Read More About:

Share This Post

II Must see video by Professor Mordchai Kedar – The US Congress about to vote on the Iran Nuclear Disaster, another Holocaust for the Jews with the Americans and the rest of the world not far behind.

Vital Points on the Iran Deal and It’s Many Major Flaws

Hopes by the U.S. Admin. that the agreement will bring moderation of the fanatical Iranian regime are nothing more than naïve illusion and wishful thinking.

Redacted from a complete evaluation.

By Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser and Amb. Alan Baker

Thank you for your confirmation

Twitter: @israelcomment

Facebook does not allow us to outreach to new friends so, if you like the postings we make, please become our friend at:

Redacted from a complete evaluation. 

By Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser and Amb. Alan Baker

Jerusalem Issue Briefs Vol. 15, No. 27

August 27, 2015

-The nuclear agreement with the main world powers is set to enable Iran safely, legally, and without economic hardships or changes in its rogue policies, to overcome the main obstacles on its way to possessing a nuclear weapons arsenal and becoming a regional hegemonic power.

-The agreement will legally provide Iran with the capability to shorten the time required to produce such an arsenal within the next 10-15 years (including the production of fissile material, weaponization, acquiring delivery systems, and improved military capabilities to protect the military nuclear program), so that it would be practically impossible to stop it.

-This is in exchange for a questionable and barely verifiable Iranian commitment to avoid producing arms and some limited restrictions on its nuclear program for 10-15 years.

-Reliance on Iran’s open reaffirmation in the agreement that it will not seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons is untrustworthy and even naïve, given Iran’s past record of concealing its nuclear activities, its periodic declarations of hostility vis-à-vis the U.S. and Israel, and its regime’s messianic aspirations.

-In short, the agreement unilaterally and unconditionally grants Iran everything it has been seeking without any viable quid-pro-quo from Iran to the international community.

-Above all, it should be obvious that no possible sympathetic statement by the U.S. Administration, or even military or other compensation, could logically stand against paving the route to a nuclear arsenal by a state that repeatedly declares its commitment to obliterate Israel.

In order to obtain a nuclear arsenal, Iran has to acquire sufficient quantities of fissile material (uranium enriched to around 90 percent or processed plutonium), gain the ability to turn this material into a weapon (“weaponization”), and produce delivery systems, with an emphasis on long-range missiles. In addition, it has to be able to protect its nuclear facilities from attack so that it may safely cross the sensitive period in which it is trying to produce a nuclear arsenal but it has not yet completed a nuclear bomb (the “threshold”).

The deal solves all of Iran’s problems, if it is ready to wait 10-15 years, by shortening the threshold that separates it from a nuclear arsenal to practically no time. It does not effectively prevent Iran from breaching the agreement and achieving its goal even earlier, if it decides that the conditions justify it.

Iran is permitted to maintain a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak, in clear contradiction to the original demand that it replace its heavy water reactor, ostensibly intended for civilian purposes, with a light water reactor. The exact design and details of the new reactor are not known yet, but as long as the reactor is a heavy water one, changes may be carried out in a way that will increase the plutonium production to enable production of sufficient plutonium for use in nuclear weaponry.

The provisions of the agreement regarding inspections and supervision of undeclared sites provide no genuine possibility of ascertaining or proving prohibited activity by Iran.

The agreement imposes no limitations on Iran’s ability to produce more ground-to-ground missiles with a range of 1,700-2,000 km., capable of covering the entire Middle East region.

Similarly, it imposes no limitations on Iranian efforts to develop ICBM missiles with an extended range of up to 10,000 km., capable of carrying nuclear warheads and reaching the east coast of North America.

Immediately after the agreement was reached, Iran declared that it will soon receive  advanced S-300 air defense missile system from Russia and planes from China – deals that make a mockery out of the prohibition on arms acquisition.

The agreement provides Iran with assurances of international assistance in the protection of its nuclear installations from attempts to harm them, as well as access by Iran to cooperation with foreign states in the field of nuclear installation safety and security.

In summation, the agreement enables Iran to achieve its goal of becoming a hegemon power in the region even before acquiring the nuclear weapons it wants to possess as a tool for achieving this goal.

The hopes enunciated by the U.S. Administration that the agreement will bring about a moderation of the extreme nature of the Iranian regime are nothing more than a naïve illusion and wishful thinking.

The confidence of the U.S. Administration in its ability to monitor Iranian compliance by intelligence means is misplaced. History has proven that revealing foreign nuclear agendas, including those of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India and Iraq, by U.S. intelligence was far from impressive. The covert nature of such activities would clearly pose extremely difficult problems for any viable intelligence collection.

Israel, which is not a party to the agreement, will clearly face increased dangers and will be obliged to invest huge resources to enhance its intelligence and defense capabilities in light of the real threat emanating from Iran.

Given the agreement’s acceptance and the acknowledgment of Iran as a threshold nuclear state, it is highly likely that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as other states, will find themselves in an arms race to acquire their own respective military nuclear capability. This, in itself, will pose a direct challenge to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to regional and world stability, and will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The substantial concessions to Iran by the United States in the agreement and its failure to stand by essential prior commitments and promises cast a very serious shadow over the reliability and dependability of the U.S. vis-à-vis its allies and regional partners …


(What President with the best interests of the US in mind could possibly accept this tragic agreement and then try to sell it to a complicit, irresponsible Congress and the completely uninformed and misinformed American public?)


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

By Benjamin Korn
AUGUST 26, 2015

Israeli Army officials are reportedly furious that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has accused the IDF of massacring Arab civilians. But what else is new? After all, Friedman’s entire career has been built on lying about Israel — including rewriting his own biography in order to smear the Jewish State.

In his August 12, 2015 column, Friedman wrote: “Israel plays, when it has to, by what I’ve called ‘Hama rules’ — war without mercy…it will not be deterred by the threat of civilian Arab casualties…”

The Times of Israel notes that, “While the term ‘Hama Rules’ itself comes from Friedman’s book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, in his new article he offered no history of the event or explanation for the comparison, apparently assuming the reader would understand the context.”

(For the reader’s edification, this is the story of Hama that Friedman refers to and has the gall to tell an absolute lie comparing it to the benign way in which Israel treats its Arab citizens.)

“The Hama massacre occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian Arab Army under the orders of the country’s then-dictator, Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, besieged the town of Hama for 27 days in order to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Assad’s government. Estimates vary, with the number varying between 10,000 – 20,000 Syrians killed. About 1,000 Syrian soldiers were killed during the operation and large parts of the old city were destroyed. The attack has been described as one of “the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East”. The vast majority of the victims were civilians.)” From: Wikipedia

Friedman’s sense of self-importance is legendary; evidently he assumes that everyone has read and memorized his book. But for those who have not, the term “Hama Rules” was his little nickname for the policy of then-Syrian tyrant Hafez Assad, when he massacred tens of thousands of civilians in the Syrian city of Hama in 1982.

So, Friedman sees no difference between Israeli and Syrian policy regarding civilian casualties. Israel drops warning leaflets in neighborhoods it plans to strike; individually telephones residents of apartment buildings in the area; and cancels bombing raids if civilians are likely to be harmed. Meanwhile, Syria slaughters people anywhere, anytime, with whatever weapons it has handy. But it’s all the same to Thomas Friedman.

But such lies should not surprise anyone familiar with Friedman’s track record.

He was a junior reporter on the New York Times staff when he was sent to cover the Israel-Lebanon war in 1982. He was catapulted to fame by a series of articles blaming Israel for the Lebanese Christians’ killings of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, (itself a gross lie long ago discounted) which he then parlayed into a best-selling book, the aforementioned From Beirut to Jerusalem.

The major theme of the book, and of the many interviews he gave about his time in Lebanon, was disillusionment. He set out, he claimed, as a passionate supporter of Israel (“insufferably so”). He believed “that all the right [was] on one side, and all the wrong on the other, that Israel always behaves in a way that’s morally upstanding…I had seen Israel as a sort of utopian society…” But these illusions were shattered: “In my experiences as a reporter…I went through a period of disillusionment during my experience of Lebanon and Sabra and Shatilla.”

According to Friedman, it was Israel’s immoral behavior in Lebanon in 1982 that transformed him from a supporter of the Jewish state to one of its most outspoken critics. He bravely discovered the truth about the Israelis, and that gave him the moral credentials to pass judgement on Israel from then on — which is exactly what he proceeded to do, first as the Times‘s bureau chief in Jerusalem from 1984-1988, and from then on as a Times op-ed columnist.

But that was a lie.

Friedman did not become a critic of Israel in 1982. He was strongly pro-Palestinian at least eight years earlier, as a leader of a Brandeis University student organization called the “Middle East Peace Group.”

When the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat, gun on his hip, spoke at the United Nations that fall, then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin strongly protested and hundreds of thousands of outraged New Yorkers held a “Rally Against Terror.” Friedman and his Peace Group colleagues published an open letter in The Brandeis Justice (the student newspaper) on November 12, 1974, to denounce the rally and oppose Prime Minister Rabin’s stance.

Friedman and company declared that the anti-terror rally would “only reinforce Jewish anxiety and contribute to Israel’s further isolation.” They demanded that Prime Minister Rabin “negotiate with all factions of the Palestinians, including the PLO.” Keep in mind that this was at a time when the PLO was not even pretending to be moderate or willing to live in peace with Israel. Earlier that year, PLO terrorists had proudly slaughtered dozens of Israeli schoolchildren in the towns of Ma’alot and Kiryat Shemona.

When Friedman graduated from Brandeis, he left the Middle East Peace Group — but the Middle East Peace Group never left him. His news articles for the Times, and later his op-ed columns, consistently exhibited the same negative tilt against Israel.

Secretary of State James Baker, (of “F–k the Jews. They don’t for vote for us anyway” infamy and now Jeb Bush’s foreign policy advisor!) in his autobiography, described how he and Friedman were tennis partners, and Friedman would give him suggestions on how to pressure Israel. He credited Friedman for the notorious episode in which Baker publicly humiliated Israel by announcing the White House phone number and declaring that the Israelis should call when they get serious about peace. No wonder the editors of The New Republic, in 1992, characterized Friedman as “the New York Times‘s State Department spokesman” and as part of “the James Baker Ministry of Information.”

Ultimately, all of Friedman’s writings on Israel are anchored in the myth of the “Disillusioned American Jewish Journalist.” All of his credibility as a commentator on Israeli-Palestinian affairs rests on the image he concocted in Lebanon. Brian Williams recently lost his job as anchor of the NBC Nightly News because he falsified his war correspondent experiences. Thomas Friedman should be judged according to precisely the same criteria.

(Mr. Korn, chairman of the Philadelphia Religious Zionists, is former executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent and the Miami Jewish Tribune.)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Islamic State marks the houses of Christians with the Arabic letter ‘N’ for Nazarene.


Wall Street Journal
August 21, 2015

Recently I saw a riveting new play, “My Report to the World: The Story of Jan Karski.” In 1943 Karski, a member of the Polish Catholic underground, was the first eyewitness to the Warsaw ghetto and a Nazi concentration camp to reach the U.S. He sought to convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter that Judaism was being systematically wiped out by the Nazis. Frankfurter told Karski he couldn’t believe it because the horror was unfathomable.

A similar story is playing out again, as Christians are being wiped out in the Middle East. On his recent trip to Latin America, Pope Francis said, “Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus.” He continued: “In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide is taking place.”

Middle Eastern Christians are being exterminated by Islamic State, or ISIS, simply because they are Christians. As Jews were forced to wear the yellow Star of David, Christian homes are marked with the Arabic letter “N” for Nazarene. Iraqi Sister Diana Momeka testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May that “ISIS’s plan is to evacuate the land of Christians and wipe the earth clean of any evidence that we ever existed.”

There is another grisly similarity: In the 1940s Jewish refugees were turned away by the U.S. and other countries. Karski recalled in a 1995 interview: “The Jews were abandoned by all governments.”

Today’s persecuted Christians also have nowhere to go. The Rev. Emanuel Youkhana, the head of Christian Aid Program Northern Iraq, told the New York Times in July that the West comes up with visas for “a few hundred people. What about a few hundred thousand?”

The Catholic News Agency reported on Aug. 5 that “since October 2014, 906 Muslim refugees from Syria were granted U.S. visas, while only 28 of Syria’s estimated 700,000 displaced Christians were given the same.

Even when accounting for population percentages (Christians account for 10% of the religious makeup of Syria), the numbers of visas granted seems widely disproportional.” In response, Chaldean Archbishop Bashar Warda of Erbil said at a press conference this month that “our people are asking these questions: how come we apply for the American visa and are denied?”

After 1948, when the Jews were purged from the Arab Middle East, they could at least go to Israel. There is no equivalent for Middle Eastern Christians. Furthermore, the world is no longer forced to rely on a single pair of eyes as in Karski’s day. The forced conversions, the beheadings, the slaughter of Copts on a Mediterranean beach—these horrors are all available on YouTube.

Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, the international director of the nonprofit aid group the Barnabas Fund, told the London Telegraph in July that the situation was evolving into a genocide. “So many British Christians have been in contact with us to tell us that they have a spare room or even a second home in which they want to welcome Syrian and Iraqi Christians,” he said. “Yet our government seems determined to turn its back on some of the most vulnerable people in the world.”

Here’s an illustration of what such organizations can accomplish: The Barnabas Fund’s Operation Safe Havens program has pressed governments to issue visas to persecuted Christians, on condition that the organization will foot their expenses. Poland, Karski’s homeland, is granting visas for an initial several hundred families. Barnabas is joining with a Polish nongovernmental organization, known in English as the Esther Foundation, to help the refugees integrate into society.

Refugees are being connected to local Polish church congregations—from Warsaw and Katowice to Gdańsk and Koszalin. The total cost to rescue one individual is a modest $3,000, including airfare and a year’s basic support.

In June some 60 Polish nongovernmental organizations reminded their government of their people’s historic commitment to solidarity. The leaders wrote in an open letter: “If we are to call Poland ‘the cradle of Solidarity,’ if we declare that we hold freedom and human rights dear, we should commit to providing assistance and support to those who cannot return to their home countries.”

So why can’t the U.S. do something similar? (Ask Barack Obama who is finding millions of US tax payer dollars to rescue his Muslim brethren — many of whom are dedicated Islamists!) jsk

Knowing without doubt the evil and death unleashed on Christians, shouldn’t we let in as many refugees as we can? Americans are renowned for personal generosity toward the afflicted. Private charities, churches and individual citizens should challenge the government to provide visas for Christian refugees whose funding and care private Americans would guarantee.

Before his execution by the Nazis in 1945, the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned against the West’s moral failures toward tyranny, and his words still apply: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil,” he said. “Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Mr. Reilly is the director of the Westminster Institute in McLean, Va.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


New York Times Online

Aug. 22, 2015

In the command centers of Republican presidential campaigns, aides have drawn comfort from the belief that Donald J. Trump’s dominance in the polls is a political summer fling, like Herman Cain in 2011 — an unsustainable boomlet dependent on megawatt celebrity, narrow appeal and unreliable surveys of Americans with a spotty record of actually voting in primaries.

A growing body of evidence suggests that may be wishful thinking.

A review of public polling, extensive interviews with a host of his supporters in two states and a new private survey that tracks voting records all point to the conclusion that Mr. Trump has built a broad, demographically and ideologically diverse coalition, constructed around personality, not substance, that bridges demographic and political divides. In doing so, he has effectively insulated himself from the consequences of startling statements that might instantly doom rival candidates.

Related articles:

Donald J. Trump in Mobile, Ala., on Friday night, at a campaign rally that he compared to a Billy Graham crusade. Fans’ Zeal Is Undiminished

In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting.


The Keys to Trump’s Appeal

From: The unusual character of Mr. Trump’s coalition by no means guarantees his campaign will survive until next year’s primaries, let alone beyond. The diversity of his coalition could even be its undoing, if his previous support for liberal policies and donations to Democrats, for example, undermine his support among conservatives. And in the end, the polling suggests, Mr. Trump will run into a wall: Most Republicans do not support his candidacy and seem unlikely ever to do so. Even now, more say they definitely would not vote for him than say they support him.

But the breadth of Mr. Trump’s coalition is surprising at a time of religious, ideological and geographic divisions in the Republican Party. It suggests he has the potential to outdo the flash-in-the-pan candidacies that roiled the last few Republican nominating contests. And it hints at the problem facing his competitors and the growing pressure on them to confront him, as several, like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, are starting to do.

His support is not tethered to a single issue or sentiment: immigration, economic anxiety or an anti-establishment mood. Those factors may have created conditions for his candidacy to thrive, but his personality, celebrity and boldness, not merely his populism and policy stances, have let him take advantage of them.

Tellingly, when asked to explain support for Mr. Trump in their own words, voters of varying backgrounds used much the same language, calling him “ballsy” and saying they admired that he “tells it like it is” and relished how he “isn’t politically correct.”

Trumpism, the data and interviews suggest, is an attitude, not an ideology.

For voters like Jan Mannarino, a 65-year-old retired teacher who drove an hour from her home in Green Oak Township, Mich., to see Mr. Trump this month, his defiance of political norms is his single greatest virtue.

“Even if he doesn’t win, he’s teaching other politicians to stop being politicians,” Ms. Mannarino said. “He comes on strong. He could say it gently. But I think no one would listen.”

When people talk about the qualities Mr. Trump would bring to the White House, they describe the raging, merciless executive who fired people for sport on television. Some mention trips to his golf courses, which they admiringly note are impeccably run. A common refrain: “He’s a person who gets things done.”

Carl Tomanelli of Londonderry, N.H., said Mr. Trump was “echoing what a lot of people feel and say.” Credit Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist for The New York Times

“We don’t need a politician for president; we need a businessman,” said Tom Krzyminski, 66, a hairstylist from Bay City, Mich. “That’s what we need to get us out of the mess we’re in.”

A New York Times review of nine nonpartisan national polls and more public surveys in the early nominating states shows that, thus far, Mr. Trump is outperforming his Republican rivals with constituencies they were widely expected to dominate.

For example, he leads Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a hero to fiscal conservatives, among Tea Party supporters, 26 percent to 13 percent, according to averages of the last nine national polls. He leads former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a former preacher, among evangelicals, 21 percent to 12 percent. And he is ahead of Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor and a favorite of mainstream donors, among moderate Republicans, 22 percent to 16 percent.

National polls, and both public and partisan pollsters, have struggled to unravel the precise sources of Mr. Trump’s support, leaving many to ascribe it to anger and angst in the Republican electorate. But interviews with voters highlight the degree to which his popularity hinges on personality — and offer an answer to an enduring mystery: Why haven’t Mr. Trump’s outrageous statements, his lack of loyalty to the Republican Party and his caustic attacks on rivals hurt his standing?

His most offensive utterances have, for many Republicans, confirmed his status as a unique outsider willing to challenge conventions, and satisfied a craving for plain-spoken directness.

Many say they support Mr. Trump because of his unusual statements, not in spite of them.

“As inappropriate as some of his comments are, I think it’s stuff that a lot of people are thinking but afraid to say,” she said. “And I’m a woman.”

Asked if they think his brashness would make it more difficult for him to work effectively as president, many voters argue the opposite.

“I want people who are negotiating with him to believe my president when he says he’s going to do something,” said Lori Szostkiewicz, 54, an educator from Hampstead, N.H. “I want to negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness.”

In interviews with voters in Michigan and New Hampshire over the past two weeks, after events hosted by Mr. Trump, none cited his policies as chief motivation for backing him. Many pointed, instead, to his wealth, saying they believed it set him apart from career politicians and freed him of the demands of donors.

“He doesn’t need anybody’s money,” said Maureen Colcord, 60, a clinical dietitian from Derry.

The Civis poll also hinted at a potential problem for Mr. Trump: states that allow only registered Republicans to participate in nominating contests, including Iowa and Nevada. He was at 14 percent among registered Republicans in the states with party registration, compared to 18 percent of the voters who were unaffiliated with a party.

As expected, Mr. Trump performed best among less-frequent voters. He had the support of 22 percent of Republican-leaning adults who did not vote in the 2012 general election. But he still held an edge, with 15 percent, among registered Republicans who had voted in a primary since 2008.

“Whether the person voted in two or eight or 12 elections, Trump leads,” Mr. Aida said.

His falloff in support when infrequent voters were sifted out was not unique: Support for some of Mr. Trump’s rivals, including Mr. Bush and Mr. Carson, declined by similar amounts, or even more, among the most frequent voters, Civis found.

Mr. Trump’s strength among less-frequent voters is a challenge for his campaign, which may lack the organizing experience and infrastructure to motivate them and turn them out in large numbers for a primary or caucus.

“Right now I don’t have a second choice,” Mr. Kas-mikha said. “They all blend in to me. It’s Donald Trump — and everyone else.”

“My second choice,” he added, “might be staying at home.”


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From this week’s Torah portion:

The Fifth Book of the Hebrew Bible, Devarim (Deuteronomy)


ISAIAH 51:12 –

51:12 I, I am He who comforts you! What ails you that you fear
Man who must die,
Mortals who fare like grass?

13 You have forgotten the LoRD your Maker,
Who stretched out the skies and made firm the earth!
And you live all day in constant dread
Because of the rage of an oppressor
Who is aiming to cut you down.

Yet of what account is the rage of an oppressor?

14 Quickly the crouching one is freed:
He is not cut down and slain, And he shall not want for food.

15 For I am the LoRD your God
Who stir up the sea into roaring waves,
Whose name is LoRD of Hosts

16 Have put My words in your mouth
And sheltered you with My hand;
I, who planted the skies and made firm the
earth, Have said to Zion: You are My people!

17 Rouse, rouse yourself
Arise, O Jerusalem, You who from the LoRD’s hand
Have drunk the cup of His wrath,
You who haVe drained to the dregs
The bowl, the cup of reeling!

18 She has none to guide her
Of all the sons she bore;
None takes her by the hand,
Of all the sons she reared.

19 These two things have befallen you: Wrack and ruin-who can console you?
Famine and sword — how shall I comfort

20 Your sons lie in a swoon
At the corner of every street-
Like an antelope caught in a net
Drunk with the wrath of the LoRD,
With the rebuke of your God.

21 Therefore,
Listen to this, unhappy one,
Who are drunk, but not with wine!

22 Thus said the LoRD your Lord,
Your God who champions His people
Herewith I take from your hand
The cup of reeling,
The bowl, the cup of My wrath;
You shall never drink it again.

23 I will put it in the hands of your tormentors,
Who have commanded you,
“Get down, that we may walk over you”
So that you made your back like the ground,
Like a street for passersby.

52-1 Awake, awake, O Zion!
Clothe yourself in splendor;
Put on your robes of majesty,
Jerusalem, holy city! For the uncircumcised and the impure
Shall never enter you again.

2 Arise, shake off the dust,
Sit on your throne, Jerusalem!
Loose the bonds from your neck, O captive one, Fair Zion!

… 8 Hark
Your watchmen raise their voices,
shout for joy;
For every eye shall behold
The LoRD’s return to Zion.

9 Raise a shout together,
O ruins of Jerusalem!
For the LoRD will comfort His people,
Will redeem Jerusalem.

10 The LoRD will bare His holy arm
In the sight of all the nations,
And the very ends of earth shall see
The victory of our God.

11 Turn, turn away, touch naught impure
As you depart from there;
Keep pure, as you go forth from there,
You who bear the vessels of the LoRD!

12 For you will not depart in haste,
Nor will you leave in flight;
For the LoRD is marching before you,
The God of Israel is your rear guard.




Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

With His Head In the Sand

Review of the book, The Two-State Delusion,

Author: Padraig O’Malley

Redacted from a review by Matti Friedman
Wall Street Journal
Aug. 10, 2015

… In “The Two-State Delusion,” Padraig O’Malley has given us an account of his own time in this familiar landscape. As the title suggests, the author believes the idea of two states is not realistic. He’s right, and in reaching this sad conclusion he joins most of us locals, Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Since the collapse of peace talks 15 years ago and the violence of the Second Intifada, the idea of a two-state solution has existed mainly thanks to the Oz-like pyrotechnics of Western diplomats and journalists, aided by Israeli and Palestinian politicians trying to keep the foreigners happy and their money flowing. What little hope remained a few years ago has now been quashed by the Middle Eastern nightmare—carnage in Syria, chaos in Iraq, ISIS in Sinai—unfolding a short drive from our homes.

Mr. O’Malley dedicates most of his book to describing each side’s psychology and weighing its claims. He diagnoses both groups as “addicted” to conflict. Israelis are “obsessive” in their pursuit of security. They also suffer from “exceptionalism and paranoia.” The Palestinians have been so downtrodden that many of his West Bank interviewees struck him as “intellectually depleted.” He writes that “post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is rife in both societies and with it the socio-psychological convulsions it generates.”

Mr. O’Malley, a professor in Boston whose previous work has focused on conflict resolution in South Africa and his native Ireland, lacks an intimate acquaintance with this place and does remarkably little to conceal his disdain for everyone who lives here. Palestinians are not mentally deficient. Neither are Israelis. This hardly seems a way to make progress on a complicated problem.

(As a matter of fact, I really could not imagine how a guy with the name Padraig O’Malley, could claim to be an expert on Israeli/Palestinian relations? But then I remembered the absolute hubris (chutzpah) of academia wherein they spend years accumulating a whole bunch of inconsequential and frequently unrelated facts and then create some sort of politically correct PhD treatise to impress their  egg-head professors.  And, with this receptive self perpetuating jury, the applicant has his expertise certified thus enabling a grossly overpaid salary and tenure within the educational racket, not remotely possible in the real world.  But, enough of my educational racket sermon. Besides, in this case, Professor O’Malley, despite his suspect heritage, confused facts and all the wrong reasons, came to the right conclusion) jsk

More work should have gone into ensuring accuracy. The author asserts, for example, that Israel’s military victory in 1967 resulted from “massive U.S. assistance,” when there wasn’t massive U.S. military assistance before 1967. (France was then the main arms supplier; the planes that won the war were Mirages and Mystères.)

We learn that Ariel Sharon was an agriculture minister in 1971 and that this has something to do with the genesis of the settlements; he wasn’t, and it doesn’t. The author describes Israeli soldiers carrying their Uzis “nonchalantly,” which is a nice touch. But no Israeli soldiers carry the Uzi, which was deemed obsolete after the 1973 war and removed from frontline service after that. The word “homeland” is quoted pointedly from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where that word doesn’t appear. Would it have been too much trouble to check the text? It’s a single sentence.

The “bonding, primal element” of the Jewish psyche, we learn, is the Holocaust. Israelis are in thrall to weapons because of the Holocaust; they are obtuse to the suffering of others because of the Holocaust; and in general they are sort of crazy because of the Holocaust.

Actually, half of the Jewish population in Israel has roots in the Islamic world. Their families were displaced by Muslims, not Nazis. Israelis think many of their neighbors are out to destroy Israel not because of the Holocaust, but because many of their neighbors say they are out to destroy Israel. Israel’s actions in the Middle East, in other words, have to do with its experience in the Middle East. The country’s objective success against long odds would have to indicate that at least some of its decisions have been reality-based, if not quite reasonable.

The idea that a collective memory renders Jewish judgment defective seems to be something acceptable to say aloud these days in connection with Israel, which is why I’ve dwelled on it. It’s important to point out not only that this observation is wrong, but that it is a patronizing ethnic smear. I don’t like the careless generalizations in Mr. O’Malley’s book or his shaky grasp of the facts. But I don’t think they have anything to do with the potato famine.

One would expect an exercise in conflict resolution to end with a few suggestions on resolving the conflict. Friends of the author who read the manuscript shared this expectation, we learn, and wondered about the absence of constructive ideas. If not two states then what? “But why should I be so presumptuous as to dare provide a vision for people who refuse to provide one for themselves, not just in the here and now, but in the future too?” he replies. “For people who have no faith in the possible? Who themselves believe the conflict will take generations to resolve? Who are content to live their hatreds? Who are so resolutely opposed to the slightest gesture of accommodation? Who revel in their mutual pettiness?”

On behalf of my Holocaust-addled, Uzi-wielding countrymen and—if I may—on behalf of our intellectually depleted neighbors, I would like to express gratitude for being led to common ground: our mutual pettiness.

“The Two-State Delusion” illustrates a strange aspect of our current intellectual moment: At a time when the Middle East has achieved a truly surreal level of awfulness, many in the West have become even more acutely fixated on the Jewish minority enclave in one corner of the region. The death toll in Syria alone in four years is more than double the Israel-Arab death toll in a century. That being the case, it should be clear that believing Israel’s conflict to be the most important in the Middle East is, and always has been, a delusion—one that unconsciously underpins this treatise about the delusions of others.

A reader of this book could be excused for thinking the implosion of the entire region is mainly an irritant in the Israeli-Palestinian affair. It all feels a bit like a sermon about an intricate labor dispute in the cafeteria of the Hindenburg.

(And, the book itself, is a prime example of what the sophisticated British aptly call,  “Rubbish”) jsk

Mr. Friedman is the author of “The Aleppo Codex.”


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


Redacted from an in-depth article by Dr. Jasser that must be read in its entirety.

By Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser

The Journal of International Security Affairs No. 28

August, 2015

Today, the United States and its allies are focused on the concept of “countering violent extremism” as a means of combatting the scourge of radical Islam. Yet, violent extremism is but one manifestation of the Islamist ideology that threatens Western democracies and citizenry under its sway.

For one can espouse radical Islamism and its totalitarian, supremacist goals of world domination with out choosing violent means to do so. But it is far harder to endorse Islamist ideology without supporting anti-Semitism.

Thus, anti-Semitism is not just another “radical” symptom. In fact, if we can develop the understanding and national conviction to confront the anti-Semitism of global Islamist movements directly, we will hold the key to unraveling the very fabric and platform through which Islamist leaders spread their ideas. The linkage is simple.

Supremacists from within a particular faith community will create and exploit hatred toward another in order to rally their own followers against a common foe. Islamists utilize anti-Semitic imagery, profiling and demonization of Jews as a tool for their own ascension to power in Muslim majority communities and nations (or in Arabic, the ummah).

Islamists often exploit both the Muslim ummah and the Jewish minority in order to create group-think against the “other.” The Islamist demonization of Jews is a key feature of their worldview, because underneath that hatred lies a more global supremacism that threatens all minorities, both within and outside the faith.

Today, Europe and the West are being directly impacted by the events that have transpired over the last half-decade of the Arab Awakening. With the tumult in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, the ascent of Islamist movements has for the most part not brought a real spring but rather the empowerment of new autocrats who wield Islamist thought as a supremacist weapon.

The challenge before the world could not be clearer. The vacuum left by the region’s long-serving dictators is a widening front in the battle for the soul of Islam: Will Muslim majority societies and Muslim leaders around the world heed the call for the rights of the individual? Will they defend the rights of the minority over the collective, the tribe, and the clerical oligarchs? Or will they ultimately just trade one autocracy for another? Here, the importance of the role played by anti-Semitism cannot be overstated.

According to Pew research surveys, “anti-Jewish sentiment” is endemic in the Muslim world. “In Lebanon, for example, all Muslims and 99 percent of Christians say they have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Similarly, 99 percent of Jordanians have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Large majorities of Moroccans, Indonesians, Pakistanis and six in ten Turks also view Jews unfavorably,” a 2005 poll by the research center noted.

That outcome is hardly surprising. For generations, Arab dictators like Hosni Mubarak, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad or King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, have harnessed and incubated anti-Semitism as a political tool, using their vast media machines to expand the reach and resonance of this corrosive idea. Thus, Egypt under Mubarak lionized the virulently anti-Semitic and czarist Russian forgery,

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, even as state media regularly denied the Holocaust while at the same time irrationally labeling Zionism as a “new Nazism.” Saudi Arabian government media and academia are also rife with anti-Semitic imagery and the demonization of Jews, while the country’s public schools teach that Jews “obey the devil” and are those whom “God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied.” The list goes on.

The hate thereby created fueled a mass exodus of Jews.  Since 1948, at Israel’s founding, there have been over 1 million Jews expelled from Arab lands with only a few remaining. That exodus has carried over to the Christian community, where it is believed over two million Christians have fled the Middle Eastern Arab community in the last 20 years.

(Unfortunately, establishment world-wide Christian churches (excluding the Evangelicals) refuse to acknowledge this obvious undeniable fact and for their own obscene purposes prefer to wallow in the mindless anti-Semitism of the centuries. How much easier to teach Jew-Hatred to your naive, uninformed, uneducated flock than to  explain their poverty, ignorance, lack of opportunity, dreadful living conditions and justify your own destructive power?)

Yet anti-Semitism is hardly the purview of secular tyrants alone. Rather, it serves as a primary nexus between pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism.

HATING JEWS… AND ISRAEL  (What a convenient hook-up to belch out hate!)

The intellectual origins and under-pinnings of Islamist anti-Semitism are diverse. But while our Islamic tradition certainly possesses, as the scholar Martin Kramer has described, “some sources on which Islamic anti-Semitism now feeds,” it is not the only reason for it.

In fact, if Islamist anti-Semitism is wholly confronted by modern Muslim reformers, there is hope that it can be marginalized and ultimately defeated, ending a force which can ultimately hold sway over a quarter of the world’s population.

The current reality, however, is that the imams (clerics), ulema(scholars), or activists with the courage to publicly take on the anti-Semitism of Islamist leaders are sadly few in number. And when they arise, they have neither the platforms, attention, nor the backing that Islamist-linked movements enjoy around the world.

Integral, and related, is the exploitation of Israel. As the scholar Martin Kramer has noted, Islamists see Israel as a symptom of a larger conspiracy against them, either western or Jewish or a sinister combination of the two. Many Islamists today do not look at Israel or its policies as their irritant. They look beyond, either to America, symbol today of the power of the West or to the Jews, dispersed throughout the West where they exercise a malignant influence. These are deemed to be the real forces driving history.

Kramer concludes: If these themes seem distressingly familiar it is quite likely because they are borrowings from the canon of Western religious and racial anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism we see today in the Islamic world owes a crucial debt to the anti-Semitism of the West.

Eventually, the world will have to come to terms with how clerics with toxic positions on Jews and Americans swim in the same pool with those who have similarly hateful positions against the Shi’a community (described as deviants), the Ahmadiyya (described as apostates), or the Baha’i (described as infidels) and so many other vulnerable religious minorities who will undoubtedly suffer, and are suffering, at the hands of Islamists when they are in power.

What the Muslim world says and learns matters a great deal. According to former CIA director R. James Woolsey, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has spent nearly $90 billion spreading its ideology around the globe since the 1970s. He describes the Saudi sponsoring of the dissemination of the extremist Wahhabi strain of Islam as “the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terror organizations are flourishing.”

The kingdom is not just any country with problematic textbooks. As the controlling authority of the two holiest shrines of Islam, Saudi Arabia is able to disseminate its religious materials among the millions making the hajj to Mecca each year. Such teachings can, in this context, make a great impression.  In his book, The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright asserts that while Saudis constitute only 1 percent of the world’s Muslims, they pay “90 percent of the expenses of the entire faith, over-riding other traditions of Islam.”

A better understanding of the link between anti-Semitism and Islamist movements and its supporters is just a first step. The next is to implement long- lasting solutions. These solutions will not only provide Europe and the West with a bulwark against the infiltration of anti-Semitic ideas from Islamist movements in the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia, but will also serve to better secure us against the threat of militant Islamism. For where anti-Semitism thrives, so too does the eventual threat against other faith minorities and the very foundations of democracy.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D. is the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). A devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, and the separation of mosque and state. Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose parents fled the oppressive Baath regime of Syria in the mid-1960’s for American freedom. 

Dr. Jasser earned his medical degree on a U.S. Navy scholarship at the Medical College of Wisconsin in 1992. He served 11 years as a medical officer in the U. S. Navy. His tours of duty included Medical Department Head aboard the U.S.S. El Paso which deployed to Somalia during Operation Restore Hope; Chief Resident at Bethesda Naval Hospital; and Staff Internist for the Office of the Attending Physician to the U. S. Congress. He is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal. Dr. Jasser is a respected physician currently in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology. He is a Past-President of the Arizona Medical Association.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Climate-Change Putsch   (A violent and sudden uprising; political revolt, a coup d’état, a complete take-over of political power — In this case by Barack Hussein Obama)

States should refuse to comply with Obama’s lawless power rule.

Wall Street Journal Editorial

Aug. 4, 2015

Rarely do American Presidents display the raw willfulness that President Obama did Monday in rolling out his plan to reorganize the economy in the name of climate change. Without a vote in Congress or even much public debate, Mr. Obama is using his last 18 months to dictate U.S. energy choices for the next 20 or 30 years. This abuse of power is regulation without representation.

The so-called Clean Power Plan commands states to cut carbon emissions by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030. This final mandate is 9% steeper than the draft the Environmental Protection Agency issued in June 2014. (which they themselves had no legal right to do).The damage to growth, consumer incomes and U.S. competitiveness will be immense—assuming the rule isn’t tossed by the courts or rescinded by the next Administration.

States have regulated their power systems since the early days of electrification, but the EPA is now usurping this role to nationalize power generation and consumption. To meet the EPA’s targets, states must pass new laws or regulations to shift their energy mix from fossil fuels, subsidize alternative energy, improve efficiency, impose a cap-and-trade program, or all of the above.

Coal-fired power will be the first to be shot down, but the EPA is targeting all sources of carbon energy. As coal plants have retired amid seven years of EPA assault, natural gas recently eclipsed coal as the dominant source of electric power. This cleaner-burning gas surge has led to the cheapest and fastest emissions plunge in history, but the EPA isn’t satisfied.

Thus the new rule’s central planning favors green energy sources like wind and solar. The plan expands their quotas and funding, while punishing states that are insufficiently enthusiastic. The EPA estimates renewables will make up 28% of U.S. electric capacity by 2030, up from less than 5% today.

The rule is the first step in a crescendo of climate-change politics that Mr. Obama is planning for his final days. In September he will commune with Pope Francis on the subject, (who knows less about it than Obama but somehow climate change has become a religion and not just Catholic)  and then jet to Paris in hopes that his new rule shows enough U.S. progress that the climate treaty conference in December will reach some grand accord.

As for the home front, the point is to bull-rush states into making permanent changes to their energy systems. The investments and lead times in new power plants and transmission lines on this scale are generational. Yet state compliance plans are due in September 2016, and most of the carbon reductions must be complete by 2022.

The White House and EPA know they are distorting the law beyond recognition and that this rule will be litigated for years. But they figure that if they can intimidate the states into enacting as much change as fast as possible, a legal defeat won’t matter because the outcome will be a fait accompli.

The Supreme Court did give EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions in Mass. v. EPA in 2007. But that was not a roving license to do anything the EPA wants. The High Court has rebuked the agency twice in the last two years for exceeding its statutory powers.

“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism,” the Court warned last year. “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.”

Congress did no such thing with the Clean Power Plan, which is a new world balanced on a fragment of the Clear Air Act called Section 111(d). This passage runs a couple hundred words and was added to the law in 1977, well before the global warming stampede. Historically Section 111(d) has applied “inside the fence line,” meaning the EPA can set performance standards for individual plants, not for everything connected to those sources that either produces or uses electricity.

When the EPA rule does arrive before the Justices, maybe they’ll rethink their doctrine of “Chevron deference,” in which the judiciary hands the bureaucracy broad leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. An agency using a 38-year-old provision as pretext for the cap-and-tax plan that a Democratic Congress rejected in 2010 and couldn’t get 50 Senate votes now is the all-time nadir of administrative “interpretation.”

Meantime, states can help the resistance by refusing to participate. The Clean Air Act is a creature of cooperative federalism, and Governors have no obligation to craft a compliance plan. The feds will try to enforce a fallback, but they can’t commandeer the states, and they lack the money, personnel and bandwidth to overcome a broad boycott. Let’s see how much “clean power” the EPA really has.

The states have good reason to avoid collaborating in a scheme that will result in higher prices for consumers and business as the EPA mandates are passed down the energy chain. The plan also endangers electric reliability, and the strains to the grid could lead to brownouts or worse. The EPA added a reliability “safety valve” in the final rule as a concession that these risks are real, but this offers little protection in practice.

This plan is essentially a tax on the livelihood of every American, which makes it all the more extraordinary that it is essentially one man’s order. Mr. Obama’s argument is that climate change is too important to abide by relics like the rule of law or self-government. It is an important test of the American political system to prove that he is wrong.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Saudi Arabia VS President Obama and Secretary Kerry 

By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
“Israel Hayom”, August 7, 2015

Irrespective of Western attempts to portray Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan and Egypt as supporters of the Iran nuclear deal, leaders of these countries, and especially the House of Saud, consider the accord a colossal, lethal threat, resulting from a reckless, short-sighted and self-destructive policy, which will initially plague the Arab World, and subsequently the Western World, including the USA, “the Great Satan” according to the Ayatollahs.

While Saudi leaders are restrained in their official reaction to the Iran nuclear agreement, they voice their authentic concerns and assessments via the House of Saud-owned media, which have traditionally served as a convenient venue, providing the element of deniability, sparing diplomatic inconvenience.

During a recent visit to Capitol Hill, I was told by legislators in both chambers, on both sides of the aisle: “While Israel is concerned about Iran’s nuclearization, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are panicky.”

The House of Saud-appointed General Manager of Al-Arabiya TV, and former editor-in-chief of the intellectual Saudi daily, A-Sharq Al-Awsat, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, dismissed Secretary Kerry’s assertion that “Once fully implemented, the Iran deal will contribute to the region’s long-term security.”

According to the daily voice of the Saudi King, the Ayatollahs regime “is like a monster that was tied to a tree and has been set loose. We are on a threshold of a bloody era…. expecting the worst-case scenario…. Teheran does not intend to drop its aims of regional dominance and destabilizing neighboring Arab countries. The lifting of sanctions will facilitate the transfer of funds and the purchase and shipment of arms [to terror organizations]…. Teheran will become more dangerous.”

The opinion page editor of A-Sharq Al-Awsat, Mshari Al-Zaydi highlights a constructive alternative to the current Iran nuclear deal: the preconditioning of any benefit to the Ayatollahs upon a drastic transformation of the nature of their regime. The confidant of the House of Saud stated: “The real problem lies in the nature of Iran’s rulers and the money that will flood the coffers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. It will cause more strife in Arab countries…. Iran’s constitution calls for funding and arming militias loyal to Iran within Arab and Muslim countries. Washington will soon realize the consequences of their Iranian adventure.”

At this junction of an increasingly globalized world – and against the backdrop of the Ayatollahs’ track record, the hate America Iranian school textbooks and the violent, megalomaniacal and apocalyptic Death to America worldview of the Ayatollahs and their close ties with North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador – the commercial, energy, national and homeland security consequences of the Iran nuclear agreement transcend the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Arab World. The implications of the game-changing agreement extend to the Western World, impacting Latin America, Mexico and every congressional district in the USA.

In 2015, Secretary Kerry attempts to assuage the concerns of the American people by portraying Iran’s President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif as moderates. He fails to note that they were handpicked by the Ayatollahs, serving at their pleasure as their mouthpieces, due to their mastery of Taquiyya (Islam-sanctioned double-talk and deception, especially when dealing with “infidels”). Upon concluding the current negotiation, Kerry praised Zarif, Iran’s charmer-in-chief, as “a tough negotiator and a patriot…. We approached these negotiations with mutual respect.”

During the 1990s and until the eruption of the civil war in Syria, Kerry was a member of a small group of Senators, who considered Hafez Assad and then Bashar Assad – otherwise treated as pariah in the West – moderate, constructive, potentially pro-US and trust-worthy. He prodded Israel to cede the strategically-critical Golan Heights to Syria. Kerry was a frequent visitor to Damascus, asserting on March 16, 2011: “My judgment is that Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the US and the West and economic opportunities that come with it.”

Kerry considered Yasser Arafat a messenger of peace, embraced the anti-US Muslim Brotherhood, dumped the pro-US President Mubarak, turned a cold shoulder toward the pro-US President Sisi and referred to the violently intolerant Arab Tsunami as the Arab Spring, “the new Arab awakening,” transitioning from tyranny to democracy, the Facebook revolution and the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi and MLK.

Refuting Kerry’s hope-driven policy, Amir Taheri, a senior columnist of A-Sharq Al-Awsat and a leading expert on Persian Gulf politics underlined Persian Gulf reality: “The assumption that the Rafsanjani/Rouhani faction is interested in reforms is far-fetched…. In the third year of Rouhani’s presidency the number of prisoners of conscience has almost doubled along with the number of executions; political parties and trade unions remain banned; more publications have been shut than under Ahmadinejad; exporting terror has intensified with a 32% rise in the budget of the Quds Force, which controls Iran’s terror network…. Kerry is chasing a dangerous fantasy: helping a regime in deep crisis regaining its bearings and do more mischief at home and abroad.”

Echoing Saudi concerns that the Iran nuclear agreement dramatically bolsters the rogue Ayatollahs regime, precluding a regime change and eroding the US posture of deterrence, the veteran columnist adds: “The deal strengthens the radical hardliners in Teheran, who believe that they have carte blanche to pursue their imperial dream…. [Obama’s and Kerry’s] diplomacy has made the world a much more dangerous place.”

The US power projection, which is essential for global stability, is further undermined when President Obama evokes JFK’s Test Ban Treaty with the USSR – an adversarial, nuclear superpower, deterred by MAD – to market the nuclear deal with Iran. The latter is a medium size conventional power, a rogue, non-compliant, apocalyptic regime, induced by MAD, seeking capabilities to devastate “the arrogant, infidel, Great Satan USA.” While JFK’s policy constrained the bullish policies of the USSR, the Iran nuclear deal fuels the Ayatollah’s bullishness, significantly enhancing their financial and military capabilities, thus intensifying global instability.



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

 Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), a key member of the House Democratic Leadership, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), the ranking Democrat on the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee each released statements outlining their positions against the agreement.)

Aug 6, 2015 Israel Commentary ‏@Israelcomment 5h5 hours ago
Sen. Chas Schumer:  “The genuine risk that Iran will use the nuclear agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great. Therefore, I will vote to disapprove”

Israel Minster of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Newsletter

Redacted from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the Jewish Federations of North America:

August 5, 2015

The nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. It actually paves Iran’s path to the bomb. It gives Iran two paths to the bomb. Iran can get to the bomb by keeping the deal or Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

“I want to talk with you about three fatal flaws in the nuclear deal with Iran. And I also want to dispel some of the misinformation and, regrettably I have to say, the disinformation about the deal and about Israel’s position. I want to answer some of your important questions.

First, let’s understand how Iran gets to the bomb by keeping the deal. See, the deal allows Iran to maintain and eventually expand a vast and increasingly sophisticated nuclear infrastructure. This infrastructure is unnecessary for civilian nuclear energy, but it’s entirely necessary for nuclear weapons. Astonishingly, the deal gives Iran’s illicit nuclear program full international legitimacy.

If Iran keeps the deal, in a decade or so – at most 15 years – the main restrictions on this vast nuclear program will expire. They’ll just end. The deal’s limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran has and on the quantity of uranium Iran enriches, those restrictions will be lifted. And at that point Iran will be able to produce the enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and it could produce that arsenal very quickly. After 15 years, Iran’s breakout time will be practically zero, just a few days.

I think President Obama said as much in an interview with National Public Radio. By keeping the deal Iran will become a threshold nuclear weapons power. The deal does make it harder for Iran to produce one or two nuclear weapons in the short term. But it does so at a terrible price. Because the deal makes it far easier for Iran to build dozens, even hundreds of nuclear weapons in a little over a decade.

Now, 10 to 15 years pass in no time. I think it was like yesterday and I remember this very well, all those preparations for the Y2K bug and the celebrations of the new millennium. That was 15 years ago. It’s a blink of an eye. We’re told that this deal buys us time, but 10 to 15 years is no time at all. So by keeping the deal, Iran can get within a decade or so not just to one bomb, but to many bombs.

But Iran has a second path to the bomb, one that would give it a nuclear weapon in far less time. You see, Iran could violate the deal. And there’s good reason to think that Iran will do so, that it will cheat. They’ve done it before. They’ll do it again.

Now, people don’t really contest that, but they argue that Iran will be prevented from cheating because we’ll have good intelligence and unprecedented inspections. (Huh!)

Well, let me start with intelligence. I have the greatest respect for Israel’s intelligence capabilities. I have the greatest respect for the intelligence services of the United States and Great Britain. But it has to be said honestly. For years none of us discovered the massive underground nuclear facilities Iran was building at Fordo and at Natanz. For years none of us discovered that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor for plutonium production. So I can tell you from experience, it’s very precarious to bet the deal’s success on intelligence.

Now what about inspections? Neither intelligence nor inspections prevented North Korea from building atomic bombs despite assurances that they wouldn’t be able to do so. And while the deal with Iran allows for ongoing inspections of Iran’s declared sites, what about Iran’s secret nuclear activities? See, under the deal, if a facility is suspected of housing a hidden nuclear activity, inspectors must wait at least 24 days – that’s 24 days! – before getting access to those suspected sites. Not only that, the inspectors must first share with Iran the critical intelligence that led them to suspect these sites in the first place. That’s actually astounding.

Some have said that 24 days is not long enough to conceal evidence of illicit nuclear activity. But as leading experts have pointed out, 24 days is more than enough time to clean up a site of all traces of illicit activity. It’s like the police giving a drug dealer three and a half weeks’ notice before raiding his lab. Believe me, you can flush a lot of nuclear meth down the toilet in 24 days.

So Iran can keep the deal or Iran can cheat on the deal. Either way the deal gives Iran a clear path to the bomb, a difficult path to one or two bombs today and a much easier path to hundreds of bombs tomorrow.

Now, here’s the thing – everybody in the Middle East knows what I’ve just said. And the countries in the region threatened by Iran have already made clear that they will work to develop atomic bombs of their own. So the deal that was supposed to end nuclear proliferation will actually trigger nuclear proliferation. It will trigger an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the most volatile part of the planet. That’s a real nightmare!

Here in Israel, Isaac Herzog, the Leader of the Labor Opposition, the man who ran against me in this year’s election and who works every day in the Knesset to bring down my government, Herzog has said that there is no daylight between us when it comes to the deal with Iran.

I’m asking you all in the US  to rise above partisan politics as we in Israel have risen above it. Judge the deal on its substance and on its substance alone. The more people know about the deal, the more they oppose it. And the more people know about the deal, the more the deal’s supporters try to stifle serious debate. They do so with false claims and efforts to delegitimize criticism.

We face Iran’s terror on three borders. We face tens of thousands of Iranian rockets aimed at all our cities. We face Iran, whose regime repeatedly calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. We face Iran whose terrorist proxies try to kill Jews every day. We know that Iran is not only the leading state sponsor of terrorism, it’s also the leading state sponsor of anti-Semitism.

I don’t oppose this deal because I want war. I oppose this deal because I want to prevent war, and this deal will bring war.It will spark a nuclear arms race in the region and it would feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression. That would make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all, far more likely.

What we do now will affect our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren – in Israel, in America, everywhere. This is a time to stand up and be counted. Oppose this dangerous deal.

Thank you.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Obama’s Racial Blind Spot

The nuclear deal with Iran’s fanatical anti-Jewish regime will fuel racism on a global scale.


Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2015

Barack Obama’s election to the presidency represented to many Americans this country’s final triumph over racism. Reversing the record of slavery and institutionalized discrimination, his victory was hailed as a redemptive moment for America and potentially for humankind. How grotesque that the president should now douse that hope by fueling racism on a global scale.

The Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany are always a last resort, since even with all the evidence before us it is hard to fathom the evil the Nazis perpetrated. Yet Iran’s frank genocidal ambition dwarfs its predecessor’s. Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias.

President Obama takes some forms of racism seriously. (Black, that is) Without waiting for a judgment to be rendered, he leaped to the defense of my Harvard colleague Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr., who in 2009 was involved in a confrontation with Cambridge police investigating a reported break-in at his house. In the disputed shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., in 2012, the president identified with the victim of the alleged racism to the point of saying the 17-year-old “could have been my son.”

Yet, when it comes to the world’s most widespread and ideologically driven racism, President Obama seems to have a blind spot – initiating a nuclear deal with the fanatical anti-Jewish regime in Tehran, despite what he calls Iran’s “bad behavior.” The euphemism this time is his, not that of the perpetrators, and it camouflages their intentions even if they won’t.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is oblivious to what the scholar Robert Wistrich (who died in May) called “the longest hatred” because it has been so much a part of his world as he moved through life. Muslim Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10, trails only Pakistan and Iran in its hostility to Jews. An animus against Jews and Israel was a hallmark of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago that Mr. Obama attended for two decades.

And before he ran for office, Mr. Obama carried the standard of the international left that invented the stigma of Zionism-as-imperialism. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama felt obliged to repudiate his pastor (who had famously cursed America from the pulpit), and muted his far-left credentials.

Mr. Obama was voted into office by an electorate enamored of the idea that he would oppose all forms of racism. He has not met that expectation.

Some Jewish critics of Mr. Obama may be tempted to put his derelictions in a line of neglect by other presidents, but there is a difference. Thus one may argue that President Roosevelt should have bombed the approach routes to Auschwitz or allowed the Jewish-refugee ship St. Louis to dock in the U.S. during World War II, but those were at worst sins of omission. In sharpest contrast, President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran is an act of commission. This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.

As a Jew I know that the appeal to history is about as effective as the child’s threat of punishment against the bully the child cannot hope to defeat. Nonetheless, Jews do “write” history, thanks to the outsize evils marshaled against them.

Because the most repressive and aggressive regimes continue to organize against the Jews, the Jewish people have become the “true north” of toleration and concern for human rights. Those who defend the Jews are necessarily on the side of peace and brotherhood, those who attack them invariably on the side of evil. Depending on the outcome of the Iran deal, this outreach to an anti-Jewish regime may one day rival the blot of slavery on the American record. Israel will strive to protect its citizens, but Mr. Obama has increased the odds against them.  

(And, may he rot in hell for it.) jsk

What of American Jews in all this? It is sometimes mistakenly assumed that those who are passionately for Israel are therefore less for America. It is just the opposite: Anti-Jewish aggression is always aimed at the self-accountable way of life that the Jews represent. “Death to the Jews!” is a call to arms against Western liberal democracies; that is why in Iran the cry is often accompanied by “Death to America!”

Americans intent on stopping Iran are not against the president but in favor of the hope he once embodied for an end to racism. They hope for respectful treatment of blacks and Jews alike. They believe that America stands for humanity’s better nature.

(Ms. Wisse, a former professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, is the author of “Jews and Power” (Schocken, 2007) and “No Joke: Making Jewish Humor” (Princeton, 2013).)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Fresh from eight months of house confinement dictated by the Democratic Party Justice System (Under Barack Obama’s hatchet man, Attorney General Eric Holder)  filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza jumps back into the fray and advises in a video interview what the American people still have ahead of them in 2016.

Published on July 28, 2015

Interview by Greg Campbell,

Redacted by Jerome S. Kaufman

Campbell: What are your plans now, Mr. D’Souza?

D’Souza: My immediate project is a new book called, “Stealing America” due out November, 2015.

The theme of the book is that the Democratic Party with the Progressive movement have become a strategy of cleverly organized theft using government agencies and authority to invade private property and wealth in the most sophisticated of measures claiming these actions are for the public good and the government knows best in all matters. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Democrats  are indeed the Party of Theft with shakedown artists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), IRS. other Federal Agencies and Obama’s carefully chosen Czars brazenly and openly leading the way.

Also, next summer I will be producing a film titled, “Hillary and a Secret History of Progressivism in the Democratic Party.”

The Democratic Party  has been hugely successful and fallacious in presenting itself as the Party of civil rights, equal opportunity, human rights and liberation which have brought great progress and success to the citizenry.  Unfortunately, none of that is true.

The Party  has a long well documented seedy, blood stained history that includes slavery, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, destruction of human life, forced unsuccessful integration, bankrupt housing projects, bank failures, the departure of American industry abroad, a huge increase in the cost of education with diminished capability of the graduates to compete on the world scene and an increase in the national debt well over 18 trillion (whatever that is?) dollars with a debt service rapidly approaching our Gross Domestic Product — not at all unlike bankrupt Greece, “dependent upon the kindness of strangers.” Is this to be the future of the United States of America?

Campbell:  What about the film and what do you expect from Barack Obama at this late date and Hillary Clinton, if she were elected?

D’Souza: I don’t believe Barack Obama has much more in store for us. He is confident in simply passing the baton to someone who, in his eyes, is a worthy successor.

Many people do not realize that Hillary Clinton has been a fellow revolutionary with Barack Obama since her college days. They are both dedicated followers of Saul Alinsky. Who is Saul Alinsky?

(Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book “Rules for Radicals.”

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals. A very brief summary:

* RULE 1 “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from two main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”  

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.”

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to his own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.” 

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy. They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.” 

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Don’t become old news. ” 

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.”

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.”

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.” 

* RULE 11:   Activist organizations have an agenda and their strategy is to hold a place at the table to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.”

* RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

What with Hillary and Bill’s past history of tax evasion, actual crime, gross theft, political intimidation, a Clinton Foundation to aggrandize and a source of bottomless, additional wealth, world wide political favors for cash in hand and Saul Alinsky as Hillary’s primary mentor, what different could we expect from the Clintons, G-d forbid, once again in the White House?

Redacted by Jerome S. Kaufman


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post



NEW YORK, NY (July 28, 2015) The U.S. Parole Commission has issued a Notice of Action granting parole to our pro bono client Jonathan J. Pollard.

Mr. Pollard is scheduled to be released on parole November 21, 2015. He has been in prison since November 21, 1985. We are grateful and delighted that our client will soon be released.

The decision to grant parole was made unanimously by the three members of the Parole Commission, who make their decisions independently of any other U.S. government agency.

The decision is not connected to recent developments in the Middle East. Had parole been denied, Mr. Pollard would have been required to serve an additional fifteen years in prison.

The Notice of Action follows a parole hearing that took place July 7, 2015 at the Federal Correctional Center in Butner, North Carolina, where Mr. Pollard has been incarcerated. He has been serving a sentence of life in prison for conspiracy to deliver classified information to the State of Israel.

This was Mr. Pollard’s second parole hearing. At his first hearing, in July 2014, parole was denied. At that time, the Parole Commission informed us that nine months before the two-thirds mark of Mr. Pollard’s life sentence (deemed for this purpose to be 45 years), the Parole Commission would perform a “record review” and assess whether, in its discretion, Mr. Pollard should be released on parole at the two-thirds mark of the 45-year term, i.e., on November 21, 2015.

The Parole Commission performed a “record review” but, to our great disappointment at the time, declined to consider granting parole without first conducting an adversarial hearing, at which representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would be present. The issues for the hearing, as set forth in the federal parole statute, were (a) Mr. Pollard’s record in prison, and (b) whether there was a “reasonable probability” that Mr. Pollard would commit any further crimes if released.

Over the next several months, in advance of the hearing, we engaged in dialogue with the DOJ, and submitted extensive written materials to the Parole Commission and the DOJ in support of parole, demonstrating that Mr. Pollard had an exemplary prison record, and that there was no possibility that he would commit any further crimes if released. We also secured employment and housing for Mr. Pollard in the New York area, and made that information available to the Parole Commission as well as the DOJ.

On July 1, 2015 the DOJ finally informed us that it agreed not to urge denial of parole at the hearing scheduled for July 7, 2015.

The Notice of Action requires Mr. Pollard to remain in the United States for five years. President Obama, who has the constitutional power of executive clemency, has the authority to release Mr. Pollard before November 21, 2015, as well as the authority to allow Mr. Pollard to leave the United States and move to Israel immediately. We respectfully urge the President to exercise his clemency power in this manner.

Mr. Pollard has asked us to communicate the following on his behalf:

– Mr. Pollard is looking forward to being reunited with his beloved wife Esther.

– Mr. Pollard is deeply grateful to his longstanding pro bono lawyers Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, and their law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, who stood by him for so many years, and whose perseverance, creativity, and forceful advocacy were instrumental in securing his release on parole.

– Mr. Pollard is also extremely thankful to the National Council of Young Israel, especially Rabbi Pesach Lerner, who worked tirelessly for many years on Mr. Pollard’s behalf, as well as Farley Weiss, President of the National Council of Young Israel, for his ongoing dedication and support.

– Others who Mr. Pollard wishes to thank publicly include David Nyer, Kenneth Lasson, and George Leighton, for their work on his behalf in the United States; and Larry Dub, Nitsana Dirshan-Leitner, Effi Lahav, Asher Mivtari, and Adi Ginsburg for their work on his behalf in Israel. Mr. Pollard is mindful that others have helped as well, and he thanks them all.

-Finally, Mr. Pollard would like to thank the many thousands of well-wishers in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world, who provided grass roots support by attending rallies, sending letters, making phone calls to elected officials, and saying prayers for his welfare. He is deeply appreciative of every gesture, large or small.

We look forward to seeing our client on the outside in less than four months.

II Caspar Weinberger Lies 1999 – Justice for Jonathan Pollard

Middle East Quarterly – Fall 1999

Justice for JP Introduction:

In a recent interview with Middle East Quarterly, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger became very agitated when questioned about Jonathan Pollard. (Text of the interview follows below).

If the 1987 Weinberger memorandum were declassified and released today, in 1999, it would reveal that Caspar Weinberger is still peddling all of the same old lies that he used then to secure a life sentence for Jonathan Pollard, in spite of a plea bargain to the contrary.

The Weinberger memorandum was submitted to the sentencing judge at the last moment. Pollard and his attorney saw the document for only moments before sentencing, and were never given the opportunity to challenge the false charges it contains in court. No one on Pollard’s defense team has ever been able to access the classified document again – not even attorneys who have all of the necessary security clearances. Even though denying Pollard the opportunity to challenge the document in court is a clear violation of his constitutional right to due process, the Weinberger memorandum remains secret and inaccessible to this day.

In the MEQ interview that follows, Weinberger made strong and patently false statements about Pollard in an apparent attempt to quickly dispense with the topic, and became ever more agitated when the interviewer would not retreat from the subject.

What makes Weinberger’s statements below all the more stunning is that he still tries to peddle all the same old lies about Pollard, as if his audience were as gullible and uninformed now as it was when the case first broke 15 years ago. See Google article for complete text.


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

North Korea Won’t Trim Nuclear Program

Wall Street Journal
July 22, 2015

SEOUL—North Korea has ruled out talks on de­nu­cle­ariza­tioz quashing hopes that Iran’s landmark accord with the US and other world pow­ers would inspire Pyongyang to follow suit.

North Korea called com­par­isons be­tween it­self and Iran “il­log­i­cal” and said it wasn’t in­ter­ested in freez­ing or dis­man­tling its nu­clear pro­gram uni­lat­er­ally, a for­eign min­istry spokesman said Tues­day. The coun­try says it is de­vel­op­ing nu­clear weapons to fend off U.S. threats.

In May, U.S. Sec­re­tary of State John Kerry said the U.S., South Korea and other mem­bers of a fo­rum that had pre­vi­ously tried to per­suade Py­ongyang to de­nu­cle­arize were co­or­di­nated in their at­tempts to en­gage the iso­lated coun­try in pre­lim­i­nary talks. Other mem­bers of the group in­clude China, Rus­sia and Ja­pan. But Py­ongyang hasn’t re­sponded to over­tures made by the U.S. and South Korea in re­cent months, ac­cord­ing to of­fi­cials from the two coun­tries.

The fo­rum, known as the six-­party talks, be­gan in 2003 to ne­go­ti­ate for North Korea’s de­nu­cle­ariza­tion in ex­change for eco­nomic aid and se­cu­rity guar­an­tees. Talks have been stalled since late 2008.

China es­ti­mates North Korea had an ar­se­nal of 20 nu­clear war­heads at the end of last year and it could dou­ble the count by next year. That fig­ure ex­ceeds U.S. as­sessments. North Korea con­ducts reg­u­lar tests of rock­ets, in­clud­ing bal­lis­tic mis­siles that are banned un­der United Na­tions sanc­tions. Py­ongyang has car­ried out three nu­clear-det­o­na­tion tests, the most re­cent in early 2013.

North Korea and Iran have been al­lies since Iran be­came an Is­lamic re­pub­lic fol­low­ing a 1979 rev­o­lu­tion. Both coun­tries have at­tracted in­ter­na­tional scru­tiny and have faced eco­nomic sanc­tions over their nu­clear pro­grams.

Early last week, the U.S. and five other world pow­ers (nevertheless) struck a deal with Iran to pre­vent it from pro­duc­ing nu­clear weapons in ex­change for sanc­tions re­lief. U.S. Un­der­sec­re­tary of State Wendy Sher­man said Thurs­day that Iran’s com­pliance, fol­lowed by the lift­ing of sanc­tions, “might give North Korea sec­ond thoughts.” But she cau­tioned against mak­ing di­rect com­par­isons.

The U.S. Em­bassy in Seoul couldn’t im­me­di­ately com­ment on the lat­est state­ment from North Korea.

(Is this not all pathetic? The Iranians, with Obama’s enablement and outrageous major assistance, has made a mockery of the US government, its vaunted power and its naive people.

Furthermore, to my mind, if the American public is stupid enough to elect Hillary Clinton just as we were stupid enough to elect Manchurian Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, our own eventual demise is in the offing.) jsk

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Brief Excerpts from an excellent, in-depth 6000 word plus article that should be read in its entirety.


The Weekly Standard

JULY 20, 2015

For political observers, the story of the Supreme Court’s recently concluded term was the clash of two great colliding forces. On one side stood the Court’s always-unified liberal bloc, fortified by the apostasies of Republican-appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John Roberts —most prominently in cases involving same-sex marriage and Obamacare.

On the other side stood Justice Antonin Scalia, a lion in winter, caustic and witty in his dissents. But for close watchers of the Court, another theme ran through this term: the breadth and depth of Justice Clarence Thomas’s institutional critique of the Court itself for straying from the Constitution, failing to apply its own precedents evenhandedly, neglecting the separation of powers and federalism, and allowing itself to be manipulated by runaway executive agencies.

Behind the slings and arrows of politics and punditry, Justice Thomas has been this term’s workhorse, and not for the first time. According to SCOTUSBlog, he wrote more opinions than any other justice this term, 37 (Justice Samuel Alito was second with 30, Justice Elena Kagan last with 11); the most concurring opinions, 11 (Alito was second with 9, Roberts and Kagan last with 2 each); the most dissenting opinions, 19 (Scalia was second with 15, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last with just 1); and the most total pages of opinions, 432.

This is the second time in three years that Thomas has written the most opinions, and they are not filled with breezy rhetoric, but thick with citation to the roots of our constitutional system, from the Magna Carta to John Locke to Blackstone’s Commentaries.

But mere volume is not the measure of Thomas’s jurisprudence. For that, one must take a closer look at the many times he has stood against the prevailing winds, warning his colleagues that the Court should consider its own errors and limitations. The cases in which he has split from Scalia—his closest colleague philosophically—are telling.

Justice Thomas’s opinions this term reflect his preoccupation with the administrative state’s tendency to transfer an ever-growing share of authority from Congress’s power to make the rules, the courts’ power and duty to say what the rules mean, and the president’s power and duty to enforce them. And that sometimes puts him in the seemingly surprising position of defending the courts. 

… This accumulation of governmental powers allows agencies to change the meaning of regulations at their discretion and without any advance notice to the parties. .  .  . To regulated parties, the new interpretation might as well be a new regulation. .  .  .

… Thomas often stands up for clear lines of separation of powers and consistent application of individual rights even when the outcomes may not be “conservative.”

… Thomas’s history as a son of Jim Crow-era Georgia may also explain his joining the majority (breaking with the Court’s other conservatives) in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the Court held that Texas could properly refuse to sell Confederate flag vanity license plates. Thomas has a history of weighing in on one particular symbol, the burning cross in the hands of the Ku Klux Klan; he spoke up uncharacteristically at oral argument during 1995 and 2003 cases involving the Klan and the cross and wrote separately in both cases to emphasize the particular meaning of that symbol as a political statement of racist terror.

… Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth.

That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Clarence Thomas is an affable man, if one who does not forget his scars, and by all accounts he gets on well enough with his colleagues. But given that few of them other than Scalia bother responding to his lone opinions, one wonders if some of them look at him a little funny—“that guy who keeps going on about the Constitution.” He is known to prefer the company of almost anyone to the company of his fellow judges and lawyers; he meets more often than any other justice with groups of visitors to the Court and travels the country in his RV during the Court’s recesses.

But that distance makes him uniquely suited among the justices to look at this country not from the perspective of a member of the judicial high priesthood, but as a citizen ruled by it. Some critics suggest that he may be biased by the fact that his wife is active in Tea Party groups, but after his nearly quarter of a century on the Court, suggesting that Thomas’s view of the Constitution is influenced by the Tea Party is rather like suggesting that Newton’s physics were influenced by Einstein.

Thomas’s opinions this term form a coherent whole, one that places no trust in institutions—in the wisdom of judges, the expertise of bureaucrats, or the evenhandedness of either—but depends instead on clear, written rules and structural checks and balances. And his philosophy, while grounded in the same principles as our Constitution itself, should not surprise us. Thomas is not so far removed from his upbringing in segregated Georgia that he cannot remember what it was like to live in a place and time in which the government was staffed and run by people who had no intention of treating you fairly.

Two strategies are available to a citizen confronted by such a government. One is to keep for himself as large a space as possible free of the government, in which to exercise true liberty. The other is to insist on the punctilious observance of the letter of the law. The whims of administrative agencies and the discretion of judges to fashion new rights and rules according to their own policy preferences threaten both of these strategies, to the detriment of whomever the people in power regard as beneath their concern. It is perhaps a supreme irony, but a fitting one, that the man most concerned with keeping alight the flame of these old concepts of liberty and dignity is the justice of the Supreme Court who grew up under a government that wished to accord him neither liberty nor dignity.

Dan McLaughlin is a lawyer in New York City.




Powered by Facebook Comments