Read More About:

Share This Post

The NY Times column on anti-Zionism is a reminder of its own publisher’s past

By Rafael Medoff/

(Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in Washington, D.C., and author of 15 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. The latest is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith.”)

The New York Times raised some eyebrows in the Jewish community with a lengthy feature about four self-described religious Jews who oppose Israel. In an apparent attempt to legitimize Jewish anti-Zionism, the article stressed that Zionism “was not always the norm among American Jews” and that it was only “the persecution of European Jews [which] turned many American Jews into Zionists.”

Interestingly, one of the most famous “religious Jews” who opposed Zionism did not change his mind even after the Holocaust. That was the Times’s own publisher from 1935 to 1961, Arthur Hays Sulzberger.

Sulzberger was a devout adherent of classical Reform Judaism. In his view, Jewish identity should consist only of religious beliefs, not any sense of peoplehood, nationalism, or ethnic affiliation. He even rejected the existence of Jewish war veterans organizations on the grounds that they were examples of “Ghetto living.”

As Prof. Laurel Leff explains in her critically acclaimed book, “Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper,” Sulzberger instructed Times editors to bury news of the Nazi genocide on the back pages, and to tone down or eliminate references to the fact that the victims were Jews. Sulzberger worried that if the Times reported what was happening to the Jews in Europe, someone might accuse it of being a “Jewish newspaper.”

As news of the Nazi atrocities moved many formerly anti-Zionist Reform rabbis and leaders to recognize the need for a Jewish State, Sulzberger pushed back. He was one of the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of the American Council for Judaism, a group created by a handful of Reform rabbis in 1942 to oppose Zionism. The Times gave frequent and generous coverage to the activities of the tiny Council.

Even a visit to former Nazi concentration camps in 1945 did not alter Sulzberger’s anti-Zionist convictions. In a speech the following year, Sulzberger said that while he felt sorry for the Jewish survivors living in Displaced Persons camps in Europe, they were “but a minor percentage of the total of displaced persons” and therefore should not be receiving so much attention.

The Times publisher even went so far as to claim that Zionism was to blame for some of the Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. He alleged, in that 1946 speech, that the refugee crisis during the war had been “a manageable, social and economic problem” until “the clamor for statehood introduced an insolvable political element” into the issue. “It is my judgment that thousands dead might now be alive” if “the Zionists” had put “less emphasis on statehood,” Sulzberger asserted.

One of the Jewish anti-Zionists profiled in last week’s New York Times article described himself as a fan of the late Judah Magnes, who advocated a binational Arab-Jewish Palestine instead of a Jewish State. Sulzberger, too, thought highly of Magnes. In June 1946, Sulzberger tried to organize a dinner at Manhattan’s Hotel Pierre to raise funds for Magnes’s work. The Times publisher invited 23 of his associates. Only three accepted. The dinner was canceled.

The increasingly isolated Sulzberger grew more and more frustrated. A pro-Zionist statement by the formerly anti-Zionist president of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in early 1947 prompted Sulzberger to write to a friend, “Apparently if you are a Jew you have to contribute Jewishly, eat Jewishly, think Jewishly, part your hair Jewishly… Gosh I’m sick!”

On another occasion, Sulzberger was horrified to see the AJC and other Jewish groups listed as affiliates of the United Jewish Appeal in an advertisement in the Times. “The only thing I miss is the Jewish Chiropractors’ Society,” he complained. “In other words, J E W is to be the common denominator for everything we do. God help us!”

In his final years, Sulzberger’s anti-Zionism never eased. He resigned from one of the Reform synagogues to which he belonged after it introduced the singing of Hatikvah along with the Star-Spangled Banner. He apparently considered visiting Israel on one occasion, but changed his mind after Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion made a speech that he disliked. Ironically, however, after Sulzberger passed away in 1961, his widow established a scholarship in his name at Hebrew University. It seems unlikely he would have approved.

(A personal aside: For those not familiar with the Hebrew term, aliyah, it literally means rising up spiritually as one is called to read Torah or physically referring to one’s emigration to the Biblical land of Israel. During the synagogue service, individual congregants are sometimes asked to rise up to participate in the Torah service when they are honored for some achievement or in memory of one of their deceased love ones).

(On occasion it is sometimes my habit to snidely claim, when addressing the politics of the Sulzberger family, that they finally made the ultimate aliyah, at least to their minds. They became Episcopalians — thus solving many of their own personal problems and those of the world itself via their New York Times — that is, Hashem forbid, until another Hitler finds out that they were Jews after all and deals with them accordingly)

Jerome S. Kaufman


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

April 10, 2014

The Shame of Brandeis University
By John Podhoretz
Commentary Magazine

If you have not yet heard, Brandeis University has rescinded its offer of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is the Somali-born activist whose work has focused on the barbaric misogyny rampant in Islamic societies like the one in which she was raised and whose efforts to call attention to them as a legislator in the Netherlands led to a political crisis there and her eventual flight to the United States.

Given that it only takes a Google search to find out everything one would need to know about her, including the controversial aspects of her views, it is disgustingly laughable for Brandeis President Fred Lawrence to claim he had to withdraw the degree because of information he had only lately discovered. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said this afternoon that she was not surprised she came under attack from demagogic apologists like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR): She has come to expect such things.

“What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis. Having spent many months planning for me to speak to its students at Commencement, the university yesterday announced that it could not overlook certain of my past statements, which it had not previously been aware of. Yet my critics have long specialized in selective quotation–lines from interviews taken out of context–designed to misrepresent me and my work. It is scarcely credible that Brandeis did not know this when they initially offered me the degree.”

What Lawrence has done here is the nothing less than the act of a gutless, spineless, simpering coward.

Women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali appeared on The Megan Kelly File, Fox News TV program, to discuss her response to the “regrettable” decision by Brandeis University to cow to Islamic pressures and not give her an honorary degree and speaking platform at the graduation ceremony.

The Somali-born Ali has spoken out against such atrocities as honor killings and genital mutilation and been the subject of intense criticism by Muslims. She called the idea that Brandeis was suddenly made aware this week of some of her past controversial statements “a feeble excuse.”

Video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being interviewed by Megan Kelly on Fox News, April 9, 2014


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

In this era of progressing socially acceptable moral depravity, perhaps it is a good time, at the risk of losing some of my illustrious readers, to address this topic? These laws are presented in this week’s Torah portion. It is most probably no coincidence that they are presented at Yom Kippur when the observant Jew stands before his God and begs to be included in the coming year’s roster and must answer to his sins in the year that just passed.

Jerome S. Kaufman


From the Hebrew Bible (The Five Books of Moses)

Book Three – Vayikra (Leviticus), Parshas Acharei, 18:1 Yom Kippur Mincha service

God spoke to Moshe, saying: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am your God’.”

“Do not follow the practices of the land of Egypt where you lived. And do not follow the practices of the land of Cana’an, where I am bringing you (for these two nations are the most depraved of all). Do not (even) follow their customs.”

“You should fulfill My rational laws, and guard My suprarational commands and (always) their (wisdom, and not secular wisdom). I am God, your God. “You should guard My commands and My rational laws which a man should do, and you will live by them (in the next world for) I am God (who is faithful to pay reward).”

No man (or woman) may come near to any of his (or her) close relatives, to uncover their nakedness (and co-habit with them). I am God (who is faithful to pay reward).

You must not uncover the nakedness of your fathers wife or the nakedness of your mother ( if she is not your father’s wife. Since she is your mother, you must not uncover her nakedness.

You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife (even after death, since) it is your father’s (wife’s) nakedness.

You must not uncover your sister’s nakedness, (whether) she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, (and regardless of whether) she is born to a woman who may remain in the home or (if she is) born to a woman who must be expelled.

You must not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of your son or daughter (who was born from a forbidden relationship), for they are (like) your own nakedness.

You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s (Jewish) wife’s daughter, born to your father (because) she is your sister.

You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister (because she is the close relative of your father.

You must not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, because she is the close relative of your mother.

You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, (namely) you must not come near his wife, (because) she is your aunt

You must not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife so must not uncover her nakedness.

You must not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife (for she) is your brother’s nakedness.

You must not uncover the nakedness of a woman (to whom you are married) and her daughter.

You must not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter (in marriage) to uncover her nakedness. It is the advice (of the evil inclination since) they are close relatives.

“You must not take a woman (in marriage) in addition to her sister, to make them rivals by uncovering one’s nakedness in addition to the other’s. (Even if you divorce one sister, you not marry the other one) in her lifetime.

“You must not come near a woman during the ritual impurity of her menstruation, to uncover her nakedness.

“You must not lie carnally with your fellowman’s wife, to make yourself impure with her.

“You must not give any of your offspring (to pagan priests) to pass through between two bonfires, in worship of the pagan deity) Molech. You must not profane the Name of your God. I am God.

“You must not lie down with a man, as one lies with a woman. This is an abomination”

“You must not cohabit with any animal, to become impure from it. A woman must not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it. This is depravity.

“You must not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations whom I am sending away from you have defiled themselves with all these things. The land became defiled. I remembered its sin (bringing punishment) upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

“But you will observe My suprarational commands and My rational commands, and you will not do any of these abominations — neither the native, nor the convert who lives among you.

“The people of the land who preceeded you, did all of these abominations and the land became defiled. Let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you. For if anyone commits any of these abominations, (both) the people (the man and the woman who committed (the act) will be cut off from the midst of their people.

“(The courts should) enforce My restrictions, not to commit any of the abominable practices that were done before you, and you will not become defiled by them.

(If you keep My laws then) I am God your God.

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Is Israel Isolated?

By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
“Israel Hayom,” (Israel’s most read daily newspaper and to the Right!)
April 4, 2014,

According to Secretary John Kerry, “If we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis; if we do not find a way to find peace; there will be an increasing isolation of Israel.” However, a thorough examination of Israel’s international standing reveals an increasingly splendid global integration of the Jewish State – economically, technologically and scientifically — irrespective of the Palestinian issue.

Contrary to the Kerry school of thought — and based on a reality check — the Palestinian issue has never been a core cause shaping the Middle East, a crown-jewel of Arab policymakers or the crux of Israel’s relations with Arab countries and the international community. While diplomatic talk highlights the Palestinian issue, the diplomatic, commercial and industrial walk reveals that policy-makers and the international business community do not embrace Kerry’s “Palestine First” assessment and his “Isolation Warning/Threat.”

Thus, the Turkish Statistics Institute documented an expansion of the Turkey-Israel trade balance, despite the brutal anti-Israel ideology of President Erdogan. The Institute reports a 56% export increase, to Israel, during the first five months of 2013, compared with January-May, 2012, while the imports from Israel were increased by 22% during the same period. The Israel-Turkey trade balance was $3.4BN in 2008 and exceeded $4BN in 2012.

Turkey’s requirements in the areas of industry, medicine, health, agriculture, irrigation, education, science, technology and defense — and Israel’s unique innovations in these areas — have prevailed over Erdogan’s anti-Western, anti-Israel and pro-Hamas Islamist orientation.

The London Financial Times reported: “in six hours of [Prime Minister Netanyahu's] talks with the Chinese leadership, they spent roughly ten seconds on the Palestinian issue, while revealing an unquenchable thirst for Israeli technology.” Highlighting Israel’s intensified and diversified global integration, the China-Israel 2013 trade balance exceeded $10BN, providing a tailwind to the currently negotiated free trade agreement, and enhanced by Chinese investments in some fifty Israeli high tech companies.

The Japan Times reported the growing Japanese interest in Israeli business opportunities, tripling the number of reviews of Israeli companies. Moreover, fforeign investments in Israel catapulted in 2013, achieving a seven year high of $12BN, including $4BN in acquisition of Israeli companies by global giants such as Google, IBM, Cisco, AOL, Facebook, Apple and EMC. Furthermore, since January 2014, Israeli companies have risen over $500MN on Wall Street. Deloitte Touche – one of the top CPA firms in the world — crowned Israel as the fourth most attractive site for foreign investors, trailing only the USA, China and Brazil.

According to the British Economist Intelligence Unit, “Israel’s cluster of high tech companies, investors and incubators is enjoying a boom which has not been witnessed since the global tech bubble burst more than a decade ago.” Neither Kazakhstan’s billionaire Kenges Rakishev, nor Mexico’s billionaire, Carlos Slim allowed the “Isolation Warning/Threat” to stop their flow of investments in Israel’s high tech sector.

In fact, Israel, the Startup Nation, has become a critical Pipeline Nation that transfers to the American high tech industry a plethora of cutting edge technologies and applications, developed by Israel’s brain power. This provides some 200 US high tech giants an edge over their global competitors, thereby contributing to US employment, research, development and exports. As stated by Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, “The two Microsoft research and development centers in Israel constitute a strategic factor, enhancing Microsoft’s capabilities in many areas.”

This was echoed by Google’s Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who also invests in Israel through his private venture capital fund, Innovation Endeavors: “Israel will have an oversized impact on the evolution of the next stage of technology. Israel has become a high tech hub. Israel is the most important high tech center in the world after the US.”

Unlike Secretary Kerry, Warren Buffett does have confidence in Israel’s long term viability, realizing that Israel’s economic and technological capabilities are the derivatives of Israel’s brainpower and fiscal responsibility (since 1985), independent of the Palestinian issue. Hence, on the eve of Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon’s Hizballah, Buffett invested $4BN in an Israeli company — located next to the Lebanese border — recently expanding that investment by $2BN. Buffett followed in the footsteps of Intel, which has invested $11BN in its four research and development centers and two manufacturing plants in Israel; IBM, which just acquired its 13th Israeli company; Motorola, which established in Israel a research center second only to its Houston center; Hewlett-Packard, which owes 55% of its 2012/3 development to its seven Israeli research and development centers; and the leading Silicon Valley venture capital funds, Sequoia, Benchmark, Greylock and Accel, which operate successful Israel-dedicated funds.

Astute observers of the Middle East – who do not subordinate reality to wishful thinking — are aware that the Arab Tsunami is not an Arab Spring; that the Arab Street in general, and Egypt in particular, are not transitioning towards democracy; that Iran is committed to the pursuit of military nuclear capabilities; that Assad has not been forsaken by Russia and Iran; and that Arab leaders are apprehensive of Palestinian subversion and terrorism.

Likewise, astute investors have realized that the ongoing wars and terrorism, challenging Israel since 1948, have been but bumps on the road of Israel’s unprecedented surge and integration into the global economy and technology, now bolstered by Israel’s Leviathan-size offshore natural gas explorations.

Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem, Israel
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East)

Is this the time to relax or rather increase sanctions on the Islamic Republic?

Despite evasions, denials and equivocations, it is clear that Iran continues to pursue the holy grail of nuclear weapons. A temporary agreement recently struck between Iran and Western powers does nothing to disable Iran’s nuclear weapons development, yet it does loosen hard-won economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. In fact, Iranian diplomats brag that the agreement fails to inhibit them in the least and that their nuclear program will not be stopped. Does it really make sense to relax pressure on Iran, or should the U.S. and Western powers line up additional sanctions should Iran fail to discontinue nuclear weapons development?

What are the facts?

The P5 + 1 group of world powers—the U.S., China, Russia, France, Great Britain and Germany—celebrated when Iran recently agreed to a six-month interim agreement calling for the Islamic Republic to suspend enrichment of 20% uranium. In return, the P5 + 1 agreed to allow Iran to access $4.2 billion in previously blocked funds, and the U.S. agreed to apply no new economic sanctions for six months. Yet Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif says, “We did not agree to dismantle anything,” and its president Hassan Rouhani promises Iran will absolutely retain its enrichment capability.

U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged that if Iran fails to abide by the interim agreement or to dismantle its nuclear weapons development, he would seek additional economic sanctions and possibly resort to military action. A bill currently before Congress—the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act—would impose just such additional sanctions on Iran if it breaks the interim agreement or does not cease its nuclear weapons program following expiration of this agreement. In other words, the bill formalizes exactly the diplomatic consequences the President has threatened. No wonder the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act is currently supported by at least 59 U.S. Senators, a clear majority.

Distressingly, the President has threatened to veto this act if passed by the Senate. The White House fears that the threat of new sanctions—even though they would not go into effect unless Iran fails to comply—could derail current nuclear disarmament talks.

What are the stakes? The primary targets of the Iranian ayatollahs’ fanatical zeal are the U.S. (the “great Satan”) and Israel (the “little Satan”), perceived as being America’s agent in the Middle East. Since Iran now possesses long-range ballistic missiles, the United States, Europe and many Arab nations are in mortal danger of attack by that country. Indeed, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Richard Durbin notes, “If these [current] negotiations fail, there are two grim alternatives—a nuclear Iran, or war, or perhaps both.”

Even short of such a war, a nuclear-armed Iran would be in unquestioned dominance of the Middle East and of its oil supply, the energy life blood of the entire world. It would surely cause intolerable disruption of the U.S. and international economies.

Israel, however, is the most immediate target of Iran’s fury. Iran’s unquenchable hatred of Israel is based on the conviction that “nonbelievers” have no legitimate place in the Middle East. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction once they come into possession of nuclear weapons.

Israel is such a small country that one or two nuclear weapons strategically dropped on its narrow coastal territory would destroy it. Indeed, the effects of a nuclear attack on Israel are too horrible to consider. There can be little doubt, for example, that such an attack would turn the entire Middle East into a war zone, leaving wide-spread destruction and a worldwide economic disaster in its wake. Clearly this outcome must be prevented at all cost, and no effort should be spared to keep the hands of the ayatollahs off the nuclear trigger.

What is the solution? Of course, most Americans share the President’s hopes that Iran can be persuaded to set aside its nuclear ambitions—and its vendetta against Israel—through diplomacy and other peaceful means. But one thing is certain: It is crippling Western economic sanctions, backed by the threat of force, that have recently driven Iran to the negotiating table.

Above all, Iran must decommission its nuclear weapons infrastructure. Yet with Iran’s nuclear capability still intact and moving forward and its leaders vigorously asserting that the Islamic Republic will never reduce its 20,000 centrifuges or shut down its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor or its Fordow enrichment facility, does it make sense to reduce the pressure of economic sanctions now? Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee believes it’s a mistake to relax sanctions: “I am convinced that we should only relieve pressure on Iran in return for verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.”

Since sanctions brought the Iranians to the table, sanctions are clearly the most powerful, peaceful means at our disposal for convincing the Iranians to abandon hopes of acquiring nuclear weapons. But because the Iranians continue to declare themselves steadfastly committed to nuclear development, it’s time to ratchet up the economic pressure. The Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act should be passed now. The survival of the world is at stake.

Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Why top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett truly is ‘Obamas Rasputin’

Redacted from a brilliant 37000 word World Net Daily article that must be read in its entirety

By David Kupelian
Whistleblower Magazine
March, 2014

SUPPOSE you were a committed leftist revolutionary who somehow got elected president of center-right America. Suppose you were great at making speeches, but little else. You masked your socialist agenda in the appealing rhetoric of fairness and justice, but secretly loathed the American system of constitutional government and free-market capitalism.

Suppose you also had developed into a pathological narcissist with an absurdly grandiose view of yourself and almost no tolerance for criticism and disagreement. Suppose your ego was so fragile, your worldview so distorted, your mind so angry beneath your charismatic exterior, and your self-image of being a divinely gifted leader in danger of disintegrating in the light and heat of mounting geopolitical turmoil and your own stunning failures as president.

In short, suppose you were Barack Obama.

As of 2014, a great many people that supported him say they regret their vote. America’s economy is still in shambles and its standing in the world arguably worse. The “Affordable Care Act” has been an unqualified catastrophe with millions losing health insurance and tens of millions more expected this year.

Yet Obama feigns confidence in his programs, lies as easily as breathing, and always seems to be playing golf, vacationing or fund raising. He admits he is lazy. He openly boasts about legislating from the Oval Office, refusing to work with Congress as the Constitution requires. Indeed, he doesn’t even like people, as former aide Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the highly influential progressive Center for American Progress, shockingly revealed. “The truth is,” Tanden said of the increasingly insular president, “Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. Its stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people.”

So here’s the question: If you were Obama, how would you be able to continue to lead the country leftward in the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence it is absolutely the wrong direction?

First of all, you’d need a fierce personal protector from all criticism, as well as a skilled enabler constantly re-assuring and comforting your gigantic but fragile ego not to mention a consigliere whose counsel you unreservedly trusted and followed. Meet Valerie Jarrett, who savvy Beltway insiders regard as the most powerful woman in Washington And yet, most White Americans have never even heard of her, let alone know who she is or what she does


For someone widely considered the most powerful adviser in the White House, a person the former editor-in-chief of the News York Times Magazine describes as “in many ways the de facto president,” Jarrett is virtually invisible.

… Jarrett pushed Obama to ignore the advice of more moderate advisers like Rahm Emanuel and instead to destroy the greatest health care system in world history. For it was she who convinced Obama to “go for broke” with Obamacare, which ultimately was forced down the throats of an unwilling American public and Congress, using bribery, parliamentary tricks and every conceivable tactic, including some of the most infamous political lies
(“You can keep your plan/doctor”) in history.

Jarrett has been responsible for bringing the most bizarre of presidential advisers to the Obama White House, including:

“Green jobs czar” Van Jones, who has described himself as a “rowdy black nationalist” and radical “communist,” having founded the communist group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. One day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Jones led a vigil expressing solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans and those he called victims of “U.S.Imperialism” around the world.

Federal Communications Commission “chief diversity officer” Mark Lloyd, who once advocated having “white people” step down from positions of power to make room for “more people of color [and] gays,”

Cass Sunstein, the powerful White House “regulatory czar” who has advocated that US taxpayers’ wealth be redistributed to poorer nations and that government infiltrate chat rooms and social network sites to clandestinely undermine citizens’ belief in what he considers “conspiracy theories” — including the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Journalist-author Richard Miniter, in his book “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him” provides a revealing window into the inner sanctum of the current White House and Jarrett’s role there. The president himself says he talks to Jarrett several times a day, and that he rarely makes a major decision without consulting her.

One of the things that make Jarrett unique in presidential history is that she is also the first lady’s mentor. Indeed, she has guided the careers and lives of both Obamas for twenty years. She was in the room when Obama decided to run for president. Jarrett’s White House role is unprecedented. She meets privately with the president at least twice a day with no one else present. Her influence is enormous and wide-ranging. She wields informal power, like a first lady; scheduling power, like a chief of staff; and power over policy, like a special envoy.

Jarrett’s radicalism has caused major eruptions with top White House personnel. As National Review Online reporter, Andrew Stiles has pointed out, “Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who clashed often with Jarrett, likened her and senior aide Peter Rouse to Saddam Hussein’s maniacal sons, Uday and Qusay.”

Jarrett’s personal friendship with the president and first lady dates back more than two decades, before the couple was married, and before Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago. The president has said he views her “like a sibling” and trusts her “completely.”

Edward Klein, who previously served as foreign editor of Newsweek and editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, wrote a critical book about the 44th president, titled “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House” paints a disturbing portrait of a president utterly dependent on his Rasputin-like adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Klein quotes a longtime Jarrett friend: “She functions as the eyes, ears, and nose of the president and first lady.”

Jarrett is a classic limousine Liberal who believes that Obama was elected president to engineer social change.

… How good is Jarrett’s advice? She approved the $535 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee to Solyndra, the California solar company that went belly up. Klein writes that Jarrett had “close ties to the George Kaiser Family Foundation, which controlled 35.7 percent of Solyndra.” And it was Jarrett that pushed Obama to personally travel to Copenhagen in an attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago, only to come home rebuffed, empty handed and humiliated.

Much of Jarrett’s extraordinary influence explains Klein, “stems from the fact that Jarrett is the president’s trusted watchdog.” She protects the vainglorious and thin-skinned Obama from critics and complainers who will deflate his ego. No one gets past Jarrett and sees the president if they have a grievance, or a chip on their shoulder or even an incompatible point of view.

… Historians will no doubt look back and ask how it’s possible that the 44th US president, Barack Hussein Obama, could possibly have been so disastrously out of touch with reality, so wrongheaded in his decisions never course-correcting in any meaningful way despite staggering evidence at every juncture? With the clarity and objectivity that comes with the passage of time they will surely conclude a great deal of credit goes to Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Rasputin, for enabling the president to stay the course — a course she herself was instrumental setting for him decades earlier.

David Kupelian is an award-winning American journalist vice president and managing editor of World Net Daily and editor of Whistleblower magazine. A widely read online columnist, he is also the bestselling author of “The Marketing of Evil” and “How Evil Works”



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

YouTube Video

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

YouTube video:



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

“Space, Surveillance Aircraft, Cyber & Missile Defense Systems”

In a fascinating first interview, Yossi Weiss, CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries, reveals the development trends of the company and the complex challenges the defense industries will face in 2014. An Israel Defense Exclusive!

Redacted from an in-depth interview by Amir Rapaport 27/3/2014

When Yossi Weiss completed 27 years of service with the IDF Navy and joined IAI in 1998, he could not have expected that in 15 years he would find himself heading the defense industry with the country’s highest number of employees: 17,000.

Reality has led him to head a company that has a backlog of orders of more than US$ 10 billion. Now, after nearly a year and a half as CEO, with substantial cuts in defense budgets expected worldwide in 2014, Weiss speaks, in his first interview, about the direction in which he is steering the company: “The challenges are not simple, but we have excellent growth engines.”

Yossi Weiss, 63, is a mechanical engineer, the son of Holocaust survivor parents from Haifa. He has 7 children and 19 grandchildren, the offspring of two wives (he remarried after his first wife had passed away). In the last few positions he had filled in the IDF Navy, he was involved in numerous force build-up weapon system projects, serving as the leader of the “Dolphin” submarine project until his discharge at the rank of Captain (colonel). Among the various positions he had filled in the Navy, he was on loan to the IMOD Weapon System & Technological Infrastructure Research & Development Administration (MAFAT) for four years; there, he was involved in future naval and anti-aircraft technologies.

Yossi Weiss’ career is a significant example of the close connections between the IDF and IMOD on the one hand and the Israeli defense industries on the other hand: immediately following his discharge from the military he “coasted” into the position of Head of the Attack System Administration at IAI’s MABAT Division.

Following that he headed the Naval & Anti-Aircraft Administration at the same division. In 2002 he was appointed as GM of IAI’s HALAL (Space) Division. During his reign as GM of the HALAL Division, the Amos and Ofek surveillance and communication satellites, including a satellite carrying a synthetic aperture radar system, were launched into orbit and work began on Project Venus – the joint French-Israeli satellite project. In April 2006, Weiss was appointed as GM of IAI’s Missile & Space Division and Corporate Vice President of IAI. In July 2012 he was appointed as CEO, following the retirement of IAI’s previous CEO, Yitzhak Nissan.

” … We do not benefit from as much support by the political echelon as industries in other countries, and have to utilize the very best of the Jewish genius so as to make the client understand that operatively, I am giving him something that is superior to what my competitor offers. … According to Yossi Weiss, IAI continues to spot numerous opportunities in Asia (in India, 2014 will be an election year, so sales will be limited, but in other Asian countries, IAI is competing for numerous projects), in South America (particularly in Brazil) and in countries that were once a part of the great Soviet Union.”

Other fields of activity Weiss points out as significant growth engines are UAVs, quite naturally, and the surveillance aircraft IAI supplies, such as the Falcon aircraft sold to India and currently being manufactured for Italy and for other countries that Weiss would not name.

“If until now we had aircraft applications for the benefit of an aerial status picture, like the AWACS, or the Hawkeye electronic warfare aircraft, we added an application associated with the status picture of ground area cells, based on airborne sensors and ground-based sensors,” says Weiss.

IAI intends to compete on the supply of a new self-propelled gun system to the IDF Land Arm, in cooperation with KMW of Germany and Lockheed-Martin of the USA. What about ground robotics? I believe that naval robotic platforms will evolve relatively quickly. As far as ground robotic systems are concerned — it will take a while longer.”

According to Yossi Weiss, “The USA was and has remained, as far as IAI is concerned, a major ‘anchor’ in our operations. Among other things, we are working intimately with both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.”

“For Boeing, we serve as important sub-contractors, especially in the field of composite materials. We manufacture wing parts, doors and other elements for them. We are currently hard at work finalizing a plan for expanding our operations vis-à-vis Boeing. … According to our estimates, the number of aircraft in the civilian market will double, worldwide, by 2032. If there are about 16,000-17,000 passenger aircraft in the world today, in the future there will be 30,000 aircraft, and consequently this is a very important market for us.”

… “We regard ourselves as a high-tech industry to all intents and purposes. Almost 70% of our operations have high-tech characteristics. Each year, we invest about one billion US Dollars in development. Our present backlog of orders amounts to more than 10 billion US Dollars.”

Please read the article in its entirety:
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Daniel Pipes
Mar 23, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online

I just had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with a Council on Foreign Relations group at the United States Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. Its commander, the famed Admiral William H. McRaven, started the briefing, followed by his staff.

I expected to learn about Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and their air force and marine counterparts. I thought I would hear about the exploits of this 67,000-strong command operating in 84 countries, maybe even about the taking down of Osama bin Laden. But that was not to be. Instead, he and the other officers talked at length about their new mission, starting with the command’s motto, “You can’t surge trust.”

It took some time for it to sink in because of their turgid language, but here’s a key paragraph from the Operating Concept for special operations forces (SOF) that was handed out to the CFR group:

The Special Operations Forces Operating Concept captures the essence of the SOF heritage as it could be — as it should be in the year 2020 and beyond. The concept moves beyond the first decade of the 21st Century, when SOF primarily supported large-scale contingency operations by conducting counterterrorism operations to find, capture, or kill our adversaries.

Although of great value to the Nation, these operations were never intended to be decisive. Operating through the Global SOF Network in support of our Geographic Combatant Commanders and Chiefs of Mission, SOF now have the opportunity to achieve strategic outcomes by working with and through interagency and foreign partners to understand and influence relevant populations. (Huh! Whatever social engineering, politically correct, lead from behind Obama double talk, transpeak that means) jsk

(Professor Pipes tries to help with his translation)

Translated into English, this says:

Special Operations Forces used to be about capturing or killing America’s adversaries; its new mission is to shape public opinion.

Or, in the words of a bullet point in the Operating Concept, the goal is “Elevating SOF non-lethal skills to the same level of expertise as lethal skills.” As radical a shift as this is, at least I could comprehend it.

Comments: (1) I came away from this briefing unsure if the special operations leadership really believes this stuff or is mouthing it to distract the public from discussing its real mission. (2) If it’s sincere, I worry about our future defense. (March 23, 2014)

Daniel Pipes in brief:

CBS Sunday Morning says Daniel Pipes was “years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam.”

He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history, and spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at Harvard, Pepperdine, the U.S. Naval War College, and the University of Chicago. He has been affiliated with Princeton and Stanford universities. He served in various capacities in the U.S. government, including two presidentially-appointed positions, vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in 1986-93.

II Video – Hypocrisy beyond comprehension at the United Nations



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Health links hyped to drive fear of fracking despite studies that fail to back up claims

By Valerie Richardson-The Washington Times
March 3, 2014

DENVER — Environmentalists are still waiting for proof that hydraulic fracturing makes people sick, but that’s not stopping them from whipping up anxiety over public health.

Two high-profile research papers seeking connections between hydraulic fracturing and health issues in Garfield County, Colo., are being trumpeted as evidence that fracking is harmful, even though the studies don’t show that.

In fact, state health officials have criticized the papers — one dealing with birth defects, the other with hormone disruption — for their methodology. Neither study can prove causation, only suggest examples of association between ailments and proximity to oil and gas development.

Even so, environmentalists routinely cite the studies as evidence that those living near fracking sites are at elevated risk of bearing children with birth defects or developing hormonal disorders, including infertility and cancer.

“These findings suggest that fracking causes babies to be deformed — the more we learn about fracking, the worse it gets,” Gary Wockner, Colorado director of the anti-fracking group Clean Water Action, told Ecowatch in a Jan. 30 post. “If you live near a fracking site and you want to have a healthy baby, you should consider moving.”

A Feb. 5 article in the liberal New Republic carried the headline: “Evidence is Mounting that Fracking Causes Birth Defects.” National Geographic carried a Dec. 20 post, “Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals Linked to Fracking Found in Colorado River.”

“These results, which are based on validated cell cultures, demonstrate that public health concerns about fracking are well-founded and extend to our hormone systems,” Concerned Health Professionals of New York said in a statement on the Water Defense website. “The stakes could not be higher.”

The paper about birth defects, released in January by the Colorado School of Public Health, showed that pregnant women living within a 10-mile radius of a fracking site were more likely to give birth to babies with congenital heart defects but less likely to give birth prematurely. Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, warned that “it is difficult to draw conclusions from this study, due to its design and limitations.”

He noted that the study failed to distinguish between active and inactive wells or between horizontal versus vertical drilling, nor did it factor in air and water quality. In the case of rare ailments like neural-tube defects, he said, the study did not control for risk factors such as whether the mother smoked or drank alcohol during pregnancy.

“As Chief Medical Officer, I would tell pregnant women and mothers who live, or who-at-the-time-of-their-pregnancy lived, in proximity to a gas well not to rely on this study as an explanation of why one of their children might have had a birth defect,” Dr. Wolk said in a Jan. 30 statement. “Many factors known to contribute to birth defects were ignored in this study.”

Sean Paige, deputy state director of the free-market group Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, accused the movement of “misusing and distorting science in order to generate headlines or score political points.”

“Because creating public anxiety is the fracktivist’s most potent energy-war weapon, it’s only natural that the most unscrupulous among them would cherry-pick any reports that they can twist or turn into something really alarming,” Mr. Paige said.

The fracas has erupted as activists gear up for another round of attacks on hydraulic fracturing after scoring local ballot wins. Voters in three Colorado towns and one Ohio community — all of which had little to no fossil fuel development — approved fracking moratoriums in November.

Two of those bans have been challenged in court, but activists in Colorado are seeking to place an initiative on the November statewide ballot that would allow communities to supersede state authority by banning oil and gas development.

Central to the anti-fracking argument is the public health argument, and that’s where the studies come into play. A paper released in December by researchers at the University of Missouri at Columbia found greater concentrations of hormone-disrupting chemicals in water near fracking sites in Garfield County, Colo., versus control sites in Boone County, Mo.

“We found more endocrine-disrupting activity in the water close to drilling locations that had experienced spills than at control sites,” MU School of Medicine associate professor Susan Nagel said in a statement. “This could raise the risk of reproductive, metabolic, neurological and other diseases, especially in children who are exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.”

The study has been challenged by state officials and industry advocates, who point out that endocrine disrupters also are found in common household items such as shampoo.

“Authors of the study are unsure of the exact source of the [chemicals] and even acknowledge that the chemicals could come from a host of other sources besides fracking,” the Colorado Oil and Gas Association said in a statement.

Critics also ask whether comparing groundwater in Missouri and Colorado is legitimate, given the differences in geology, rainfall and other environmental factors.

The study’s authors acknowledge, “Both naturally occurring chemicals and synthetic chemicals from other sources could contribute to the activity observed in the water samples collected in this study.”

“Studies like this have appeared from time to time around the country, and they always have the same problem: They find a trace chemical, in this case in the Colorado River, and they just sort of assert that it came from hydraulic fracturing,” said Greg Walcher, former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “It’s just plain bad science.”

Hydraulic fracturing, which involves shooting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into underground shale rock layers to extract fossil fuels, typically lasts three to four days in the life of a 30-year well.

(Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Russia’s Long Shadow over Estonia

The Weekly Standard
March 3, 2014

The modern name of Estonia’s capital is thought to come from Tallide-linn, city of stables in the country’s tongue, or Taani-linn, meaning Danish castle-town. The lovely old center, a medieval trading city, is splashed in summer with light and color, I’m told. Cafés bustle. In winter, though, Tallinn is bleak. I’m here in fog, sleet, and rain. The streets are mostly empty by early evening, as everyone seems to be hobbited away with warm fires and ice-cold vodka.

Estonia is a country of glaring contrasts. Try to size it up today and one is reminded of Boris Yeltsin’s assessment of the Russian economy in the 1990s. Asked by a journalist about the state of play, the president answered, “Good.” When pressed for more than a one-word response, Yeltsin replied, “Not good.”

For this tiny country of 1.3 million, things are, from one perspective, excellent indeed. Since independence in 1991, Estonia has welcomed democracy and a market economy, become a member of NATO and the European Union, and adopted the euro. The country exudes modernity, consumerism, and freedom. There’s wireless Internet nearly everywhere—parks, pubs, squares, beaches, forests—and nearly always free. When you walk through Tallinn Airport, you feel like you’re in a trendy version of an Ikea store, with semi-inviting cafés, book alcoves, ready-to-use iPads. Joe Biden might say LaGuardia pales in comparison.

Freedom House gives Estonia highest marks in democratic development, for both political rights and civil liberties. The country ranks higher than the United States in economic freedom in a Heritage Foundation index.

So what’s to worry?

The country struggles mightily with the weight of history and burden of having an exceptionally difficult neighbor. “What’s the first thing that keeps you up at night?” a colleague and I asked a senior official? It turned out to be the same as the second and the third. A young journalist confirmed over drinks later with a laugh: “Of course, Russia remains foremost on everyone’s mind.” That’s for good reason.

Estonia’s ethnic Russian minority comprises nearly a quarter of its population (fellow Baltic nation Lithuania has 5.8 percent; Latvia, nearly 27 percent). As a result, Tallinn has to put up with constant Kremlin complaints—the charges nearly always unsubstantiated by international observers—that Russians in Estonia are treated poorly and subject to discrimination by the Estonian government. Russian president Vladimir Putin is believed to have a personal gripe with the country. Or so Estonian officials think, as we know from diplomatic cables, thanks to WikiLeaks. Putin’s father, who fought with the Red Army during World War II, parachuted on a mission into Estonia, where locals, still angry over the Soviet occupation in 1940—a year before Germany invaded—handed him over to Nazi forces.

What’s clear in any case is this: Moscow loves meddling, provoking, and slapping Estonia around. Three Estonian officials have been arrested as Russian spies in the last five years. Last year, the Estonian government accused Russia of intervening in mayoral elections in Tallinn. Edgar Savisaar of the pro-Russian, left-leaning Center party secured another term after the Kremlin, just two days before the election, had his rival Eerik-Niiles Kross placed on Interpol’s wanted list for trumped-up sea piracy charges. Moscow had reason to dislike Kross, to be sure: He was a Cold War anti-Soviet agitator who later worked for Paul Bremer and the Provisional Coalition Authority in Iraq and advised the Georgian government after Russia’s 2008 invasion.

Most famously, Estonia was subjected to a series of cyberattacks beginning in April 2007 that swamped the websites of banks, news outlets, government ministries, and parliament. The pro-Putin youth group in Russia, Nashy, took credit for the attacks, which coincided with a dispute between Tallinn and Moscow over the relocation of a Soviet-era grave marker known as the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. Nashy is the Kremlin’s Hitlerjugend, says one Estonian official. Putin is not Hitler. But it’s not much fun having a little Mussolini as your neighbor.

Like the Italian fascist leader, Putin has a coherent and strategic foreign policy. Moscow failed in the 1990s to block NATO and EU accession for most of what once constituted Communist Europe (although Ukraine is still in play and leaning sharply eastward at the moment). Putin will settle now for the Finlandization of Eastern Europe. That’s Cold War-speak for how a large, powerful nation carefully erodes the sovereignty and independence of smaller states.

Part of the strategy, of course, is to use energy as a weapon. Russian energy giant Gazprom serves Kremlin foreign policy goals and can punish, or please, at any given moment. Putin employs trade, including import restrictions, to show pique and apply pressure, recently blocking milk from Lithuania and brandy and wine from Moldova. The Kremlin also knows how to work internal divisions. In Georgia, for example, this means aggravating relations between Abkhazia, Ossetia, and the central Georgian government. As a former KGB hand, Putin must adore every trick of the trade. Note the recent leak of that call between a senior State Department official and the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, designed to embarrass Americans with the EU and show Washington as a meddling force in Ukraine’s internal affairs. Rich, that.

“Tight integration with our neighbors is our absolute priority,” Putin told international Russia experts last fall at a conference in Novgorod. Russia had repeatedly warned Ukrainians to choose carefully. Russian customs began exhaustive checks of imports from Ukraine last year, creating long lines at the border. Kremlin economic adviser Sergei Glazyev said at the time this was Russia “preparing to introduce tougher customs administration in case Ukraine [made] the suicidal move of signing the EU association agreement.”

Back to plucky Estonia. Some might have thought that NATO and EU membership settles everything. Courtesy WikiLeaks, we know that at least some U.S. officials have considered Estonia paranoid about Russia. It seems instead that recent events in Ukraine and Russian policy toward this small Baltic nation well might concentrate our minds on Kremlin strategy toward Eastern Europe—and on the sad fact that we don’t seem to have one.

Jeffrey Gedmin is a senior fellow at Georgetown University and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London.

II (copy and paste to your search engine for a painful reminder and still current!)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

II Video with Caroline Glick with Reverend Pat Robertson
Do Palestinians Really Want to Live Next to Israel?

If Putin remains anti-American, he need not worry about Barack Obama

By Caroline B. Glick

Her new book, “The Israeli Solution”

Just before Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the US’s Broadcasting Board of Governors that controls Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty announced that it will be ending its broadcast to Iraq and the Balkans next year.

And this makes sense. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Iraq ceased to exist in 2011, when the last US forces got out of the country.

As for the Baltics, well, really who cares about them? Russia, after all, wants the same things America does. Everything will be fine.

As Obama said to Governor Mitt Romney during one of the 2012 presidential debates, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

During the election, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone promising President Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility,” on missile defense after the presidential election.

He asked Medvedev to ask Putin to give him “more space” until after November 2012.

With a five-and-half-year record of selling US allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and even the Syrian opposition out to please Putin, it should be obvious that Obama will do nothing effective to show Putin the error of his ways in Ukraine.

Obama doesn’t have a problem with Putin. And as long as Putin remains anti-American, he will have no reason to be worried about Obama.

Consider Libya. Three years ago this week, NATO forces supported by the US began their campaign to bring down Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

As Patrick Coburn noted in The Independent over the weekend, the same Western forces who insisted that their “responsibility to protect” the Libyan people from a possible massacre by Gaddafi’s forces compelled them to bring down Gaddafi and his regime have had nothing to say today about the ongoing bloodbath in post-Gaddafi Libya.

Libya is disintegrating today. There is no central governing authority.

But Gaddafi, the neutered dictator who quit the terrorism and nuclear-proliferation rackets after the US-led invasion of Iraq, is gone. So no one cares.

Coburn mentioned the recent documentary aired on Al Jazeera – America that upended the West’s narrative that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was the work of the Libyan government. According to a credible Iranian defector, the attack was ordered by Iran and carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Ahmed Jibril’s PFLP-GC. He wrote, “the documentary emphasizes the sheer number of important politicians and senior officials over the years who must have looked at intelligence reports revealing the truth about Lockerbie, but still happily lied about it.”

If the Al Jazeerah documentary is correct, there is good reason for the public in the US, Europe and throughout the world to be angry about the cover-up. But there is no reason to be surprised.

Since its inception, the Iranian regime has been at war with the US. It has carried out one act of aggression after another. These have run the gamut from the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding hostage US diplomats for 444 days, to the use of Lebanese and Palestinian proxies to murder US officials, citizens and soldiers in countless attacks over the intervening 35 years, to building a military presence in Latin America, to developing nuclear weapons. And from its earliest days, the same Iranian regime has been courted by one US administration after another seeking to accommodate Tehran.

A similar situation obtains with the Palestinians. Like the Iranians, the PLO has carried out countless acts of terrorism that have killed US officials and citizens.

From the 1970 Fatah execution of the US ambassador and deputy chief of mission in Khartoum to the 2003 bombing of the US embassy convoy in Gaza, the PLO has never abandoned terrorism against the US.

No less importantly, the PLO is the architect of modern terrorism. From airline hijackings, to the massacre of schoolchildren, from bus bombings to the destabilization of nation states, the PLO is the original author of much of the mayhem and global terrorism the US has led the fight against since the 1980s.

And of course, the PLO’s main stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the US’s only dependable ally, and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Yet, as has been the case with the Iranian regime, successive US administrations have courted, protected and upheld the PLO as moderate, reformed or almost reformed militants. In many ways, then the Obama administration is simply a loyal successor of previous administrations. But in one essential way, it is also different.

IN A 2006 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, civil rights historian Shelby Steele argued that the reason the US has lost every war it has fought since World War II despite the fact that it has had the military might to vanquish all of its enemies is “white guilt.”

(Sounds kind of like “Jewish guilt in the Israelis, who instead of simply wiping out completely the areas of adjacent countries that allow these missile strikes, Israel finds a way to hide under a ridiculous Iron Dome that can only quickly fail as a defensive weapon — kinda like the Maginot Line of France in WWII and French defense against Hitler – non existent) jsk

White guilt, he argued, makes its sufferers in the West believe that they lack the moral authority to act due to the stigma of white supremacy and imperialism.

Writing of the then raging insurgency in Iraq, Steele explained, “When America – the greatest embodiment of Western power — goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and the other against the past — two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.”

This neurotic view of America’s moral underpinning is what explains the instinctive American tendency to strike out at those who do not oppose the West – like Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt – while giving a pass to those who do – like the Palestinians and the Iranians.

But whereas white guilt has afflicted the US leadership for the past several generations, past administrations were willing to set it aside when necessary to advance US national security interests.

This cannot happen with Obama.

Obama owes his presidency to white guilt. His promise to American voters was that by voting for him, they would expiate their guilt for the sins of European imperialists and southern racists.

It was the American desire to move beyond the past that enabled a first-term senator with radical connections and the most liberal voting record in the Senate to get elected to the presidency.

But tragically for the US and the free world, Obama’s worldview is informed not by an appreciation for what Steele extolled as America’s “moral transformation,” on issue of race. Rather it is informed by his conviction that the US deserves its guilt.

Obama does not share Bill Clinton’s view that the US is “the indispensable nation,” although he invoked the term on the campaign trail in 2012.

From his behavior toward foe and friend alike, Obama gives the impression that he does not believe the US has the right to stand up for its interests.

Moreover, his actions from Israel to Eastern Europe to Egypt and Libya indicate that he believes there is something wrong with nations that support and believe in the US.

Their pro-Americanism apparently makes them guilty of white guilt by association.

So Iran, the Palestinians and Russia needn’t worry. Obama will not learn from his mistakes, because as far as he is concerned, he hasn’t made any.

Caroline Glick (born 1969) is an American-born Israeli journalist, newspaper editor, and writer. She writes for Makor Rishon and is the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy.

Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson (born March 22, 1930) is an American media mogul, executive chairman, and a former Southern Baptist minister, who generally supports conservative Christian ideals. He presently serves as Chancellor of Regent University and Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

II Video – Caroline Glick with Reverend Pat Robertson



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

II Video below – Panel discussion by Indians and Americans of this horrendous diplomatic ongoing insult.


Excerpt from the Palm Beach Post, March 16, 2014
“The Indian government expressed its displeasure with the US Justice Dept. for refiling criminal charges against a diplomat whose arrest in N. Y. Last year on charges of underpaying her domestic help caused a crisis in bilateral 

relations. The US attorney’s office in Manhattan on Friday issued a new indictment against the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, just two days after a judge dismissed a similar indictment on diplomatic immunity grounds. Khobargade has returned to India and is unlikely ever to answer the charges in New York and she is unlikely to face extradition”

But, what is the background of this obnoxious counterproductive US government action designed only to alienate India, a huge nation with which we have had tenuous relations in the past.

The whole sordid tale began when Mrs. Khobraga was subjected to a complete invasive strip search by security guards for no tenable reason except possibly their own lechery.

Mrs. Khobragade immediately registered a complaint against these “guards” and instead of apologizing and backing off, the US government filed the ridiculous charge that the lady had not paid an adequate amount to her domestic help and had not filed employee benefit papers. By the way, under this charge, it is impossible to even imagine how many thousands of US households would be found guilty (not to imply the practice is legitimate)

The case went to court and the judge realizing how unfair and ridiculous the charges were, simply allowed the lady diplomatic immunity from US government charges — to which she was entitled.

Obama’s anointed head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder was still not satisfied and found another way to hurt US standing further in the world, especially with a very important ally. He two days later, re-instituted the same basic charges against this woman with Obama/Holder finding yet another way to discredit the United States of America on the world scene.

Hopefully we are able to survive 3 more years of these deliberate US destroyers and at least get their enablers Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a cast of hundreds out of office. We can then attempt to undo the huge amount of damage they have done and try to regain our reputation as an “exceptional nation” — much to the chagrin of Barack Obama, et al.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , ,

Share This Post

Obama invited 80,000 Muslims into the United States, with a promise of 100,000 per year over the next five years!

Rape, the Whirlwind*
Tabitha Korol
March 12, 2014

Sweden is the seventh richest country in the world in terms of GDP per capita and its high standard of living. It is famous for supporting the Norwegian resistance during World War II; for helping to rescue Danish Jews from deportation to concentration camps; and for its native son, Raoul Wallenberg, who rescued up to 100,000 Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust.

We recognize Sweden as the country that gave us the incomparable Ingrid Bergman and Greta Garbo, writers Ingmar Bergman and August Strindberg, IKEA furniture, high-quality steel production, the Volvo, the pop group ABBA, and Pippi Longstocking.

But Sweden’s latest source of prominence, its third largest city, Malmo, founded ca. 1275, is now known as the City to Leave. Its Jewish population is fleeing, as Malmo has become home to Muslim immigrants, anti-Semitism and violence, which has earned for Sweden the dubious distinction of Rape Capital of the World. How is it possible for the Muslims to comprise a mere 6% of Sweden’s population, yet be responsible for 77% of the rapes committed? According to the Counter Jihad report, one in four Swedish women will be raped, some killed, as sexual assaults increase by 500%.

Now, since President Obama invited 80,000 Muslims into the United States, with a promise of 100,000 per year over the next five years, and studies show that Islamic immigration brings a rise in rates of rape and molestation, there can be no doubt that we will see a corresponding increase in rape crime in America accordingly.

Is rape a fundamental part of Muslim culture? Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish, in her book, And Now They Call Me Infidel, explains the Muslim mentality that is formed by their family dynamics and interaction and by constant dissatisfaction.

Youths may not date, fall in love, or even communicate with the opposite sex. Women are severely oppressed from childhood, and not allowed to form friendships. A woman is the source of a man’s pride or shame. She is made to suffer ritual female genital mutilation; her physical appearance must be concealed; she is prohibited from living as freely as men; and she must obey strict Shari’a law — to either suffer in a polygamous marriage that encourages jealousy and diminishes her importance, or to become an Islamic slave in a brief marriage — as brief as a few hours. Divorce is the male’s option, as easy as saying
“I divorce you” Since there is no common property between husband and wife, and his property does not automatically go to the wife after his death, the “one-night stand” is legal under Shari’a law.

There are also a number of taboos and laws that not only undermine a woman’s security and self-respect, but also dominate her relationship to her children and others. The result is an environment that sets women up against each other, poisoned with distrust, grief, isolation, and financial insecurity.

What better way of defining the exploitation of sexual favors, forced labor or services, slavery or similar practices of servitude of one person (an underage female) by her parent to another adult (called a husband), than by human trafficking — particularly when deception and coercion are used by the parent who transfers parental custody to the stranger, and there is an exchange of payment in return.

Men are also impacted by Shari’a law. Because his honor is determined by the female’s behavior, he becomes despotic, and may even kill his wife and children to endorse his dignity. The men are first raised by their unhappy, demoralized mothers in a sexually oppressive society, where he is also economically unable to keep up with the older men who can buy any number of liaisons and support as many as four wives. The first-born son is also needed as protection of his mother against her husband’s unjust treatment. All this leads to interlocking loyalties, fears, and unusual bonding, if any.

Polygamy deprives every one of the intimacy and security found in a monogamous or faithful marriage. Although the man governs his women, in all other circumstances, he endures indignity, humility, and degradation from all who live within a brutal regime. With abuse in every part of his life, including the workplace, he is disaffected, angry, ripe for fundamentalism — even eager to give up his life for the promise of heaven and the elusive sexual satisfaction.

The populace is taught to stay in the tribe, to never befriend the outsiders, and to fervently focus on hating Israel and the West, even if they know nothing about those countries or people. The hate becomes their identity, blaming the West for their culture’s failure. If their military leadership fails, if life is difficult, the economy bad, they feel less victimized if they can place the blame elsewhere. It’s a simple fact that no one takes responsibility for anything in Islam and everyone blames everyone else.

A polygamous society lacks cohesion and fellowship and is based on distrust, with hatred being at the surface, boiling and ready to explode against the most vulnerable. This is nihilism** — the man’s harming the woman, stealing her humanity and security. It is what the jihadist hopes to do to the civilization that he has invaded.

And this all leads to an article that came to my attention — students in a biology class at the University of Iowa are being taught that rape is “human nature.” Regarding criminal sexual assaults as human nature is obviously offensive and dismissive, a way of allowing or even encouraging the behavior to continue. While certain university professors suggested rape “has an evolutionary origin … genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life…a successful reproductive strategy,” it is entirely unacceptable in a civilized society, an act for which the perpetrator must be severely punished.

The sanctioning of rape is being insinuated into our culture through our youth as yet another tentacle of Islamization. We will not accept cruelty and criminal behavior as human nature. We have evolved considerably since a code of high morality, ethics, compassion and justice was put into place by the Hebrews during the Bronze/Iron age. We will not sink to the depths of degradation offered by a culture that, centuries later, brought the antithesis of our society to the world.

What the students should be learning is that not all cultures are civilized, that it is important to realize and nurture our own exceptionalism compared to those that are bent on humanity’s destruction, and that an ideal civilization controls, contains, and rejects the elements of human nature that harm and devalue others — women, for example. This is one of many of the proverbial slippery slopes, where the liberal thinker accommodates the Islamist, and rejects morality, the American Constitution, and the future designed for us by our Founding Fathers.

* The title is derived from Hosea’s prophesy, “They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

Tabitha Korol earned an award from CAMERA (Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) “in recognition of outstanding letter-writing in 2009 to promote fair and factual reporting about Israel.” She was cited as one of America’s modern-day, articulate, patriotic women in Frederick William Dame’s Three American Fur Hat Fighters for Freedom. Her essays have appeared on RightTruth, RenewAmerica, NewMediaJournal, JewishIndy, Israel’s Arutz Sheva, and others. She revised a book of Holocaust survivors’ accounts for publication, and proofreads/edits for a monthly city newsletter.



Powered by Facebook Comments