Hillary's AIPAC Speech

Hillary’s militaristic, fawning speech to AIPAC demonstrates that she has joined Sammy Davis, Junior, as one of those rare people, a black Jew.  As she bids to become the third black President, after Bill and Barak, she now adds her credentials as a Jew who will defend Israel at any cost to the United States.  She believes Israel’s survival is more important that America’s.  This is a major break from Obama’s foreign policy, which tried to deal with Israel on equal terms, only to be lectured publicly by Netanyahu that Israel must be America’s highest priority.  Hillary’s view of Israel is shared by most of the Republican party, which invited Netanyahu to address the US Congress to rebuke Obama’s attempt to block Iran’s nuclear program.  The Republicans and the Jews are both consumed with a desire to shed Arab blood, particularly Iranian blood.  They were very disappointed that Obama would not approve a joint US-Israeli military strike on Iran.  Hillary shares their bloodlust.  She is the matron of death. 

Obama properly believes that America’s future lies in its relations with Asia, but for Jews the important region is the Middle East because of Israel.  Hillary’s policies are dictated by the rich Jews of Wall Street.  Ironically, Bill Clinton ended his term by pardoning a rich Wall Street Jew, Marc Rich.  The Clintons have been paid back handsomely by the Jewish community through the Clinton Global Initiative for what they did during Bill’s term, and for what Hillary will do during hers, if she is given a chance.  Hillary will use her Wall Street Jew money to buy black votes.  Bernie Sanders’ voters seem to indicate that Hillary does not have the Hispanic vote tied up like she does the African-American vote. 

While I have deep worries that Hillary would be willing to subjugate America’s interests to Israel’s for money, there are things I don’t understand.  In a recent New York Times, there was a full page ad attacking Hillary for her reliance on Sidney Blumenthal as an adviser.  It said “Hillary Clinton must disavow her anti-Israel advisors,” but Sidney Blumenthal is Jewish.  According to Mondoweiss, this is because Sidney’s son Max has written a book called Goliath, which is very critical of “Israel’s militant rightwing political culture.”  Mondoweiss says the ad was paid for by Shmuley Boteach, who was probably funded by Sheldon Adelson.  Mondoweiss, which is critical of the Times coverage of Israeli issues, implies that the Times treatment of this ad and the Goliath book, may raise questions of editorial integrity.  Sidney Blumenthal’s name has come up repeatedly in the much discussed Clinton emails; he was certainly a close advisor, whether pro- or anti-Israel. 

Hillary’s obsequious speech to AIPAC and her reception by the AIPAC crowd certainly showed no anti-Israel bias that I could discern.  I am willing to defend Israel, but I want to know how far America should go in defending Israel.  Show America be willing to destroy itself in order to defend Israel, e.g., by risking a nuclear attack from one of Israel’s enemies?  Already we give Israel billions of dollars in “aid,” and give or sell it the most advanced military weapons and equipment that we will give to no other country outside of NATO.  Must we do more? 

Hillary mentioned the Arrow missile, which was a problem for me when I was at the State Department.  The Arrow is an anti-missile missile.  It is much more sophisticated that the much vaunted Iron Dome.  The Iron Dome is remarkable in being able to shoot down tactical, relatively short-range missiles, but it cannot stop large, long-range, strategic or intermediate-range missiles which fly at much faster speeds.  The intent of the Arrow is to shoot down those larger, harder-to-stop missiles, but back then there was always a question whether it violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  There was always a lot of hemming and hawing, legal nit-picking to justify America’s role in the Arrow program.  Since Israel was not a party to the ABM treaty, there was no problem for Israel.  After I left, George W. Bush solved this problem by abrogating the ABM treaty, so that we were no longer a party either.  Thus, there is now no legal question whether we can cooperate with Israel on the Arrow missile, and Hillary loves it. 

Hillary, the Rich and the Poor - Part 2

On Sunday Fareed Zakaria discussed the book Listen, Liberalwith its author, Thomas Frank.  It sounds like its thesis is that the Democratic party has ignored the middle class for at least a generation.  This follows my earlier post about Hillary, the Rich, and the Poor.  A description of Frank’s book says: 

Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

Basically, Bill and Hillary offer food stamps to the poor while they pour much greater tax benefits to the rich.  The Fiscal Times says the Food Stamp program (SNAP) costs about $74 billion per year.  Reuters says the Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax breaks will cost about $12 billion over ten years, or a little over $1 trillion per year, greatly dwarfing the cost of food stamps.  The article adds that the top 20% of income earners will recive more than half of these tax benefits, i.e., about $500 billion per year. 

Bill, Hillary, and their Democratic colleagues basically buy the votes of poor blacks, by offering welfare programs like food stamps, while their big giveaways are really to the wealthy, who give them the campaign funds to keep them in office and keep the scam going. 

As I and Thomas Frank noted, the Clintons and the Democrats skip over the middle class, which they take for granted.  It’s possible that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are making public the Clinton’s contempt for the middle class, and the middle class is unhappy about it.  The Republicans have played half the game as well, aiding the rich, but shortchanging both the poor and the middle class.  

Hillary, the Rich, and the Poor

The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton is not liked by white men.  The reason may be that she does not like white men, maybe including Bill, and white men recognize that.  Hillary is appealing primarily to the rich and the poor, taking for granted the people in the middle.  She is seeking big money from Wall Street financiers, West Coast techies, and Hollywood celebrities.  She uses those big bucks to buy votes from poor blacks, mainly in the South, but also in northern industrial states.  Poor blacks do seem more susceptible to typical political tactics that often persuade people to vote against their own financial or social interests for some unrelated promise.  Poor, white social conservatives have been victims of this tactic for years, supporting Republicans who destroy their jobs and their livelihoods, because they oppose abortion and support guns. 

Bernie Sanders has called her bluff to a certain extent by highlighting her close connections to Wall Street and her support for trade agreements that have destroyed American jobs.  It’s significant that Bernie has had trouble getting votes from the black population, when they would be some of the main beneficiaries of his proposals.  It shows the power of Hillary’s appeal to blacks, financed my her wealthy backers.  Bill Clinton was often called the first black President, essentially making Obama the second black President, while Hillary is now running to fill Obama’s shoes and be the third black President. 

The New York Times story indicates that many white men see that Hillary is ignoring them and has no plan to help them.  She appeals to women by calling on them to vote to make her the first female President, perhaps offsetting any perception by middle class white women that she is ignoring them.  She appeals not to their financial or social positions, but simply to the fact that they are female.  It works, but she has no similar appeal to while men, who recognize that a Hillary presidency would not be good for them. 

KKK for Trump

I don't see what the problem is with the KKK's endorsement of Trump.  Trump did not endorse the KKK.  It seems to me that saying that the KKK cannot endorse Trump is an abridgement of free speech.  It's just political correctness and race hatred run amok.  It's politically correct to hate white people, as the Chris Rock and the TV commentators illustrated at the Oscars.