Hilly Clinton is looking to unload some more baggage from her campaign van today. The presumptive Democratic nominee campaigns in Nevada where her campaign told several news outlets that she will embrace “a full and equal path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. In 2008, Clinton wasn’t even a supporter of the mainstream Democratic position of allowing illegal immigrants to have driver’s licenses. Now she is ready to go for a full amnesty. USA Today reports that Clinton is embracing President nObama’s immigration policy and campaign style today: “She will chat with Rancho High School students who are DREAMers, the term used for young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.”
This latest reversal follows Clinton flips on tough-on-crime drug laws and gay marriage. Presumably more will follow. Remember that this is the woman whose former fellow cabinet member Robert Gates said admitted opposing the Iraq surge to win support among anti-war Democrats. Despite a new poll that shows that a stout majority of Democrats think a Clinton coronation will be just fine, she’s not taking any chances this time, either. One supposes that the major threat for Clinton now is not an external foe but the ongoing self-destruct sequence as the campaign tries and fails to put to rest mounting allegations of corruption against the candidate and her family. The same poll from the WSJ and NBC News that shows Democrats taking a submissive posture shows Clinton crashing with the general electorate. She’s seen as untrustworthy by a 2-to-1 ratio. -Fox News



The bill giving Congress the power to review a nuclear deal with Iran is at a critical stage in the Senate as Majority Leader Mitch McCon-nell decides whether to shut down debate on the measure, The Hill reports. “McCon-nell is seeking an agreement to allow votes on several controversial amendments backed by conservatives that supporters of the bill say would kill it…The full [Republican] conference is expected to talk about the Iran bill at their Tuesday lunch….[S]ome Republicans predicted McCon-nell may have no choice but to file cloture to end debate…While this could anger conservatives, it would also save a carefully crafted compromise drawn up by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and reluctantly endorsed by the White House.” -Fox News









A dedicated servant to your country, a true friend, always there when needed!
With deep appreciation,
Shalom from Jerusalem,
Sincerely,
Ariel Sharon
.

(Pete Kasperowicz) - The Senate vote was largely along party lines, although two Republicans, 2016 presidential candidates Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted against it...Conservative Republicans have said the budget doesn’t do nearly enough to trim spending — earlier in the day, for example, a Paul spokesperson said the plan relies on a “gimmick” to appear to achieve balance after 10 years. Back in March, Cruz praised the Senate’s passage of a budget plan, but also said “gimmicks” were keeping him from supporting it in the end. Democrats have spent several weeks railing about the plan, which they say would make deep cuts to social programs. It also repeals nObamacare, and includes instructions to several key congressional committees to write legislation to repeal and replace nObamacare. http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/05/05/senate-passes-gop-budget-plan-that-would-also-repeal-obamacare/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%205-6-15%20FINAL

In February, a Jewish college student was hospitalized after being punched in the face at a pro-Palestinian demonstration on a campus in upstate New York. His family has insisted on maintaining the boy’s privacy, but other such incidents, some caught on camera, include a male student punched in the face at Temple University, a female student at Ohio University harassed for defending Israel, and a male student at Cornell threatened physically for protesting anti-Israel propaganda. On three successive days last summer, the Boston police had to protect a student rally for Israel from pro-Palestinian mobs shouting “Jews back to Birkenau!” At the University of California-Irvine, this year’s Israel Independence Day festivities were blocked and shouted down by anti-Israel demonstrators. Every year, some 200 campuses now host a multiday hate-the-Jews fest, its malignancy encapsulated in its title: “Israel Apartheid Week.”
The Louis D. Brandeis Center in Washington, founded in 2011 to protect against such intimidation, has reported being startled by the results of its own 2013-14 survey: “more than half of Jewish American college students have personally experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism.” The film Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus faithfully captures scenes of the violence that often attends this new academic experience.
Nor are students the only targets. At Connecticut College, to cite but the most recent example, a quietly pro-Israel professor of philosophy has been maliciously singled out and hounded as a “racist” in a campaign instigated by Palestinian activists, endorsed by numerous faculty members, and at least tacitly complied with by the college administration and the campus Hillel organization. At the annual meetings of prestigious academic associations, boycott resolutions against Israel and Israeli academic institutions are routinely aired and often passed.
As one of its first acts in December 1945, the Arab League called on all Arab institutions and individuals to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume Jewish and Zionist products or manufactured goods. Seventy years later, calls for boycott of Israel, under the acronym BDS—boycott, divestment, and sanctions—have become a staple of American university agendas, extending not only to Israeli companies like SodaStream but to Israeli scholars in the humanities and social sciences. Last year, a petition by “anthropologists for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions” garnered the signatures of the relevant department chairs at (among others) Harvard, Wesleyan, and San Francisco State. The American Studies Association attracted the “largest number of participants in the organization’s history” for a vote endorsing a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
In his introduction to a timely volume of essays, The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel, Paul Berman provides a witty summary of the efforts by university boycotters to frame their campaigns as “modern and progressive” when in fact they are “disgraceful and retrograde.” But the truth is that anti-Semitism never needed a sophisticated veneer in order to win susceptible recruits among the educated and the allegedly enlightened. Urgent as it is to expose the undeniably disgraceful and retrograde nature of the boycott movement, some of its ancillary effects are already playing themselves out in modern institutions and in “progressive” ways.
One of those effects is the scandalous insult—the undreamed-of this!—that cracked the patience of my academic colleague quoted at the head of this article. The “this!” emanated in reports first from UCLA, then from Stanford. At both universities, Jewish students running for election to the student government had been challenged on the grounds that their “strong Jewish identity,” manifested by travel to Israel, made them untrustworthy candidates for office. For my colleague, who had tried until now to treat anti-Israel agitation as a legitimate political activity, this now-naked move to place Jewish students under automatic suspicion for being Jewish made it impossible to maintain any longer the distinction between anti-Zionism (permissible) and anti-Semitism (impermissible). To be sure, there had always been some kind of link between incitement against Jews in Israel and incitement against Jews elsewhere, but how was she now to distinguish between the two when her colleagues, peers, and students blithely insisted on conjoining them?
For the moment, most of the American public seems free—solidly free—of the anti-Semitism that infects American universities. According to the most recent Gallup poll, seven in ten Americans view Israel favorably, up substantially from the 47 percent that viewed it favorably in 1991 around the time of the first Gulf war. It would be hard to imagine greater enthusiasm for a foreign leader than that shown to Benjamin Netanyahu when he spoke at a joint session of Congress in 2011 and again this year. Appreciation for Israel seems secure when the Wall Street Journal, widely considered America’s most influential newspaper, is also its most effective editorial champion of Israel, with the FOX News channel not far behind.
Jewish students running for election to student government have been challenged on grounds that their “strong Jewish identity” makes them untrustworthy candidates for office.
Which is not to say that grounds are lacking for larger concern. In addition to the catalog of academic offenses I’ve briefly summarized here, a growing number of anti-Jewish incidents—from a swastika-desecrated Jewish cemetery in New Jersey to fatal shootings at a Kansas City Jewish community center—has been registered by agencies like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. At the government level, more ominously, and perhaps for the first time in recent American history, it is the White House, rather than the once notoriously Arabist State Department, that has taken the lead in threatening to isolate the Jewish state. President nObama’s frankly contemptuous treatment of Israel’s prime minister smacks more of the university than of the Senate in which he once served, but he is the president, and his words and actions give license to others.
At any rate, the basic truth is this: Israel and the United States, unlovingly paired by their Islamist enemies as the Little Satan and the Big Satan, are prime targets of the same antagonists. It remains to be seen, then, whether the rise of anti-Semitism in America—itself an extension of the Arab- and Muslim-led war against Israel and the Jewish people—will fatally penetrate America’s thick constitutional culture, in which some of us still place our trust.
Universities are the obvious place to begin investigating that question.
Comments