Donald Trump's speech at the AIPAC Conference in March 2016

Just like Hillary said, "you can't be neutral on Israel when it comes to Israel's security and survival". AIPAC's refusal to advocate hard on Pro-Israel policy and let the cards fall where they may - could very well spell the end of AIPAC. I am an AIPAC Club member and I was a delegate at the March DC Conference. Clinton, Kasich, and Cruz all got standing ovations. The fact that Trump did his homework, gave the best (rehearsed) pro-Israel speech that commanded 6 standing ovations was not an insult to Obama. Lillian Pincus called it an "Ad Hominin" attack on Obama. If that was the case, then Trump would have made critisisms that had nothing to do with Obama having big ears or small hands - which would be considered an "Ad Hominin" attack. Trump critisized Obama's undeniable hypocritical bad policy regarding Israel AND his horrible treatment of Israeli PM Netanyahu. If AIPAC is so handcuffed by their desire to appear bi-partisin gives Comngressmen a free pass on the hill to legislate anti-Israel policy - then what good is AIPAC?

Many people believe that AIPAC failed to stop the Iran deal because AIPAC thought that if they played softball with the Obama administration, he would throw Israel a bone and do "something" that would allow Israel and AIPAC to save face and accept the Iran deal. Instead of a bone, Obama threw AIPAC a hand grenade.

Furthermore, many of the leaders of the anti-Trump movement at the AIPAC conference are founding members of J-Street AND AIPAC. These people and organizations ( I am a reform Jew and I am ashamed of the position of the URJ), have no problem with J-Street being totally partisan AND anti-Israel, yet they demand that AIPAC be bi-partisan AND not allow AIPAC to use it's full influence to affect American policy towards Israel. This is so obviously hypocritical that it has infuritated a lot of faithful AIPAC members.

Lastly, there was a lot people on open conference calls before the conference who wanted AIPAC to use a Q&A of the candidates so that they would have hardball questions asked of them, rather than a speech where the candidates could say whatever they want to pacify the crowd (which is what we heard). AIPAC choose to allow the speeches and AIPAC's steering committee who handled the candidates FAILED to tell the speakers that critisim of Obama was "off limits". When Lillian Pincus verbally spanked the 18,000 delegates on the wrist for giving Trump the respect that his speech deserved, you could hear the whispers of everyone who clapped for Trump feeling personally insulted. The blame for Trumps comments were not on Trump because he t old the truth, it wasn't on the delegates because they agreed that Obama has been horrible to Israel....the blame lies at the feet of the organizers of this AIPAC conference for incompetency on a lot of levels.

Times have changed, and if AIPAC's leadership can't find a way to take advantage of it, they will find themselves with with 10,000 people next year at the conference - even with them paying for 5,000 college students.

Just for the record, I am not for any specific candidate other than I will vote Republican.

Trump, the Protestors and the U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and exercise their right to free speech in the First Amendment.

Common constraints on the right to assemble are a class of time, place and manner regulations. A second type of constraint is the requirement to obtain a permit, where coordination may be needed to ensure public safety.

I support the right of the Trump Political machine to hold their Presidential rallies and I support the right of those who dislike Trump to protest. What I do not support are anti-Trump protestors who are intentionally disrupting the Trump rallies with the express intent of depriving Trump and his supporters their right to assemble and conduct free speech. The protestors are legally obligated to get a permit to assemble “outside” the Trump events, presumably at a safe distance as determined by the police in order to avoid a confrontation - then that is fine with me. Going inside the events covertly with the express intent of denying thousands their civil rights is illegal and should be dealt with in a court of law.

What perplexes me are the actions of the political establishment on both sides of the aisle:  President Obama joined the fray of the mob-attacking Trump by justifying their “illegal behavior” because “Trump was asking for it”. It’s like blaming a rape victim for being raped.  Obama rushed to judgment on the side of rioters in Ferguson, Missouri. He called the justice department in to protect the rioter’s right to assemble (even though it was actually a criminal mob). Obama could have used his position of moral authority to make this a “teaching moment” (a term he uses often) – to chastise the radical left for making a mockery of our constitution and the first amendment. Hillary and Sanders were chiming in with the same Obama “Trump asked for it” logic, which says to me that they think that the constitution should be interpreted in political terms and not for all people.

The Republican establishment? Romney, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich have all chimed in that “Trump was responsible” for the protestors rioting. They are using, much like Obama and the Democrats, the constitution as a thin wall of veneer to obscure a lame attempt for personal political gain. How can anyone have respect for the Republican establishment?

People see in their Presidential candidate what they want to see, inflating their positives and overlooking their faults subconsciously. Conversely, people see what they want to see in their political adversaries, overlooking their strengths and inflating their faults subconsciously. The constitution protects us from ourselves and gives our country structure. Unfortunately the Constitution is only a paper document. We can’t look to President Obama for moral leadership at this time, and he won’t bring in the Justice Department to administer the law. Who does American turn to when the right too assemble has been taken away from the people and the authorities do nothing?