Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Carly Fiorina Answers Foreign Policy Questions Donald Trump Called "Gotcha"



Earlier today I posted an interview of Donald Trump which took place on the Hugh Hewitt Show. During that interview Hewitt asked "The Donald" questions about terrorists and terrorist leaders that every presidential candidate should know, but Trump didn't. Trump said the questions were "gotcha" questions seemingly because he couldn't answer.

After the interview was posted (here), I got comments saying that because Trump wasn't a politician he didn't have to know this information, a position I vehemently disagree with. A political campaign is like an interview, and one does not go on an interview without knowledge of the subject.

As if to help me prove the point before Hewitt aired the Trump interview (it was pre-recorded), Hewitt pre-recorded an interview with Carly Fiorina in which he asked this non-politician candidate the same exact questions he asked Trump. She knew the answers and how they related to each other, proving that Trump should have known the answers also.

Fiorina's interview both transcript and "video" are below:
Hewitt: It’s Hugh Hewitt. Earlier today I pre-recorded an interview with Donald Trump in which Donald Trump chided me for asking when he called “gotcha questions,” and I take very seriously that because I hate “gotcha questions.” They don’t advance the public conversation at all, so I thought I would run a controlled group experiment on whether or not they were “gotcha questions” by asking if Carly Fiorina would join me and I’d run through the same question set without her knowing what they her. Carly, welcome. It’s great to have you on. I appreciate you doing this with me.

Fiorina: Thank you, Hugh. Always good to be with you.

Hewitt: Now, again, you have no idea what I asked Donald. There’s been social media on it, so let me just begin where I began with him.

Fiorina: Just for the record, Hugh, I never know what you’re going to ask me.

Hewitt: (laughs) That’s true. I just don’t do that with people. But aren’t you familiar with General Soleimani?

Fiorina: Yes. . .

Hewitt: What do you know about him?

Fiorina: Well, why don’t you tell me why you’re asking because I could go a lot of different directions here, but what’s the issue you’re trying to get at?

Hewitt: Whether he and the Quds force’s behavior would be impacted by the Iranian deal.

Fiorina: Okay. . . Of course (laughs). There’s no doubt. There’s no doubt. Look, we know that the general of the Quds force has been a powerful tool of the Iranian regime to sow conflict. We also know that the Quds forces are responsible for the deaths and woundings of American soldiers. We also that the Quds forces have been in Syria and a whole bunch of other countries in the Middle East. The Iranian deal – which sadly, has just been approved by Congress – starts a massive flow of money, and that money is going to be used not only to build up an Iranian nuclear weapon – which they have been hell-bent on getting for thirty years – that money is also going to go to the Quds forces, going to go Hezbollah. It’s going to go to all of Iran’s proxies which is why I’ve said to you on other occasions, Hugh, that we have to stop the money flow. And even if Congress had succeeded in stopping this deal – which we now know they have not – the reality is that China and Russia and European money are already flowing to Quds forces among proxies. And that’s why I’ve said I’d cut off the money flow by letting the Supreme Leader know that, hey, there’s a new deal, and we’re going to make it as hard as possible for you to move money around the global financial system so that we cut off the money flow from the Iranian regime to whomever, including the Quds force.

Hewitt: Now there are a lot of dangerous terrorist leaders in the world. There’s Hassan Nasrallah, there’s Al-Zawahiri. There’s al-Julani. There’s Abu-bakar al-Baghdadi. There’s al-Asiri. There’s al-Masri. Do you most of these without a scorecard, Carly Fiorina?

Fiorina: Well, I have to be very honest with you and say that sometimes I can get confused a bit between the name and group because they sound a bit alike sometimes, so I have to pause and think sometimes. But, I certainly know all those names both of the individual leaders and of the terrorist groups. I certainly understand where these terrorists are in play. I certainly understand that one of the most dangerous things that is going on right now is competition among these leaders and among their terrorist groups. So on the one hand, we see organizations like Boko-Haram pledging allegiance to ISIS – in other words – joining forces and conducting horrific acts on behalf of ISIS. But on the other hand, we see competition among these groups, so Al-Qaeda and ISIS are competing now. Al-Nusra is competing. That’s also dangerous because the way these terrorist groups compete is by one-upping each other in the horrific nature of the violence that they conduct.

Hewitt: Now, you see, I don’t think it’s disqualifying or in any way indictment that people get confused about the names, but I think it’s important to know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas and where they operate and what kind of threats they pose to Israel. Do you know that difference between Hamas and Hezbollah?

Fiorina: Yes. I do. And of course, Hamas is focused in Palestinian territories. Hezbollah focuses in Beirut and other places, but the truth is, both of them are proxies of Iran. Both of them threaten Israel. Both of them are going to be benefitting from the agreement which Obama and Kerry have struck with Iran.

Hewitt: And so it was my way of bringing up with Donald – and I’ll bring it up with you now, Carly – that Israel is surrounded by Iranian proxies and by terrorists.

Fiorina: Mm-hm. That’s exactly right.

Hewitt: If they act unilaterally against Iran because they feel they have to. Will you as a candidate or a president unequivocally stand with them.

Fiorina: Absolutely, and it is why I have said to, Hugh, that on day one in the Oval Office I will make two phone calls. The first will to be to Netanyahu – a man I’ve known for a lot time – to reassure him that we will stand with the state of Israel. The second will be to the Supreme Leader of Iran to tell him, “New deal.” We will make as hard as possible to move money. And of course, the Israelis are surrounded by terrorists who are joined in some ways by their goal to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Let me -if you will – let me tell you a little story: on one of my many trips into the Middle East, I was in Jordan. And I was being driven from the airport to a conference – a hotel. And I asked the driver if I could see a map. Now Jordan is of course, one the more moderate Arab states. They are an ally. King Abdullah of Jordan – a man I’ve known for a long time – he’s a fine man, and he and his air force are fighting ISIS as we speak and we need to help him in that fight, but nonetheless, even in that relatively moderate country, I asked the driver to see a map, and I looked at the map, and I saw on the map where Israel should be – a white space. No rivers. No geographic markings of any kind. No name. And I asked him, “What is this?” And he said, “This does not exist.” That is the depth. . .

Hewitt: Wow.

Fiorina: I tell you that story to tell you and the listeners the depth of the ideology that Israel cannot exist and so Hamas or Hezbollah or the Quds force or Al-Nusra or the Supreme Leader in Iran chant “death to America” closely followed by “we must wipe Israel off the face of the map” – this isn’t a joke. This isn’t politics as usual as President Obama implied. This is the core of their belief. And so, Bibi Netanyahu – the head of Mossad – who I also know and who I’ve met with and spoken to about the Iranian nuclear program – the Israelis do face implacable resistance – aggression – enemies who truly want to wipe them off the face of the map and feel that so deeply that they will not show the country on their map.

Hewitt: So last question – how many times have you been to the Middle East, Carly Fiorina?

Fiorina: Oh, I would have to go back and count, but many, let’s say (laughs).

Hewitt: How often to Israel? How many times to Israel?

Fiorina: I’ve been to Israel one time actually.

Hewitt: And Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have you managed to been to either of those?

Fiorina: I have been to Saudi Arabia several times. I have not yet travelled to Egypt.

Hewitt: Interesting.

Fiorina: The last two times, I was planning to go there, there was security issues.

Hewitt: So, my question is at the end of this – that’s the same basic question set that I posed to Donald Trump that he objected to. Do you think that’s “gotcha” because I don’t want to do that at the debate. I don’t want to put people in the position of not knowing names and dates, but I do worry that people have a general grasp of Islamist radicalism. What do you think?

Fiorina: I don’t think they’re “gotcha questions” at all. The questions you’re asking are at the heart of the threat that we face, that our ally, Israel, faces, that the world faces. It is critically important that America lead again in the world. It is critically important that we have a leader in the White House who understands the world and who’s in it and how it works. Who has been to these places. Who has met these leaders. Some of this you can read about in a briefing book, but there’s one level of understanding that you get when you read something. There’s another level of understanding that you get when you’re sitting in the back of a car and a driver gives you a map and Israel literally wiped off the face of the map. That’s a whole different level of understand, and I think that’s the kind of leadership we need the White House, honestly.

Hewitt: Carly Fiorina, thanks for joining me on short notice and pre-taping this before any of the question set got out there, and agreeing to do so. I appreciate your short availability and come back soon before the Simi Valley debate.

Trump Tells Hewitt Any Foreign Policy Question He Doesn't Know Is A "Gotcha" Question

Interesting Interview between Hugh Hewitt and Donald Trump on Thursday's Hugh Hewitt Show. The host asked some foreign policy questions that any Commander-In-Chief should know the names of  groups who threaten us, and their leaders. For example Iranian General Soleimani the leader of the Quds forces. The General was front page news few weeks ago because he traveled to Russia despite the fact that one of the U.N. sanctions on Iran banned Soleimani from traveling. Trump first though he was a Kurdish leader and then said it was a "gotcha" question. Later in the interview, Hewitt mentioned senior figures Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Nusra. Again Trump felt questions about those leaders, which every presidential candidate should know were ridiculous "gotcha" questions. 
 All right, I think it’s ridiculous. I’ll have, I’m a delegator. I find great people. I find absolutely great people, and I’ll find them in our armed services, and I find absolutely great people.
Below is the transcript  and a "video" of the interview:
Hewitt: Joined now by Donald Trump. Donald Trump, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, it’s always a pleasure to talk to you.

Trump: Thank you, Hugh.

Hewitt: I would thought that today, this is our sixth interview, I’d turn to some of the commander-in-chief questions. Are you ready for that?

Trump: Okay, fine.

Hewitt: Are you familiar with General Soleimani?

Trump: Yes, but go ahead, give me a little, go ahead, tell me.

Hewitt: He runs the Quds Forces.

Trump: Yes, okay, right.

Hewitt: Do you expect his behavior…

Trump: The Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by …

Hewitt: No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Forces.

Trump: Yes, yes.

Hewitt: …is the bad guys.

Trump: Right.

Hewitt: Do you expect his behavior to change as a result…

Trump: Oh, I thought you said Kurds, Kurds.

Hewitt: No, Quds.

Trump: Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said Kurds, because I think the Kurds have been poorly treated by us, Hugh. Go ahead.

Hewitt: Agreed. So Soleimani runs the Quds Forces. Do you expect his behavior is going to change as a result of this deal with Iran?

Trump: I think that Iran right now is in the driver’s seat to do whatever they want to do. I think what’s happening with Iran is, I think it’s one of the, and I covered it very well. I assume you saw the news conference. I think Iran is, it’s one of the great deals ever made for them. I think it’s one of the most incompetent contracts I’ve even seen. I’m not just talking about defense. I’m not talking about a contract with another country. I’ve never seen more of a one-sided deal, I think, in my life, absolutely.

Hewitt: Well, Soleimani is to terrorism sort of what Trump is to real estate.

Trump: Okay.

Hewitt: Many people would say he’s the most dangerous man in the world, and he runs the Quds Forces, which is their Navy SEALs.

Trump: Is he the gentleman that was going back and forth with Russia and meeting with Putin? I read something, and that seems to be also where he’s at.

Hewitt: That’s the guy.

Trump: He’s going back and forth meeting with other countries, etc., etc.

Hewitt: That’s the guy.

Trump: Not good.

Hewitt: And so do you think…

Trump: Not good for us. And what it shows is a total lack of respect, I mean, that the other countries would even be entertaining him, and they’re entertaining him big league, big league.

Hewitt: So when you went before the Senate, and I always tell people my favorite testimony of all time is when Donald Trump just schooled the Senate on the construction of the U.N. remodel.

Trump: Right.

Hewitt: You know that stuff. You know every developer in Manhattan. You know everything about building buildings. You could build the wall. I have no doubt about that.

Trump: Right. By the way, and nobody knows how easy that would be. And I mean, it would be, it would be tall, it would be powerful, we would make it very good looking. It would be as good as a wall’s got to be, and people will not be climbing over that wall, believe me. Go ahead.

Hewitt: You know, I’d buy that, because you’re a builder. But on the front of Islamist terrorism, I’m looking for the next commander-in-chief, to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?

Trump: No, you know, I’ll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed. They’ll be all gone. I knew you were going to ask me things like this, and there’s no reason, because number one, I’ll find, I will hopefully find General Douglas MacArthur in the pack. I will find whoever it is that I’ll find, and we’ll, but they’re all changing, Hugh. You know, those are like history questions. Do you know this one, do you know that one. I will tell you, I thought you used the word Kurd before. I will tell you that I think the Kurds are the most under-utilized and are being totally mistreated by us. And nobody understands why. But as far as the individual players, of course I don’t know them. I’ve never met them. I haven’t been, you know, in a position to meet them. If, if they’re still there, which is unlikely in many cases, but if they’re still there, I will know them better than I know you.

Hewitt: That’s what I’m getting at, because the Islamist extremism is metastasizing. Nasrallah’s been there a long time, and al-Baghdadi’s running ISIS. And so I wonder if you’re going to throw yourself into the details of this during the campaign the way you did into the U.N. deal, because you knew that stuff cold.

Trump: Well, you know, and unfortunately, I said I’d build it for $500 million. They were at $3 billion. And it ended up costing $6 billion, and I told them that would happen. And it was a disgrace. Frankly, that whole U.N. situation was a disgrace. They ended up spending $5-6 billion dollars to renovate a building that I would have done for $500 million, and I told them I would have done it, and it would have been better. Now as far as what you’re talking about now, I will know every detail, and I will have the right plan, not a plan like this where we’re probably going backwards based on everything that I’m hearing, but we’re probably going backwards, zero respect. We have, we are not a respected country, and certainly as it relates to ISIS and what’s going on, and Iran.

Hewitt: Now I don’t believe in gotcha questions. And I’m not trying to quiz you on who the worst guy in the world is.

Trump: Well, that is a gotcha question, though. I mean, you know, when you’re asking me about who’s running this, this this, that’s not, that is not, I will be so good at the military, your head will spin. But obviously, I’m not meeting these people. I’m not seeing these people. Now it probably will be a lot of changes, Hugh, as you go along. They’ll be, by the time we get there, which is still a pretty long period of time, you know, you start, let’s say you figure out nominations, and who is going to represent the Republicans in, let’s say, February, March, April, you’ll start to get pretty good ideas, maybe sooner than that, actually. But that will be a whole new group of people. I think what is really important is to pick out, and this is something I’m so good at, to pick out who is going to be the best person to represent us militarily, because we have some great people, militarily. I don’t know that we’re using them.

Hewitt: All right, well, let me expand it, because you know, it’s not gotcha. I’m trying not to do that. But I wanted to see if you…

Trump: Well, it sounded like gotcha. You’re asking me names that, I think it’s somewhat ridiculous, but that’s okay. Go ahead, let’s go.

Hewitt: All right, good. Now have you ever been to Israel? And how often?

Trump: Yes, I’ve been to Israel once.

Hewitt: And if Israel acts unilaterally against Iran because they view this deal as so bad, will you unequivocally stand by the action of the Netanyahu government?

Trump: Of course, I will. In fact, he’s a friend of mine. I did commercials for his reelection. And according to what he said, I’m the only celebrity, he’s used the word celebrity, this was a while ago, that did commercials, that he asked to do commercials. But he’s a good man, and I would absolutely stand with him. But you know, we have a problem, because according to the deal, and this is hard to believe, but we’re supposed to be protecting Iran against any invader. And if Israel invades, nobody knows exactly what’s going to happen, because if Israel invades Iran, I don’t know if you know, but we have a clause in that agreement that the way I read it, it’s almost like we have to go, and by the way, I can guarantee you that clause, first of all, should have never been there, maybe they had it taken out, but we didn’t win anything. But do you know there’s a clause in there that in theory, we’re supposed to help them fight Israel?

Hewitt: Yup. Yeah, it’s in Annex Three. We agree to cooperate in the security of their nuclear installations. It’s remarkable, and I’m glad you know about it. And I’m glad you’ll stand with Israel. Let me ask you about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I don’t know if you’ve been able to get to those countries, yet, have you?

Trump: I have, yes.

Hewitt: And so do you…

Trump: Well, I think the biggest, you know, I think it’s terrible, first of all, with Egypt, and with Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia in particular, was making a billion dollars a day, one billion dollars a day. Now let’s say they make half of that number because oil prices have been so depressed. But Saudi Arabia was making a half a billion dollars. It was a billion dollars a day. Why aren’t they helping us out? When they asked, and you may not like this, but I like it, because when we owe now $19, we’re up to $19 trillion dollars, I certainly like it, and I like protecting…why aren’t they helping us with the costs? We get virtually nothing from Saudi Arabia. Every time somebody raises a rifle in the air and points it in the direction of Saudi Arabia, or, by the way, South Korea and other places, every single time that happens, and I mean without exception, we start loading up and getting ready and sending ships and sending all sorts of things. We get nothing. And you know, maybe you’ll explain why, but we get nothing. And I don’t like that.

Hewitt: I’m curious, though, if we need them, in your opinion, as strategic allies – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. Do we need them even if they’re not paying us money for their defense?

Trump: Well, you need, I think Egypt and Israel get along, and they’re starting to get along pretty well. Mubarak should have been frankly, probably, taken care of better than he was. That sent a bad signal around. But I think in terms of Israel, Egypt starts getting very important. Maybe we don’t need the oil to the same extent as we did, and pretty soon, if we allowed, if we allowed what we have, technologically, to go forward, we wouldn’t need them at all. You know, we have potentially the greatest oil reserves in the world right here, and we wouldn’t need them at all. You know, we used to need Saudi Arabia for oil, and that part of the world. It all started with the oil, and it sort of ends with the oil. But now, we’re at a point where we’re going to be doing ten million barrels. It’s very interesting. We’re probably, very soon, if we allow our people to get going, we’re probably not going to need them for the oil. So we don’t need Saudi Arabia nearly to the extent that we needed them in the past.

Hewitt: Okay, looking to Asia, if China were to either accidentally or intentionally sink a Filipino or Japanese ship, what would Commander-In-Chief Donald Trump do in response?

Trump: I wouldn’t want to tell you, because frankly, they have to, you know, somebody wrote a very good story about me recently, and they said there’s a certain unpredictable, and it was actually another businessman, said there’s a certain unpredictability about Trump that’s great, and it’s what made him a lot of money and a lot of success. You don’t want to put, and you don’t want to let people know what you’re going to do with respect to certain things that happen. You don’t want the other side to know. I don’t want to give you an answer to that. If I win, and I’m leading in every single poll, if I win, I don’t want people to know exactly what I’m going to be doing.

Hewitt: Fair response. Good response.

Trump: Part of the problem with Obama, he says we’re going to do this, we’re going to do that, we’re going to attack here, we’re going to do this. Every time they capture somebody, they make a big deal out of it, and all of the other people, like for instance, they hit somebody with a drone, and they start making a big deal over the fact that they took out a mid-level accounting person, and now everybody else goes and runs, and it makes it harder. I don’t want to explain, and I think it’s a very bad thing. I think we do too much talking, and not enough, do you understand what I’m saying in this, Hugh?

Hewitt: Oh, it’s a great point. It’s a very good answer.

Trump: We do too much talking. General Douglas MacArthur, I was watching as President Obama was talking about, I won’t go into great detail, was talking about attacking at a certain time in a certain place, and I’m saying can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur, General Patton, they must be spinning in their graves when they hear it. So when you tell me a ship is attacked, I don’t want to tell you exactly what I’m going to do. I don’t want people to know my thinking on that, and I do have very spoken…thinking on it.

Hewitt: Fair play.

Trump: But I don’t want people to know my thinking.

Hewitt: All right, next question. Presidents respond to disasters. Governors respond to disasters. What disasters have you, Donald Trump, responded to?

Trump: Well, I’ve responded very much to disasters. I’ve had, you know, fires in buildings, big buildings. I’ve had economic changes where the world crashed in the early 90s, and I came out stronger than I was before. And I didn’t go bankrupt like many people they were forced into bankruptcy, and they were forced into, like, you know disasters never to be heard from again. I came out stronger than I was before. There was an old expression in the early 90s – survive ‘til ’95 that I made up, and I gave. And I actually became much stronger. But I’ve gone through, I’ve watched economic problems happen. Eight years ago, nine years ago when I was buying and everybody else was selling because they had no money and I did have a lot of money and I bought a lot of great assets. And you know, I’ve gone through a lot of different things, and I’ve come out on top always.

Hewitt: Very good. Now some political questions. Do you own a gun?

Trump: I do.

Hewitt: What kind?

Trump: I’d rather not say.

Hewitt: Okay.

Trump: I have a license to carry. I have a license, you know, I have a concealed license, I have a license to carry concealed.

Hewitt: Didn’t know that. How do you define assault weapon? This is important to our 2nd Amendment friends out there.

Trump: Well, yeah, I think that you know, the word assault weapon, and a lot of people, there’s been a lot of controversy, but I wouldn’t give you exact, I am in favor, I have two sons that are members in very high standing at the NRA.

Hewitt: Right.

Trump: And I would ask them for a definition, but I am in favor of allowing, I’m very, very pro-2nd Amendment. And if you want to ask that, I would go to the experts. All I can tell you is that I am totally a 2nd Amendment person, and totally in favor of not doing anything. You know, an interesting thing happened. When the two prisoners escaped in upstate New York, Hugh, people that really were very much against guns all of a sudden, they have these two prisoners, and they are someplace up there and nobody knew where, and a woman who said she used to fight with her husband all the time, she didn’t want guns, all of a sudden, they felt so safe because they were sitting with guns, and they were able to protect themselves. Now nothing ever happened, and ultimately, they caught the one and they killed the other. You know the case I’m talking about three months ago.

Hewitt: You bet.

Trump: But it was very interesting to watch this woman who was totally, and I mean absolutely totally against guns, and all of a sudden, she felt safe because they were able to have guns in the house. So it’s interesting. No, I’m totally pro-2nd Amendment.

Hewitt: All right, now the age question. Hillary’s had to face it. You should as well. You’re 69. How’s your health? And is it legitimate for people to worry about you being president at 69?

Trump: Well, my health is very good, and my father was 94. My mother was 89 when she passed away, and my father was in great shape until he was really like almost 90. My mother was in great shape almost until the end, and mentally, her capacity was 100%, so from a genetic standpoint, very good. I’m in the process of getting some documentation from doctors that have taken care of me over the years. I’ve never had a major problem. I’ve had almost no minor problem as I knock on wood. But my health has been very good and very strong. And maybe you get to see that, because people say boy, you have a lot of energy. You’re able to do so many things. Don’t forget, in addition to running a campaign where it’s number one in every poll, I’m also running a business, which I’m rapidly giving over to my executives. I have a very big business, and I’m rapidly giving that over to my executives and my children.

Hewitt: All right, now every GOP candidate for high office gets this question, Meg Whitman most recently. It’s the illegal alien employment question. Usually, about six weeks before an election, so Donald Trump, have you or any of close member of your family hired an illegal alien in close proximity to your family?

Trump: Not that I know of, no.

Hewitt: Okay, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia blasted you yesterday without naming you. He’s a very well-respected Catholic cleric for belligerent bombast about illegal aliens. He’s a man of the cloth. What do you say in response?

Trump: Well, I think that’s fine. I mean, he can feel that way, and I understand that. And he’s not the only one, but I feel we need borders. I feel that we have to, the word illegal means we’re a country of laws. You saw that at my press conference today, and illegal means illegal. They’re not supposed to be in the country. And we’re either going to have a country or we’re not. And if we’re not going to have strong borders with a wall, which will make it very strong, by the way, and walls do work if they’re properly built, not the little 11 foot walls that we have up right now, and they’re not walls, they’re fences. There is a difference. But you know, I can understand him saying that. And other people have said it, too. But I believe we either have a country or we don’t. We either have laws in the country or we don’t.

Hewitt: All right, now some personal stuff in our last few minutes, because people are curious about Donald Trump. What’s your, what was your worst health crisis to date?

Trump: None. I mean, none. I really haven’t had…

Hewitt: Wow, are you blessed. What’s your worst business decision that you’ve made?

Trump: Worst business decision? Well, I’ve made some business decisions where markets changed, but in virtually every case, I was able to take those decisions and make them good, and take those jobs and make them good, which I think is a great test. I mean, I’ve had buildings going up and the market crashes, which is not my fault, and I go back and I negotiate with the banks, and I negotiate tough and I negotiate hard, and I’ve taken some jobs that were, that could have been disastrous and made them better than if the market had stayed the same. So I don’t know, I view business, I view that question as something you have to learn from it, and you can never make a decision that’s going to take you down. In other words, you’re not going to do something that if it doesn’t work out, because the best businessmen in the world, I know all of them, the best businessmen in the world have had difficult times, and they’ve had bad deals. And you can never allow a deal, Hugh, to take you down. You just can’t do it. So you have to know what you’re doing. But one of the things, and I get a lot of credit in the world of business, I’ve taken deals that should have been bad, and I’ve made them great, better than if the markets stayed good.

Hewitt: Made them work.

Trump: And I’ll tell you one thing, I bought deals for very low prices, like recently Doonbeg in Ireland, this incredible piece of land on the Atlantic Ocean, and other things, I’ve taken deals and bought deals that, and I bought them for very low prices, and turned them around and made them fantastic. So you know, I think you have to learn from business, and ideally, you want to learn from other people, not from yourself.

Hewitt: All right, now President Obama is President Obama today, because when he ran for the United States Senate, his principle opponent, Jack Ryan, had divorce and custody records that had been sealed unsealed. Is there any smoking gun sealed away in records that could come out about Donald Trump down the road to destroy the Republican nominee after you’re the nominee, if you’re the nominee?

Trump: No, I don’t think so, and I think one of the things you know about me, I’ve been a very public person. While I’m private, I’ve also been a very public person over many years. I mean, people know me. I’m very well known, and whether it’s the great success on The Apprentice, where it was one of the top shows on television for a long time, and by the way, NBC renewed it, and is not in love with the fact that I didn’t do it, but they renewed me for The Apprentice for many, many shows on The Apprentice, and you see the kind of money I made on The Apprentice, and I turned it down. I said I’m going to run for president, I’m going to make America great again. They were not happy that I did that, so they’re stuck in limbo. But they renewed The Apprentice. I didn’t do it. No, I think nothing. I’m a very public person, even though I’m private. I think you have seen me, and long before we met and spoke, you’ve seen me, and you know exactly what I’m talking about. So I would say nothing.

Hewitt: all right, last question, I want to go back to the beginning, because I really do disagree with you on the gotcha question thing, Donald Trump. At the debate, I may bring up Nasrallah being with Hezbollah, and al-Julani being with al-Nusra, and al-Masri being with Hamas. Do you think if I ask people to talk about those three things, and the differences, that that’s a gotcha question?

Trump: Yes, I do. I totally do. I think it’s ridiculous.

Hewitt: That’s interesting. I just disagree with that. I kind of figured that…

Trump: All right, I think it’s ridiculous. I’ll have, I’m a delegator. I find great people. I find absolutely great people, and I’ll find them in our armed services, and I find absolutely great people. And now on the bigger picture, like the fact that our Kurds are being treated so poorly, and would really is the one group that really would be out there fighting for us, I think, and fighting for themselves, maybe more importantly to them, I understand that. But when you start throwing around names of people and where they live and give me their address, I think it’s ridiculous, and I think it’s totally worthless.

Hewitt: Well, I wouldn’t do that. That’s crazy. I agree.

Trump: Well, and by the way, the names you just mentioned, they probably won’t even be there in six months or a year.

Hewitt: I don’t know. Nasrallah’s got such staying power.

Trump: Well, let’s see what happens.

Hewitt: And so I think the difference…

Trump: And you know what? In that case, first day in office, or before then, right at the day after the election, I’ll know more about it than you will ever know. That I can tell you.

Hewitt: Oh, I hope so. Last question, so the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas does not matter to you yet, but it will?

Trump: It will when it’s appropriate. I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take me long.

Hewitt: All right, that, I believe.

Trump: But right now, right now, I think it’s just something that, and you know what, if you ask these candidates, nobody’s going to be able to give you an answer. I mean, there may be one that studied it because they’re expecting a fresh question from you. But believe me, it won’t matter. I will know far more than you know within 24 hours after I get the job.

Hewitt: Donald Trump, congratulations on taking the pledge today. Your numbers are going to go up as a result of that.

Trump: Well, let’s see what happens. I mean, I’m not sure that that’s true. I think my numbers are very high now. But I’m not really sure that that’s true, but I know you feel that. I hope you’re right. I mean, let’s see what happens.

Hewitt: Donald Trump, thank you, always a pleasure.

Trump: Thank you very much.



American Jews' Blind Support of The Democratic Party Is Reason For Iran Deal Passing


Now that Obama has enough senators that a veto of the anti-Iran deal bill cannot be overturned the postmortems have started. Some like an IBD Editorial said, "Senate Democrats Favoring Iran Deal Have Blood On Their Hands." My friend Joel Pollak at Breitbart  argued that this proved the anti-Semitic meme that the Jewish-lobby controls foreign policy wasn't true. I would argue that they are both partially correct but are omitting possibly the biggest enabler, the Jewish community itself.

Over thirty years ago Secretary of State James Baker said "F**k the Jews they won't vote for us anyway." But because most American Jews have a blind loyalty to the Democratic Party no matter what, today Democrats Party politicians act as if their stance is "F**k the Jews they will vote for us whatever we do!"

In 2008 despite all the warnings, despite the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church hearing anti-Semitic sermons for two decades, despite the fact that he was close friends with Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Even before the election the Jewish community knew that at a 2003 event honoring Khalidi, Obama had made a toast that was so anti-Israel that the liberal L.A. Times hid the tape. Before the 2008 election Obama had already surrounded himself with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel advisers. Ignoring all that, the Jewish community gave Obama 78% of the Jewish vote. The vote was led by the leadership of certain major Jewish organizations who despite their phony claims of bi-partisanship, have a blind allegiance to the Democratic Party. That allegiance was so strong that when the Democratic Party demanded that V.P. Candidate Sarah Palin's invitation to speak at an anti-Iran rally be rescinded these major Jewish organizations complied.

During his first term President Obama proved to be the most anti-Israel president since the modern state of Israel was created in 1948. But it shouldn't have been as surprise.

At the very beginning of his administration he told Jewish leadership that one of his goals was to drive a wedge between the US and Israel. “When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.

Actually, wasn't exactly Jewish leadership, Obama decided to include the leader of the anti-Israel organization J Street in his meeting promoting them to leadership. J Street is a group that had no legitimacy in the Jewish community. At the same time Obama pushed Jewish members of Congress to endorse J Street by lending their name to the organizations first national conference. That first meeting also sent a a different signal to those Jewish leaders Obama also left Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America who was usually included in these type of meetings off his list, because unlike the rest of the leadership Mort didn't have blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

Despite all this, despite telling leaders he was going to drive a wedge, despite the fact he was picking his own version of Jewish leadership, not one of the people who attended the meeting publicly objected, warned the Jewish community.

Obama even foreshadowed the Iran deal during his first months in office. During his 2009 speech in Cairo he said, “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” which foreshadowed his future negotiations with the rogue Iranian regime.

During the first term Obama continued to surround himself with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic advisers even including Al Sharpton who led two anti-Jewish riots in NYC, without a peep from the supposed Jewish leadership.

During his first term when Obama constantly announced anti-Israel policies, not one of these Jewish leaders opened their mouth. Not one of them called on the silent Democratic Party "supporters of Israel" in congress to criticize this president. Because of that not one of those congressional Democrats complained which enabled even more bad behavior

Despite an anti-Israel first term as the 2012 election neared, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee in a joint statement asked their fellow Jews to pledge not to criticize Obama's anti-Israel policy. They said it was to keep the issue bi-partisan but it was because their leadership was very partisan---supporting progressive issues and the Democratic Party candidate. Another of those supposedly "bi-partisan" leaders Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress actually had fundraisers for the president in his home.

On Obama's insistence, the Democrats removed four pro-Israel planks from their party platform in 2012, when they tried to add one (Jerusalem as capital of Israel) back, the convention voted no but the leadership lied and said it was passed. The planks about not returning to the 1949 armistice lines, not negotiating with Hamas, and Palestinian refugees will return to Palestinian territory as opposed to Israel were never put back.

When the Jewish DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept praising Obama as having a wonderful pro-Israel policy, not ONE of the supposed Jewish leaders said, hey we understand you gotta support the guy but don't lie about his Israel policy.

Famous Jewish supporters of Israel like Alan Dershowitz and former NYC Mayor Ed Koch who criticized Obama as being anti-Israel during his first term, all of a sudden forgave him as Election Day neared. When I pointed out the hypocrisy to the former Mayor, in true Ed Koch style he told me to "go to hell!" If you knew Ed Koch that was a badge of honor.

With all the help from the Jewish leadership, this anti-Semitic, anti-Israel president received 69% of the Jewish vote.

So now Obama has done what he promised back in 2009 when he met with the "supposed" Jewish leadership, driving a wedge between the U.S. and Israel, he's done what he said he would do in Cairo, he created a deal which will allow Iran to get a bomb. He has surrounded himself with anti-Semites and anti-Israel advisers just as he did during his campaign...and nothing...silence from the Jewish leadership.

In fact last week when they interviewed the president during a teleconference for the Jewish community, the head of he Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the head of the Jewish Federation didn't challenge him about the deal. I am not saying that they should have been rude, but instead of asking specific questions about the side deals, or about the fact that the U.S. is obligated to protect Iran's nuclear plants, or the paragraph which allows Iran to take the money and then leave the deal, or any of the other specific questions about the deal, these two supposed leaders attached their lips firmly on the arse of the POTUS and asked softballs like, "Can the U.S. Israel relationship be repaired?" Or when the president lied during his opening statement, they didn't question him about it. Perhaps they didn't read the agreement, perhaps they were trying to protect the president, but it was just another way the Jewish community enabled the Democratic party to ignore the Jewish voters.

And now everyone is surprised how so many Democrats chose loyalty to their party over rejecting an obviously lousy Iran deal. Most of them began their notes of support by listing the reasons the deal stinks, but then went ahead by saying here was no better choice. That's the political version of everyone gets a participation trophy, and ignores the foreign policy people in France and Great Britain who have said if Congress kills the deal a better one can be negotiated.

People shouldn't be surprised. By voting Democratic despite the anti-Israel policies, by our supposed leaders supporting the Democratic Party despite their anti-Israel policies (and their vows of bi-partisanship) we taught the Democrats that they could do anything they want to the Jews, or on Jewish issues and we will support them in the next election, we will give them our campaign donations and we will give them our votes.

Here's a little secret, the issues their voters care about influence candidates positions. Progressives are not pro-Israel and the Jews don't care so why should the Democrats support Israel? On the Republicans side the reason many GOP candidates are pro-Israel is the evangelical vote that is a major part of their base. But if the very pro-Israel evangelicals ever lose their influence in the party, only then will Jewish issue be truly bi-partisan.... both parties wont care about them.

Obama didn't defeat the "Jewish Lobby," any influence they ever had was defeated by a blind Democratic Party vote. And the only way we will ever get it back is first, to start voting for the other party--not blindly, but look at Republican candidates with an open mind. The other thing the Jewish community has to do is stop financially supporting groups whose leadership blindly supports progressive politics and parties.  There are plenty of Jewish charities to give money to...I strongly urge my fellow Jews to donate to those groups instead of the blatantly political ones like the ADL, The Jewish Federation, The American Jewish Congress, The American Jewish Committee and any organization that support the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.  Only by shifting the Jewish vote and moving our money away from Democratic organizations masquerading as Jewish ones will we be able to make BOTH parties fight for our support by backing those issues important to the Jewish community

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

California Attorney General Trying To Scare Conservative Groups Into Silence

California's attorney general, the Democratic Party's Kamala Harris is doing her best to silence conservative speech. She is demanding the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), public-interest law firm specializing in protecting the First Amendment's guarantee of free political speech, to disclose its principal donors to the state, a move that is putting a chill down the spines of 501(C)(3) and 501(C)(4) organizations that operate in the state. As the AG Harris oversees licensing of charities and other nonprofits so her threat is real.

Charities list all the donors on their federal tax returns (Form 990), however they redact the lists when they make them public or submit them to the states. When I discovered, for example, that George Soros was donating to J Street it was only because the anti-Israel group forgot to black out the donor list when they submitted it to Foundation Finder.

The Center for Competitive Politics, a Virginia nonprofit registered with the California Attorney General, challenged the Attorney General’s unredacted Schedule B filing requirement. On May 1, 2015, in Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regulation allowing the California Attorney General to request such information.

On August 13th American Target Advertising (ATA), a company specializing in promoting conservative causes  along with 57 nonprofit and other organizations filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the appeal of the case officially called  Center for Competitive Politics v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California.

Note:  One of those 57 organizations is the Media Research Center an organization that employs me as a freelance blogger.  I was unaware of their participation until I began researching this post. As with everything put up on this site, this post is my opinion, it has not been shared with anyone before it was posted and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the folks at MRC.

The brief refers to the 1957 case of NAACP v. Alabama where the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Alabama could not require the NAACP to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the state. "The court held that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State," something not present in this case, was needed to justify Alabama's actions."

Per a press release issued by ATA:
This is the NAACP v. Alabama of the 21st Century," said ATA President of Corporate Affairs Mark Fitzgibbons, who added, "Using methods more comprehensive and arbitrary than the Alabama attorney general and other politicians in the 1950s who sought to destroy the civil rights movement by intimidating and silencing activists and their organizations, Ms. Harris and many politicos want to use the power of government to intimidate or even put their grassroots critics out of business. In her unlawful quest, Harris is also violating privacy and association rights of donors to all charities essential for Toquevillian, non-governmental democracy in American society."

The National Organization for Marriage, whose donor names were leaked by the IRS to hostile blogs, and nationally recognized conservative nonprofit organizations such as Media Research Center, Concerned Women for America, Citizens United, Family Research Council, Faith & Freedom Coalition, the Weyrich Lunch, and Leadership Institute are among the 58 organizations on the brief.
A copy of the brief can be viewed here.  But when you sift through all the lawyer talk it has three main points
  • AG Harris's demands that nonprofit organizations disclose to her their donor names and addresses on an IRS schedule violate federal law protecting confidential tax return information, violate the landmark 1958 decision NAACP v. Alabama protecting freedom of association, and violate privacy rights;
  • Harris's demands are an "extortionate unconstitutional condition" to obtain a permit to engage in constitutionally protected rights, and interfere with important privacy rights at the core of American society.
  • The  California statute delegating unbridled discretion to AG Harris to determine what registrants must file is unconstitutional on its face for First Amendment reasons, and is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Folks this is nothing more than another Democratic Party scheme to suppress political speech by their conservative opposition. They cannot win a battle of ideas so they are shutting off any opposition.


President Obama Gets His Legacy

Obama has 34 votes in the Senate to support his P5+1 Iran Disaster...I will write more later...but for now I fear this will be his real legacy: