scandalous abuse of power.”
When, after nearly two years, Robert Mueller closed down shop with no case against Trump, the Democrats in politics, the media and the federal government seized on a telephone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in July and presented it as the ultimate proof of Trump’s criminal nature, treating it as a high crime for which he must be impeached.
The Ukraine call impeachment ploy began in August when a CIA officer with ties to former vice president and Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden submitted a whistleblower complaint to the inspector general of the intelligence community.
The CIA officer alleged that during the course of a telephone conversation with Zelenskiy, Trump conditioned US military assistance to Ukraine on the Ukrainian prosecution opening a criminal investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that paid Biden’s son Hunter millions of dollars while his father as vice president was responsible for US’s bilateral ties with Ukraine.
Based on the whistleblower complaint, the Democrats claim Trump subordinated US national interests to his political interest of winning reelection in 2020. The fact that Biden himself bragged publicly that he forced the Ukrainian government to fire the state prosecutor who was conducting a criminal probe of Burisma by conditioning the provision of a billion dollars in US loan guarantees to Ukraine on his removal from office, is of no interest to the Democrats. In addition to the CIA officer, according to Politico, the allegations of malfeasance that form the basis of the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against Trump are being supported by State Department officials known for their hostility toward Trump.
Just as the Democrats aren’t bothered by Biden’s apparently corrupt behavior, so they are unmoved by the fact that Trump disproved the whistleblower allegation by releasing the full transcript of his conversation with Zelenskiy. From the transcript, it is apparent Trump made no connection between US military aid to Kiev and the actions of the Ukrainian state prosecution.
Despite the self-evident absurdity of the basis for their impeachment drive, the Democrats are conducting hearings and taking testimony from federal employees in secret rooms, and barring their Republican colleagues from attending.
The media aren’t merely supporting this farce. They are taking a leading role in propounding it. Last week, the investigative journalism organization Project Veritas released recorded footage of CNN President Jeff Zucker instructing his top news executives to push the impeachment story in their programming.
A transcript of a meeting in August between New York Times Executive Editor Dean Banquet and the paper’s editorial staff revealed a similar obsession at the Times with advancing the anti-Trump resistance.
The radicalization of the Democratic Party and party members in the media and government should be deeply worrying to Israel because as the party has radicalized it has shifted ever farther away from Israel. An event this coming weekend shows just how deeply and quickly it has abandoned its previous support for Israel.
Saturday, J Street will open its annual conference. J Street was founded in 2008 and calls itself a “pro-Israel and pro-peace” organization but like its precursor, its actions expose the falsity of its claim.
J Street was a key lobbyist for President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran which was devastating for Israel. It has campaigned to defeat pro-Israel lawmakers and to elect anti-Israel lawmakers. For instance, in 2012, J Street actively campaigned against Representatives Joe Walsh and Allen West, two of Israel’s most outspoken supporters in the House.
In 2018, during the Democratic primaries, when it mattered, J Street supported Rashida Tlaib’s bid for office. J Street endorsed former Nation of Islam spokesman Keith Ellison’s campaigns for the House of Representatives, and J Street condemned Israel for barring Ellison’s successor Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Tlaib (D-Mich.) from entering Israel as part of a tour promoting the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement last summer.
In 2014, only 37 House members failed to support a House measure to fund the Iron Dome system. Eleven of them were supported by J Street.
While J Street claims that it opposes the anti-Semitic BDS campaign, its campus outfit J Street U does not act against BDS campus groups and activists. Politically, J Street has campaigned against anti-BDS legislation.
In 2014, a large majority of members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations voted against J Street’s request for membership. The decision was eminently reasonable: 95% of American Jews support Israel. The group that seeks to serve as the mouthpiece of the entire Jewish community could not permit an organization that deliberately undermines Israel to become a member.
Israel was not involved in the conference’s decision-making. But it is a testament to Israel’s concern about J Street’s growing legitimacy that Ambassador Ron Dermer reportedly does not meet with J Street representatives.
In March, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference, the Democratic presidential candidates opted not to attend. This weekend, five Democratic presidential hopefuls will participate in J Street’s national conference.
And they aren’t alone. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are also scheduled to address the J Street audience. J Street’s ability to draw top Democrats, including the presidential candidates who refused to attend the AIPAC conference, makes clear just how comfortable the Democratic leadership has become with their party’s sharp turn away from Israel. This weekend the top Democrats will publicly identify with an organization whose easily discerned purpose is to water down and undermine the US-Israel alliance.
Then too, last weekend two top Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg indicated they supported using US military aid to Israel as a means to coerce the Israeli government into denying the property rights of Israeli Jews in Judea, Samaria and unified Jerusalem. In July, their fellow leading presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) expressed a similar position.
These statements are noteworthy for two reasons. First, they show how ridiculous the impeachment hearings are. There is no substantive difference between Trump’s alleged use of US military assistance to Ukraine as a means to coerce Ukraine to bow to his will and their intention to use US military aid to Israel to achieve a similar outcome. But of course, Warren, Buttigieg, and Sanders are coddled by the partisan media and left untouched by the bureaucracy. And Trump is being subjected to an impeachment probe.
The second noteworthy aspect of their threated action is what it means for the future of US-Israel ties in a post-Trump America. With the Democrats in the media and the federal bureaucracy now full partners in their party’s radical actions and initiatives, there is every reason to expect that after they finish with Trump, they will turn their attention to Israel.
@ Edgar G.:
No problem, pal ‘o mine. But, I really did answer the question twice, though the second time in more detail. Reread the earlier post which began: “It’s more of a mixed bag in New York…” And look at the articles and clip I posted to show about the conflict over Israel going on in the Democratic party, especially locally. The clip with Yang is terrific. He sounds like Trump. He doesn’t want to cut aid to Israel, he doesn’t want to pressure Israel over anything. He wants to rebuild the relationship. He doesn’t want to use the aid to “twist the arms of allies over issues they find important to them.” I did type out the transcript and I thought you’d find it amusing how he, and his lying pro-pal interlocutor insert fillers (um, like, uh, you know, really, voice going up in questioning tone for no reason, etc.) like all politicians today, practically. It’s hilarious. And they make fun of Trump? 30 years ago, they would have been laughed off the stage. Today, it’s folksy, though not in print. Reminds me of a 90s movie called, “Idiocracy” about two dimwitted people who are cryogenically frozen and wake up centuries later to find themselves celebrated as the smartest people on the planet.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
I Second AND Third your astute statement.
Thank You!
@ Sebastien Zorn:
If I didn’t know you, I would regard this last few sentences as unnecessarily offensive…completely uncalled for. I have never given that impression at any time that I am aware.
Perhaps, writing the post immediately above it, put you in a pugnacious mood. That’s O.K. (and I totally agree with your remarks, as you know.) I ALWAYS read them all, and I realise now, that what we all hear about, is only the “National” voting pattern of Jews. I was surprised at first about what you say about the Chassidim, but immediately could see their point about locally voting Dem.
I have a history of Tammany Hall, from the time Costello ran it , and everything else. And the “meeting them off the boat ” was explained there.
You, because of your Rent Control support, are in the same boat.
Anyway……simmer down…. take the pot off the boil…It’s me, remember…your old pal..
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I understand…and what I mostly understand, is that, as you describe it, American politics is far more complicated than I had been aware of. My question was only because the 78% Jewish Democratic voting pattern seems inexplicable to me, as well as many others, so often written about etc. and, because you said. “I am a registered Democrat”, I thought..well here I have a real live Democrat who can tell me what I want to know.
You told me a lot more than that, it was far more complicated than the news reports ever mentioned.
Thanks.
@ Edgar G.:
If you repeat the same question again, after all this explanation, for the second time, I’ll assume you couldn’t be bothered to read what I wrote, beyond the first sentence or two and this is just hyperbole, on your part.
@ Edgar G.:
I am not in the same camp as the Jews that this article describes. They have an alternate reality view of everything and they absolutely worship the Two State Solution, which I abhor. They don’t really know what they are talking about other than worshiping the phrase so I say to them that there have been a lot of two state solutions since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.And I support the second one, conditionally. The Arabs can keep Jordan IF they behave themselves. The river is a good barrier. Good compromise. But, in the light of recent events, I would say, that Israel should annex the disputed land in the Jordan Valley that Jordan has been leasing but which Jews have been living on as well as Jewish Holy sites.
They also want an accomodation with Iran and I want to nuke the bastards. They want open borders and I want to seal them shut. Few other issues like that. I tend conservative on most issues but not bread and butter working class issues.
@ Edgar G.:
Also, Chasidic Jews in Brooklyn tend to vote Republican at the national level but Democratic at the local level because many have big families and are very, very poor. They are the largest or among the largest recipients of govenment aid. It’s interesting that the right/left divide in Israel, traditionally is not about economics because the religious parties are in favor of the welfare state because their constituents need help. The new conservatism represented by Bibi is more American style. I’m sure that’s a factor in the otherwise inexplicable support for Blue and White in large sectors of the country. While this austerity may be good for the economy in the large sense, it hurts a lot of people as well.
Dov Hikind is the leader of the Chasidic and Orthodox Jewish Right in New York. He is a Democrat. These are the same people who voted for Trump, as did he.
There is one dem candidate who supports Israel and opposes pressuring Israel and that’s Andrew Yang. I will vote for him in the primary before I vote for Trump in the general election. He sounds a lot like Trump on foreign policy.
@ Edgar G.:
I just explained why and I didn’t say anything about my family. What part didn’t you understand? I switched to Republican in 2015 so I could vote for Huckabee because he said that Israel had more claim to Judea and Samaria than the U.S. did to Manhattan and when everybody dropped out but Cruz and Trump when it reached New York, I voted for Cruz because Caroline Glick endorsed him and Trump was waffling about the Two State Solution. After Trump won, he adopted Cruz’s platform and I voted for him in the general election, Then, I switched to Democrat so I could vote against the antisemites in the primary. There is no Republican primary the following year. You have to switch your party affiliation a year in advance and you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered for. There are no Republican elected politicians any where near where I live. Do you understand? We have Soviet Style elections, here. The Democratic Primary is the real election. The general election is just a rubber stamp. Bloomberg, a former Democrat, ran as a Republican, the first time around because he didn’t want to have to compete in a primary. He just got himself picked by the party bosses. After that, he ran as an independent. Guiliani was also an ex-Democrat.
I have to say, rent control is important to me, as well. Without it, I’d be homeless.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Sebastien, A serious question. Everyone seems puzzled that 80% of American Jews are Democrat supporters. Now you are one of those I’m speaking about. Although you expect to vote for Trump in 2020, could you please explain to us WHY it is that you, and presumably your family, are Democrats.
My explanation is that it was the Dem ward heelers who met the immigrants at the boat almost, gave them money, a place to stay,and took over their lives, made these newcomers who couldn’t yet speak the language etc. dependent on them,.. always telling them how to vote, how to get a job, and it became family tradition in a new land… Tammany Hall system.
I typed the transcript of Yang interview: Kay, Our final question. Yes.
Questioner: My family has a lot of land in what is now, uh, Israel, and, uhh, I’m just asking, basically, what would you do, uhh, to support people who are standing up against, uhh, Netanyahu, and oppressive apartheid regimes in this country and how would your, umm, cost-cutting, internationally, affect the amount of money we give every year to Israel and countries like Israel.
(Smattering of Applause)
Yang: You know, I’m not sure I exactly said I would cut costs, umm, you know, what I said was that I’d wanna get less entangled in various, and what I had in mind was, like, military intervention. Umm, so, uh, in terms of the money we’re giving to an ally like Israel, umm, my first instinct would be, like, why would we reduce it. Uhh, you know, uh, and so, umm, so certainly if I communicated something else, like, uh, that’s not the, umm, the idea at all, umm.
There are certain relationships we have that, to me, we need to rebuild and strengthen, and I would suggest that our relationship with Israel, uh, is one of them.
Questioner: And what about the Arabs?
Yang: Umm, you know, you have to look at it on a case by case and say what’s happening in terms of our bilateral relationship with a particular party, um, but my, my zeal is to try and build strong alliances and partnerships; If someone’s been working with us for a long time, they should be rewarded for that, frankly, and if someone has an interest in working with us, we should, uh, be open to rewarding that, too. Um, but for each country, you know, you’d have to look at what’s going on, umm, at that time, and what the lead-in has been.
Questioner: So, when it comes to land in Israel, that’s uh, being taken, even though it was granted to certain Palestinian families by the UN, uh, how do you feel about, uh, constricting Israel, almost to prevent that from happening, and, uh, constricting, uh, political influence by American leaders in Israel?
Yang: I’m not sure I understand the question but I’ll answer it more generally, umm, which is, like, my, my, my stance on this is that is going to be hard for the United States to constrict, like, uh, an ally, or really just about any of its partners in a decision that they feel is central to them and I don’t think that’s our priority. It’s not that we’re somehow giving people aid so that we can then twist their arm about things that, uh, you know, that they find important.
It’s more of a mixed bag in New York. Aside from the fact, that not to be a Democrat in New York City, which is home to America’s largest Jewish population, is to be effectively disenfranchised, as the primary is the election, there being almost no Republican elected officials or primaries, the last state-wide Democratic primary was a war between pro and anti BDS forces and the anti-BDS forces won almost every race. Governor Cuomo had signed the first executive order in the nation banning state agencies from doing business with any entity that boycotts Israel. His opponent, Cynthia Nixon had signed a letter supporting a boycott. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-first-nation-executive-order-directing-divestment-public-funds-supporting#targetText=The%20first%2Din%2Dthe%2D,campaign%20in%20New%20York%20State.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NY-Democratic-Party-Sends-11th-Hour-Mailer-Calling-Cynthia-Nixon-Weak-on-Jewish-Issues-Anti-Semite-492809821.html
I am a registered democrat, at the moment. Though I am going to vote for Trump in the general election, in the primary, I am going to vote for Yang. He is not only the most appealing candidate, he is the only one who is friendly to Israel. Watch this clip. I really like him.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4793966/user-clip-yang-israel
With the humiliation and demise of al-Baghdadi at US hands, President Trump has a new message for the world:
WE DELIVER!
(This message MADE IN THE USA by a happy American 🙂 )
@ Mike Barry: Everyone knows nothing of the kind. However, despite the fact that everyone knows that the election of 1960b in which JFK beat Nixon was rigged, Nixon, who knew it then, chose not to contest it so as not to weaken the credibility of the Presidency. Very different time.
The 2000 election results were rigged, and everybody damn well knows it. Glick is a lying POS.