Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was met with an enthusiastic reception in the AIPAC conference in Washington on Monday, as he took a strong pro-Israel stance, blasting everyone from President Obama and the Palestinians to the UN and Iran.
“President Barack Obama is the worst thing to happen to Israel,” the Republican frontrunner told the audience at the Verizon Center, castigating the U.S. president and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for “pressuring our friends and rewarding our enemies.”
Trump said that as president he will send a clear signal that there’s “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, and promised to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In an apparent break with previous statements that he would assume a neutral position to broker a peace deal, Trump said he would side with Israel in any negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
“The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” he said.
“They must come to the table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel and they must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish state and it will forever exist as a Jewish State,” Trump told the pro-Israel lobbying group.
Trump placed the blame for the stalled peace talks on the Palestinians, saying that they have repeatedly refused Israeli and American overtures. Trump also accused the Palestinians of incitement to terrorism. “Children are being taught to hate the Jews, it has to stop,” he said. “You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs. That’ll end and it’ll end soon, believe me,” he said to applause.
Trump also questioned the role of the United Nations in the peace process, saying any attempt by the international body to impose a Middle East agreement would be a disaster. The United Nations, saying it is “not a friend of democracy, not a friend to the U.S., and certainly not a friend to Israel,” Trump said, promising that as president the U.S. would veto any UN Security Council resolution forcing a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
“An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete disaster. That’s not how you make a deal,” he said, warning that a UN resolution of this kind would only foster more Palestinian terrorism. Mentioning Taylor Force, the U.S. citizen killed in a terror attack in Jaffa earlier this month, Trump said that such behavior should not be rewarded. “You have to confront this kind of behavior,” he said.
Trump also took aim at the nuclear deal with Iran and the removal of sanctions. “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” he said to applause. Trump said the deal rewarded Iran with 150 billion dollars, while allowing it to “run out clock” and eventually acquire nuclear arms.
As president, Trump promised that he would stand up to Iran’s push to destabilize the region, will work to dismantle its global terrorism network, and hold it “totally accountable” to the nuclear deal.
In a press conference ahead of his speech, Trump said that he would require Israel to pay back the United States for the foreign aid it received. Talking to reporters in Washington, Trump was asked about his previously stated stance that the U.S. should charge some of its allies for its assistance in their defense. “I want them to pay us some money,” Trump said.
There has been a majority requirement for the Republican presidential nomination since 1860, but the Trump Cult acknowledges no facts or rules…only demented adulation of their bizarre savior. He truly is the Hero Of The Irrational, so citing historical or legal precedent to a Trumpling is like trying to reason with cabbage.
I feel I am dealing with a kindergartener, Bernard, because you keep evading the facts of what transpired; I will try once more.
You wrote [#15, supra, regarding the courts, “they never ruled on the substantive issue, always a technicality or it would already have gone to the supremes.”
I have provided a case [PA] on which one court ruled adverse to your arguments and, explicitly, to your claim; in addition, I cited to others [Indiana/Texas] that also didn’t focus on “technicalities.”
THEREFORE, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement…because…you should explicitly…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
{And, at this point, you SORELY need rehab.}
Bear Klein Said:
its not just me, there are a substantial number of experts who have the same perspective. you are just interested in your Cruz, I am interested in the resolution of the legal question. As for so what, there are voters who will not vote in a candidate whom they feel his legal status is unresolved, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. I feel confident that some votes were lost to Cruz and Rubio and that in the future this will have to be a consideration of the parties. You may disagree, but so what… they will lose votes because of it.
rsklaroff Said:
what multitude, in the next link the same judge pellegrini case is cited and the 3rd link shows a dismissal on technicality…. so it appears we are back to the one case not dismissed on technicality.. the pellegrini case which is going now for appeal.
Posting repeat links of the same thing does not cut it.
from your 3rd link:
If congress were responsible they would have agreed an amendment to end the ambiguity. Until then, expect the same
Bernard with all respect due to does not matter if you do agree Cruz was a natural born citizen. He is running and no court has ruled against him in fact just the opposite. Some cases are dismissed on technicalities because the judges are not looking to get into such a lame case. I know you do not agree but so what!
@ Bernard:
You have an absolutely overwhelming tendency to self-sidetrack; instead, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement…because…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
@ rsklaroff:
not at all, I am not again going through the same links. I dealt with your first link.. thats enough. You can post the details of your evidence on the cases that were turned down on the substantive issue rather than technicalities. On your first link 3 of 4 were technicalities and the fourth is continuing to the next stage. On constitutional issues, whether turned down or not, there are usually appeals leading up to the supremes. Every one knows that constitutional questions are not resolved in lower state courts.
Bear Klein Said:
this appears to be the plan of the GOP: anyone but Trump… but I think that might backfire on them. I dont think the GOP establishment or the conservatives would mind losing without Trump because their hold on the party is more important… a team has to open the feeding trough to its members upon accession and Trump is unreliable on that.
@ Bernard:
You have an overwhelming tendency to self-sidetrack; instead, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement…because…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
@ Bernard:
You are deftly trying to evade the need to admit your posting-error by claiming the overall issue is a wash; first, it isn’t and, second, you must ‘fess-up regarding your misstatement…because…
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
Bear Klein Said:
but no one answered my question regarding those “polls”: which polls of 8 months ago predicted the current numbers and status of Trump accurately? I dont remember any of them predicting that last July. I assert that the reliability of those polls are suspect on 8 months from now, especially knowing that donald will reveal all her corruptions whereas the other GOP might turn a blind eye to some. We have seen the GOP accomodate obama on various issues plus established opposition parties tend to indirectly cover up the corruption of their opposition in return for the same favor when they are out.
A few more muslim atrocities and Donalds honesty on the muslim immigration issue will become more acceptable… especially contrasted with hillary MB associations.
@ rsklaroff:
@ Bear Klein:
it makes no sense to continue this same argument as it boils down usually to the main argument of which interpretation applies, “naturalization by statute” or “natural born”, which is in the domain of the supremes. there are a couple of other arguments regarding whether the father must be a citizen or either parent for natural born also. Hence, until the Supremes adjudicate the constitutional question or an amendment is made then my position will remain regardless of how many lower courts adjudicate: that it is legally unresolved.
The GOP and the DEMS are in agreement, but they also agreed to give obama a pass on Iran rather than treat it as a treaty.
@ Bernard:
I cited on-point cases explicitly related to Sen. Cruz; you cited [and continue to cite] argument knowing that [as Bear observed, satirically] the case hasn’t gone to the SCOTUS [and that no amendment is going to be adopted prior to the November election.
THEREFORE, again,
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
So if Trump does not get 1237 delegates Cruz, Kasich or someone else could be the nominee. Based on polls Cruz has a chance to become President and Kaisch a very good chance. Trump would loose in a landslide based on polls.
Bear Klein Said:
yes, “born a citizen” but not a “natural born citizen” prior to the statute which made him a citizen he would not have been born a citizen… hence the reasoning of those constituional scholars who maintain it is a “naturalization by statute” as congress had no authority under the constitution to create new classes of citizens…. they only had the power to determine the criteria of naturalization. You are concerned about Cruz but I am concerned about the constitutional issue beyond Cruz which is ambiguous and needs resolving by Supremes or amendment as no other authorities can interpret or change the federal constitution.
rsklaroff Said:
No, because you ignore all the postings of legal precedent and cases i posted the last times around on this issue which go back centuries and which contradict these recent findings. I am not doing it all again. I answered to your first link and quoted your link that 3 out of the 4 were on techinicalities and the 4th is being appealed on constitutional grounds… we all know that lower courts are not the venue for constitutional question and neither do local election boards.
read this again to understand the irrelevance of your postings
bernard ross Said:
until the supremes decide or an amendment is made I will continue to dispute that the issue is legally resolved… and you will see that this issue will continue to arise until the proper legal resolution is achieved: SUPREMES or AMENDMENT!!!!!!
All except the biased ones have long ago recognized that Cruz is eligible to run for President as he was born a citizen of the USA.
We might as well start a rumor that Trump is not eligible to run as he was born in space and thus is not eligible to run because the Supreme Court has not heard the case.
You SUBSEQUENTLY/RELUCTANTLY acknowledged one case [of a multitude] only after I confronted you with hyperlinks; initially, you had refrained from articulating basic-truth.
[And, of course, judicial decisions can be appealed…so this is a non-starter when attempting to rationalize-away your (overt) oversight.]
THEREFORE, again,
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
rsklaroff Said:
I acknowledged those mentioned in the article you cited.. 3 on technicalities and one on the issue… the one slated to appeal to a higher court, which is the usual procedure for constitutional questions leading to the supremes. sometimes a case is dropped rather than continuing to the supremes due to money or time… once elected the issue becomes moot for that president as he can only then be removed by impeachment.
You are incorrigible, for you refer to “The 3 turned down on technicalities” without acknowledging my referenced-cases that were adjudicated on the substance.
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
rsklaroff Said:
I would love to do that as soon as the Supremes decide the issue or an amendment is made. In fact, I have no position on the issue other than that it has not been legally resolved.
@ rsklaroff:
it does not matter how many lower courts rule until the constitutional issue is decided by the sole constitutional authority or by amendment. Until then it remains an unfinished process. You and I arguing will change nothing, you will see it keep returning because the core issue is unresolved. Three of the 4 recent cases were decided on technicality and one is slated to move to the next level.
rsklaroff Said:
all this shows is that the board agrees with one side of the argument opposed by those who state that it was a naturalization by statute prior to the naturalization act they were not considered citizens and congress was only delegated the power to naturalize, not to create new citizenship criteria. DUH, that is a constitutional question. You will see this issue keep returning until put to bed properly, not by consensus but by due constitutional process.
You are incorrigible, for you refer to “The 3 turned down on technicalities” without acknowledging my referenced-cases that were adjudicated on the substance.
ADMIT ERROR!
[It’s healthy for the soul]
rsklaroff Said:
DUH, If turned down on the substantive issue it can continue to proceed until reaching the supremes. The 3 turned down on technicalities cannot proceed upward except in regard to the technicalities and NOT the constitutional questions. Lets see if they allow it to reach the supremes on the constitutional question… both parties will do everything to avoid that. Congress should write an amendment to remove the issue.
UNTRUE
rsklaroff Said:
please produce the evidence to support this ludicrous statement.
@ rsklaroff:
baloney, if you go back to my past posts, which i will not keep repeating, I posted the cases and precedents of contrary legal experts and judges. A constitutional issue is not “settled” until the supremes or an amendment. It will remain a problem until one of those resolves the issue. It will be interesting to see if the case is allowed to proceed to the higher courts on the basis on the substantive issue as all prior cases were denied at some point on technicalities and not the constitutional issue. When denied on a technicality it cannot go to the supremes.
@ rsklaroff:
its tiresome because you keep posting the same old arguments which all also have their recorded rebuttals. its a constitutional issue and although bds of election and lower courts make decisions that are often overturned it is only an amendment or the supremes who can make a inarguable change. Giving the opinions and actions of those in positions is meaningless to a constitutional question.
The whole of the south, govs, mayors, politicans, courts, bds of elections, etc etc etc…. all of them operated and claimed that segregation was legal…. until the supremes took the case in 1954. Similarly the world today overwhelmingly claims that Israel is an apartheid state and that jews in YS are illegal and illegitimate…. and yet I still annoyingly and tiresomely maintain that they are ALL wrong.
Bernard, you have been reduced to twisting quotes and projecting a future that befits your bias. Dan [and others] ruled on the issue in a fashion that is c/w what has been ensconced in statute. You may claim the judge “erred” for whatever reason, to your heart’s content, but you cannot point to any time when your warped narrative has been validated–anywhere–in any judicial setting.
rsklaroff Said:
Its a constitutional issue and can only ultimately be decided by the supreme court or an amendment to the constitution. The Judge erred as even I can see that he relied on the naturalization act of 1790 which was later repealed and the relied upon words removed.
Bernard, it continues to be tiresome when forced intermittently to function as a “corrective” for your postings.
*
The latest example is glaring, for it would be desirable were you to admit you missed the above citation, plus the following:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ruling-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/article/2582259
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz secured two major victories Monday, winning the Republican Iowa caucuses and also receiving a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which confirmed his U.S. citizenship met the state’s primary ballot requirements.
and the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/01/judge-dismisses-ted-cruz-illinois-citizenship-lawsuit/81153054/
The Indiana Board of Election last month rejected challenges to whether Cruz and fellow GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio meet the “natural-born” requirement.
and the following:
http://lawnewz.com/important/judge-smacks-down-trumps-ted-cruz-birther-claims-and-hardly-anyone-covers-it/
Judge Smacks Down Trump’s Ted Cruz Birther Claims, and Hardly Anyone Covers It
*
Furthermore, you have failed to factor into your obeisance to The Donald, the [belated] observation of [the late] Annette Funicello.
*
If nothing else, Ted Belman merits more judicious self-discipline be applied before you pontificate [and spread untruths], for otherwise you would provoke him to hire a shadow-blogger to prevent besmirching of this unique website.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/pennsylvania-judge-rules-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-tossing-eligibility-lawsuit.html/
Pennsylvania judge rules Cruz a natural born citizen, tosses eligibility suit
@ babushka:
no, they never ruled on the substantive issue, always a technicality or it would already have gone to the supremes.
No, the speechwriter works for Tump.
Tump says nothing unless Tump wants to say it.
The attack on Israel came directly from Tump.
It might be de rigueur to make excuses for absolutely every stupid thing Tump says and does, but ultimately Tump bears the blame.
Facts never matter to a communist.
Every court that has considered the matter has ruled otherwise.
You Trump minions must eventually come to terms with the fact that rubbing alcohol is an astringent, not a beverage.
Tump’s speechwriter was very dumb, especially on the”payback”part. Did Europe pay us back for our help in WWII? Did Stalin pay us back for the 11 billion in U.S. aid? Did the Arabs pay us back for our help to them? Did NATO pay us back for our costs to defend them?
Our aid to our allies has been part of the U.S. Defense budget EXCEPT for Israel where it is called “foreign aid”. Our aid to Israel belongs in the same defense budget as our help to NATO.
Aid is also a two way street. We should also count all the help we get from Israel at no cost to us. We get intelligence, weapons technology, commercial technology and much more from Israel which increases year by year. This should be estimated and compared with other so-called allies.
The issue of U.S. aid to Israel has been allowed, by our dumb Jewish leaders, to become a propaganda weapon in the hands of our enemies.
Whether you love Trump or hate him you have to accept the fact that he is the only legitimate contender for the presidency. Cruz the runner up is is ineligible as he is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution but who follows the Constitution anymore. We’ve already had a Kenyan as president so let’s try a Canadian now. Trump as president will treat Israel as a valued ally and will aid it in combating Islamic terrorism. He has promised to be at Israel’s side when it comes to peace talks with the Palestinians and not allow any peace agreement be forced upon Israel.What more do you want from him?
Would that the U.S. had a leader that would first move the embassy to Jerusalem, and then sunset U.S. aid to Israel and all Middle East states. Israel would be the clear winner, as the strings attached to U.S. aid are cut, and Israel no longer is treated as the 51st state, or a vassel state. The U.S. aid is only about 1.5% of Israeli GDP. Ask yourself if all the State Department bullyuing is worth such a tiny and symbolic sum. All that said, I wish Trump would have declared the death of the Two State Solution canard. An opportunity lost.
Trump speech was clearly pro Israel. He said there would be no daylight between Israel and the USA and completely undid his neutral comment. He was going to back Israel in the UN. He was going to take on Iran. He was not going to force Israel into and deals she did not want. He blamed the Palestinians as the problem. He articulated that he now understood the issue. He recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.
Yes Cruz and Kasich also gave very pro Israel speeches. All three GOP candidates have my personal approval as being Pro Israel. People who like one or the other or dislike one may make their own arguments because they want to find fault with the competition as happens in elections.
Contrast this to Hillary who said their would be no daylight between Israel and the USA under her but contradicted herself as she spoke. She rails against Jewish housing past the green line because it angers the Palestinians. She is taking their side and discriminating against Jews building houses in Jerusalem and in other towns in Judah/Samaria. This is not a friend. She does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. Hillary even thinks the Iran deal was in Israel’s favor. She said this at AIPAC with a straight face. Then she said no Americans died in Libyia (oops she forget the Ambassador and his security team).
The GOP will need to unify after they pick a nominee or Hillary will try to implement her husband’s plan on Israel.
The speech of Trump was at one and the same time very strong for Israel and the Jewish Homeland and very weak. But I maintain “very very strong” in this sense.
Trump is saying in essence that Israel and the Jews fight themselves to defend their state but that he as president will totally take their side in the creation of a level playing field.
If you want to you can work out the implications of that and they are huge.
The key focus in the speech of Trump to AIPAC was Obama and Hillary Clinton and everything they have been doing not only to Israel but to everything. He seems to grasp the key issue, the most vital of all vital issues, that every single thing that happens in the world is an issue for Israel and the Jews. This is because the outstanding “default” ideology (I am more and more convinced through my reading of history) is Antisemitism.
I do not want to attack Popes and Christians etc. but I do wish to understand the issues concerning the fromation of Christianity, just as I wish to understand Islam historically. There is a difference between leftist anti-clerical attacks and understanding. I go for the latter every time. I am a proud Marxist theorist and practitioner and I am not a protester.
The policy of the NeoCons and Bush Junior in the attack on Iraq in 2003 was most disastrous for the Jews and Israel. Obama and Hillary Clinton have in no way been abstaining but have been carrying on where Bush Junior left off in these disastrous for the world seven years.
I am not interrested in people who attack Trump on this or that. I am only interested in THEM answering the question – how was Trump able to see the disaster that the war by Bush Junior on Iraq and the removal of Saddam was as early as 2004. (No love on my part for Saddam at all I am just talking about objective processes, involving cause and effect)
I am also interested only in that in response to San Bernadine Massacre that Trump reacted by calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the shores of America which was in all effect a permanent ban (read his words on this carefully)
How light-weights attack Trump on this and that is of no importance to me. I want to focus on those issues.
Trump is saying to Jews YOU ACT AND I WILL BACK YOU UP. BE INDEPENDENT THAT IS WHAT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS YOU HAVE FOUGHT FOR. NOW FULFILL. I WILL BE WITH YOU IF YOU FULFILL YOUR SIDE. IF NOT I WILL BUTT OUT AND LEAVE YOU TO IT.
That is noble! But are there any noble Jews left?
Neither Cruz nor Trump mentioned settlement construction. Nor did they mention borders.
People tend to be most eloquent when they are passionate, and least eloquent when they are insincere. The duality of Cruz/Trump is staggering. For Israel, Cruz would be a blessing from God, and Trump would be a curse.
As an important speech, this was horribly written. Very amateurish. No elegance etc.
I liked the speech by Cruz much better.
Trump made the remark about paying back the $3 billion before this speech. He obviously didn’t know that it wasn’t so much a gift as it is a defense expenditure in return for great value for the US. Cruz mentioned it in th8is light in his speech.
So Trump is determined to bleed Israel dry. This comes as a surprise only to nimrods who stare at the wall drooling. Even Obama, who despises Israel, controlled his hatred until after the election. Trump just can’t wait to screw the Jewish State. He makes Hillary look like a Zionist. Has she declared her intention to extort billions from Israel?
No one who loves Israel will vote for this putz. Neither will anyone who likes Israel. Or anyone who a mild fondness for Israel. Hell, if you are just neutral you still can’t vote for someone who intends to bankrupt Israel.
Annette Funicello was right about this slob:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ5ld-MlKcM
Trump later partially reversed itself on payback but said Israel could pay for its defense moving forward it appeared. Israel actually should wean itself from the aid.
Taking money from someone makes the relationship uneven and the payor believes you owe them and need to do what they say.
Israeli independence requires self reliance. Figure out how to take the gas revenues to partially pay for defense.
Trumps speech actually was very good and Pro Israel. His son-law with the help of Israelis apparently wrote the speech. I have not been a Trump fan but this definitely was progress on Trumps part.
As is customary in the leftie-press, the lede was buried [and, not surprisingly, omitted from the speech]:
“Trump said that he would require Israel to pay back the United States for the foreign aid it received.”