Friday, June 23, 2017


by -

The United States remains the largest funder of the United Nations today and another $5 billion has been requested to fund UN operations in 2017.

The U.S. Department of State has requested $3.9 billion to fund the United Nations and “international organizations” which partially funds the full $5 billion requested by the United Nations and recommended by Ted Turner’s group, A Better World Foundation.

That amount represents an additional forty-one dollars that 122 million American taxpayers must pony up.

Following fallout from the UN’s resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, incoming President Donald Trump already has a few choice words for the United Nations that he expressed on Twitter:

Even worse for the UN, Israeli officials plan to provide Trump and his team with “detailed, sensitive information” that uncovers the “covert” role that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry played in drafting the resolution.

The federal government is currently funded through April 28, 2017 through a Continuing Resolution (CR) passed by the 114th Congress.

Trump would have the power to veto the 2017 Federal Budget if it includes funding for the United Nations.

Additionally, President-Elect Trump may use the power of “Impoundment” that gives him authority to rescind funds that have been already approved by Congress. However, the rescission must then be cleared by Congress, creating a never-ending fight to not spending money.

Before the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Presidents enjoyed the liberty of not spending money that had been appropriated by Congress.

Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the power to prevent debt spending in 1801.

Donald Trump will have a number of options to cut funding to the United Nations . . . as well as other wasteful budget items that taxpayers are currently involuntarily funding.

Will Trump kill funding to the United Nations or maintain the status quo?

Do you want your forty-one dollars back? Comment below.

by -

Of all people running for the nation’s highest office in 2016, Ted Cruz is singularly the biggest advocate for Israel.

The ideologue from Texas via Canada was so bold in his support for the Jewish nation that he allowed himself to be booed offstage at an event in 2014. As the crowd of Middle Eastern Christians worked themselves into a froth, the Senator told the fuming audience, “If you don’t stand with Israel and the Jews, I don’t stand with you.”

You can’t get much more direct than that. Zero equivocation.

But Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote last week that Cruz’s “New York Values” statement was a play on words in which the candidate really meant, “Jewish Values.”


Talk about a stretch of the imagination.

Milbank’s attack hanged on a single word used by Cruz, “chutzpah.”

At an event in New Hampshire, Cruz, the Republican Iowa caucuses winner, was asked about campaign money he and his wife borrowed from Goldman Sachs. Cruz, asserting that Trump had “upward of $480 million of loans from giant Wall Street banks,” said: “For him to make this attack, to use a New York term, it’s the height of chutzpah.” Cruz, pausing for laughter after the phrase “New York term,” exaggerated the guttural “ch” to more laughter and applause.

So Milbank accuses Ted Cruz of substituting “New York” for “Jewish.”

While New York has the largest population of Jews in the United States, even if Cruz were making that correlation, there’s no anti-Semitism hidden in his statements.

Milbank didn’t stop there at making a fool of himself.

The writer had the audacity to criticize Cruz on his use “insinuation” to attack his opponents.

While true, Dana hypocritically employs the same tactic in his writing.

by -
western wall

A key United Nations agency is under fire–for declaring that Judaism’s holiest site in Jerusalem shouldn’t be considered a part of Jewish heritage, and should instead be considered part of a nearby Islamic mosque.

The United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ruled that Jerusalem’s famed Western Wall–which is one of the most holy sites in all of Judaism, but also a major site in Islam–is part of the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama Hacohen immediately slammed the resolution, calling it “a total Islamization” of a site that’s important to both religions.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs added, in a statement: “This is a clear endeavor to distort history, in order to erase the connection between the Jewish People and its holiest site, and to create a false reality.”

Even Israel’s President Benjamin Netanyahu joined the fray: “If the places where the Jewish nation’s forefathers and mothers–Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel–were buried 4,000 years ago is not part of the Jewish nation’s heritage, then what is a heritage site?”

UNESCO’s five-page draft resolution was written by Muslim powers like Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Kuwait, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (which is not fully recognized as a country by the UN.) It makes no mention of the site being a Jewish holy site, dating back thousands of years. But it does condemn Israel’s recent military actions in Palestinian-claimed territories like the West Bank and Gaza. It refers to Israel as “Israel, the Occupying Power.”

Currently, the Western Wall is overseen by an Islamic trust called the Waqf. Jews, by religious decree, are not allowed to pray at the Muslim-controlled Jewish holy site, Temple Mount; the Western Wall is the closest they’re allowed to get.

But, under the new UNESCO rules, even that could be scrapped.

The line assigning the Western Wall to Islam is only one sentence in the larger document–but it could threaten the entire resolution, which is now expected not to pass.

by -

Judy Mozes, an Israeli media personality and the wife of Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, is under fire for a racial joke about President Barack Obama.

And now? The Left is using it as an excuse to call for a boycott of their least favorite American ally, Israel.

“Do [you] know what Obama Coffee is?” Mozes joked over Twitter. “Black and weak.”

Mozes deleted the Tweet almost immediately–although not fast enough; liberal news site, Vox, managed to capture a screenshot before she did–and she apologized profusely for posting the joke.

Of course, the liberal Left isn’t so forgiving. And now, they’re using it as an excuse to boycott Israel.

The liberal Twittersphere launched into tirade after tirade, with some users even calling to cut Israeli defense funding–at a time when they face unprecedented threats from groups like ISIS and nations like Iran, who would like nothing more than to see Israel annihilated from the planet.

Mozes’s off-color joke comes at a time when Israeli-American relationships are increasingly strained.

Last year, a senior Obama administration allegedly called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “chickens**t” behind closed doors–in a remark that quickly went viral. The comment was a response to Netanyahu, who was snubbed by Obama during an upcoming visit, when he decided to address Congress anyway–even without Obama’s blessing.

Earlier this year, Obama even was rumored to try to do everything he could to make sure Netanyahu lost re-election. Netanyahu wound up winning by far more votes than predicted–and Obama was, allegedly, livid that the Israeli people would make such a decision to stick with Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party, rather than a more conciliatory (and pro-Palestine) liberal parties.

To say that Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship is, of course, an understatement.

Netanyahu will, quite likely, continue to hold office even after Obama is gone. But, for many on the Left, the damage to Israel’s reputation is already done.

by -

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unexpected–and decisive–election win on Tuesday, Barack Obama is ready to do something drastic. He’s planning to sidestep Israel altogether, and call for the U.N. to pass a resolution that would force Israel into peace with the Palestinian Authority.

According to sources within the Obama Administration, the White House is now considering supporting a U.N. resolution that would “include Israel’s 1967 borders with Palestine and mutually agreed swaps of territory.”

Returning to Israel’s pre-1967 borders have been the source of contention for the last several decades.

After a number of neighboring Arab nations declared war on Israel in what is called the Six-Day War, Israel invaded and occupied land in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip–which it now claims is necessary to keep as a buffer zone from future attacks. With its pre-1967 borders, parts of Israel were as narrow as 9 miles wide.

Previously, the United States–as Israel’s strongest ally–has blocked the U.N. from passing resolutions unfavorable to Israel. But, as relations have reached historic strain under Barack Obama, the tide is beginning to shift.

Obama’s new antipathy towards Israel comes from what he calls Netanyahu’s “divisive” re-election campaign.

In the last days of his campaign, Netanyahu–a member of Israel’s conservative Likud Party–publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state, and vowed to continue building Israeli settlements on occupied territory.

Netanyahu’s new government will likely be made up of several conservative parties, most of which refuse to give concessions to Palestinian leaders.

Despite losing the support of the Obama Administration, Israel remains committed to retaining their territory and their nation, rather than turn it over to the Palestinian Authority–who is governed by terrorist group, Hamas, and has refused to recognize Israel.

Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., put it more succinctly: “If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the Palestinian people, it should be asking . . . why Hamas uses the Palestinian people as human shields.”

by -
Obama Anti-Israel

“President Obama and Senator Robert Menendez traded sharp words on Thursday over whether Congress should vote to impose new sanctions on Iran,” The New York Times reported Jan. 15.

“The president said he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than make a move for short-term political gain, according to the senator,” the Times reports.

In short, Obama argued support for Iran sanctions comes only from politicians wanting cash from donors.

And, in the context of Middle East policy, “donors” is generally the Democrat code word for “the Jews.”

Menendez, to whom Obama was speaking, is known for having an unusually large Jewish donor base.

Obama’s remark is hardly an isolated incident. It follows a disturbing record of anti-Jewish speech from Obama and other Democrats.

For one, Obama’s comments are almost identical to those of Democrat then-Congressman Jim Moran, who nearly had to resign after blaming Jews for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,” Moran growled to a March 2003 town hall meeting.

Moran was joined in his denunciation of Jews by Democrat then-Senator Ernest Hollings, who took to the Senate floor to say the Iraq war was all a plot “to win Jewish votes.”

Democrat bigotry about Jews and money isn’t just limited to a belief they control the government. A 2009 Columbia University poll found Democrats were twice as likely to blame the 2008 economic crash on “the Jews.”

In 2012 the Democratic National Committee came under fire for referring to potential Jewish donors as “JEWBAGS” and assigned staffers to a “Jew cash money team.” The staffer responsible was a member of Givat Haviva, a Middle Eastern group that supports Hamas and eulogized mass Jew killer Josef Stalin.

Anti-Semitic rhetoric even comes from the Obama White House itself.

In April 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry borrowed a favorite phrase of terrorist groups and anti-Semites when he claimed Israel was conspiring to create “an apartheid state.” He later backtracked when the comments became public.

In July 2009, Obama himself said Jews should “engage in serious self-reflection” and accept blame for Middle East violence. Two years later he said Jews “should search their souls” and look to themselves for the cause of violence.

In January 2014 Obama even went so far as to claim in an interview with The New Yorker anti-Semitism in the Middle East was the product of “recent decades” of Israeli policy – ignoring the decades of violence before the current government, and before the establishment of Israel.

So it’s no surprise Obama would blame antipathy toward Iran on Jewish donors.

While there are rational arguments for and against further sanctions on Iran, and rational arguments for and against U.S. policy in the Middle East, Obama’s reflexive swipe at Jewish money reveals just how strongly anti-Semitic blood libel is dyed into Democrat wool.


Violent Supporters

On Wednesday, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took the Senate floor to condemn the horrific shooting at the Republican baseball practice just outside the...