President Trump appointee, Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, continues to correct Obama’s deliberate destruction of the US

Redacted from article by Steve Milloy

Wall Street Journal
July 17, 2017

The Trump administration in May began the process of replacing the small army of outside science advisers at the Environmental Protection Agency. In June, 38 additional EPA advisers were notified that their appointments would not be renewed in August.

To Mr. Trump’s critics, this is another manifestation of his administration’s “war on science” Histrionics aside, the administration’s actions are long overdue.

The most prominent of the EPA’s myriad boards of outside advisers are the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC. Mostly made up of university professors, these boards also frequently draw members from consulting firms and activist groups.

Only rarely do members have backgrounds in industry. All EPA boards are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that they be balanced and unbiased.

While the EPA is required by law to convene the SAB and CASAC, the agency is not bound by law to heed their advice. The EPA’s Obama “war on coal” rules and its standards for ground-level ozone are possibly the most expensive EPA rule ever issued and depend on the same scientifically unsupported notion that the fine particles of soot emitted by smokestacks and tailpipes are lethal. The EPA claims that such particles kill hundreds of thousands of Americans annually.
The EPA first considered regulating fine particles in the mid-1990s. But when the agency ran its claims past CASAC in 1996, the board concluded that the scientific evidence did not support the agency’s regulatory conclusion.

Ignoring the panel’s advice, the EPA’s leadership chose to regulate fine particles anyway, and resolved to figure out a way to avoid future troublesome opposition from CASAC.

In 1996 two-thirds of the CASAC panel had no financial connection to the EPA. By the mid-2000s, the agency had entirely flipped the composition of the advisory board so two-thirds of its members were agency grantees. Lo and behold, CASAC suddenly agreed with the EPA’s leadership that fine particulates in outdoor air kill.

During the Obama years, the EPA packed the CASAC panel. Twenty-four of its 26 members are now agency grantees, with some listed as principal investigators on EPA research grants worth more than $220 million.

Although the scientific case against particulate matter has improved since the 1990s, the EPA has tightened its grip on CASAC. In effect, EPA-funded researchers are empowered to review and approve their own work in order to rubber-stamp the EPA’s regulatory agenda. This is all done under the guise independence.

Would-be reformers have so far had no luck changing the culture at these EPA advisory committees. In 2016 the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, where I am a senior fellow, sued the agency. We alleged that the CASAC fine-particulate subcommittee was biased – a clear violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Congress has also tried to reform the EPA’s science advisory process. During the three most recent Congresses, the House has passed bills to provide explicit conflict-of-interest rules for EPA science advisers, including bans on receiving EPA grants for three years before and after service on an advisory panel. The bills went nowhere in the Senate, where the threat of a Democrat-led filibuster loomed. Had they passed, President Obama surely would have vetoed them.

President Trump and his EPA administrator have ample statutory authority to rectify the problem. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt spent years familiarizing himself with the EPA’s unlawful ways. He is in the process of reaffirming the independence of the agency’s science advisory committees.

This won’t mean that committee members can’t have a point of view. But a committee as a whole must be balanced and unbiased. Mr. Pruitt’s goal is the one intended by Congress’s peer review.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Liberals Still Slow, Unwilling ?, to Recognize Anti-Semitism in their own increasingly Left Democratic Party

By Jonathan S. Tobin

The Jewish Press
July 14, 2017

By Jonathan S. Tobin

It isn’t easy for some Jewish liberals, but many of them are waking up to a world that doesn’t neatly conform to their existing prejudices.

The event that really set off the alarms took place last month when a gay pride parade expelled LGBT Jews who carried rainbow flags with a Star of David. The reason was that this symbol of the Jewish people offended the left-wing parade organizers who felt “triggered” by anything that reminded them of “racist” Israel and Zionism.

Much like the statements of Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian activist who is a leader of the anti-Trump “resistance,” insisting that Jews must choose between their support of Israel and feminism, the Chicago march organizers claimed the Jewish star made “people feel unsafe” at an event that they said was avowedly “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.

It didn’t matter that the overwhelming majority of American Jews support gay rights or even that the state of Israel is one of the world’s most gay-friendly nations. Nor are they interested in the fact that Palestinian LGBT individuals must either stay in the closet or flee to the Jewish state for their lives from a Muslim society where they are oppressed.

That counts for nothing when weighed against “intersectionality,” which asserts the fight for gay rights is indivisible from the efforts of Arabs and Muslims to eradicate the one Jewish state on the planet that also happens to be the one democracy in the Middle East.

The one element that lends an element of logic to this ironic stand: anti-Semitism.

To those who hate Jews, any inconsistency is permissible. But what makes this hard for many Jews to understand is that it doesn’t conform to their pre-existing worldview, in which enemies are on the right and allies are on the left.

We saw how that worked earlier this year when mainstream liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and others were quick to blame President Trump for a surge in anti-Semitic incidents that mainly centered on a series of bomb threats at JCCs around the country.

Trump’s views about immigration and volatile rhetoric were assumed to be the source of the trouble. But it turned out the culprits were a left-wing American writer and an Israeli teen with a mental health condition. Yet embarrassed liberals still refused to apologize.

That doesn’t mean right-wing anti-Semitism doesn’t exist. But the neat lines in which political foes must somehow always be anti-Semites, and sympathetic allies must be friends of the Jews, don’t exist except in the minds of liberals living in a dream world.

One such dreamer who may be slowly snapping out of it is ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt, whose recent article in Time magazine carried the headline “Anti-Semitism is Creeping Into Progressivism.” But to claim that it is “creeping” into the landscape of the political left is shockingly ignorant. It has been an integral part of it for decades.

Unfortunately, many decent liberals have turned a blind eye to left-wing anti-Zionist agitation that is indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. Those who say they wish to deny Jews statehood, the right of self-defense, or the ability to live in peace in their homeland are practicing discrimination against Jews. This is the definition of anti-Semitism.

And it is on the left, not the right, where support for such hatred, whether in the form of backing for the BDS movement or cultural boycotts, is growing.

It isn’t alt-right Internet trolls who are orchestrating anti-Jewish protests like those of Sarsour or efforts to boycott Israeli plays at Lincoln Center, where the appearance of even the work of a critic of Israel like David Grossman was enough to generate protest from mainstream artists.

Nor is it Trump who is responsible for turning universities into places where Jewish students no longer feel safe expressing their Jewish identity. But unfortunately, all too many liberals would still rather believe Trump, their main political foe, is the real reason anti-Semitism is growing.

It’s long past time for the Jewish community to understand that its best allies in this struggle are conservative Christians with whom they disagree on social issues, while it is their alleged friends on the left who are preaching intolerance for Jews.

That doesn’t obligate liberal Jews to abandon their political principles, but they need to understand the world is a complicated place where Jewish safety can be endangered by abject, naive, solidarity with the left.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Indian PM Modi and Israeli PM Netanyahu Begin a Beautiful Friendship

After Meeting Indian PM, Mumbai Terror Survivor to Accompany Netanyahu to India, Israel’s prime minister invites the boy to join him on upcoming visit

By Staff   |   July 4, 2017

JERUSALEM—Eleven-year-old Moshe Holtzberg, who survived a November 2008 terrorist massacre in Mumbai that took the lives of his parents, Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg accepted an invitation today to travel to India with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after the boy’s emotion-filled meeting with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi of India, now on a historic three-day trip to Israel.

“I grew up there in Mumbai,” Moshe, speaking in English, told the dignitaries. “This is my home. I hope I will be able to visit Mumbai, and when I get older, live there. I will be the director of our Chabad House.”

The small crowd broke into cheers when he completed his speech with, “Dear Mr. Modi, I love you and your people in India.”

Moshe now lives in Afula, Israel, with his maternal grandparents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who along with his paternal grandparents, Rabbi Nachman and Fraida Holtzberg, attended the meeting with the Indian premier. Samuel, 53, who was granted honorary Israeli citizenship in 2008 and frequently travels from her home in Jerusalem to visit Moshe, received special thanks today from Moshe and from Prime Minister Modi as well.

Kozlovsky said he appreciated that the prime minister met with Moshe and recognized the sacrifice of his parents, and that he looked forward to welcoming Netanyahu during his visit to Mumbai with Moshe.

“It is our hope that this historical visit and meeting will create awareness of the memorial museum project, and the vision of the Rebbe—Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory—for a better, more peaceful world.”

II The Indian premier’s visit marks a diplomatic coming of age for India and Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu with Narendra Modi in Tel Aviv, July 5

By Tunku Varadarajan

July 5, 2017

When you hear the prime minister of one country tell his counterpart from another that their nations’ friendship is “a marriage made in heaven, but we are implementing it here on earth,” your first reaction is likely to be: Get this man a new speechwriter! Yet, had you been following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Israel visit, which concludes Thursday, you’d understand that those words, spoken by Benjamin Netanyahu, were euphoric and not cloying.

Mr. Modi’s visit to Israel is the first by an Indian prime minister in the 70 years since India’s independence. The countries have had diplomatic relations for a quarter-century, but no Indian premier considered visiting Israel for fear of upsetting India’s Arab allies—and thereby, its supply of oil—as well as its sizable Muslim population, for whose political leaders Israel has always been anathema.
India also turned its back on Israel as a result of its commitment to a dishonest “anti-colonial” foreign policy—that of nonalignment—under which it was kosher to berate the Israelis for being colonial interlopers on Palestinian land.

In truth, India and Israel have long done clandestine business. Israel helped India with weapons in its war with Pakistan in 1965. India returned the favor in 1967 when it gave Israel spare parts for its Ouragan and Mystere fighter planes.

Mossad and RAW—the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s intelligence agency—worked closely for many years before diplomatic relations began in 1992. Israel played a key role in helping India win its war with Pakistan in 1999, with its supply of Searcher-1 drones. These enabled India to detect, and destroy by air, Pakistani troops entrenched in mountain fastnesses.

India has reciprocated diplomatically, particularly since the election of Mr. Modi’s nationalist BJP government in 2014. New Delhi has abstained in recent United Nations resolutions critical of Israel, remarkable for a nation that has had a near-perfect record of anti-Israeli voting at the U.N. There is every indication, now, that these abstentions will turn into votes in Israel’s favor.

The Israelis see Mr. Modi’s BJP as an Indian version of the Likud Party, and they are not wrong. The parties and their leaders share a determination to yield nothing to Islamist terrorism. The uninhibited warmth between the two prime ministers has been on full display on Mr. Modi’s visit—as of this writing, the two men have embraced each other five times in 24 hours. A new fast-growing breed of chrysanthemum was unveiled by Israeli agronomists. Its name? The Modi.

The florid stuff aside, this visit marks a diplomatic coming of age for India and Israel: India because it has now shed the last of its dead skin of nonalignment. Remarkably, India is the only major power that can claim to have excellent relations with every country in the Middle East.

With the global surplus in oil and gas, India no longer fears an Arab backlash to its embrace of Israel. After the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Saudis had ordered India to shut down Israel’s Consulate in Bombay or face a cutoff of oil. Indira Gandhi refused, and the country had to resort to a deal with the shah’s Iran that involved paying huge sums into a slush fund for a senior member of the shah’s household.

The present Indian government is—to put it delicately—less mindful of the Indian Muslim vote-bank than its Congress Party predecessors were. There is still leftist Indian opposition to Israel, but these are irrelevant groups that also reject the strengthening of ties with the U.S.

This is also a defining moment for Israel, and there is a reason why Mr. Netanyahu’s entire cabinet turned out to welcome Mr. Modi at the Tel Aviv airport on July 4. The world’s biggest democracy is now unabashedly, unequivocally in Israel’s corner.

Israel’s ties with India, unlike with China, aren’t purely transactional. Messrs. Modi and Netanyahu have formally acknowledged a civilizational bond between two peoples that share many of the same values and all of the same fears. India and Israel are allies for the long haul.

Mr. Varadarajan is a fellow in journalism at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

The UK is “done for” (Islamic Sharia has taken over. Guess who is next?)

Pamela Geller: The UK is “finished”

Head of American Freedom Defense Initiative: ‘Ideology is the one thing culture elites will not touch. This is why the West is losing the war.’ Founder and editor of The Geller Report, President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and authoress of The Post-American Presidency – the Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America, a Practical Guide to the Resistance

Pamela Geller spoke with Rebel Media’s Caolan Robertson about how far down the road to Islamization Britain and the US are relative to each other, and what may be done to stop it.

“If you consider that a bomb designed for maximum carnage, for maximum pain; a bomb with nails and shrapnel and nuts and bolts to tear through children’s flesh and bones, to maim and mutilate and dismember; if that was not The Call, if that was not the wake up  call for the British people, I’d say you were done for.

“And it pains me, because the idea of America being alone – and we have our own struggle in this; we have the same Leftist/Islamic alliance, we have the same thing, it’s just that the Brits are ten years ahead of us in this.

“But we see no real action; we do not see they’re surveilling mosques, you do not see the shutting down of mosques, you do not see the stopping of foreign funding – in America 80% of our mosques are funded by the Saudis.

You do not see the shutting of Islamic schools that teach misogyny, that teach Islamic Jew-hatred, creed apartheid, gender apartheid, holy war, Islamic supremacism… The motivation, the ideology is the one thing that the elites in academia, in media, in culture, in entertainment, in music – will not touch. This is why the West is losing the war.”

Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel, specifically for Europe?

“The only light I see at the end of the tunnel for Europe is Geert Wilders, is Paul Weston. Now, I’ve yet to see the people really get behind these candidates. I understand the information battle space. I understand the war of ideas. And I also understand that the enemy has the biggest and the most powerful weapons. They have the elite media, or as I like to call them, the ‘enemedia’ and culture.

“But the fact is we are right, and we are righteous, and I don’t know how many kids have to die, and I don’t know how many people have to die… What’s interesting to me to see – the Left sprung into action in the wake of the Finsbury incident, by, I might add, a man who was properly insane. He tried to kill himself a couple of weeks prior, he’s tried to institutionalize himself, I mean this is truly the definition of a madman.

“And yet when Muslims scream ‘Allahu Akbar’ and jam a knife into, let’s say as happened yesterday in America, the neck of a cop, the knee-jerk reaction is, ‘Ah, he must be mentally ill.’ So is the Left saying that Islam is a mental illness? Isn’t that Islamophobic?”
Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

“Some people like the Jews and some do not”
Winston S. Churchill:
“Some people like the Jews, and some do not.
But no thoughtful man can deny the fact
that they are, beyond any question,
the most formidable and most remarkable race
which has appeared in the world.
John F. Kennedy:
Israel was not created in order to disappear-
Israel will endure and flourish.
It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.
It can neither be broken by adversity
nor demoralized by success.
It carries the shield of democracy and
it honors the sword of freedom.
David Ben Gurion:
“In Israel , in order to be a realist,
you must believe in miracles.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe:
“Energy is the basis of everything.
Every Jew, no matter how insignificant,
is engaged in some decisive and immediate pursuit of a goal.
It is the most perpetual people of the earth.”

John Adams:
“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more
to civilize men than any other nation.
If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate,
I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews
to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.
They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth.
The Romans and their empire
were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.”

Leo Tolstoy:
“What is the Jew?
What kind of unique creature is this
whom all the rulers of all the nations of the world
have disgraced and crushed and
expelled and destroyed;
persecuted, burned and drowned,
and who, despite their anger and their fury,
continues to live and to flourish.

What is this Jew
whom they have never succeeded in enticing
with all the enticements in the world,
whose oppressors and persecutors
only suggested that he deny (and disown) his religion
on and cast aside the faithfulness of his ancestors?!

The Jew – is the symbol of eternity. …
He is the one who for so long had guarded
the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind.
A people such as this can never disappear.
The Jew is eternal.
He is the embodiment of eternity.”

Eric Hoffer:
“The Jews are a peculiar people:
Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people,
and there is no refugee problem.
Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.
Turkey threw out a million Greeks and
Algeria a million Frenchmen.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese–
and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel,
the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs
an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield
dictate peace terms.
But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews
to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Mark Twain:
“…If statistics are right,
the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race.
It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust
lost in the blaze of the Milky way.
Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of,
but he is heard of,
has always been heard of.
He is as prominent on the planet as any other people,
and his commercial importance
is extravagantly out of proportion
to the smallness of his bulk.
His contributions to the world’s list of great names
in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine,
and abstruse learning
are also away out of proportion
to the weakness of his numbers.
He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages;
and had done it with his hands tied behind him.
He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.
The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose,
filled the planet with sound and splendor,
then faded to dream-stuff and passed away;
the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise,
and they are gone;
other people have sprung up
and held their torch high for a time,
but it burned out,
and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.
The Jew saw them all,
  beat them all, and is now what he always was,
exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age,
no weakening of his parts,
no slowing of his energies,
no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind.
All things are mortal but the Jew;
all other forces pass, but he remains.

What is the secret of his immortality?”
Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

This brave “lifer” soldier tells it the way it is now and then. A breath of fresh air.

By George Roof, Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired)

http://www.truthorfiction. com/George-roof-presidents- ive-known/

Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine.  I enlisted with President LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock was all about.  I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micromanagement from Washington that got thousands of military people killed. I sometimes wonder if I’ll get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above that bastard Robert McNamara , LB Johnson, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and yes, even the “hero” John McCain.

After Johnson “abdicated” rather than having his ass waxed in the next election,  I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) run the show.  Nixon was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented.

Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy ‘Peanuts’ Carter who’d been funded by Saudi money.  The military was turned into Section 8 and even the Whitehouse suffered the austerity.

Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray.  He not only loved the country and the military, they loved him back.  Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his presidency.  The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960’s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy ‘Peanuts’ were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.

Bush 1 was an enigma from the CIA and though he never did much either way, he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.

Welcome to Bill Clinton.  Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the ‘Oral’ Office, sending a bomber to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation.  He made history by becoming only the second president to be impeached.

I actually felt sorry for Bush 2.  He was doomed to infamy from the start.  He thought most of America was still the rah rah patriots of WWII when they were ‘simply socialists’ waiting to feed him to the sharks.

Then there came the Manchurian Candidate Obama with a faked (OK Democrats, let’s say “of questionable origin” to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been ‘sealed.’  (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle , OR their two faked kids.)

From his inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage dissension of the races as well as slandering police who “acted stupidly.”  That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the national debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, feeding us bullshit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries.

Fueled by George Soros’ money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority. He trashed the Constitution by installing “czars” (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority.  By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle.  No one had balls to impeach this charlatan Obama.

Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pal’s hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split.  Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nomination.  The Libertards aren’t worried because the fix is in.

Soros ‘has paid’ demonstrators to cause turmoil at ‘all the Republican gatherings.’  Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they won’t be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts.  Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her.

But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum.

Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince middle America not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp.  It was time.  Florida was designated a “swing” state ignoring that all those old retirees living in St. Petersburg, and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform.  Ohio and Pennsylvania , where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” lay awaiting this supposed “landslide” Hillary vote,…. and creamed it.

The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated.  An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed. A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the old hag Ginsburg who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually retire and leave, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 40-50 years.

Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election ‘was’ rigged.  They even advocated having the election repeated.  They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, battery and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon.  They run like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol.

This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over and participation trophies are awarded to everyone.  They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become.  Donald Trump may NOT be the best person for the job, but he’s such a welcome respite from the candy-assed wimps who’ve been running the swamp that it’s refreshing to see.

At the very least, Donald Trump derailed the Socialist train and bought us precious time.  If he only does half of what he’s promised, we’ll still be legions ahead of where Obama has dragged us.  Already countries who held us in contempt are lining up to be found in the favor of America.  Donald Trump has done more in his short time in the public eye…he prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming president!

So for you liberal lurkers and you half-assed fence-sitters, Tough Shit!  You had your big hurrah and now your party is over.  For you staunch Republicans in office, don’t gloat so much yourselves.  You’ve been put on notice by the American people that we’re fed up with ALL YOU BASTARDS and if you don’t start putting America first, you do so at your own peril.


You might want to buy a copy of George McGovern’s autobiography and see how shocking and humbling it can be for a professional politician to have to try to find legitimate work once he falls from grace.
This election was pure, unadulterated AMERICAN.  Hillary got beaten and AMERICA WON THE ELECTION. You can claim he’s not “your president” all you want, but unless you ‘forfeit’ your American citizenship, ……


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Europe’s Elites Seem Determined to Commit Suicide by ‘Diversity’

Politicians say with fury that their migration policies ‘must’ work. What if they don’t?

By Douglas Murray

Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2017

Europe in 2017 is racked with uncertainty—the eurozone crises, the endless challenges of the European Union, national elections that resemble endless rounds of bullet-dodging. Yet even these events are insignificant compared with the deep tectonic shifts beneath the Continent’s politics, shifts that Europeans—and their allies—ignore at our peril.

Throughout the migration crisis of recent years I traveled across the Continent, from the reception islands into which migrants arrive to the suburbs in which they end up and the chancelleries which encouraged them to come.

For decades Europe had encouraged guest workers, and then their families, to come. As Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel once admitted, nobody expected them to stay.

Yet stay they did, with their numbers swelling even when there were no jobs. Waking up to the results of their policy, European societies rebranded themselves “multicultural” societies, only to begin wondering what that meant. Could a multicultural society make any demands of its newcomers? Or would that be “racist”?

From the 2000s legal and illegal immigration picked up. Boats regularly set out from Turkey and North Africa to enter Europe illegally. Syrians fleeing civil war pushed into the Continent, soon joined by people from across sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East and Far East.

Today the great migration is off the front pages. Yet it goes on. On an average weekend nearly 10,000 people arrive on Italian reception islands alone. Where do they go? What do they expect? And what do we expect of them?

To find the answer to these and other questions it is necessary to ask deeper questions. Why did Europe decide it could take in the poor and dispossessed of the world? Why did we decide that anybody in the world fleeing war, or just seeking a better life, could come to Europe and call it home?

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia.

Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

It is often argued that our societies are old, with a graying population, and so we need immigrants. When these theories are challenged—by asking, for instance, why the next generation of Germany’s workforce might not come from unemployed Greece rather than Eritrea—we are told that we need low-skilled workers who do not speak our languages because it makes Europe more culturally interesting. It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Yet still it is possible that the publics will not go along with the instincts of their leaders. Earlier this year, a poll of European attitudes was published in which citizens of 10 countries were asked a tough question: whether they agreed that there should be no more Muslim migration into their countries. Majorities in eight out of the 10 countries, including France and Germany, said they wanted no more Muslim immigrants.

Over recent decades Europe has made a hasty effort to redefine itself. As the world came in, we became wedded to “diversity.” As terrorism grew and more migrants arrived, public opinion in Europe began to harden. Today “more diversity” remains the cry of the elites, who insist that if the public doesn’t like it yet, it is because they haven’t had enough of it.

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal. The interesting thing to watch in the years ahead will be whether the publics join them in that pact. I wouldn’t bet on it.

Mr. Murray is author of “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam,” out this week from Bloomsbury Continuum.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital. Why Can’t the U.S.?…why-cant-the-u-s

Unfortunately, despite the recommendation below, Pres Trump did not move the US Embassy to Jerusalem but did leave the door wide open for six months hence.

By Eugene Kontorovich
The Wall Street Journal

President Trump’s visit to Israel next week is expected to lead to some announcement about his Jerusalem policy. The trip will coincide with celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the city’s reunification after the Six Day War. Only days after the visit, the president will have to decide between waiving an act of Congress or letting it take effect and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv—as he promised last year to do if elected.

Jerusalem is the only world capital whose status is denied by the international community. To change that, in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which mandates moving the U.S. Embassy to a “unified” Jerusalem. The law has been held in abeyance due to semiannual presidential waivers for “national security” reasons. President Obama’s final waiver will expire June 1.

There’s no good reason to maintain the charade that Jerusalem is not Israeli, and every reason for Mr. Trump to honor his campaign promise. The main arguments against moving the embassy—embraced by the foreign-policy establishment—is that it would lead to terrorism against American targets and undermine U.S. diplomacy. But the basis of those warnings has been undermined by the massive changes in the region since 1995.

While the Palestinian issue was once at the forefront of Arab politics, today Israel’s neighbors are preoccupied with a nuclear Iran and radical Islamic groups. For the Sunni Arab states, the Trump administration’s harder line against Iran is far more important than Jerusalem. To be sure, a decision to move the embassy could serve as a pretext for attacks by groups like al Qaeda. But they are already fully motivated against the U.S.

Another oft-heard admonition is that America would be going out on a limb if it “unilaterally” recognized Jerusalem when no other country did. An extraordinary recent development has rendered that warning moot. Last month Russia suddenly announced that it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Note what happened next: No explosions of anger at the Arab world. No end to Russia’s diplomatic role in the Middle East. No terror attacks against Russian targets. Moscow’s dramatic Jerusalem reversal has largely been ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of mayhem.

To be sure, Russia limited its recognition to “western Jerusalem.” Even so, it shifted the parameters of the discussion. Recognizing west Jerusalem as Israeli is now the position of a staunchly pro-Palestinian power. To maintain the distinctive U.S. role in Middle East diplomacy—and to do something historic—Mr. Trump must go further. Does the U.S. want to wind up with a less pro-Israel position than Vladimir Putin’s ?

The American response to real attacks against U.S. embassies has always been to send a clear message of strength. After the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington did not shut down those missions. Instead it invested in heavily fortified new facilities—and in hunting down the perpetrators.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would also improve the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It would end the perverse dynamic that has prevented such negotiations from succeeding: Every time the Palestinians say “no” to an offer, the international community demands a better deal on their behalf. No wonder no resolution has been reached. Only last week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insisted that new negotiations “start” with the generous offer made by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Relocating the embassy would demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that rejectionism has costs.

 If Mr. Trump nonetheless signs the waiver, he could do two things to maintain his credibility in the peace process. First, formally recognize Jerusalem—the whole city—as the capital of Israel, and reflect that status in official documents. Second, make clear that unless the Palestinians get serious about peace within six months, his first waiver will be his last. He should set concrete benchmarks for the Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to negotiations. These would include ending their campaign against Israel in international organizations and cutting off payments to terrorists and their relatives.

This is Mr. Trump’s moment to show strength. It cannot be American policy to choose to recognize a capital, or not, based on how terrorists will react—especially when they likely won’t.

Mr. Kontorovich is a department head at the Kohelet Policy Forum and a law professor at Northwestern University.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Robert Mueller’s Mission – An exercise in fortuitous duplicity, obscene politics and misinformation.

The special counsel needs to rise above his Comey loyalties.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

June 17, 2017

FBI Director Robert Mueller is sworn in during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on June 13, 2013 on Capitol Hill. Photo: Getty Images

That didn’t take long. Barely a week after James Comey admitted leaking a memo to tee up a special counsel against Donald Trump, multiple news reports based on leaks confirm that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the President for obstruction of justice. You don’t have to be a Trump partisan to have concerns about where all of this headed.

President Trump has reportedly stepped back this week from his temptation to fire Mr. Mueller, and that’s the right decision. The chief executive has the constitutional power to fire a special counsel through the chain of command at the Justice Department, but doing so would be a political debacle by suggesting he has something to hide.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, would surely resign, and other officials might resign as well until someone at Justice fulfilled Mr. Trump’s orders. The President’s opponents would think it’s Christmas. The dismissal would put the President’s political allies in a terrible spot and further distract from what are make-or-break months for his agenda on Capitol Hill. His tweets attacking the probe are also counterproductive, but by now we know he won’t stop.

There are nonetheless good reasons to raise questions about Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and those concerns are growing as we learn more about his close ties to Mr. Comey, some of his previous behavior, and the people he has hired for his special counsel staff. The country needs a fair investigation of the facts, not a vendetta to take down Mr. Trump or vindicate the tribe of career prosecutors and FBI agents to which Messrs. Mueller and Comey belong.

Start with the fact that Mr. Comey told the Senate last week that he asked a buddy to leak his memo about Mr. Trump specifically “because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Did Mr. Comey then suggest Mr. Mueller’s name to Mr. Rosenstein? He certainly praised Mr. Mueller to the skies at his Senate hearing.

The two former FBI directors are long-time friends who share a similar personal righteousness. Mr. Mueller, then running the FBI, joined Mr. Comey, then Deputy Attorney General, in threatening to resign in 2004 over George W. Bush’s antiterror wiretaps.

Less well known is how Mr. Mueller resisted direction from the White House in 2006 after he sent agents with a warrant to search then Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office on a Saturday night without seeking legislative-branch permission. The unprecedented raid failed to distinguish between documents relevant to corruption and those that were part of legislative deliberation. GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert rightly objected to this as an executive violation of the separation of powers and took his concerns to Mr. Bush.

The President asked his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, to ask Mr. Mueller to return the Jefferson documents that he could seek again through regular channels, but the FBI chief refused. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was also unable to move the FBI director. When Mr. Bolten asked again, Mr. Mueller said he wouldn’t tolerate political interference in a criminal probe, as if the Republican Mr. Bush was trying to protect a corrupt Democrat. Mr. Mueller threatened to resign, and the dispute was settled only after Mr. Bush ordered the seized documents sealed for 45 days until Congress and Mr. Mueller could work out a compromise.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that the FBI raid had violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause and Mr. Jefferson’s “non-disclosure privilege” as a Member of Congress, though the court let Justice keep the documents citing Supreme Court precedent on the exclusionary rule for collecting evidence.

We relate all this because it shows how Mr. Mueller let his prosecutorial willfulness interfere with proper constitutional and executive-branch procedure. This showed bad judgment. He shares this habit with Mr. Comey.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mueller’s staff appointments suggest that he is preparing for a long prosecutorial campaign. One unusual choice is Michael Dreeben, a highly regarded Deputy Solicitor General whose expertise is criminal law and the Constitution. He is not a prosecutor or counter-intelligence expert. Is Mr. Dreeben on hand to make a legal case for impeachment?

The special counsel has also recruited Andrew Weissmann, who oversaw the Enron Task Force and led the prosecution of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Andersen’s conviction, though too late for Andersen’s 28,000 U.S. employees.

Mr. Weissmann has donated to Hillary Clinton’s political campaign, but more relevant for this case he was highly criticized for his legal conduct over the years by the New York Observer newspaper. “In Andrew Weissmann, The DOJ Makes a Stunningly Bad Choice for Crucial Role,” said one headline in January 2015. The owner of the Observer at the time? Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son in law and now a White House aide.

With that history, can Mr. Weissmann fairly judge the actions of the Trump family and campaign? And knowing that history, why would Mr. Mueller choose Mr. Weissmann for his prosecutorial team when the appearance of fairness is crucial to public acceptance of the result?

As it happens, the Washington Post reported in its second big story this week that Mr. Mueller “is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner.” A fair question is whether Mr. Weissmann is another Patrick Fitzgerald who won’t stop until he nails someone in this probe.

Mr. Mueller is widely admired and no one questions his personal integrity, but we raise these issues because the stakes for American democracy are so high. As we’ve said from the beginning, Russian meddling in U.S. elections is a serious matter and Americans need to know what happened. If Mr. Trump or key associates canoodled with the Russians to steal an election, then he must face the likely consequence of impeachment.

But the public has seen no such evidence, and the FBI has been looking for months. Instead we have leaks that the special counsel whose friend was fired by Donald Trump is focusing on obstruction of an investigation into an underlying crime that so far doesn’t exist. In Watergate at least there was a third-rate burglary.

Much of Washington clearly views Mr. Mueller as their agent to rid the country of a President they despise. Every political and social incentive in that city will press Mr. Mueller to oblige. But you cannot topple a duly elected President based merely on innuendo or partisan distaste without doing great harm to democracy.

Richard Nixon’s road to resignation was painful but the facts were clear enough at the end that most Americans accepted the result. The country deserves no less concerning Donald Trump, no matter his character flaws. Mr. Mueller and his team of zealous prosecutors have a duty to bring a case based only on solid and conclusive evidence. Otherwise close the case with dispatch and move on.

American politics is divisive and dysfunctional as it is. Imagine what it will be like if millions of Americans conclude that a presidential election is being overturned by an elite consensus across the vast ideological and cultural divide running all the way from the New York Times to the Washington Post.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

The Jew and the Promised Land

From: To Be a Jew

By Rabbi Hayim HaLevy Donin

Basic Books A Division of HarperCollins Publishers 1991 (page 14-15)

… In 70 AD The destruction of the Second Temple at the hands of the Romans with the downfall of the Second Commonwealth dealt another severe blow to the Jewish people. Several attempts to reestablish independence to and throw of the yoke of foreign rule took place during the next sixty-five years, but all these attempts failed.

While small settlements of Jews remained on the soil, the bulk of the people scattered to countries far and wide, almost literally to the ends of the earth. Wherever they were, Jews dreamed of some day returning and re-establishing their independence, of restoring their national existence. They dreamed of it and prayed for it; never for a day was the Holy Land out of their thoughts.

During the centuries, the land was overrun by a series of invading and conquering Byzantine, Romans, Arabs, European Crusaders, Turks and finally by British forces during World War I.

And while individual Jews throughout the centuries sometimes returned to the Holy Land, if only to finish out their years (My grandparents returned to Israel circa 1930 to be buried in Mount Scopis,  Jerusalem) an organized effort for a mass return and resettlement of the land aiming toward the re-establishment of an independent sovereign Jewish State did not begin to materialize until the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Zionism, the name given to this organized effort, was and is a struggle for national liberation and for the crystallization of a national identity on the part of a nation that had been forced to wander from country to country over the centuries.
The early settlers found a land that had been neglected through the centuries, abounding in malarial swamps and diseases. It was a barren land of rock, sand, and desert. The few remaining Jewish communities were concentrated in the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed

While not all Jews were involved in the organized struggle to achieve these aims, every devout, believing Jew was in faith a Zionist since the aspiration to return to Zion is built into the very fabric of traditional Jewish faith. Wherever we find any mention of God’s blessings upon Israel in the religious literature or any vision of “the end of days” which speaks of the coming of the Messiah* and the Messianic period for all the world, it also refers to Israel’s return to the land and to its dwelling safely and securely therein.

The Jew living in any other land was regarded in every religious source as being in a “state of exile” regardless of how comfortable, how secure the Jew may have been in the land of his dispersion and how satisfying his personal life. The return to the land of Israel was not only a nationalistic sentiment harbored by the Jewish people, but a deeply religious sentiment providing the opportunity for a fuller relationship to God than was not possible anywhere else. It would pave the way for the Messianic era which would bring peace not only to Israel but to all mankind.

Such religious sentiments were incorporated into prayers of the daily, Sabbath, and festival services. There is hardly a a ritual where Zion is not recalled, where the return to Zion and the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is not mentioned.

The word Messiah is derived from the Hebrew word, mashiach which means anointed (with oil). The Messiah in Jewish thought was never conceived of as a Divine Being. As God’s anointed representative, the Messiah would be a person who would bring about the political spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by their ingathering to their ancestral home of Eretz Yisrael and the restoration of Jews and the restoration of Jerusalem to its spiritual glory.

He would bring about an era marked by the moral perfection of all of mankind and the harmonious coexistence of all peoples free of war, fear, hatred and intolerance. (Isiah 2 & 11, Micah 4).


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments


‘Why would we continue down the same path that has led to Europe’s virtual suicide?’

Redacted from an eye-opening collection of articles by:

By David Kupelian, Editor

World Net Daily Magazine
May, 2017

The dictated path is not unusual for an Islamic society.

After all, the typical features are all on display – the Muslim call to prayer, the teaching of Islam in the nation’s schools to the exclusion of other religions, preferential treatment afforded Muslims by government and the courts, news coverage reflexively portraying Islam in a positive light, the rapid growth in mosque construction – and also the disturbing cultural phenomena of female genital mutilation, “honor killings” and so on.

Except this is not Saudi Arabia or Egypt we’re talking about, or any of the world’s approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries.This is the United States of America. Not America as it might be one day if current trends continue, but as it is right now – today.

That’s right. While North Korea threatens to nuke the U.S. mainland, while the left continues its infantile post-election meltdown into madness, while President Trump endeavors to remedy the torrent of national and international problems unleashed by his predecessor Barack Obama – beneath the radar and largely out of view, America is inexorably becoming ever more Islamized.

While a few brave souls have been sounding the alarm over the relentless inroads Shariah Islam is making into American culture, education, religion, law, government and the military, perhaps the most important question needing to be addressed up front is, why?

“Why,” asks Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, “when Judeo-Christian America has been hands-down the most successful nation in history – indeed why, when Americans are blessed with a crystal ball called Europe in which they can clearly see the disastrous future awaiting a once-Christian civilization that recklessly embraces Islamic expansionism – would we continue down the same path that has led to Europe’s virtual suicide?”

As Kupelian explains: “The current inversion of Americans’ traditional core values – which causes us, for example, to glorify and celebrate perversion and mental illness (like troubled people amputating healthy body parts and pretending to be the opposite gender) while reviling and punishing virtue (like the Christian county clerk jailed for objecting to signing a marriage license for two homosexuals) – is the same inversion of values that inspires us to enthusiastically import into our country large numbers of people steeped in a religious and political ideology dedicated to crushing our own.

It’s as though we’re living in a hypnotic trance, in a dream state, wherein we are moving in slow motion toward certain destruction. It’s time to wake up.”

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Are we able to look back and learn? Barack Obama – A Terrifying Analysis

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Redacted from a speech by Dinesh D’Souza, President King’s College, NYC, NY

By Jerome S. Kaufman

On March 15, 2011, the Heritage Foundation sponsored a telecast featuring Dinesh D’Souza, President of King’s College New York and author of the best selling book, Roots of Obama’s Rage. After introducing himself, D’Souza got right into an in-depth analysis of current US President Barack Obama. Obama is the product of an unusual family history, far different from most Americans or people anywhere, for that matter. To say Obama is the product of his parentage and previous environment is a gross understatement.

D’Souza first described his own difficulty understanding Obama. Who did Obama represent, what were his ambitions, his goals, his mind set, etc.? D’Souza concluded that Obama was a different leader from previous Democrats – especially different from so-called liberals like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton.

There are a host of theories trying to explain Obama. By the Right he has many different designations – a Progressive, a conventional Liberal, a Socialist, a Muslim, not born an American, an alien. But, all of these javelins bounce off Obama with no effect or just glancing blows. He continues to act in apparently mysterious ways – not easily explained. If he were truly a Socialist he would have tried to command the means of production. But, Obama did not nationalize banks but rather infused capital to them. Another inconsistency: Recently banks wanted to pay back their government loan and get off the hook with the Obama administration. But, Obama did not want to take their money. Rather he insisted that the bank undergo some sort of stress test before allowing them off the hook? Why?

There are claims that he is an environmentalist and simply acting out that role – banning vital oil drilling in America, limiting the production of coal, introducing and pouring billions into hair brain solutions like wind mills and sun energy which are far more expensive and will not supply anywhere near the energy required besides, requiring years to develop properly.

Others say he has been motivated by Al Gore’s global warming theory. Gore asks for the use of less energy and a smaller carbon footprint to solve this debatable problem. However, Gore wants everyone in the world to cut back, not just the US. Obama does not care who conforms or not. Faster growing economies like China and India, far more responsible for future theoretical global warming, are ignored. Obama’s thinking is thus, not that of a true environmentalist.

In addition, Obama is blocking oil drilling all over America and its coastline while, at the same time, encouraging oil drilling in Mexico. To add salt to our wounds, The US Export Import bank has given a two billion dollar loan guarantee to Brazil to do their own off shore drilling. But, the oil is not to go to us but to the Chinese!

Then, there is his inconsistent and apparently illogical approach to all our problems in the Middle East – one minute he is siding with the dictators of Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the next minute, making obligatory gestures of compassion to their long suffering populations. (Not to mention his dissing and enthusiastic participation in the dismantling of our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel) jsk

Other inane gestures: He somehow made the Muslims party to our space program praising them for their great contributions to its development – huh? He returned a bust of Winston Churchill given to us by the Brits that had been gratefully placed by us in the White House because of Churchill’s crucial contribution to the defeat of Adolph Hitler in WWII.

D’Souza ended up concluding it was difficult accounting for all of Obama’s apparent weirdness until D’Souza came to his own epiphany that Obama is not weird, foolish, inexperienced naive or any of the above. He knows exactly what he is doing and we had better stop misinterpreting and underestimating the man.

D’Sousa presented his conclusion combining these disparate facts in one impossible to refute hypothesis which negates all the previous theories we might have had. Obama is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or just another American Black shake down artist. Obama has not really been raised American. His early years were in Kenya and then Indonesia. He was first thrust into American culture by his mother when he was already 10-12 years old.

Then, D’Sousa read Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father. D’Sousa discovered that indeed, Obama has nothing to do with Black America. He never sat at a segregated lunch counter nor was he descended from slaves. His Dad was an educated immigrant from Kenya and his Mom was white from Kansas. His is not an American dream. He has no understanding or sympathy for American exceptionalism. In fact, he resents the concept.

So, what is Obama’s dream? He tells us very explicitly that his dream is his father’s dream. Obama Sr. was raised in Kenya. In his 20‘s, he married a Black woman in Kezia, had two children by her, and while she was pregnant with the second, he left his family and went to Hawaii as a student. He there met Obama’s Mom – Stanley Ann, married her and before Obama Jr. was age two also left her. He then went to Harvard where he took up with a third woman, took her back to Africa and had two children by her. At the same time he reunited with his first wife, from Kezia, and had two more children with her. In total he had four wives, usually two at the same time, and 8 children and with no sense of obligation nor did he supply care for any of them.

Obama Sr. was a chronic alcoholic who had multiple driving accidents. He kills a man in one, in another hurts himself so badly his two legs have to be cut off and replaced with iron rods. Nevertheless, his courtship style remains intact. He takes up with another woman who bears his eighth child, George Obama.

In summary – he was quite an unusual role model for President Obama! Later, Obama Jr’s sister took him to task and demanded how could he admire this despicable man who had abandoned all his wives and children, never gave them a dime or even paid them a visit. Obama Jr., in fact, barely knew him since his Dad had visited him only once, when he was about 10 years old. Consequently, Sr. had no direct influence upon Jr.

That influence was wielded by Obama Sr.’s first convert – Jr’s mother, Stanley Ann Obama. Obama’s mother was an only child. She grew up in Kansas and somehow became a bohemian rebel against her parents and her country. Despite her marriage and rapid abandonment by Obama’s father, she refused to learn from her experience. She finds and marries another third world, anti-American guy, Lolo Satora, He was Indonesian and grew up under the colonial Dutch. Satora wooed Stanley Ann Obama with stories of Indonesian colonialism, married her and took her and her son, Jr. to live in Indonesia.

By a quirk of fate and bad luck for the American people, the Indonesian husband becomes more pro Western, pro American, and anti Communist. He signs up with an oil company and fights against Indonesian rebels in his own countryside. Ann then attacks him as a traitor to the greater cause and quickly sends Jr. back to Kansas to be raised by her parents and escape the pro-American thinking of the Indonesian husband. She remains in Indonesia the rest of her life.

Obama’s father, Obama Sr., was basically an anti-Colonialist – the dominant idea in the third world of the 20th Century. The simple core of this idea was that the world is divided into two – the colonizers or oppressors and the colonized or victims. The colonizers used to be Europe, Britain, France and now it is America in this line of thought. Furthermore, the rich got rich only by looting the colonized and even when they left, powerful economic forces remained in a position of exploitation. Banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and anyone else that happens to make money are simply now the economic wing of colonialism still into exploitation. And, who to Barack Obama, Jr. is the lead elephant and current exploiter? Why we are, of course.

How is Obama to deal with us, the problem? First, bring us under the rod of the Federal government. Obama’s father in 1965 wrote an article in an East African journal saying how this should be done. Bring down all the rich guys by the power of the state, confiscate their land, property, raise taxes as high as you want – 100% if necessary, and obtain their wealth through fiat and legislative piracy. The rationale is that the wealth is not rightfully theirs in the first place, but had been ripped off from the poor .

That is Dinesh D’Souza’s basic hypothesis. So, Obama far from being a multi-culture guy, far from being the first African American president, is actually the first anti-American, anti-colonialism president and driven by that mind-set!

Obama, like the naive would like to believe, is no buffoon, not inexperienced, not unworldly, not apolitical and not a mediocrity. He is a very clever but misdirected guy and out to do us all in. He is the most effective Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. He has gotten more programs passed in the shortest time, by Democrat or Republican, since Reagan.

If he is to be voted out of office in 2012, Republicans will have to take the full measure of the man. They need a strong guy, perhaps a father figure, a person that appeals to the American public. It will be a very difficult election made more so by mindless, irresponsible media genuflections and the Obama useful idiots that may never see the awful danger that this man represents.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Anatomy of a “Deep State” (Explain, Please.)

The EPA’s ‘Science Integrity Official’ is plotting to undermine Trump’s agenda.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wall Street Journal
May 25, 2017

On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited to develop “future plans for scientific integrity” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meet the deep state. That’s what conservatives call it now, though it goes by other names. The administrative state —The entrenched governing elite. Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description, what’s pertinent to today’s Washington is that this cadre of federal employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from within to thwart Donald Trump’s agenda.

There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to “restore science to its rightful place”—his way of warning Republicans that there’d be no more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities.
Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement “scientific integrity” policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing these rules. But the EPA—always the overachiever—bragged that it alone had chosen to “hire a senior level employee” whose only job would be to “act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency.”

In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, longtime activist at the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained that EPA scientists were “under siege”—according to a report she helped write—by Republican “political appointees” and “industry lobbyists” who had “manipulated” science on everything from “mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate science.”

As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity Committee, write an annual report documenting science “incidents” at the agency, and even “investigate” science problems—alongside no less than the agency’s inspector general.

And get this: “Her job is not a political appointment,” the Science article continues, “so it comes with civil service protections.” Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration.

Ms. Grifo perhaps wasn’t too busy in the Obama years, since EPA scientists were given carte blanche to take over the economy. She seems to have been uninterested when EPA scientists used secret meetings and private email to collude with environmental groups—a practice somewhat lacking in scientific integrity.

She has been busier these past few months. In March the Sierra Club demanded that the EPA’s inspector general investigate whether the agency’s newly installed administrator, Scott Pruitt, had violated policy by suggesting carbon dioxide might not be the prime driver of global warming.

The inspector general referred the matter to . . . the Scientific Integrity Official. So now an unelected, unappointed activist could pass judgment on whether the Senate-confirmed EPA chief is too unscientific to run his own agency. So much for elections.

There’s also that “scientific integrity” event planned for June. Of the 45 invitations, only one went to an organization ostensibly representing industry, the American Chemistry Council. A couple of academics got one. The rest? Earthjustice. Public Citizen. The Natural Resources Defense Council. Center for Progressive Reform. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Environmental Defense Fund. Three invites alone for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Anyone want to guess how the meeting will go?

This is a government employee using taxpayer funds to gather political activists on government grounds to plot—let’s not kid ourselves—ways to sabotage the Trump administration. Ms. Grifo did not respond to a request for comment.

Messrs. Pruitt and Trump should take the story as a hint of the fight they face to reform government. It’s hard enough to overcome a vast bureaucracy that ideologically opposes their efforts. But add to the challenge the powerful, formalized resistance of posts, all across the government, like the Scientific Integrity Official.

Mr. Obama worked hard to embed his agenda within government to ensure its survival. Today it is the source of leaks, bogus whistleblower complaints, internal sabotage.

Pitched battle with these folks is no way to govern. The better answer is dramatic agency staff cuts—maybe start with the post of Scientific Integrity Official?—as well as greater care in hiring true professionals for key bureaucratic posts. The sooner department heads recognize and take action against that deep state, the sooner this administration might begin to drain the swamp.

Write to
Appeared in the May 26, 2017, print edition.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Trump’s New Foreign Policy — Same as the State Department’s Old

By John Bolton  (The long obvious perfect choice for Secretary of State)

Wall Street Journal
May 23, 2017

The White House decided last week to continue President Obama’s waiver of significant economic sanctions against Iran. The news, coming hard on the heels of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s April 18 certification that Iran is complying with the 2015 Vienna nuclear agreement, was both revealing and distressing. New missile-related sanctions, simultaneously imposed, were small consolation.

This continuity with Obama-era policies fits a larger pattern. Despite generally tougher rhetoric against Iran and North Korea—including the president’s weekend speech in Saudi Arabia—the Trump administration’s actions against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction increasingly resemble its predecessor’s.

Rhetoric doesn’t faze Iran so long as the nuclear deal’s goodies keep coming, and the ayatollahs have had the effrontery to complain they aren’t flowing fast enough. President Obama and Tehran crafted the Vienna accord in ways that front-loaded the benefits for Iran, intending to lock America and Europe into economic ties that would be too costly to untangle. Every passing day validates that strategy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s violations—regarding uranium enrichment, heavy-water production, ballistic-missile testing and concealed military dimensions such as warhead development—continue unimpeded. Unexpected, unnecessary and divorced from reality, Mr. Tillerson’s certification of Iranian compliance blindsided the White House, which responded by toughening up the final presentation but lacked the wherewithal to reverse the decision.

Friday’s election returning Hassan Rouhani to Iran’s presidency changed nothing, since the nuclear and ballistic-missile programs are controlled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

A similar policy continuity can be seen regarding North Korea. Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Obama did not obsess over negotiations with North Korea (preferring to obsess over negotiations with Iran). Instead, he propounded the doctrine of “strategic patience,” a synonym for doing nothing, which proved equally as dangerous as making foolish concessions.

Predictably, Pyongyang took advantage of American passivity. It concentrated on making steady, significant progress on both nuclear weapons (a sixth test is reportedly being readied) and long-range missiles.

Mr. Trump’s current policy differs little from that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Mr. Obama, relying mistakenly on China to pressure Pyongyang.
As before, Beijing is feigning pressure, but as yet there is no evidence it will be any tougher than is necessary to quiet America down.

South Korea has just thrown Kim Jong Un a lifeline by electing a president eager to return to the “sunshine” policy—appeasement by another name. And the full scope of Pyongyang’s cooperation with Tehran remains unknown.

Why do President Trump’s proliferation policies increasingly echo his predecessor’s? Although Mr. Obama’s aides derided Washington’s foreign-policy establishment as “the blob,” they were part of it, and, progressively, so are Mr. Trump’s.

The failure to make decisive changes in policy during the administration’s early days, coupled with delays in making presidential appointments in the national-security departments, is taking its toll. Washington’s political distractions aren’t helping.

Mr. Trump’s “new” power elites are increasingly succumbing to (or were already adherents in good standing of) the conventional wisdom, as their respective agency bureaucracies define it. The “capture” problem (more pointedly known as “clientitis” or “going native”) is hardly new. Jim Baker once wisely said about becoming secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush: “I intended to be the president’s man at the State Department, not State’s man at the White House.”

The State Department is Washington’s most sophisticated bureaucracy in capturing political appointees and acculturating them to accept existing policies, but the military and intelligence bureaus are no slackers. The policies they pursued on Jan. 19, the day before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, are the same they pursue on Jan. 21, and Jan. 22, and so on until their direction is changed. Pushing through that change is what presidential appointees are needed to do.

What is true in proliferation policy is also true more broadly. Example: Before Mr. Trump’s current trip to the Middle East, senior administration officials repeated the mantra that Jerusalem’s Western Wall was not “in Israel” because Jerusalem’s final status remained to be negotiated. The White House responded that the wall is “clearly in Jerusalem”—a point no one has disputed for several thousand years.

Curiously, the State Department’s incantation apparently never reached U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who cheerily opined that the wall was in Israel. Likewise, Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem remains in limbo, just like his predecessors’ pledges did.

Despite the furor over Mr. Trump’s purported Moscow connection, his administration’s policy regarding sanctions on Russia over its Ukraine adventure is essentially the same as Mr. Obama’s.

When Mr. Trump exhorted NATO allies to meet their commitments to increase defense expenditures to at least 2% of gross domestic product, critics acted as if the barbarians had breached the gates of civilized national-security discourse. But Barack Obama previously characterized many of these same allies as “free riders.”

There are exceptions to this policy continuity. Proposed increases in Washington’s defense budget are a major example. But even there critics like Sen. John McCain have rightly argued that the increases need to be significantly larger.

But by default, and perhaps by accident, the Trump White House has left Mr. Obama’s flawed and otherworldly strategic vision in place. It isn’t enough for the administration to say that a strategy is being written. The strategy must come first, with the clerical task of writing it down coming last, reflecting what is actually being done day by day. That isn’t happening.

The Trump administration has not yet passed the point of no return on these critical issues, but it is getting perilously close. Warning flags are multiplying. Ronald Reagan once said he wanted a Republican Party that stood for “bold colors, no pale pastels.” Mr. Trump should get out his paintbrush.

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Trump’s immigration enforcement helps slow illegal border crossings by 76%!

By Stephen Dinan and Andrea Noble

The Washington Times – May, 2017

Illegal immigration across the southwestern border is down a stunning 76 percent since President Trump was elected, with the flow of children and families dropping even faster as analysts say the administration’s commitment to enforcing the law has changed the reality along the border.

Overall apprehensions by the Border Patrol dropped to just 11,129 in April, according to numbers released Tuesday, marking the lowest monthly total for any month in decades.

The number of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children nabbed at the border dropped below 1,000 — a level not seen since before the surge that bedeviled President Obama during most of his second term.

Even before a foot of Mr. Trump’s planned border wall is built or any more agents are hired, the threat of being sent home has forced would-be migrants to rethink making the journey, officials said.

“A lot of the discussion about changes in our enforcement policy and the way we are going about doing business, we believe that has deterred people,” said Homeland Security spokesman David Lapan. “When you get here, it is likely you are going to get caught. You are going to be returned to your country.”

That approach marks a major change from the Obama administration, which struggled to handle the flow of illegal immigrants from Central America.

Under Obama-era policies, hundreds of thousands of children and families from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were caught and then released into the interior of the U.S., where they often failed to show up for their deportations and instead disappeared into the shadows.

Mr. Trump has vowed quick deportations and has called for expanding detention facilities to hold illegal immigrants in the meantime, preventing them from slipping away.

“This is messaging, backed up by actual enforcement and policy changes that people are responding to,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “The continued drop suggests this is more than just a fluke.”

Border apprehensions are considered a rough yardstick for the overall flow of illegal immigration, so a drop in arrests is believed to reflect an overall drop in the flow of people.

At its peak early in the last decade, the Tucson sector, which is just one of nine regions along the border, regularly recorded more than 70,000 apprehensions in a single month. Last month, Tucson reported fewer than 1,500 arrests.

Activity has shifted to the Rio Grande Valley sector in Texas, with nearly 4,000 apprehensions in April. Still, that’s a fraction of the 22,000 apprehensions recorded in October and fewer still than the nearly 40,000 arrests at the peak of the Central American surge in 2014.

Authorities expect a seasonal uptick in border apprehensions this month and next but are waiting to see the degree of any seasonal surge.
One indication that the change is a result of immigration enforcement rather than better border security is the flow of drugs, which remains high.

Mr. Lapan said that while seizures of marijuana are down, hard drugs including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine are up. Like migration, a rise in seizures is believed to signal an increase in the overall flow.
“We are still seeing a lot of illicit drugs come into the country,” Mr. Lapan said.

As attention at the border has increased, migrants during the later part of the Obama administration increasingly decided to show up at official border crossings, demanding entry into the U.S.

Some of them would lodge asylum claims, having been coached by family and friends of activists on “magic words” that would earn them tentative legal status in the U.S., the former Border Patrol chief testified to Congress last year.

Those numbers have also dropped dramatically, from about 15,000 a month late last year to fewer than 5,000 a month under Mr. Trump.
Haitians in particular had been abusing that system, with nearly 3,500 showing up on the doorstep of the U.S. in October. But that number fell to just 49 in April.

Immigrant rights groups argue that many of the Central Americans should be treated not as illegal immigrants but as refugees deserving of protection.
In the Tuesday report, the American Immigration Council called for the government to stop putting children and families into detention and said border agents and officers are preventing deserving migrants from lodging their claims.

“The protection needs of asylum seekers, and asylum-seeking mothers and their children in particular, must be met with robust legal services and legal assistance from the start to ensure that no one is sent back to their deaths,” the council said.

But even Obama administration officials have said using detention and quick deportations works in stemming a flow of illegal immigrants.

“If you came across after paying $6,000, which is pretty tough to come by in those countries, and you were detained and then sent home, back to your village, it sends a pretty powerful message and, frankly, has a chilling effect on people,” R. Gil Kerlikowske, the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said at a forum this week hosted by the Migration Policy Institute.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments