Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was met with an enthusiastic reception in the AIPAC conference in Washington on Monday, as he took a strong pro-Israel stance, blasting everyone from President Obama and the Palestinians to the UN and Iran.
“President Barack Obama is the worst thing to happen to Israel,” the Republican frontrunner told the audience at the Verizon Center, castigating the U.S. president and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for “pressuring our friends and rewarding our enemies.”
Trump said that as president he will send a clear signal that there’s “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, and promised to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In an apparent break with previous statements that he would assume a neutral position to broker a peace deal, Trump said he would side with Israel in any negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
“The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” he said.
“They must come to the table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel and they must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish state and it will forever exist as a Jewish State,” Trump told the pro-Israel lobbying group.
Trump placed the blame for the stalled peace talks on the Palestinians, saying that they have repeatedly refused Israeli and American overtures. Trump also accused the Palestinians of incitement to terrorism. “Children are being taught to hate the Jews, it has to stop,” he said. “You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs. That’ll end and it’ll end soon, believe me,” he said to applause.
Trump also questioned the role of the United Nations in the peace process, saying any attempt by the international body to impose a Middle East agreement would be a disaster. The United Nations, saying it is “not a friend of democracy, not a friend to the U.S., and certainly not a friend to Israel,” Trump said, promising that as president the U.S. would veto any UN Security Council resolution forcing a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
“An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete disaster. That’s not how you make a deal,” he said, warning that a UN resolution of this kind would only foster more Palestinian terrorism. Mentioning Taylor Force, the U.S. citizen killed in a terror attack in Jaffa earlier this month, Trump said that such behavior should not be rewarded. “You have to confront this kind of behavior,” he said.
Trump also took aim at the nuclear deal with Iran and the removal of sanctions. “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” he said to applause. Trump said the deal rewarded Iran with 150 billion dollars, while allowing it to “run out clock” and eventually acquire nuclear arms.
As president, Trump promised that he would stand up to Iran’s push to destabilize the region, will work to dismantle its global terrorism network, and hold it “totally accountable” to the nuclear deal.
In a press conference ahead of his speech, Trump said that he would require Israel to pay back the United States for the foreign aid it received. Talking to reporters in Washington, Trump was asked about his previously stated stance that the U.S. should charge some of its allies for its assistance in their defense. “I want them to pay us some money,” Trump said.
rsklaroff Said:
nice metaphor
rsklaroff Said:
the substance lies in the fact that the only case dismissed on non technical reasons was by a low level court whereas constitutional questions are decided in scotus AND that the case is still in motion… hence hardly something to hang a hat upon or to use as a basis for the claim that the eligibility issue has been buried. I expect you to know that only scotus can authoritatively decide on constitutional issues.
Even the bd of elections decision was a technicality
@ Bernard:
In the process of tossing a bone to THIS dog, you ignored how much “sustantive” meat you left thereupon.
rsklaroff Said:
I gave you the win becuase your issue seemed petty and irrelevant that the one case still in motion meant something constitutionally. I wanted to deal with substantive issues.
rsklaroff Said:
SCOTUS decides on interpretation of constitution… its not my claim.. its the constitutions claim.
rsklaroff Said:
so you have based your entire assertion that the eligibility issue is resolved on this one most recent case still in motion… all the others were on technicalities.
rsklaroff Said:
not really… because you cannot claim that one case, which is still in motion, as the basis for your claims that the constitutional issue has been resolved.
rsklaroff Said:
it still remains that the cases were dismissed on technicalities and not the issue except for the one most recent out of all the multitudes which is still ongoing…
dont you think that is odd, on both obama and cruz that none have been allowed to progress to the supremes… the only one just happened and will now go the second step… you cant claim out of all the cases the one that is now still in motion.
read your own article, only the supremes can resolve the issue
bernard ross Said:
on the bd ruling we also see a technicality
both from your USA today link
so we still have only the one case still in motion.
@ Bernard:
From skillet to fire…
You FINALLY admitted error (without explaining your reason for procrastinating) and then claim constitutionality can only be derived from a SCOTUS decision; you thus ignore the multitude of cases that are left undisturbed.
rsklaroff Said:
bd of elections
rsklaroff Said:
dismissed on technicality of jurisdictionrsklaroff Said:
the one case now under appeal
rsklaroff Said:
no, the others were on technicalities… you cited bds of elections but they are not court cases.
rsklaroff Said:
the other links showed no more cases dismissed in court other than by technicalities… there is still only that one case out of the “multitudes” with Obama and cruz that was not dismissed on technicalties. A constitutional case is not considered over until adjudicated by the supremes… hence I am substantively correct as that is the only one and it is not yet over until the supremes get it. but I will allow you the “win” as you appear to sorely need that straw to grasp.
rsklaroff Said:
no, you grasp at straws… that case is ongoing and is filing appeal… a constitutional issue is not resolved at that level.. case not over until it gets to supremes. Is that your only case out of the multitudes?…. and dont bother plumping it up with bd of elections irrelevancies.
rsklaroff Said:
LOL, there still is that case which is now under appeal… one still going out of the many multitudes of Obama and Cruz dismissed on technicalities…. you win, bravo.
rsklaroff Said:
you are correct, I was unaware of that most recent case out of the multitudes of those of Obama and Cruz which were dismissed on technicalities.. but in substance… as your own article states.
bernard ross Said:
citing a lower judge ruling on a constitutional issue is a joke… if he had allowed it .. it would still be a joke… because it needs to be appealed to the ONLY relevant authority on constitutional questions. Which part of that do you not understand?
@ Bernard:
Now that you have admitted “only one was not dismissed on technicalities (pellegrini),” you admit that one case [notwithstanding other direct-quotes that you keep ignoring] was on-point and adverse to your claim.
You can’t be a little-bit pregnant; either there was a case or there wasn’t a case.
There was a case.
You wrote there was not case.
THEREFORE, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement [and your increasingly lame attempts to defend it, and its sequellae]…because…you should explicitly…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
{And, at this point, you SORELY need SUPER-DUPER-INTENSE rehab.}
@ rsklaroff:
bd of elections is irrelevant in determining constitutional questions. They do what they want and then leave it to the courts.
@ Bernard:
You can’t have it two ways; either the SCOTUS can’t be trusted because it’s excessively political, or the SCOTUS must be trusted as the final arbiter of the eligibility of Cruz.
MEANWHILE, you continue to evade accepting responsibility for your INCORRECT claim.
It won’t work.
THEREFORE, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement [and your increasingly lame attempts to defend it, and its sequellae]…because…you should explicitly…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
{And, at this point, you SORELY need SUPER-INTENSE rehab.}
rsklaroff Said:
no mistatement you posted multiple posts talking about the same cases and only one was not dismissed on technicalities(pellegrini) which you posted at least twice….. and that one will now continue up the ladder as it should.
rsklaroff Said:
baloney… only the supreme court has the capacity and authority to adjudicate constitutional issues…. if they allow it to arrive there we shall finally get resolution… my bet is that they will continue to seek technnicalities to keep it from the supremes… lets follow that one most recent case you mentioned which is now going to the first state appelate level, it needs to reach the top supremes… its not rocket science.. its how the process works when working properly
@ rsklaroff:
those are the same links dealing with only one case that was not dismissed on technicalities… the rest were on technicalities.
Ted Belman Said:
could you be more specific as to your complaints? I finally listened to it and it appears to me that everything he said was very good for Israel.
Granted, Trump, unlike the other politicians who work for gov, would likely have less prior specific knowledge of diplomatic and political details…. however, with all their knowledge, nothing was improved for Israel with the GOP congress. What details he does not know now he will later and he will change his mind even more positively as he learns more. I prefer his direct manner in dealing when it comes to all the defamers of Israel. The problem is that now he has tipped his hand we will lose all those nazi and muslim votes from those who thought he was neutral.
You are now setting-up the capacity to evade any subsequent decision if/when–on the appellate-level–if it is adverse to your mindset.
It won’t work.
THEREFORE, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement [and your increasingly lame attempts to defend it, and its sequellae]…because…you should explicitly…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
{And, at this point, you SORELY need INTENSE rehab.}
[from entry #18, supra]:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ruling-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/article/2582259
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz secured two major victories Monday, winning the Republican Iowa caucuses and also receiving a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which confirmed his U.S. citizenship met the state’s primary ballot requirements.
and the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/01/judge-dismisses-ted-cruz-illinois-citizenship-lawsuit/81153054/
The Indiana Board of Election last month rejected challenges to whether Cruz and fellow GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio meet the “natural-born” requirement.
and the following:
http://lawnewz.com/important/judge-smacks-down-trumps-ted-cruz-birther-claims-and-hardly-anyone-covers-it/
Judge Smacks Down Trump’s Ted Cruz Birther Claims, and Hardly Anyone Covers It
Bear Klein Said:
you appear unaware of the political nature of judgeships and the extent of corruption. Judges are team members also and when called upon they will seek the technicality to obstruct valid cases. Thats the nature of the beast in this case… nothing to do with “lame” as constituional experts should not be considered “lame” in their area of jurisdiction… that judge was not likely a constitutional expert. Even at the top, decisions are political