Read More About:

Share This Post

II  PS  My favorite political commentator on video below.

Gambling the World Economy on Climate


The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2015

The emission-cut pledges will cost $1 trillion a year and avert warming of less than one degree by 2100!

The United Nations climate conference in Paris starting Nov. 30 will get under way when most minds in the French capital will still understandably be on the recent terror attacks. But for many of the 40,000 attendees, the goal is to ensure that climate change stays on the global economic agenda for the next 15 years. (To promote their own self interest).

The Paris conference is the culmination of many such gatherings and is expected to produce agreements on combating climate change. President Obama and the dozens of other world leaders planning to be in Paris should think carefully about the economic impact—in particular the staggering costs—of the measures they are contemplating.

The U.N.’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, says openly that the aim of the talks is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” That outlook will be welcome among attendees like the delegation from Bolivia. That country’s official material submitted for the talks proposes a “lasting solution” for climate change: “We must destroy capitalism.”

Perhaps capitalism as “a system of death” is a minority view, but the agreements coming out of Paris are likely to see countries that have flourished with capitalism willingly compromising their future prosperity in the name of climate change. But before ditching that economic model, it’s worth considering how much progress it has brought.

  • For one, life expectancy in the past 150 years has more than doubled, to 71 years in 2013 from fewer than 30 years in 1870.
  • Meanwhile, billions of people have risen out of poverty. One and a half centuries ago, more than 75% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, consuming less than $1 a day, in 1985 money.
  • This year the World Bank expects extreme poverty to fall below 10% for the first time in history.

It is telling that U.N. officials provide no estimated costs for an economic transformation. But one can make an unofficial tally by adding up the costs of Paris promises for 2016-30 submitted by the U.S., European Union, Mexico and China, which together account for about 80% of the globe’s pledged emissions reductions.

There is no official cost estimate for Mr. Obama’s promise to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. However, the peer-reviewed Stanford Energy Modeling Forum has run more than a hundred scenarios for greenhouse-gas reductions and the costs to gross domestic product. Taking this data and performing a regression analysis across the reductions shows that hitting the 26%-28% target would reduce the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between $154 billion and $172 billion annually.

The EU says it will cut emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Again, there is no official estimate of the cost given, which is extraordinary. The data from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum suggests hitting that target would reduce the EU’s GDP by 1.6% in 2030, or €287 billion in 2010 money.

Mexico has put into place the strongest climate legislation of any developing country, conditionally promising to cut greenhouse-gas and black-carbon emissions by 40% below the current trend line by 2030. The Mexican government estimates that cutting emissions in half by 2050 will cost between $6 billion and $33 billion in 2005 money, but that is many times too low. Peer-reviewed literature, supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the EU, suggests that by 2030 the cost would already reach 4.5% of GDP, or $80 billion in 2005 money.

China has promised by 2030 to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions, per unit of GDP, to at least 60% below 2005. Using the data from the Asia Modeling Exercise we find that hitting this target will cost at least $200 billion a year.

So in total, the Paris promises of the EU, Mexico, U.S. and China will diminish the economy at least $730 billion a year by 2030—and that is in an ideal world, where politicians consistently reduce emissions in the most effective ways.

Experience tells us that won’t happen. For instance, policy makers could have chipped away at emissions efficiently with modest taxes on carbon, or by switching electrical generation to natural gas. Instead many countries, including the U.S. and those in the EU, have poured money into phenomenally inefficient subsidies for solar and biofuels, which politicians go for like catnip. The EU’s 20/20 climate policy—the goal, embarked upon in 2010, to cut emissions 20% from 1990 levels by 2020—is the clearest example of such gross inefficiency.

A 2009 study of the targets, published in Energy Economics, estimated that “inefficiencies in policy lead to a cost that is 100-125% too high.” It’s likely that in the future even more money will be wasted propping up green energy that is both unaffordable and inefficient.

Another 127 nations have made promises for Paris that increase the total emissions cuts by one-fourth. The cuts on the table in Paris, then, will leave the global economy, in rough terms, $1 trillion short every year for the rest of the century—and that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double.

All of these high-flown promises will fail to accomplish anything substantial to rein in climate change. At best, the emissions cuts pledged in Paris will prevent a total temperature rise by 2100 of only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a peer-reviewed study I recently published in Global Policy.

If nations formalize their planned carbon cuts in Paris and then stick to them, Ms. Figueres’s economic transformation will indeed happen: But it won’t be a transformation to be proud of.

Mr. Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” (Knopf, 2007).

II As soon as the theory of Global Warming was presented a huge group of distinguished scientists with absolutely no axe to grind, advised us that the whole concept of global warming  is nonsense,  promoted by people and nations who do have a political or financial axe to grind and the United States and the industrialized world are the targets of their greed, jealousy and animus.

S. Fred Singer a distinguished astrophysicist, in his book,  Hot Talk, Cold Science, took a hard, scientific look at the evidence. Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate.

Singer’s masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of any global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” (like “carbon” taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations. 

(Of course, none of the above will have any impact on Mr. Obama. He simply continues with his, now what should be painfully obvious, agenda to destroy this country.) jsk

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Published: 11/22/2001

By Joseph Farah, Publisher

WhistleBlower Magazine

There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the people responsible for the American Thanksgiving tradition. Contrary to popular opinion …

 The Pilgrims didn’t wear buckles on their shoes or hats. They weren’t teetotalers, either. They smoked tobacco and drank beer. And, most importantly, their first harvest festival and subsequent “thanksgivings” weren’t held to thank the local natives for saving their lives.

Do you know there are public schools in America today actually teaching that? Some textbooks, in their discomfort with open discussions of Christianity, say as much. I dare suggest most parents today know little more about this history than their children.

Yet, there is no way to divorce the spiritual from the celebration of Thanksgiving – at least not the way the Pilgrims envisioned it, a tradition dating back to the ancient Hebrews and their feasts of Succoth and Passover.

The Pilgrims came to America for one reason – to form a separate community in which they could worship God as they saw fit. They had fled England because King James I was persecuting those who did not recognize the Church of England’s absolute civil and spiritual authority.

On the two-month journey of 1620, William Bradford and the other elders wrote an extraordinary charter – the Mayflower Compact. Why was it extraordinary? Because it established just and equal laws for all members of their new community – believers and non-believers alike. Where did they get such revolutionary ideas? From the Bible, of course.

When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure – including Bradford’s wife.

Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don’t tell the story, but Bradford’s own journal does. The reason they didn’t succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism.

The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system.

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years … that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,” Bradford wrote. “For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense … that was thought injustice.”

What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result?

“This had very good success,” wrote Bradford, “for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London much faster than expected. The success of the Plymouth colony thus attracted more Europeans and set off what we call the “Great Puritan Migration.”

But it wasn’t just an economic system that allowed the Pilgrims to prosper. It was their devotion to God and His laws. And that’s what Thanksgiving is really all about. The Pilgrims recognized that everything we have is a gift from God – even our sorrows. Their Thanksgiving tradition was established to honor God and thank Him for His blessings and His grace.

Today we continue that tradition in my home – and I hope in yours. God bless you, God bless America, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,” now in its third edition and 14th printing.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


The war started in the 7th century and lasted through the 17th. I would contend it never stopped but historically the facts below are correct. This is why I choke when I hear someone say we will defeat or contain these Islamic terrorists in a few years or even 30 years as recently stated by Leon Panetta.

If the latest batch of murders, beheadings, and killing of innocent Christians has shocked you, maybe you should read this compilation of historical facts about the hatred of Muslims.


In 732 AD the Muslim Army which was moving on Paris was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.

In 1571 AD the Muslim Army/ Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lapanto.

In 1683 AD the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

…These deliberate, well planned attacks  have been going on for 1,400 years and half of the politicians don’t even know it.

If these battles had not been won we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non-existent; Judaism certainly would be… And let us not forget that Hitler was an admirer of Islam and that the Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler’s guest in Berlin and raised Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions: the 13th and 21st Waffen SS Divisions who killed Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and any other “subhumans”.


A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history. They really happened to us in America.  Do you remember?

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach. It was blown up shortly after landing by Muslim males.

4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.

15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by—you guessed it was a Muslim male.
(Plus two other American journalists were just beheaded)

16. In 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing 4 Innocent people including a child killed, 264 injured by Muslim males.

No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? Huh!

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

There must be no more profiling. Instead:

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old, Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males, alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Have the American people completely lost their minds or just their Power of Reason???

WAKE UP AMERICA! Wake up Canada…

Please send this to your entire mailing list unless you want to be one of those that are “politically correct” while going up in smoke. And, I never saw any claims that 70 virgins of any sexual variety were waiting for you whatever your own particular hopes and ambitions.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Bambi: A Zionist Allegory

By: Saul Jay Singer

The Jewish Press, October 23, 2015

In Twin Books Corp vs. Walt Disney (1966), a patent infringement case involving the rights to Bambi, the California court wasted no time in properly crediting authorship of the beloved children’s classic and shot down Walt Disney (A reputed anti-Semite, by the way).

It is a very common misconception that Bambi was the brainchild of the world’s foremost entertainer of children, Walt Disney. To the contrary, the young fawn named Bambi was brought to life in Austria by an Austrian citizen named Felix Salten, and was born in the wooded wilderness of Germany in 1923.

Indeed, Salten is today best remembered for Bambi: A Life in the Woods (1923), a classic coming-of-age story that realistically depicts the danger and harshness of nature and the cruelty of man as Hunter. Years before the movie was produced, however, he had sold the film rights for $1,000 and, as a result, he never saw a cent from the blockbuster film. In turn, the buyer, director Sidney Franklin, sold the film rights to Disney. As the appellate court noted.

Bambi learned very early in life that the meadow, where his mother took him to graze and play, was full of potential dangers everywhere he turned. Unfortunately, Bambi’s creator, Mr. Salten, could not know of the equally dangerous conditions lurking in the world of copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act of 1909, particularly as it pertained to Salten.

Upon publication, Bambi proved immediately popular in Austria and, when it arrived in the United States (1928) it quickly attained iconic status. In another one of those stunning coincidences that I love to feature as a hallmark of my Jewish Press articles, the official English translation of Bambi was written by Whittaker Chambers, who gained notoriety twenty years later as the chief accuser in the Alger Hiss case.

German novelist Thomas Mann brought the novel to the attention of Walt Disney who, while materially changing the original story, nonetheless produced a poignant animated film (1942) that effectively retained Salten’s focus on the primitive beauty of nature and the cruelty of man. However, significant differences between the Disney film and the original work remained such that, although he liked the film, Salten always referred to it as “Disney’s Bambi.”

What few people know is that Salten was a proud Jew who was a fervent critic of Jews who sought to separate themselves from their Jewish heritage; that he was an active Zionist who spoke out in support of Eretz Yisrael; and that Bambi is actually an adult political allegory that presents the author’s pre-sentiments of the Nazi persecution of European Jews and the Holocaust to come. (Wow! Who’d a thunk)

Born Siegmund Salzmann in Budapest, Salten (1869-1945) and his family moved to Vienna at the beginning of the Jewish renaissance after Vienna granted full citizenship to Jews in 1867. When his father went bankrupt, young Felix left school for a position with an insurance company, but he began submitting essays and stories to various publications, with great success.

He went on to write for newspapers and periodicals in both Vienna and Berlin, including the progressive Neue Frei Presse; served as editor of Berliner Morgenpost; and was a highly influential theater critic for Wiener Allgemeinen Zeitung as well as a prolific author of plays, novels, essays, screenplays, and operetta librettos.

Among his published works is The Hound of Florence (1923), a fantasy about a man who turns into a dog every other day, which Disney used as source material for “The Shaggy Dog” (1959).

Living in Austria until the Anschluss (1938) (Hitler’s invasion of Austria – much to the delight of the Austrians who turned upon their centuries-present Jewish citizens faster than you could say, “Heil Hitler”).  Salten was fortunate to escape the Holocaust by moving to Zurich.

Bambi is actually an inspired work of Zionist children’s literature. The Jews and the deer share a life of brutal persecution in their respective diasporas, and the wandering deer and the “Wandering Jew” both seek a permanent safe haven. The heartbreaking separation of Jewish children from their parents, and the end of the comfort and security of their pre-Holocaust lives, is symbolized by the death of Bambi’s mother, a traumatic event that marked the first exposure of many young readers (and, later, film watchers) to death.

Other characters are metaphors for other Holocaust figures and events. For example, one critic noted that the fox, “the Hitler of the forest,” also embodies the hatred and fury characteristic of Goebbels’s anti-Semitic ranting. And there is little difference between an elderly rabbi on Tisha B’Av tearfully looking to heaven and weeping over the centuries of persecution and murder against the Jewish people and the proclamation by Old Nettla, one of the most senior voices in the forest, bewailing that Humans “have given us no peace and have murdered us for as long as we’ve existed.”

Salten presents the Zionist message through Bambi’s cousin Gobo, an assimilationist who, rescued by a “good Human” and ultimately set free, believes that rapprochement with the Hunter, Salten’s metaphor for the Gentile world, is possible. When Gobo expresses pride at the bands that Humans have placed around his neck, the wise leader of the forest, “Royal Leader” (who, we later learn, is Bambi’s father) characterizes it as a badge of shame. Indeed, Royal Leader – Salten’s metaphor for Herzl – later emerges as the ultimate metaphor for a Zionist savior, as he leads Bambi to a secure little haven in the forest where deer who have been injured by the Hunters (including Bambi himself) can find escape from a world out to annihilate them, just as Herzl sought to provide a safe haven for Jews in Eretz Yisrael after centuries of persecution and murder.

Tellingly, Gobo is promptly murdered when he acts on his assimilationist beliefs. For Salten, a friend of Herzl’s from his Neue Frei Presse days, it is sheer fantasy to expect humans to accept animals as equals, and he presents a solemn warning against Jewish assimilation that would lead to the loss of Jewish identity. Thus, Bambi, which was officially banned and publicly burned by the Nazis (1936) because Hitler declared it to be “the work of an undesirable” and because of its “political allegory on the treatment of Jews in Europe,” was simply an expression of Salten’s lifelong dedication to Zionism.

Moreover, one of the most beautiful and endearing chapters of the book, where Salten famously describes a dialogue between two leaves clinging desperately to a branch in late autumn, seems, at first blush, to be wholly extraneous to the main Bambi narrative. However, I think there can be little doubt that the author is metaphorically discussing life in pre-Holocaust Europe; describing how it had dramatically changed under the Nazi regime and presenting the thoughts of the few remaining Jewish survivors regarding how much longer they can hold on, while they ruminate upon Olam Haba:

So many of us have fallen off tonight we’re almost the only ones left on our branch. You never know who’s going to go next…many leaves were torn off, though they were still young…. Why must we fall? What happens to us when we have fallen? Who knows? Not one of all those down there has ever come back to tell us about it…. Which of us will go first?… Let’s remember how beautiful it was, how wonderful…we thought we’d burst with life. And the morning dew, and the mild and splendid nights…. Now the nights are dreadful, and there is no end to them…. We shouldn’t complain, we’ve outlived many, many others…

Poor and without formal education, Salten had become part of the Viennese coffeehouse culture, a gathering of mostly Jewish artists who transformed the Austrian literary aesthetic. It was there that he met and befriended Herzl, who asked him to write a regular column in Die Welt, Herzl’s Zionist newspaper, and Salten became a spokesman for the Zionist movement.

He was a brilliant and popular speaker for Bar Kochba, a student organization centered in Prague that played an important role in shaping the Zionist movement in Czech lands before World War I.

Shortly after the publication of Bambi, he traveled to Eretz Yisrael (1924) and published a beautiful book describing his experiences there and lovingly portraying the land and its people.


About the Author: Saul Jay Singer, a nationally recognized legal ethicist, serves as senior legal ethics counsel with the District of Columbia Bar. He is a collector of extraordinary original Judaica documents and letters, and his column appears in The Jewish Press every other week. Mr. Singer welcomes comments at

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Map of Original British Mandate of Palestine which was to have been the home of the Jewish People following WWI


Wall Street Journal

Nov. 10, 2015

In the history of political clichés, has there ever been one quite so misjudged as the line—some version of which is attributed either to Israel’s martyred Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin or fabled Defense Minister Moshe Dayan—that “you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends”?

OK, “give peace a chance” and “nation building at home” are worse. But the Rabin-Dayan line is an expression of the higher mindlessness that passes for wisdom among people who think they are smart. After Monday’s make-nice session between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s time for a reconsideration.

To wit: You do not make peace with enemies. You make peace with former enemies—either because you have defeated them, as we defeated the Axis Powers in World War II; or because they collapse, as the Soviet Union did after the fall of the Berlin Wall; or because they have defeated you and you’re able to come to terms with the outcome from a safe distance. Witness Vietnam.

On rare precious occasions, both sides realize their interests are best served through a negotiated settlement they’re prepared to honor. That was the miracle of 1977, when Egypt’s Anwar Sadat flew to Israel to show he sincerely accepted the Jewish state’s right to exist. He paid for the gesture with his life.

Enemies, however, do not make peace. They may desist from open combat, as Pakistan and India have, even as Islamabad continues to support anti-Indian terrorist proxies. They may arrange a long-term armistice of the kind South Korea has with the North. But that’s a peace preserved by 700,000 active-duty South Korean and U.S. troops, plus a million land mines in the DMZ.

For the past 22 years—ever since Rabin signed the Oslo Accord with the PLO’s Yasser Arafat—Israel has been trying to achieve something historically unprecedented: To make peace with an enemy that shows no interest in becoming an ex-enemy.

Daniel Polisar, an Israeli political scientist, recently published a fascinating study in Mosaic magazine of Palestinian public opinion based on 330 polls conducted over many years. It makes for some bracing reading.

“When asked hypothetically if Israel’s use of chemical or biological weapons against Palestinians would constitute terror, 93 percent said yes,” notes Mr. Polisar. “But when the identical question was posed regarding the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Palestinians against Israelis, only 25 percent responded affirmatively.”

Other details: A 2011 poll found that 61% of Palestinians thought it was morally right to name Palestinian streets after suicide bombers. In December 2014, 78% of Palestinians expressed support for “attempts to stab or run over Israelis” in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Only 20% were opposed. Palestinians have also consistently supported terrorist attacks against Israelis within Israel’s original borders, “often by as much as six to one.”

Palestinians routinely blame Israel for problems over which it has no control, such as the bloody 2007 coup through which Hamas wrested power from Fatah in the Gaza Strip. Ninety-four percent of Palestinians report a “very unfavorable” opinion of Jews. A majority of Palestinians believe Israel will “destroy the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock mosques and build a synagogue in their place.”

As for the idea of sharing the land, only 12% of Palestinians agreed that “both Jews and Palestinians have rights to the land.” More than 80% felt “this is Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to it.” Most Palestinians also think Israel won’t be around in 30 or 40 years, either “because Arab or Muslim resistance will destroy it” or on account of its “internal contradictions.”

Where is the sense in agreeing to relinquish through negotiations what is yours by right today and will be yours in deed tomorrow?

None of this is helped by Palestinian leaders who, when not inciting violence or alleging Israeli conspiracies, are peddling the lie that Israel is creating an apartheid state. The only person standing in the way of Palestinian democracy is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who hasn’t held an election in a decade. The only force standing in the way of a Palestinian state are the Palestinian people, who think they can gain their rights by stabbing their neighbors.

Which brings us back to Monday’s Oval Office meeting. Along with the forced bonhomie, the administration has been sounding the usual two-minutes-to-midnight warnings about the supposed end of the two-state solution. “For Israel, the more there is settlement construction, the more it undermines the ability to achieve peace,” says Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, in an interview with Haaretz.

How sweet it would be if all Israel had to do to make peace was dismantle its settlements. How much sweeter if the American president would find less to fault with an Israeli government’s housing policies than a Palestinian political culture still so intent on killing Jews. If Mr. Obama wants to know why he’s so disliked by Israelis, there’s the reason.

II   Who Owns the “West Bank”?

From: FLAME   July, 2015

The ancient lands of Judea and Samaria, east of Jerusalem, have been part of the Jewish homeland for 3,000 years.

Today Arabs demand all of it.

Judea and Samaria, the land where Jewish ancestors Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rachel, David and Solomon created Biblical history, was renamed the “West Bank” during Jordan’s brief, illegal 19-year occupation. Today, some 380,000 Jews own land and live in the territory, yet their rights are denied by Palestinian Arabs.

What are the facts?

“Israel has an irrefutable legal claim to these territories backed by the 93-year-old Mandate for Palestine.”

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the Allied Powers, which were the only parties with the right or power to resolve ownership of vast tracts of the Middle East, allotted to the Jewish people the land west of the Jordan River, including Judea and Samaria.

This resolution, made at the San Remo Conference, was effected through the Mandate for Palestine, which was adopted by the League of Nations in 1922 and assumed by the United Nations in 1948. This document, based on “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” secured “the establishment of the Jewish national home.” Nothing since 1922 has changed the legal status of those internationally binding documents.

Much of the land allocated to the Jews, including most of Judea and Samaria, was taken from them by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria following Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, when the Jewish state was attacked by those Arab nations—the latter three of which were also established by the Mandate for Palestine. Jordan illegally seized the “West Bank” and east Jerusalem, and expelled all Jews from these Biblical homelands.

In fact, the territories of Judea and Samaria have never been part of any nation except the Jewish state. In 1967, when it was again attacked by Arab armies, Israel defeated the invaders and recovered the occupied “West Bank” from Jordan. It should be noted that during Jordan’s occupation of the “West Bank,” no Arab Palestinian movement emerged in favor of independence. Indeed, it wasn’t until Israel reclaimed the land and Jews returned to their ancestral home that claims of Jewish “occupation” were raised.

Today, most land in present-day Judea and Samaria is not privately owned, but rather is unsurveyed—without proven ownership. Israel claims about 30% of the public land in the territory. However, the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that unsurveyed land in Judea and Samaria can be acquired by Arabs who cultivate it consistently.

Arabs, through deed and cultivation rights, own about 95% of private land in the territory. Jews, however, are not granted similar rights, so Jewish farming on unsurveyed land does not entitle Jews to private ownership. Nonetheless, Jews own about 5% of all private land in Judea and Samaria.

Israel offers land for peace. Israel has a clear, millennia-old historical claim to Judea and Samaria, and it reacquired the territories defending itself against an aggressive war. In addition, Israel has an irrefutable legal claim to these territories backed by the 95-year-old San Remo Resolution. Nonetheless, recognizing that its claims are disputed by Arab neighbors, the Jewish state has shown uncommon willingness to share the land.

Starting in 1967, following the Six-Day War, Israel (In its own stupidity and desperation for peace) has offered to give up almost all the land it controls in the “West Bank”—plus a Palestinian capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem—in exchange for peace. Unfortunately, despite numerous such land-for-peace overtures by Israel, including two most recently in 2000 and 2008, the Arabs have consistently rejected them.

Not only do the Arabs reject any Jewish claims to land in Judea and Samaria, they have also insisted during peace negotiations that the territory be made judenrein—free of Jews. Worse, many Palestinian Arabs, such as the terror group Hamas, maintain that the entire land of Palestine—from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including all of Israel and the “West Bank”—belongs only to Arabs. Today, official Palestinian maps do not depict the state of Israel.

How will the dispute over Judea and Samaria be resolved? Over Israel’s 67 years, it has become a world-class cultural, economic and military power. Its standard of living is among the highest in the Middle East. Clearly the Jewish state is here to stay. Yet despite its strength, Israel has shown willingness to negotiate and exchange land for peace. Sadly, this willingness has not been matched by Palestinian leadership. Until such negotiations are consummated, the “West Bank” will remain in dispute—a no-man’s land in which claims of ownership remain cloudy and contested.

While Israel has clear rights to ownership of Judea and Samaria—also known as the “West Bank”—it has taken a practical position, offering to trade those rights and that land for peace with its Arab neighbors. As of yet, however, tragically, no Palestinian leader has been willing to compromise his people’s unrealistic expectation that all of Palestine—from the river to the sea—belongs only to Arabs.

FLAME is the only organization that defends Israel with paid editorial hasbarah messages placed in media nationwide every month: The dire threats from Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah, the injustice of BDS, Palestinian anti-Semitism and more.

If you support a bold voice that tells the truth about Israel in American media, please donate now.

Facts and Logic About the Middle East
PO Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Pertinent quotations from Mohammad’s Koran. “Allah Akhbar – Allah is Great”

By Dennis L. Greene

Israel Commentary consultant

The disease of the Middle East is Islam. All of Israel’s problems can be traced back to it and its sociopath prophet. All questions can be answered with a quote from Mohammad.

Why do Muslims attack Jews and Christians?

[at‑Taubah 9:29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax (Jizya) in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

(Jizya:  A per capita punitive tax levied upon all non-Muslims that elect to maintain residence in Muslim countries without converting to Islam.  The tax is a means of punishing and weakening the infidel to the point of being unable to continue resistance to conversion.  In other words, oppressive and impoverishing. Sharia Law also prescribes that it be administered with a beating.)

Why do they focus on Jews?

We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

[al‑Ma’idah 5:33] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

The Hadith (Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Why are they obsessed with Israel in particular?

[al‑Baqarah 2:191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Why do Arab Muslims turn on black fellow Muslims in places like Darfur?

Surah 3, verse 106: On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved.

The Arabic language has no word for Negro, only “abid” which literally means slave. Peter Jennings reported that the Arabs yelled “Death to the slaves!” as the slaughtered the blacks in Sudan. It actually translates more like “Kill the N—–‘s” What fools the blacks following Farakan are!

Why are they so willing to die?

Surah 8, verse 16: “If any do turn his back to them on such a day ‑ unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) ‑ he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell ‑ an evil refuge (indeed)!”

Why do they ignore the Oslo and other accords?

[al‑Baqarah 2:225] God will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft‑forgiving, Most Forbearing.

Why do the behead?

[Muhammad 47:4] Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (it is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that HE may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Why are they prone to massacres?

[8:67] It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but God looketh to the Hereafter: And God is Exalted in might, Wise.

This is a continuation of a religious war that began in the seventh century. Until we face this reality, any and all peace plans are doomed to fail.

Too many Americans treat the Constitution as if it came from Moses. We fail to appreciate the uniqueness of Islam as being more extreme and political than any other religion by a wide margin. For the future of the western civilization, not just Israel or the USA, we must face this reality and the threat it implies.

The radical Muslims are not ISIS but those who reject the literal readings. The danger is that so-called moderates teach their children that Mohammad was Allah’s prophet, so what is to prevent them from reading the above at face value and acting accordingly?

Netanyahu (and Obama) are just one link in an endless chain of fools who refuse to face the reality that Islam is at war to subjugate the world and exterminate the Jewish race. It is not a radical interpretation or hijacking. The above quotes couldn’t be more clear.

Mohammad was a preincarnation of Hitler. Both were sociopathic megalomaniacs dedicated to genocide of the Jews and subjugating the world. Islam, like a cancer, has destroyed every society it touched. It is metastasizing into America, and our local fools who treat the Constitution as religious dogma are welcoming the fifth column.

Because Muslims profess a god who superficially resembles ours, we seem paralyzed in dealing with them. It is a flow of our Christianized culture that believes good will can win them over despite the number of severed heads. They don’t understand the “Old Testament” and the lesson of the Amalkites. Islam has declared an unlimited fight to the death, and we have no choice.

Dennis L Greene. (

III  Marco Rubio Reacts to Paris Islamic Terrorism killings

November 15, 2015

The horrific attacks in Paris Friday night should be a reminder of the scale of the conflict we’re in, Marco said this morning. “What we’re involved in now is a civilizational conflict with radical Islam,” Marco said. “This is not a geopolitical issue where they want to conquer territory, and it’s two countries fighting against each other. They literally want to overthrow our society and replace it with their radical Sunni Islamic view of the future.”

What drives these Islamist radicals? Why have they set out to destroy the West?

“They do not hate us because we have military assets in the Middle East — they hate us because of our values,” Marco said. “They hate us because young girls here go to school. They hate us because women drive. They hate us because we have freedom of speech, because we have diversity in our religious beliefs. They hate us because we’re a tolerant society.

This is a clash of civilizations. And either they win, or we win.”

(To my mind, Marco Rubio is the man with this unadulterated, politically incorrect view that we must have in the White House in order to save our country and the world from the worst existential threat we have had since Nazi Germany WWII.) jsk

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser

November 10, 2015

(Please note the very key words always specific within Netanyahu’s Two State Solution – “a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.” So, not to worry. The PA will never accept either position within that proviso. Furthermore, if Israel allows anything less, the whole nation is a certifiable nut case.) jsk

Statements by US President Obama and PM Netanyahu at the White House

PM Netanyahu: I want to make it clear that we have not given up our hope for peace. I remain committed to a vision of peace of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.

Prime Minister Netanyahu meeting with President Obama at the White House. Photo: GPO/Haim Zach.
Following are statements made today (Monday 9 November 2015) by the two leaders at the White House:

President Obama:

“Welcome once again Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to the Oval Office. There’s no foreign leader who I’ve met with more frequently and I think that’s a testimony to the extraordinary bond between the United States and Israel.

Before I get started, I just want to say a brief word about the Jordanian attack that we discovered earlier, the fact that someone dressed in a military uniform carried out an attack at a training facility in which it appears that there may have been two or three U.S. citizens killed and a number of other individuals injured.

Obviously, a full investigation is taking place. We take this very seriously and we’ll be working closely with the Jordanians to determine exactly what happened. But at this stage, I want to just let everyone know that this is something we’re paying close attention to and at the point where the families have been notified, obviously, our deepest condolences will be going out to them.

I also want to extend my condolences to the Israeli people on the passing of former President Navon. Obviously, he’s an important figure in Israeli politics and we extend heartfelt condolences to his family.

This is going to be an opportunity for the Prime Minister and myself to engage in a wide-ranging discussion on some of the most pressing security issues that both our countries face. It’s no secret that the security environment in the Middle East has deteriorated in many areas. And as I’ve said repeatedly, the security of Israel is one of my top foreign policy priorities, and that has expressed itself not only in words, but in deeds. We have closer military and intelligence cooperation than any two administrations in history.

The military assistance that we provide, we consider not only an important part of our obligation to the security of the state of Israel, but also an important part of US security infrastructure in the region, as we make sure that one of our closest allies can not only protect itself, but can also work with us in deterring terrorism and other security threats. In light of what continues to be a chaotic situation in Syria, this will give us an opportunity to discuss what’s happening there.

We’ll have an opportunity to discuss how we can blunt the activities of ISIL, Hezbollah, other organizations in the region that carry out terrorist attacks. A lot of our time will be spent on a memorandum of understanding that we can potentially negotiate. It will be expiring in a couple of years, but we want to get a head start on that to make sure that both the United States and Israel can plan effectively for our defense needs going forward.

We’ll also have a chance to talk about how implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement is going. It’s no secret that the Prime Minister and I have had a strong disagreement on this narrow issue, but we don’t have a disagreement on the need to making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and we don’t have a disagreement about the importance of us blunting destabilizing activities that Iran may be taking place.

And so, we’re going to be looking to make sure that we find common ground there.

And we will also have an opportunity to discuss some of the concerns that both of us have around violence in the Palestinian territories. I want to be very clear that we condemn in the strongest terms Palestinian violence against innocent Israeli citizens.

And I want to repeat, once again, it is my strong belief that Israel has not just the right, but the obligation to protect itself. I also will discuss with the Prime Minister his thoughts on how we can lower the temperature between Israeli and Palestinians, how we can get back on a path towards peace, and how we can make sure that legitimate Palestinian aspirations are met through a political process, even as we make sure that Israel is able to secure itself.

And so, there’s going to be a lot of work to do with too little time. Which is why I will stop here, and just once again say, welcome.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu:

“Mr. President. First let me express the condolences of the people of Israel for the loss of American lives. We’re with you.

We’re with each other in more ways than one, and I want to thank you for this opportunity to strengthen our friendship, which is strong, strengthen our alliance, which is strong.

I think it’s rooted in shared values. It’s buttressed by shared interests. It’s driven forward by a sense of a shared destiny. We are obviously tested, today, in the instability and insecurity in the Middle East, as you described it. I think everybody can see it with the savagery of ISIS, with the aggression and terror by Iran’s proxies, and by Iran itself, and the combination of turbulence has now displaced millions of people, has butchered hundreds of thousands, and we don’t know what will transpire.

And I think this is a tremendously important opportunity for us to work together, to see how we can defend ourselves against this aggression and this terror, how we can roll it back. It’s a daunting task.

Equally, I want to make it clear that we have not given up our hope for peace. We’ll never give up our hope for peace. And I remain committed to a vision of peace of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.

I don’t think that anyone should doubt Israel’s determination to defend itself against terror and destruction, but neither should anyone doubt Israel’s willingness to make peace with any of its neighbors that genuinely want to achieve peace with us.

And I look forward to discussing with you practical ways in which we can lower the tension, increase stability, and move towards peace.

And finally, Mr. President, I want to thank you for your commitment to further bolster Israel security, and the Memorandum of Understanding that we’re discussing. Israel has shouldered a tremendous defense burden over the years, and we’ve done it with the generous assistance of the United States of America. And I want to express my appreciation to you, the appreciation of the people of Israel to you, for your efforts in this regard during our years of common service, and what you’re engaging in right now. How to bolster Israel’s security, how to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge, so that Israel can, as you’ve often said, defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

So, for all these reasons, I want to thank you again for your hospitality, but even more so for sustaining and strengthening the tremendous friendship and alliance between Israel and the United States of America.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.”

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I Video newscast with Dr. Jasser on the self-serving, preposterous theories of Hillary Clinton and the benighted Left

M. Zuhdi Jasser ‏@DrZuhdiJasser

II Lest we forget …

THE WASHINGTON TIMES – October 19, 2015

1. Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached.

2. Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.

3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.

4. Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.

5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.

6. Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.

7. Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement. How close are Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton?

8. Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.

9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.

10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.

11. Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.

12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.

13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.

14. The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.

15. Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?

16. Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.

17. Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public. (How does $500,000 per pop sound?)

18. Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.

19. Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?

20. The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire. (Quick $100,000 for answering telephone!)

21. Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.

Comment online by Butch12:

“Good list, but you left out a bunch, like the rape of Juanita Broderick, Orgy Island, Vince Foster, etc. And the very first one is not correct. While Monica Lewinski is one of the factors in the impeachment, dwelling on this fact plays along with the Lying Liberal Media myth that this impeachment was just about Bill’s sexual exploits. In fact, the impeachment was about lying under oath in a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case where Paula Jones was the victim. There is a heck of a difference between sex (with a very young intern, whose well being had been entrusted to the most powerful man in the world ), and sexual harassment, especially for a Democrat who claims to be looking out for women.”

Of course, the list is genuinely endless and could fill books and has.

Surely, you don’t really plan to vote for this pair — No matter how much your knee-jerk hatred of  Republicans?

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor

Zuhdi Jasser is an MD specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona. Jasser is a former lieutenant commander in the United States Navy, where he served as staff internist in the Office of the Attending Physician of the United States Congress. In 2003, with a group of American Muslims, Jasser founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) based in Phoenix, Arizona  and in 2004 he was one of the founders of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. Most important – he is a genuine American Muslim Patriot as his record proudly proclaims.




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

An Open Letter to JK Rowling

Thank you for not caving into pressure to boycott Israel.

By Dr. Yvette Alt Miller

Dear JK Rowling,

Like millions of people around the world, I’d like to thank you for bringing the magic of Harry Potter into our home. We’ve thrown Harry Potter birthday parties, sewn countless Harry Potter Purim costumes and even – the night before our son’s eleventh birthday – forged an acceptance letter to Hogwarts for him in green ink. You created a world where everyone has the choice to be great.

Now you’ve chosen to stand up for what’s right in a different context – to defend Israel from those who would boycott her – and I’d like to extend a huge thank you.

The pressure on you to join the boycott has been enormous. In February 2015, over 700 British writers, film-makers, playwrights, architects, musicians and other cultural figures wrote an open letter – published in Britain’s Guardian newspaper – excoriating the Jewish state, pledging “we won’t play music, accept awards, attend exhibitions, festivals or conferences, run masterclasses or workshops” anywhere in Israel.

Since then, pressure to boycott Israel has grown. On October 27, 2015, another letter appeared in the Guardian, this time signed by 343 academics, who promised never to accept invitations to visit Israeli schools, participate in conferences with Israeli universities, “or otherwise cooperate” with Israeli academics.

These letters never mentioned nor condemned the daily terror that Israelis live with. They didn’t mention the recent wave of knifings and stabbings that have killed and injured scores of Israelis in recent weeks. Instead, they offered a simplistic narrative in which Israel is always in the wrong and deserving of scorn.

I imagine that as Britain’s best-known author you were asked to sign these letters too. Perhaps you felt pressure to conform to fashionable thinking and vow to have nothing to do with the Jewish state. But instead, you – along with over 150 other British writers, artists and media personalities – made a declaration of your own, pledging to resist all calls for a cultural boycott of the Jewish state.

“Israelis will be right to ask why cultural boycotts are not also being proposed against – to take random examples – North Korea and Zimbabwe, whose leaders are not generally considered paragons by the international community” you and your fellow artists declared. Instead, as you wrote in your October 23, 2015 letter, “Cultural engagement builds bridges, nurtures freedom and positive movement for change.”

One of the things I’ve always liked best about your books is the way you describe what it’s like to feel pressured to follow the crowd, and how you celebrate those who resist and think for themselves.

In your Harry Potter series, the Ministry of Magic and The Daily Prophet mock Harry’s warnings that Voldemort has returned to power; it’s a brave few who make the decision to stand up for what’s right and back Harry. Perhaps that’s why you – and many other British cultural figures, including author Fay Weldon, two-time Man Booker prize winner, Hilary Mantel, and author and Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz – are willing to say no to knee-jerk anti-Israel sentiment, and take a look at the real Israel.

That means looking at Israel and seeing a vibrant democracy in which all citizens – regardless of ethnicity or religion – have a vote. That means seeing a country in which the current Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) is served by 17 Arab MKs (out of a total of 120). In which 28 MKs are women. It means seeing a country in which Arab citizens have served as Supreme Court Justices, as Ambassadors, as television personalities, university lecturers, government ministers, and soldiers.

It means seeing a country in which Emile Habibi, an author and Knesset member, won the Israel Prize, Israel’s highest cultural honor, for Arabic literature, in which Rana Raslan, an Israeli Arab, was crowned Miss Israel, and in which 19 year old Lina Makhoul, an Israeli Arab from Acre, was crowned the best singer in Israel on the popular Israeli TV show “The Voice”.

Looking at Israel means realizing that Israel boasts dozens of newspapers in many languages and enjoys a free, open and privately-owned press. It means seeing that Israel has the greatest number of museums per capita in the world, that it’s second in the number of books published each year per capita, that Israel has the highest concentration of high-tech start-ups anywhere in the world after the US, that many of the items we use every day – including computer chips, cell phones, voicemail, Windows operating systems, pacemakers, instant messaging, and drip irrigation – were all developed thanks to Israeli technology.

Taking a look at Israel as it really is – unswayed by biased calls to boycott her – means seeing a country that in 2015 ranked fourth best in the world to raise children. That ranked first in the world this year as a destination for quality medical care. That ranked eleventh in the world according to the annual World Happiness Report. It means seeing a country that – despite daily calls to wipe it from the face of the earth, despite constant threats of terrorism and attack – manages to remain open, democratic, committed to human rights and opportunity for all its citizens.

After signing your pledge not to boycott Israel, you took some flak for your decision. But you refused to back down, insisting “the sharing of art and literature across borders constitutes an immense power for good in this world” and “reminds us of our common humanity. At a time when the stigmatization of religions and ethnicities seems to be on the rise, I believe strongly that cultural dialogue and collaboration is more important than ever before and that cultural boycotts are divisive, discriminatory and counterproductive.”

In the ensuing storm about your stance never to boycott Israel, you made some pretty strong statements criticizing Israel’s government. Frankly, a lot of Israelis are offended by your criticism. You seem to place much of the blame for Palestinian terrorism not on the relentless incitement in Palestinian textbooks, mosques, TV, and newspapers which has created an atmosphere of bloodlust in which ordinary people have picked up butcher knives to kill Jews — but on Israel instead.

I almost didn’t write this letter because some of your statements seemed too close to those of your fellow artists who bash the Jewish state. But re-reading your letter made me pick up my pen, too. You said no to cultural boycotts of Israel. No to singling out Israel alone among the nations as somehow deserving of scorn. You could have easily sat back and done nothing.

Instead you took a stand and opposed them, stating clearly and publicly that you will not boycott Israel. That was brave.
I think Albus Dumbledore expressed it best: “We must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.”
JK Rowling, you’ve made the choice to stand by what is right, not what is easy. For that, I thank you. And I invite you to come visit Israel to see firsthand the reality of this amazing country which will further inform your opinions about Israel and its policies.

Respectfully submitted,
A Fan

About the Author
Dr. Yvette Alt Miller

Yvette Alt Miller earned her B.A. at Harvard University. She completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Jewish Studies at Oxford University, and has a Ph.D. In International Relations from the London School of Economics. She lives with her family in Chicago, and has lectured internationally on Jewish topics. Her book Angels at the table: a Practical Guide to Celebrating Shabbat takes readers through the rituals of Shabbat and more, explaining the full beautiful spectrum of Jewish traditions with warmth and humor. It has been praised as “life-changing”, a modern classic, and used in classes and discussion groups around the world.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


The Weekly Standard
NOV 2, 2015

Last week, Senate and House Democrats threw a party to celebrate the adoption day of Obama’s Iran deal. Ninety days after the White House signed the deal in Vienna, Obama directed the United States government to lift sanctions on Iran, the Democrats listened to a string ensemble in Washington, and all present pretended it was a joyous occasion.

The Iranians at least have honest cause for celebration. Shortly after adoption day, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced his qualified approval of the deal. It’s fine, said Khamenei, so long as no one tries to reimpose sanctions on Iran. In that case, Tehran will walk away from the deal, having already pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and new commerce.

No matter what the White House has claimed about its cleverly designed mechanisms to keep the Iranians from cheating, there will be no “snap-back” sanctions on Iran, nor will there will be any pushback on Iranian aggression across the region, as the White House also promised. If the administration tries it, Iran will abandon the deal—Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. In other words, Khamenei is effectively in the driver’s seat in the Middle East—as he has been since the beginning of Obama’s presidency in 2009, when Obama handed over the wheel.

Future historians of this period will be grateful for the relative transparency of the regime in Tehran, as they would otherwise be forced to decode years of nonstop spin from the Obama administration. Unlike the White House’s various friends in the media and academy, Khamenei tells it like it is. For instance, according to a Khamenei tweet last week, Obama promised in two letters that the United States would not seek to topple the clerical regime.

Such promises are the opposite of what you would expect from a savvy negotiator, who might have used such a threat to drive a harder bargain with the Iranians. But Obama was credulous rather than savvy, and was led to understand that he could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate with a superpower that threatened its existence. Obama thought that if he wanted to make a deal with Tehran, and thereby secure his historical legacy, he would have to provide assurances. And he made good on his promise to Khamenei in June 2009, when the Green movement took to the Iranian streets to protest an almost certainly fraudulent election. Obama said too little and way too late—the moment of crisis passed, and ever since the regime has been secure.

It’s interesting to note that a U.S. assurance to forswear regime change was one of the key bargaining chips outlined in what’s come to be known as the Grand Bargain. You may recall that more than a decade ago, during the Bush administration, there was talk of a sweeping deal between the United States and Iran that would resolve a host of outstanding issues, especially the nuclear weapons program. Leaving aside whether any such deal was ever on the table, it’s instructive to look at some of the alleged terms of the deal and compare them with what this White House has in fact accomplished.

In exchange for, among other things, Iran’s ceasing its support of terrorism, agreeing to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and ending attempts to develop or possess weapons of mass destruction, the United States would not only leave the regime in peace, but also acknowledge Iran’s right to enrich uranium, respect its regional security interests, and lift all sanctions. These were all issues that were supposed to be resolved through the course of negotiations. Instead Obama gave the Iranians what they wanted up-front.

In another letter to Khamenei, Obama acknowledged Iranian security interests when he promised that he wasn’t going to touch Iran’s ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria. As for acknowledging Tehran’s right to enrich uranium, Iranian negotiators made this a precondition for talks. The White House also provided sanctions relief that allowed the Iranian economy to start to recover. It seems that the whole point of the negotiating process, as the White House saw it, wasn’t to get anything in return, but rather to make the world’s leading state sponsor of terror feel safe, and show them they could at last trust America. It’s hardly surprising that Obama got nothing in exchange for handing away almost everything.

Iran isn’t curbing its support for terror. Rather, Tehran’s war in Syria is evidence it is ramping up its support for terrorism. Last week’s ballistic missile test shows that Iran has no intention of stopping any part of its nuclear weapons program, including the delivery mechanism for a weapon of mass destruction. Nor is the White House overly concerned that Iran comply with the IAEA. Whether Iran satisfies the nuclear inspection agency’s concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of the program, the administration said last week, is between Tehran and the IAEA.

So, the White House pretends, there’s not a thing the United States can do about Iran’s behavior. Of course there’s lots the United States could do, but it would mean saying enough is enough and trashing the deal. But a choice between actually protecting American interests, allies, and our national security, and safeguarding what has been fancifully sold as an Obama foreign policy achievement, is for the Obama White House no choice at all.


Lee Smith is an American journalist, and senior editor for The Weekly Standard. He is the author of The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Obama’s Occidental College Transcripts: Indonesian National, Islamic Religion

Posted on October 14, 2013 by ADMINISTRATION

Recap: Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

Posted by PC Corruption

Obama became an Indonesian citizen as a child. Obama’s Indonesian school registration transcript states:

Name: Barry Soetoro – Religion: Islam – Nationality: Indonesian.

The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid. Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.

Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S. To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Barack Hussein Obama. A man with many identities. A “birth certificate” suddenly appeared from Hawaii dated April 25, 2011. However, there is not a single midwife or doctor in all of Hawaii who remembers helping Ann Stanley to bring Hussein into this world. Reports indicate that Ann Stanley returned to Hawaii about three years after Obama’s birth in Kenya and tried to register his birth as a US birth. In those days a birth did not need to be registered right after birth. A parent had to register a child’s birth within three years.

Certified copy of Registration of Birth from Kenya, dated 17th of February 1964 and signed by Deputy Registrar Joshua Sioon Couya. This is a copy of an original that had been signed by Registrar E.F Lavender on 5th of August in 1961.

Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.

Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.

The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.

U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.

One such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief. The military revoked the orders with no reason given. Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.

Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.

There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 promoting his book ‘Journeys in Black and White‘ describing Obama as, “born in Kenya, and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’. How would Miriam Goderich come up with a ‘mistake’ like that unless she was told by Obama himself that he was born in Kenya, which is confirmed by the birth certificate and the school records from Indonesia.

The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack. Regina was the first to start calling him Barack. There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.

While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?

If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery. If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding. Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.

U.S. Code


§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

This evidence was sufficient enough to annul the presidency of Obama. Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.

(Please, if you like,  plan to cross check all the references shown above and come to your own conclusions)

III Oct 31, 2015  A reader was kind enough to check out the references found above and found them to be false. The disclaimers are to be found at the link below and they too sound authentic.

I am myself not sure what is the completely true story. I do know that Barack Obama has been unbelievably successful in destroying this great country and Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with it.  However, Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been great enablers and continue in that role to this very minute.

How and if and when we will recover from all this national damage remains to be seen. 

I am sorry for the confusion.  True or False, the damage Obama has done is painfully obvious to  our friends and is the delight of our mortal enemies.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I How to deal with Arab Violence

Redacted from an article by Moshe Feiglin

The Jewish Press, October 23, 2015

II The new Israeli political party — Zehut

By Moshe Feiglin

The new Arab murderer was born after the (naive) handshakes between Rabin, Netanyahu – and Yassir Arafat, the head of the Organization to Liberate the Land of Israel from the Jews. For his entire life, the new Arab murderer has heard from Israel that this is his Land and that we are nothing more than occupiers who will soon be moving on.

The new Arab murderer does not need an organization to ignite him. Israel has been igniting him from the day he was born.

To really fight the new wave of Arab murderousness in Israel, we must understand its source.

The Problem:

It is easy to fall into the trap of a doctor who proposes a superficial, quick fix. But when the situation consistently goes from bad to worse, it is best to listen to the doctor who diagnosed a more complex issue and recommended deep treatment to solve the problem.

Twenty years ago, when Rabin and then Netanyahu shook Arafat’s hand, we were smitten with a national autoimmune disease. When you recognize the rights of your enemy to the heartland of your country, you turn yourself into a foreign occupier in your own Land. You lose the foundation of justice for your sovereign existence and you lose the national resilience that is at the foundation of national security.

This is an immune system failure, something like a national form of AIDS. As strong as they may be, the muscles and all the other organs that are supposed to protect us cannot defend us from the viruses and bacteria that we used to be able to overcome with ease.

In 1967, during the Six Day War of miracles, it took the IDF a day and a half to capture the entire Gaza Strip from the Egyptian army. In the summer of 2014, Gaza terrorized Israel, including Tel Aviv – for almost two months. All that Israel’s much more powerful army managed to do was to achieve a fragile cease fire with a small, motley organization of terrorists.

Menachem Begin destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 with no speech in the UN and with no advance warning. Netanyahu addressed Iran’s threats to destroy Israel by making speeches. He has managed to make Iran’s aspirations practically legitimate, buttressed with a sly wink of the eye by international accords.

Israel’s immune system failure has been brought about by lack of confidence in the justice of our cause. Confidence in the justice of one’s cause is the most important weapon that exists. It is impossible to fight the enemy who murders us without restoring the confidence that we lost in Oslo.

I assume that Netanyahu would be happy to adopt all the ideas being thrown out now in order to douse the Arab violence with one swift move. But when the foundation of justice is missing, when the entire world sees Israel as the ‘bad guy’ and when Netanyahu is constantly struggling to retain the few crumbs of international legitimacy that Israel still claims – he simply cannot implement those proposals.

When he shook Arafat’s hand and accepted in principle that Israel’s heartland belongs to the Arabs, Netanyahu turned himself (and all of us) into colonialists in a foreign land – to occupiers of a land that belongs to others.

If somebody sets up camp in your living room and claims to be the owner of your home, you can call the police, you can scream and shout or you can try to push him out the door. You can do all kinds of things. But one thing is for sure: If instead of opposing him, you offer him just a part of your house, the neighbors will understand that in truth, the entire house has always belonged to him.

With that one cursed handshake, Netanyahu gave the head of the Organization to Liberate the Land of Israel from the Jews – all the Land from all the Jews – the most important weapon of all. He gave him the weapon of justice. Now Israel is armed from head to toe with the most advanced and sophisticated weapons. But the immunological flaw does not allow us to defend ourselves.

We will be seeing more and more soldiers, more and more roadblocks, more and more severe punishments – more and more carpets being thrown over the glowing embers. As in the past, we may even think for a moment that we have managed to extinguish the fire. But it will always re-ignite.

This time, it seems that it cannot be controlled with more soldiers and roadblocks. This time the fire has started without a terror organization that ignited it. It has come straight from the heart of the post-Oslo Arabs.

Think about the despicable murderer who was born after Oslo. He gets up in the morning to a life that is much better than the lives of most of his Arab brothers throughout the world. He should have been thanking the Jews at every opportunity. Instead, he decides to take his life into his hands, to equip himself with a knife or screwdriver and to murder Jews.

What is the source of this hatred?

The answer is: the Occupation. The young Arab was born into and lives his entire life with Occupation mentality. And who convinced him? Rabin and Netanyahu – in the name of almost all of us – Right and Left together; in the name of all those who still speak the Oslo lingo, all those who still speak about a “Palestinian nation”. A new generation of Arabs has been born: Intelligent, proud, and armed with the justice that we afforded them.

If it does not dissipate on its own, I do not see how the present government can deal with the wave of Arab murderousness that we are now experiencing. They can clamp a closure on Judea and Samaria, but imposing a curfew on the Arab villages and towns inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders does not seem probable. And even if the government will be forced to impose such a curfew, what will it do about the Arab violence in the mixed cities?

Israel’s impotence will draw international pressure and involvement into the conflict. If the violence does dissipate, Netanyahu will quickly join up with Israel’s Left at any price and go forward with a process of total retreat – which will of course just increase demands on Israel and intensify the pressure to destroy us.

The Solution

Restore Israel’s confidence in the justice of its cause. Quickly end the lie of the terminology ‘occupation’ and return to the Land of Israel as rightful owners. There is no “occupation.” The Jews simply returned to the land that was their’s since G-d made the presentation.

Immediate nullify the Oslo Accords and eliminate foreign groups that entertain any notion to control the area, just as we did in Operation Protective Shield.

Restore Israeli control over the all parts of the Land in our hands and declare full sovereignty in all of Judea and Samaria – as we did in the Golan Heights.

The Arabs living in Judea and Samaria will have three options, as I have discussed in detail countless times. All the options are better and more ethical than their current situation:

  1. Allocate the entire Land to its owners, the Nation of Israel – particularly all citizens who serve in the army.
  2. Allow accelerated construction throughout the Land.
  3. Any nationalist violence will be considered an act of war and the permanent resident status of its perpetrators and those close to them will be revoked.
  4. The time has come for leadership that understands the source of the problem and is capable of dealing with the challenge. The time has come for Zehut (The name of former MK Moshe Feiglin’s recently formed political party)

II Zehut And Vision

By: Moshe Feiglin
September 20th, 2015

We are in the midst of an historic civilization re-start. Western civilization, 2,000 years old, is crumbling before our eyes with amazing speed. A tsunami of Muslim immigration is flooding Europe and has already passed the point of no return. In its wake remains an ever-widening area of scorched earth that answers to the name of ISIS.

While the process in Europe has unfolded from the bottom up, in the U.S. it has begun at the top – from the president – trickling down from there. In a long-term strategic exercise that perfectly fits his worldview, President Hussein Obama has bowed before Islam, opened all the “train stations” to the ayatollahs, and deposited economic power and nuclear capabilities in their hands. The Europeans can’t wait to get a slice of the pie.

This disturbing and challenging situation demands leaders who can formulate a strategy to deal with the unfolding events, leaders who can turn the earthquakes and tectonic shifts into historical opportunities and unprecedented upgrades of the Zionist enterprise.

But although they are really good people, Ministers Steinitz and Ya’alon – the chief of staff and head of the Mossad – prevented Netanyahu from facing off against Iran. And Minister Aryeh Deri is currently preventing Netanyahu from effectively dealing with Israel’s natural gas windfall. All of them have their narrow worldview to protect. And Netanyahu maneuvers and maneuvers, speaking in Congress and speaking again…

…Thankfully, though, Israelis can now turn to our new political party, Zehut. Our party offers everything missing from Israeli politics. Its vision includes: 1) loyalty to our Jewish identity 2) a meaningful message and 3) a battle for liberty.

Our vision offers real answers for all the challenges facing Israel in housing, education, cost of living, health, and – of course – national security and foreign relations. That such a party of hope and vision exists is the most important message for Israelis to hear as we enter the new year.

About the Author: Moshe Feiglin is the former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. He is the founder of Manhigut Yehudit and Zo Artzeinu and the author of two books: “Where There Are No Men” and “War of Dreams.” Feiglin served in the IDF as an officer in Combat Engineering and is a veteran of the Lebanon War. He lives in Ginot Shomron with his family.

To Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Interns and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Interns and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.

Judicial Watch (JW)  has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, now-convicted felon Tony Rezko’s role in helping Barack and Michelle Obama purchase their dream home at 5046 S. Greenwood Ave. in Chicago’s Hyde Park area created a scandal that threatened to derail Obama’s presidential hopes.


(Valerie Jarrett is only one of the many Obama key advisors associated with anti-American, Socialist/Communist, and Muslim Brotherhood activities.  Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton brags about and promises to follow Obama policies.  All the  American people need is to elect yet anther person who has lost sight of the need for American exceptionalism and unapologetic American patriotism. Obama’s concepts of leading from behind, political correctness, misdirected liberalism and universalism have only lead us,  our allies and the immediate world to disaster. We certainly don’t need more of the same). jsk

To Subscribe to Israel Commentary:


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Justin Trudeau: Canada’s Obama


Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

By Robert Spencer in FrontPage:

OCTOBER 21, 2015

In FrontPage today I explain why the next Prime Minister of Canada will get along fine with the President:

For years, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has served as a welcome counterpoint to Barack Obama, and the object of wistful musings about what a fine President of the United States he would have been, if only he had been born south of the border: generally realistic about the jihad threat, determined to do what was necessary to meet that threat, and a strong supporter of Israel.

But now Canada at last has its own Obama: Justin Trudeau. And that means that Canada, like the United States, faces deep trouble ahead.

The new Prime Minister of Canada, like Obama, has consistently downplayed the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat and ascribed it to other causes. Christine Williams, a Canadian journalist and a Federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, has noted that in the wake of the Boston Marathon jihad bombing, Trudeau issued a bizarre statement: “There is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

At war with innocence. That rivals the Obama Administration’s ascribing the Fort Hood jihad massacre to “workplace violence.” In reality, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev explained after the bombing that he and his brother committed murder at the Marathon because they wanted to defend Islam. Tamerlan Tsarnaev had vowed to die for Islam.

But – also like Obama – as far as Justin Trudeau is concerned, if you’re looking into Islam as having anything to do with jihad terror attacks, you’re looking in the wrong place. Williams notes that Trudeau in 2013 “came under fire for his participation in Canada’s largest Islamic Conference, held in Toronto, and entitled, ‘Reviving the Islamic Spirit.’ The criticism was over the conference’s sponsor, IRFAN [International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy], which was stripped of its federal charity status because of its ties to the terrorist group, Hamas. Even the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress advised Trudeau not to attend.”

Did the Hamas links put Trudeau off? Not any more than the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ ties to Hamas stop American politicians – at least those on the Left – from appearing and glad-handing at its conferences. Trudeau,” Williams reports, “according to a report, Trueau smothered the Islamic conference in platitudes. (sound familiar?). He apparently went so far as to imply a totally inapt comparison in trying to liken the fierce division between English and French Canada, under Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, to that of the current divisions between mainstream Canada and Islam.”

Trudeau has been behaving this way for years. In 2011, he visited the Al-Sunnah Al-Nabawiah mosque in Montreal, which was identified by U.S. intelligence officials as a site where “known al-Qaeda members were recruited, facilitated or trained.”

What is a man like Justin Trudeau, with the kind of record that he has, likely to do as Prime Minister? Pamela Geller points out that he is already on record with some very specific intentions that should be disquieting to anyone interested in defending the West: “Canada,” Trudeau said in September, “must immediately accept 25,000 Syrian refugees We can expect the following from Justin Trudeau in the short term.” He didn’t say anything about trying to screen out jihadis from among them – if that were even possible.

Trudeau will also restore Canada’s diplomatic relations with Iran and end his country’s involvement in military operations against the Islamic State. He will doubtless aid Obama in pressuring Israel at the G8 summit, where Harper had stood in the President’s way. At home, Trudeau will scrap a bill that strips convicted terrorists of their Canadian citizenship, along with part of Canada’s counter-terror legislation.

In sum, Justin Trudeau, young, handsome, born to the scepter courtesy his father, will fit right in with Barack Obama, David Cameron and the other leaders of the Western world today. And that’s why we’re in the fix we’re in.


To Subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from an article

Wall Street Journal
Oct. 5, 2015

Faced with a prostate-cancer diagnosis more than a decade ago, Ben Carson, the Republican presidential hopeful and retired surgeon, consulted an unusual source: the medical director of a Texas company that sells nutritional supplements made of substances such as larch-tree bark and aloe vera extract.

The company doctor “prescribed a regimen” of supplements, Mr. Carson told its sales associates in a 2004 speech. “Within about three weeks my symptoms went away, and I was really quite amazed,” he said to loud applause, according to a YouTube video of the event.

The candidate today is cancer-free after surgery. He told associates of the company, Mannatech Inc., that he initially considered forgoing surgery and treating the cancer with supplements only.

Dr. Carson, running near the front in the GOP presidential contest, has never held public office and holds up his career as a pediatric neurosurgeon as one of his chief credentials. In a contrast some medical researchers find jarring, he has also had a long and personal involvement with Mannatech, a company that has weathered scrutiny from state and federal officials over allegedly improper health claims for its products.

The company in 2009 settled false-advertising charges brought by the Texas attorney general’s office, which alleged Mannatech had permitted “deceptive” and “illegal” miracle-cure testimonials at sales meetings and allowed materials circulated by associates suggesting its products could treat or even cure Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, autism, cancer and other serious ills. The Texas AG’s civil complaint said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had notified Mannatech on multiple occasions that its marketing materials made illegal drug claims.

Mr. Carson appeared in videos posted on Mannatech’s website until last week, including two filmed in 2013 and styled like commercials. In a version of one, still posted on YouTube, he praised the company for “trying to find a way to restore the natural diet as a medicine, or as a mechanism for maintaining health.” The videos vanished from the company site shortly after inquiries from The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Carson also has given four paid speeches at Mannatech gatherings, most recently one in 2013 for which he was paid $42,000, according to the company. It said the earlier speech payments went to a Carson-affiliated charity. It said Mr. Carson “has never been a paid endorser or spokesman” for the company.

Barry Bennett, Mr. Carson’s campaign manager, said the candidate is a believer in vitamins and supplements. In a January 2015 television interview following a National Review article about his history with Mannatech, Mr. Carson said he had been using its products for more than a decade.

As for the Texas legal problem, Mr. Bennett said Mr. Carson “never heard anybody make the claims they’ve gotten in trouble for and he doesn’t believe they should have made those claims.” The campaign declined to make Mr. Carson available for an interview.

Mr. Bennett said Mannatech wasn’t allowed by contract to use Mr. Carson’s images for publicity purposes. He said earlier this year, the campaign demanded the company remove all mentions of Mr. Carson, and believed it had done so.

Mannatech, based in Coppell, Texas, is a publicly held company that earned $6.5 million last year on revenue of $190.1 million. Its website says “glyconutrients” in its products contain complex sugars that help support better immune, cognitive and digestive function. A disclaimer in small print says the products “are not intended to diagnose, cure, treat or prevent any disease.” Mannatech’s products have often been marketed to an evangelical Christian audience.

Dr. Carson, in a 2013 video that was on Mannatech’s website until last week, commended the company as a way for people to “improve their own financial situation.” He said: “It’s an incredible opportunity for anybody who really wants to be involved with doing something themselves, making a good living….”

Numerous associates, in social-media pitches, have cited Mr. Carson’s involvement. “Want to know all you can about MANNATECH Products endorsed and used by DR BEN CARSON, and the business opportunity?” said a Facebook posting by a Louisiana woman early this year …

Contact Mark Maremont at

To Subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments