Roger L. Simon

Roger L. Simon

Why Netanyahu Victory Augurs Well for Republicans in 2016

March 18th, 2015 - 9:07 am

Why has Barack Obama been reluctant to congratulate Bibi Netanyahu for his surprising and smashing electoral victory in this week’s Israeli elections, aside from the obvious childish personal enmity?

It couldn’t be more obvious. Obama — never a gracious man — is seeing the bad handwriting on the wall.  Israel, like America, has a “silent majority” and they have stood up tall in opposition to  so-called liberalism/progressivism and defeatism against Islamic terror. That same “silent majority” is very likely to stand up again in this country in 2016 for similar reasons. They already did in 2014 — and they could go further, unraveling all of Obama’s policies and destroying his legacy.

The astonishing size of the Likud victory — the party was predicted in polls to lose by 3-4 Knesset seats and ended up winning by 5-6 — suggests the “silent majority” phenomenon of people quietly becoming fed up with being force-fed by liberal elites. If you read mainstream media coverage today, you see those same media having quasi-nervous breakdowns. Suddenly they are disenchanted with democracy.

And this all happened despite Obama’s get-out-the-vote henchmen being sent over to Israel — with a yet unclear degree of administration backing — to support the Zionist Union (i. e. Labor Party) opposition to Likud with all their modern electoral techniques that were so successful in 2012. This makes their failure all the more glaring — and disturbing to the administration.

Another loser in all this is Obama’s Iran deal, assuming that would ever happen anyway. It makes the 47 senators who sent an open letter to Khamenei seem more than ever the deliverers of simple truth.

As for all the brouhaha about a Palestinian state — Bibi apparently pledged no Pal state in the final days of the election — this is irrelevant. As of now, and as of the last 25 or so years since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have shown no real interest in a two-state solution, other than for propaganda purposes. When discussions get serious, they always run for the proverbial hills. The idea that Obama and Kerry are going to solve this in 20 months of their administration is somewhere south of silly.

This election is good news. Time for the GOP to redouble their efforts for 2016.


image illustration via shutterstock / 

I Stole Hillary’s Emails

March 12th, 2015 - 10:50 pm


I cannot tell a lie.  I stole Hillary’s emails.  Well, not all of them, about 14,000. That’s all I could fit on my already-clogged hard drive.  But I ordered a new three terabyte baby from Amazon that should be here tomorrow since I have Prime — so I’ll be back for more.

Now I know my reputation is as a writer and not a hacker or even a techie, so I owe you an explanation for how I did it — otherwise you won’t believe me. To be honest, I got a little help from Fox’s James Rosen, who wrote Thursday:

… with the aid of software named Maltego, experts had established that the [Clinton] server is up and running, receiving connectivity to the Internet through an Atlanta-based firm called Internap Network Services Corporation….

Now, working with publicly available tools that map network connectivity, experts have established that the last “hop” before the mail server’s Internet Protocol, or IP, address (listed as is Internap’s aggregator in Manhattan (listed as

A lot of technical bla-bla, then Rosen cuts to the chase:

Perhaps most concerning, private analysts determined that has been running an older model of Microsoft Internet Information Services, or IIS – specifically version 7.5, which has been documented to leave users exposed on multiple fronts. The website, which bills itself as “the ultimate security vulnerability datasource,” is awash with descriptions of serious security vulnerabilities associated with version 7.5, including “memory corruption,” “password disclosure vulnerability,” and the enabling of “remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service.”

Old Microsoft software?  Exposed on multiple fronts?  Password vulnerability?…  This was the server of the secretary of state???  It sounded like an average Chinese third grader could crack it!

But wait…  didn’t that mean I….?

Well, what do you know?  I knew I didn’t take that YouTube course in cobol for nothing.  Out they came, all 14,000 emails.  I haven’t even gone through a tenth of them yet, but I promise you one thing, I’m no sucker.  No one gets my  stash for nothing.  Not with today’s erratic stock market.  But… just because I’m a nice guy… I will share a few with you.  Some are personal, some political.  Some personal and political.  You be the judge.




Barack, I thought we agreed that if Bill spoke at your nomination you weren't going to do anything to hurt my future. I already told the SEAL's father at the funeral we were going to get the guy who made that ridiculous video and he didn't believe me for a second. With all due respect, get someone else to tell that cockamamie story on the Sunday shows. What's a National Security Adviser for anyway?





Please tell your mother I'm so sorry about what happened to Morsi. You know I'm behind the MB all the way. People are so unfair to fundamentalists. PS: Love the new dress. And don't worry about Anthony. So what if he's not mayor of NY? You won't have to go to all those dreadful functions and you'll have more time. [emoticon missing]





Valerie, what's with POTUS? I haven't spoken to him for weeks. Can you tell him what his Iran policy is already so he can get back to me?





I know you don’t read or write emails (so you say) but I have no choice – this time it’s over. You promised me you would never come within a hundred miles of Jeffrey Epstein and his…. [the rest got garbled in the feed. Not even Maltego software is perfect. Yes, there's more, but you'll just have to wait. Or maybe you can invent your own. I'm sure they'll be accurate.]


Free Guccifer!

March 11th, 2015 - 9:53 pm


Social media were burning up Wednesday night with questions about how to finally get ahold of the myriad missing (deleted or otherwise) emails of Hillary Clinton, not to mention missives from her pals Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, before the hard drive went to that great recycling center in the sky.  Even the location of the server was up for grabs.  Was it at the Chappaqua Clinton manse?  If so, would there be a sudden fire or flood? Better move fast.

Then word came that, according to one Vinny Troia, CEO of an IT outfit called Night Lion Security that does, among other things, “ethical hacking,” that the server’s IP was showing it was located at a Manhattan office building. Who knew?

Never mind.  What we don’t need now is “ethical hacking.”  It’s too late for that.  The AP may be suing the State Department, but at the rate these things happen, every government hard drive from here to San Diego could be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench before there’s even a deposition taken. We need the real deal.  Someone who can get it done now.  We need — Guccifer!

Trouble is, the dude’s languishing in a Bucharest prison. But to recapitulate, if there’s someone who can get into a Clinton server, Guccifer (aka Marc-Lehel Lazar) is the man.  He’s the one who broke the Sidney Blumenthal email code — intercepting missives between Hillary and the ever-charming Sid with such subtle headings as the all-caps  “THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCES AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE.”

As Hillary would say — nothing to do with national security.  Ditto for Sid’s other emails to Hill that dealt with such other minor matters as Libya, Benghazi and the Muslim Brotherhood. (Was Huma snooping?)

And speaking of Benghazi, ol’ Gucc probably knows more about the “Benghazi Group” — those other charmers  led by Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines that Judicial Watch has discovered were tasked with keeping a lid on the cover-upsky — than even Catherine Herridge at Fox (to whom we Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude, by the way).  In fact he apparently has more emails relating to the subject known only to him and guess who…?  Yes, the Russians. You were right the first time. You win the reset button.

But relax. As Hillary assured us at her press conference, her emails had nothing to do with national security. They were about yoga lessons.  (I hope they weren’t free.  That would be a conflict of interest.)  I mean the  secretary of state is a ceremonial job, right?  Look at John Kerry. What does he do?  The Iran deal isn’t even a deal, they’re telling us now. It’s a “non-binding” agreement, whatever that is. (I knew with Kerry it would have something to do with skiing… or maybe para-sailing.)

Anyway, I don’t want any of you to get  ideas.  I’m not intending to Free Guccifer myself.  I don’t approve of these radical movements to let out convicted felons.  I always opposed Free Mumia.  But if any of you want to do it, I’m not stopping you.  I’ll even contribute a little to your flight to Romania — maybe for the extra bags you’ll need (for the prison crowbars).  And who knows…. free Guccifer and you could get a big haul.  As we all know, it’s not just Hillary’s emails that have gone missing.

(Artwork based on a modified image.)


The Hillary Email Scandal: Who Profits?

March 10th, 2015 - 9:55 pm

Hillary Clinton and aide Huma Abedin (Mrs. Anthony Weiner) attend Women’s Empowerment Principles event at UN headquarters before Clinton’s disastrous press conference. (Photo by Anthony Behar/Sipa/ AP Images)

You know the Hillary email scandal is a big deal when you read a half-dozen pieces in the New York Times on the subject— news analysis and op-ed — and not one of them is giving her a halfway decent review for her press conference at the UN Tuesday.  Columnist Frank Bruni is perhaps the most devastating, calling Mrs. Clinton “Mesozoic” — in other words, yesterday’s yesterday’s news.

Things are bad for Hillary and this is before we hear more of Bill and Jeffrey Epstein and Huma’s emails, Saudi donations, missing hard drives  and God know’s what else. I think it’s at least possible at this point that not too many weeks down the road Hillary will suddenly develop “health issues” and not run at all.

So who profits by this?  The cliché goes that the Dems don’t have much of a bench — and that’s true.  In the end Webb or O’Malley may emerge.  I don’t see Warren finally running.  I don’t think anyone would take “Fauxcahontas” seriously in the swing states and the Democrats know it.

But what of the Republicans?  They’re supposed to have this great bench, but I’m not so sure.  The Hillary scandal doesn’t help Jeb, only reminding us that he too is a tad Mesozoic, though not as much as Clinton of course.  Still, it’s enough already of the past.  That doesn’t help  Huckabee or Santorum either, or even Christie.  But what about the man-of-the-hour Scott Walker?  Again, I’m not so sure.  He has a lot going for him, but every day it looks as if 2016 is increasingly a foreign policy election.  And the Hillary scandal — Benghazi, Iran, etc. — only underlines that further, making the commander-in-chief requirement even more important.  I’m not sure Walker fills that role. And Rand is disqualified in a foreign policy election and, to be honest, I don’t think Cruz can win.

So if I were a betting man at this moment — and I’ll probably change my mind, usually do — I’d put my money on Marco Rubio to come to the fore, possibly sooner than we expect. He has that youthful, fresh face feeling as well as genuine foreign policy competence.  Off the cuff, he is the best spoken of any of the Republican candidates.  I know many on the right rejected him over the immigration issue, but he’s corrected course on that one and now emphasizes border security, as he should.  After all, that’s a crucial part of foreign policy right now — protecting our shopping malls from Islamolunatics.

Anyway, feel free to disagree (I know you will) but remember this.  If you’re looking for someone perfect, whatever that means to you, that’s not happening, not from the human race anyway.  Perhaps someone from Alpha Centauri.


Did Americans suddenly become more racist and sexist after 2008 or could another factor be at play?

When I grew up, I thought the Democratic Party was the great friend of minorities and women. The party wanted a world of equality, I thought. Most people I knew believed that too.

Sorry, I was an idiot.

Here’s our contemporary world as it actually exists: Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a woman who has had a clitoridectomy and has had literally hundreds of death threats, maybe thousands, risking her life daily fighting the horrible mistreatment of her sex under Islamic Sharia — has her honorary degree withheld by Brandeis University while Hillary Clinton — the putative Democratic Party nominee (still, I guess) for president — takes multimillion dollar donations from Saudi Arabia, where women aren’t even allowed to drive.

Something is wrong with that picture. Now how about this?

Barack Obama, the first black president, comes into office and black unemployment actually increases while, for the first time in years, relations between the races in our country are reported in a recent poll to be worse by both blacks and whites.

Something’s wrong with that picture too. Did Americans suddenly become more racist or is it something else — that something being the policies of the Democratic Party, encouraging division and then living off those same divisions like a parasitic animal?

The Republican Party is unimpressive, to be sure, but the Democratic Party is indeed an animal feeding on our nation and making it weaker and weaker. The way that party approaches women and blacks is quite remarkably similar — treat them as a unified interest group and then exploit them. How insulting, how deeply reactionary. If I were a woman or a black I would be disgusted. Obviously, not enough are — yet.

Pages: 1 2 | 51 Comments»


When Hillary Clinton tweeted yesterday in the midst of her latest scandal “I want the public to see my email,” did she mean all ten hidden accounts, or just, the only account to be outed before that tweet?  Now, thanks to a hacker, who seems not to have done anything illegal but use a piece of software, things have gone, shall we say, a little haywire:

A prominent hacker tells Fox News’ James Rosen that Hillary Clinton appears to have established multiple email addresses for private use.

Aides to the former secretary of state say she only used one private email while in office — That domain name has been traced to a private Internet server in Clinton’s hometown of Chappaqua, N.Y. The server was registered in the name of Clinton’s former aide Eric Hothem a week before the Obama administration assumed office.

Rosen’s hacker source employed a tool called “The Harvester” to search a number of data sources to look for references to the domain name The source says it appears Clinton established multiple email addresses, including,,,, and

Other email addresses include,,, and

It’s not clear whether Clinton used any or all of these email addresses. It’s also unclear whether her aides used them.

Fox News reached out to the Clinton team for comment and has not heard back.

I’ll bet.  I wonder just who was using  Was that a special address for their Chinese donors?  Badda-bing, badda-boom. Oh, never mind.

Jokes aside, this is rather an impressive array. And a huge amount of digging for Trey Gowdy, Judicial Watch, et al.  Might be a smart idea to get the Republican congress to pass new FOIA legislation mandating speedy reaction to subpoenas because the normal stonewalling process could make this take well into the 22nd century, well past the Chelsea administration.

Okay, what’s clear is the American public is being given a test.  Are they going to elect Hillary Clinton, a serial liar who purposefully hides her communications from the public and the government she is supposed to be leading while making Foundation deals with Qatar and Algeria in the middle of a war against militant Islam?  If they do that, after everything that has been revealed and is going to be revealed, after Benghazi during which this deeply immoral woman was able to tell the father of a man who was just murdered in a now proven jihadi terror attack that “they would get that man who made that video,” we are all screwed. I don’t know what we can do.  Head to Texas and help it secede?

But apropos of the incredible paranoia of having not one, but ten hidden email accounts, I have been thinking of Ed Klein’s Blood Feud: The Clintons versus the Obamas, which I read some months ago.  It was a pretty lurid account of some pretty lurid people but it strikes me that it might be the key to this email paranoia.  Sure, no Clinton wants to be subject to a FOIA request, nowhere, nohow.  But they would also want the hated Obamas as far out of their business as possible with the server safely ensconced in Chappaqua, far, far from Valerie Jarrett. (It’s not by accident Obama man David Axelrod cast aspersions on the emails today.)  Anyway, we’ll all find out — or we won’t.

And whatever the case, fair’s fair. Bill has his “bimbo eruptions.”  Now Hillary has her “email eruptions.”

Bibi’s Speech—The Real Fallout

March 3rd, 2015 - 1:41 pm

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik.)

Benjamin Netanyahu only made one mistake in another stellar performance in front of Congress today.  The Israeli PM neglected to give an initial shout-out to Nancy Pelosi as he did to Harry Reid, causing the now House minority leader to walk off in a snit and call his speech “insulting.”  Oh, well, even the most seasoned politicians like Bibi blow it sometimes.

But you know he did a good job because some desperate Democratic backbencher from Kentucky named John Yarmuth got all incensed in his post-speech statement  (no, he didn’t attend), accusing Bibi of being like a kid at Disneyland trying to get everything he wants, including extra ice cream.  Obviously Yarmuth (a former Republican and a Jew — go figure) missed the key point.  Obama and Kerry already were about to give the Iranians everything they want.

Well, not quite.  Because when you give the Iranians everything they want, they just want more.  And, lo and behold, in the midst of the uproar over Netanyahu’s speech, along comes none other than Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif to set matters straight:

MONTREUX, Switzerland (Reuters) – Iran rejected on Tuesday as “unacceptable” U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue talks on a deal, Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported.

Iran laid out the position as the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers met for a second day of negotiations and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a stinging critique of the agreement they are trying to hammer out.


Pelosi during Netanyahu’s speech. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met a day after Obama told Reuters that Iran must commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a landmark atomic deal to be reached.”Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,” Zarif was quoted by Fars as saying.

So, in other words, the ten-year sunset clause that many of us thought should be an horrendous non-starter, is not enough for the Iranians — who, of course, will continue to negotiate, probably until 2035, assuming they haven’t blown up half the globe by then.

There you have it — the perfect signal the Iranians aren’t really interested in a deal but wish to continue to play the Obama administration for suckers on into oblivion.  Who could have predicted that?  Well, a lot of people, including yours truly, the day before yesterday — and I don’t speak a word of Farsi.

I have one other prediction to make.  This won’t make a bit of difference to John Yarmuth.  He’ll still be angry at Netanyahu.  And Pelosi will stay insulted.

Also watch video: Nancy Pelosi Turns Her Back on Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech


It seems hyperbolic to say that Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran — if Ayatollah Khamenei, in his “wisdom,” allows it to happen — will be the worst deal ever made. But if what we have been learning about it is true, it almost certainly will be.

To begin with, the agreement is said to have a sunset clause of 10-15 years.  Whatever the number turns out to be, that tells us that Iran is free to do anything it wants in the nuclear weapons field after a set amount of time, assuming that it hadn’t disobeyed the strictures of the agreement before then — a monumental assumption given past history. (Ironically, in this one way Iran is not unlike other states, all of which, to my knowledge, do their best to hide their nuclear programs, including the U.S.)

The idea — if it can be called that — behind this sunset clause is a kind of bet that Iran will turn into a normal country during the time frame, abjuring the fanatical religious doctrines (global war bringing about the twelfth Imam/Mahdi, etc.) inherent in Khomeinist Shiism that would make allowing Iran the bomb equivalent to giving a loaded gun to a two year old, only with global implications.  Of course the more modern view of the world is true for many Iranians now, but will it be true in the future for all or even most?  Who will be in power?  The ayatollahs — almost all, from what we know, true believers in this apocalyptic ideology or willing to pretend they are — seem to have a stranglehold for now.   And what about the Revolutionary Guard, evidently a universe unto itself in Iran, with expansionist goals that already have been largely successful across the Middle East through Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and now into Yemen?

Is all the endless chanting of “Death to America!  Death to Israel!” merely “patriotic rhetoric” to appease the Iranian version of low-information voters?  Or is it, like many things repeated literally since birth, buried deep in the unconscious of the populace? If it’s merely rhetoric, why are those same Revolutionary Guard now on the border of Israel hundreds of miles from home, apparently plotting an invasion with their Hezbollah lackeys over the Golan Heights?  (As a sidelight,  it has been shown that those who talk most about suicide are those most likely to do it.)

And why exactly is Iran building ICBMs — not part of the deal evidently — if not to deliver nuclear weapons? And just what weapons would Iran be building in 10-15 years, if not now?  The atom bomb itself was 1944-45 technology.  The U.S. detonated the first hydrogen bomb at Eniwetok in 1952, making the Hiroshima bomb seem like a pop gun.  Are the Iranians that far behind that they can’t do as well, or close enough, 70 or more years later?

Consider this: a thermonuclear weapon dropped on Tel Aviv would have fallout extending throughout the Arab world (the part it hadn’t already demolished — bye-bye, Beirut and forget about the Dome of the Rock)  and probably beyond to Greece (certainly to Cyprus) and possibly more of Southern Europe and Northern Africa down to the Sudan. And that’s if the winds were favorable. Israel would certainly reciprocate with its arsenal of nuclear submarines and weapons that no doubt dwarf the Iranian.  The results of this would be catastrophic to the entire world.  Who knows where it would end?

And yet Obama, Kerry and Wendy Sherman wish to give the Iranians a sunset clause.  That’s sunset for everybody.  And this is the “negotiation” that began supposedly to prevent Iran from enriching uranium while destroying all it had enriched.  It’s hard even to remember that.

Pages: 1 2 | 57 Comments»

While anything is possible in the ongoing struggle between the Obama administration and the state of Israel, a high-level military source told PJ Media that today’s allegation — that an Israeli attack on Iran was supposedly imminent in 2014, but Obama warned Israel that U.S. jets would shoot down the Israelis if they attacked Iran’s nuclear installations — is not likely true.

More likely, the report, which emerged from Kuwait, is disinformation timed to discredit Prime Minister Netanyahu and make him seem a warmonger in advance of his address to Congress Tuesday.

The source stated that, since 2008, it is no longer possible for the U.S. to intercept Israeli jets flying over Southern Iraq, the normal route to Iran.

The U.S. simply does not have the facilities in place anymore, and if it were to get them, the “spin up” would be obvious to almost everyone, making it ineffective. Moreover, there have been many reports that Saudi Arabia has agreed to let the Israelis fly over their territory if they attacked Iran, making U.S. interception all the more difficult.

Still further, the source noted, it would be unclear if U.S. air force personnel would obey an order to attack their Israeli colleagues — some of whom they may have trained with. On top of that, the Israelis are often more experienced fighter pilots. The ones chosen to attack Iranian nuclear installations would undoubtedly be an elite team.

A more practical way for the U.S. to stop an Israeli attack would be for the administration to alert the Iranians in advance — something it could do without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the source said. The source also added, though, that no doubt the Israelis had already thought of that, and factored it in.

More importantly, newly retired Israeli chief-of-staff Benny Gantz just told Arutz Sheva that such an attack never happened.

The New New New New Anti-Semitism

February 26th, 2015 - 3:40 pm


Prostitution may be the world’s oldest profession, but anti-Semitism is probably the world’s oldest bigotry. It’s come and gone and come and gone and then come and gone again since the days of the pharaohs.

Well, maybe it was never really gone, but, like cancer, it was in remission.  Born at the end of World War II, I was one of those lucky Jews to be born in a period of remission as never before seen, particularly in the United States.

It’s over.  And how it’s over.  You don’t need a poll to tell you that, but a new one just conducted by Trinity College and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law tells us that 54 percent of self-identified Jewish students in 55 college across the country experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the 2013-2014 school year. Whoa! Welcome to the University of Berlin.

At the same time, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has published a “Top 10″ academic institutions for Jew hatred with two Ivies — Columbia and Cornell — at the top.  Representatives of Columbia are already crying foul, but with Rashid Khalidi director of their Middle East studies department, what do they expect?  He’s not exactly an impartial academic, more like Mahmoud Abbas with  better credentials.  (Abbas got his PhD in Moscow for a thesis denying the Holocaust.)

I can understand why the university would be concerned, however.  A lot of  parents, not to mention alumni and donors, are probably a bit perturbed to see the institution at the top of such a list.  More importantly, how about prospective students?  If I were a young person, I wouldn’t want to apply at this point. The idea of Columbia with a judenrein student body, given the overwhelming contribution of Jews to the university’s past, is as tragic as it is hard to fathom.

But then, as we all know, American academia is just part of the global zeitgeist, albeit a shameful and especially dangerous part. And the manner in which Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is being treated by the administration gives cover to this kind of behavior, even enhances it. The recent statements of Susan Rice, who has turned into a kind of all-purpose, prevaricating hatchet woman for Barack Obama, are astonishing. The thought that the woman who serially lied to us about Benghazi is condemning Netanyahu while herself about to speak in front of AICPAC gives a new fascist spin to the word “chutzpah.”   The slogan of the German Communist Party in the early thirties was “Nach Hitler Uns!” (After Hitler us).  Perhaps the new slogan for a third Obama term should be “Nach Benghazi Uns!

So is there anything new about the new new new new anti-Semitism?  No, there isn’t.  As usual the Jews are the canaries in the proverbial coal mine.  And you all know what comes next.

(Artwork created using a modified image.)