Readers claim ‘Post’ pro-Clinton, anti-Trump

Letters to the Editor.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Readers claim ‘Post’ pro-Clinton, anti-Trump
 I find it shocking that The Jerusalem Post has consistently and clearly chosen not only to take sides in the US presidential campaign, but to present unbalanced and unfair attacks on Donald Trump, and full, unqualified support for Hillary Clinton.
Your journalistic obligation is to present unbiased reporting, yet it is anything but unbiased; in actuality, your news reports are editorials against one candidate: Mr.
Trump. You placed “Obama: Trump is unfit to be president” (August 3) on the front page at the bottom-right (prime reader space). It is but one of many examples of your bias.
Yes, it was a joint news conference where President Barack Obama made his comments, and yes, it was with Singapore’s prime minister.
But were the US president to belittle and denigrate opposition leaders or candidates in his own country during a joint news conference involving our own prime minister, I truly wonder how you would have reported such a travesty.
The Post found more than adequate space inside the same issue for two more, rather lengthy anti-Trump articles: the news item “Uneasy Republicans and confident Democrats diverge on ‘Jewish’ issues,” which ignored anti-Semitic comments by Democratic National Committee employees that were uncovered by Wikileaks; and“Buffet rebukes Trump, questions his business skill,” in the Business & Finance section.
You conveniently chose not to report, in any article, Mr.
Trump’s response to the negative comments made against him, and about the failure of the Democratic Party to express any empathy or compassion for the mother who spoke at the Republican National Convention about her son’s death in Benghazi, for which she blamed Mrs. Clinton.
You also chose to present a distorted view of Mr. Trump’s remarks concerning the comments of Khizr Khan, the father of the Muslim US Army officer killed in Iraq. Why not present his remarks in full and let us, the readers, decide whether what he said is what was reported.
 Your paper has been filled with headlines and articles that are pro-Clinton and anti- Trump. The Jerusalem Post should be better than the prejudiced anti-Trump and anti-Israel media.
Is stupid rhetoric saying that Muslim women rarely speak more depraved than the self-serving Hillary Clinton saying “What difference does it make?” after her complicit and active responsibility for the death of the American ambassador to Libya and the heroes who died trying to save him? She also lied to the parents of two of the dead heroes, and then called them liars. This is far worse than Donald Trump saying Muslim women rarely have permission to speak.
What a wonderful distraction from the evil of lying and denial.
Clinton used the Khans, the Gold Star Muslim parents who appeared at the Democratic National Convention, as political pawns to denigrate and malign Trump. He, unfortunately, does not filter his speech – and that becomes the topic instead of Clinton’s ineptitude, lying, bad judgment and failures.
Most importantly, new Supreme Court justices will be determined by my vote.
We know with some certainty that if a Democrat wins, the new justice will be someone who believes it is perfectly right to change and reinterpret the Constitution, which Khizr Khan so proudly proclaimed as proof of his good citizenship.
I fully intend to pull the lever or mark the punch for Trump, as I would just as easily vote for Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse if they were the main opponent of Hillary Clinton. I would far rather gamble on the unknown than vote for the certainty of a progressive Democrat.
 I am neither amused nor enlightened by the efforts of your political cartoonist, who makes it a practice of showing the US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in unfavorable or unbecoming interpretations.
His repeated jabs at Mr.
Trump have become monotonous and tedious.