There are many reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton. For one, she’s an unrepentant liar, fabricating everything from her Brian Williamesque brush with death in Bosnia to her parent’s pedigree to her claim that she believed a video caused the deaths of four heroes in Benghazi.
She is also unethical, having accepted large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation from countries and entities working on behalf of foreign governments impacted by her decisions as secretary of state. There is some circumstantial evidence suggesting that she may have been influenced by these rather large contributions. In one well publicized case, Russia was able to acquire 20% of the United States’ uranium reserves in an energy deal that required State Department approval. A paper trail from that transaction reveals that the Clintons’ and their foundation benefited from substantial donations issued by entities with vested interests in ensuring the Russian acquisition of America’s strategic assets. Clinton was required to publicly disclose these contributions but never did. The FBI has now expanded its Emailgate probe of Clinton to include whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business violated public corruption laws.
Hillary Clinton, who fancies herself as the champion of human rights and women’s rights, is also a serial hypocrite. Records show that the Clinton Foundation accepted funds from countries with abysmal human rights records where misogyny is regularly practiced and the principles of due process are routinely trampled upon.
Amongst these emails were those showing how much she hates Israel, for example, Hilary Clinton considered provoking the Palestinians into another intifada!
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton considered a secret plan created by her then-advisers to foment unrest among Palestinian citizens and spark protests in order to push the Israeli government back to the negotiating table, according to emails released as part of the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s private email server.
In a Dec, 18, 2011, email, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering suggested that Clinton consider a plan to restart then-stalled peace negotiations by kickstarting Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.
Pickering described the effort as a potential “game changer in the region,” recommending that the United States undertake a clandestine campaign to generate unrest. Clinton requested that his email be printed.
“What will change the situation is a major effort to use non-violent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering wrote.
I am pretty sure that “non-violent” as used by the Palestinians does not mean what Pickering thinks it means.
“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” he continued. “Women can and ought to be at the center of these demonstrations. Many men and others will denigrate the idea. I don’t and I don’t think that was your message.”
Palestinian women, he noted, are less likely than men to resort to violence.
Knowing the Middle East, that is one of the stupidest statements ever made by a politician who ought to know better.
[…] Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel.
“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist liberal non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”
As relations with Israel remained tense, another Clinton confidant, Anne Marie Slaughter, sent a staff-wide email to Clinton staffers recommending that they undertake a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign aimed at convincing U.S. millionaires and billionaires to donate significant portions of their wealth to the Palestinian cause.
The effort, Slaughter wrote in the September 2010 email, could help shame Israel.
“Such a campaign among billionaires/multi-millionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state and could offset the ending of the moratorium for Palestinians,” Slaughter wrote. “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”
If Hilary Clinton is elected President, we can expect more of the same latent antisemitism as we have experienced from Obama, as theFront Page Mag article lists all her unsavoury friends and advisers, and notes:
The Obama administration is in its twilight year and Israel has endured and survived eight torturous years of open hostility from a virulent Israel-hater. The next president will determine the trajectory of the U.S. Israel alliance. David Petraeus has insightfully noted that despite some differences and disagreements that may arise between Israel and the U.S. from time to time, we would be wise to focus on the big picture. He states:
The simple reality is that Israel and the United States are long-standing friends and allies in an increasingly dangerous world – and we ought to treat each other as such. From an American perspective, Israel has proven itself to be an exceptionally capable, resourceful and valuable ally to the United States in a very important and treacherous region. We share many fundamental interests, and we face enemies that wish to do both countries harm. Just as importantly, we share core values and we therefore wrestle with many of the same questions – about how to keep our people safe from the forces of terrorism that seek our destruction while preserving our respective democratic freedoms, rule of law, and respect for fundamental and eternal human rights, which define who we are.
Should Clinton become president, it is safe to assume that she will disregard Petraeus’ advice and employ the same destructive policies championed by her predecessor, placing the final nail in the coffin of an alliance that has endured for 68 years and causing tremendous harm to the interests of two great democracies. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
As for the President himself, we know what his views on Jews are, as the blogger First One Through notes in “On Obama’s fondness for feeding Jews dog biscuits”:
On January 7 the State Department released a press statement marking the one-year anniversary of the horrific attacks in Paris. Yet there was a troubling omission: the statement focused on Charlie Hebdo and referred only obliquely to another attack. It doesn’t specifically cite the attack on a kosher supermarket, where four innocent people were held hostage and brutally murdered.
I get the feeling that this administration is skittish about mentioning Muslim Jew-hatred because it might blunt the larger message that has become dominant: that Westerners are “Islamophobic.”…
If the State Department would mention Muslim attacks on Jews, the message of tolerance towards Muslims gets muted. So the victims are universalized as just regular, random people.
Veiling Muslim attacks on Jews as something other than Muslim attacks on Jews protects the larger Muslim community from embarrassment. It does so at the expense of the tiny Jewish minority, but that is clearly not Obama’s concern.
I would argue, in fact, that president Barack Obama is now openly mocking the American Jewish community. I am sorry, but it is pathetic. Not on his part, of course, but on ours. Obama has proven beyond any doubt that American Jews are an abused lap-dog owned by this administration.
Every once in awhile he tosses us a Milk-bone and I find it shameful.
Obama knows what he is doing. His Department of State remembers the kerfuffle over the above remarks from last year as, I am sure, does the genius in the White House, himself. This year the dishonorable refusal to mention the Hypercacher attack as antisemitic is one of those little ways that the Obama administration enjoys tweaking Jewish noses. It also reveals zero interest in fighting racism toward American Jews, despite the fact that the American Jewish community is the most violently attacked of any religious community in the United States.
And just why shouldn’t Obama tweak Jewish noses while giving antisemitism a pass?
As someone who strongly relates to the Muslim community, both at home and abroad, there is nothing unusual about Obama’s desire to protect American Muslims from the fear and loathing conjured by their more aggressive co-religionists.
However – and this is to my mind one mighty big however – it should NOT come through spitting on the American Jewish community.
The State of Israel, and thus the Jewish people, have one year left of a blatantly hostile American presidency.
We’ll ride this bastard out and move on.
Terrifyingly, though, there is a possibility that we won’t be able to ride the “bastard” out, because rumours have it that Obama is aiming to be the next Secretary-General of the UN:
Israel National News describes a Kuwaiti newspaper’s report about President Barack Obama’s post-presidential plans as “somewhat far-fetched,” but apparently plausible enough to bounce through publications around the world.
According to the Al Jarida report, President Obama wants to be appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves the White House, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to thwart his ambitions.
Al Jarida has Netanyahu exclaiming, “Is it not enough that we have had to live through eight years of Obama’s rule, in which he ignored Israel? Now he wants to be in a position to cause us difficulty in the international arenas?”
Netanyahu also reportedly complained about President Obama’s “closeness to the Muslim Brotherhood, the toppling of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, and attempts to forge alliances with political Islam,” as well as the President’s nuclear deal with Iran, according to an Israeli source.
Netanyahu is said to have compared the likely outcome of the Iranian nuclear deal with the current consternation over North Korea’s claimed development of a hydrogen bomb.
The Washington Times adds a quote from a Netanyahu aide who ostensibly told the Kuwaiti paper his boss exclaimed, “Obama is the worst president Israel has had to deal with and the worst president for the Middle East and its allies, the moderate Arab states.”
Is there any truth to this horrifying rumour? All bets are off until we hear confirmation one way or another.