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

Read More About:

Share This Post

Upholding the Law

Redacted from a much more detailed article
The Weekly Standard
May 10, 2014

Many Republicans—and a handful of independent commentators like George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley—have been highly critical of President Obama’s executive branch overreach. The president has arbitrarily delayed, deferred, or ignored provisions of numerous laws — none more so than his signature Obamacare legislation. There is indeed much to criticize; no other president in recent times has usurped congressional lawmaking powers to the extent Barack Obama has.

Administration spokesmen have defended these actions by pointing out that other presidents have also issued executive orders. But President Obama’s actions are less like executive orders in the usual sense of the term than they are like legislation. Nor are they based upon a constitutional argument that the president must act in response to a Congress that has intruded into areas that are properly under his constitutional authority. These actions are the pure assertion of an unconstitutional presidential power to make law. What is needed now, however, is not further criticism, but a careful and sober consideration of what Congress can do to address this burgeoning constitutional crisis.

We should be clear: When we ask what Congress should do about it, we are really asking what congressional Republicans should do. Senate majority leader Democrat Harry Reid has demonstrated that he will not defend the institution of the Senate but will defend whatever President Obama does. Harry Reid was once an opponent of George W. Bush’s recess appointments, calling the Senate into pro forma session every three days to prevent them; Reid turned on a dime to support President Obama’s decision to ignore the very Senate pro forma sessions he had created.

Harry Reid once argued strenuously against Republicans ending the 60-vote threshold for confirmation of presidential appointees. As majority leader, he adopted the very “nuclear option” he had so long opposed. In doing so he eviscerated a long-standing minority party protection merely to facilitate the confirmation of mid-level Obama political appointees.

Harry Reid has all but ended the Senate tradition of open debate. Reid controls not only what bills are considered on the Senate floor—a well-established leadership prerogative—but also what amendments can be offered to those bills. He has done this by foreclosing the amendment process with a parliamentary tactic called “filling the amendment tree,” turning the Senate into a mini-version of the House of Representatives. No other majority leader in recent memory has taken these steps—not Bill Frist, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, George Mitchell, Bob Dole,


One step available to House Republicans in response to President Obama’s overreach is outlined in Article II of the Constitution: impeachment. Before assuming this option is beyond the pale, we might ask whether it is really so crazy. Is Obama’s usurpation of congressional powers less serious than Bill Clinton’s cover-up of his sexual activities? Moreover, impeachment is politically possible. Impeachment of the president requires only a simple majority of the House, which Republicans hold. It does not require the cooperation of the Senate. There are serious reasons, however, to doubt the wisdom of this course. First, the ground is simply not prepared. The idea of impeachment would strike official Washington—and most Americans—as coming out of the blue and as overkill at that.

Second, impeachment would produce immediate charges of racism, as if something other than the president’s actions had caused Republicans to take this step. Given the usual tongue-tied Republican reaction to charges of racism, Republicans would be well-advised to avoid putting themselves in this position.

Third, in today’s vernacular, what is the “endgame” of this strategy? The House can bring charges against the president, but the Senate would adjudicate them, and there is no chance that the required two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict. As we saw with Bill Clinton, a failed impeachment is almost an exoneration.


It is by no means clear that the Supreme Court would take a case aiming to invalidate the president’s actions; as a rule the Court tries to avoid disputes between the legislative and executive branches unless there seems no responsible way to avoid it. But the House would improve the odds of the Court taking this case by passing a resolution stating that its powers have been usurped in violation of the Constitution. … The Court probably would not rule quickly on a case like this.


This brings us to a third option, which rests upon the congressional power of the purse. House Republicans have already taken this course, when they voted repeatedly to repeal and/or defund Obama-care. How would one more House vote to defund Obamacare help?

Defunding is the right idea, but there is a better target than Obamacare if the object is to address presidential overreach. What House Republicans should seek to defund, in whole or in part, is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is the enforcement arm of Obamacare. Without the IRS there is no enforcement of the individual mandate, no basis for determining individual subsidies, and no enforcement of employer mandates. The central role of the IRS in Obamacare should be clear enough from one perverse fact alone: In order to improve health care delivery in America, Obamacare creates not thousands of new doctors and nurses, but thousands of new IRS employees.

Congress should require the president to appoint an independent investigator to look into the IRS across the board, including its role in Obamacare and its targeting of both conservative public interest groups and individuals. The current internal investigation, headed by Obama major campaign donor Barbara Bosserman, does not inspire confidence. Indeed, the president has already foreordained the outcome of this investigation by announcing there is not “a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS.

These steps would be opposed by the Democratic Senate and the president, but they would be widely supported by the American people. The IRS is not much loved by the public at any time; but a current Fox poll shows that 64 percent of Americans believe there is corruption at the IRS that should be fully and fairly investigated. What Harry Reid and the president would be defending in this instance is not the president’s signature health care legislation, but the Internal Revenue Service, a far more daunting task.

A degree of courage is going to be required at some point to rein in the president’s excesses. It is not enough to defer action to an indeterminate future date. Republican leaders should ask themselves a hard question: What is it they will accomplish with control of the House and Senate that they cannot accomplish now? What are the actual steps and projects they would undertake in 2015 with a Republican-controlled House and Senate? How would they overcome the president’s vetoes, his bully pulpit, and the slavish devotion to him of the mainstream media?

Once again, the IRS lies at the heart of the problem. The administration’s efforts will not abate if Republicans control both houses of Congress; indeed, they are likely to increase. We are heading toward a serious and necessary struggle over presidential overreach. The stakes are high politically and, more important, constitutionally. A measure of courage will be required to address them.

Jeff Bergner, adjunct professor at the University of Virginia and Christopher Newport University, has served in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. His most recent book is Against Modern Humanism: On the Culture of Ego.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From Helen Freedman, Executive Director
Americans for a Safe Israel

Judy Kadish, AFSI’s Special Projects Director, and I just returned from the AIPAC Conference in Washington, DC, where we were two of the 14,000 attendees at what is billed as an inclusive gathering of people from all walks of life, and varying ethnicities, but primarily Jews, who come together in support of Israel. Throughout the huge Convention Center there were huge placards picturing the great varieties of people representing AIPAC. However, we discovered that there was an exception to this inclusive attitude.

Judy and I had been outside the Convention Center with our signs in support of the application of Sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley. We were surrounded there by anti-Israel demonstrators. After making our statements, we folded up our banners and went into the Convention Center to participate in the Conference. At the end of the day, upon meeting with some of our good Israeli friends, I unfurled one of the banners to show them that we had been supporting them. I was pounced upon by an AIPAC staff member, a young, stern woman, who warned me in no uncertain terms that a banner with that message was NOT to be displayed.

After that confrontation, the same woman attacked Judy and me again, the following evening, when Marc Golub of Shalom TV was interviewing us. In the middle of the interview, she grabbed Rabbi Golub’s arm and demanded to know why he was interviewing “these women who do not speak for AIPAC.” Needless to say, the story has much more detail to it, but the tragedy is that every message, every person, is included in the AIPAC “big tent”, EXCEPT for those who support Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

Fortunately, we have champions like Caroline Glick, whose new book, THE ISRAELI SOLUTION: A ONE STATE PLAN FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, lays out the message of the application of sovereignty to all the land of Israel. I had the good fortune of lunching with Caroline on Wednesday afternoon. She explained the essence of the book and the importance of reading it and understanding that there is an alternative to the much failed “two-state solution” formula. I intend to go onto to order twenty copies for distribution to friends and family. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Glick’s book, “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East”
(Crown Forum 2014) was released Tuesday, March 4



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , , , ,

Share This Post

II Is the Obama administration condoning sanctions and boycotts against Israel?

March 5, 2014

The Israeli navy seized a ship in the Red Sea on Wednesday that was carrying dozens of advanced Iranian-supplied rockets made in Syria that were intended for Palestinian militants in Gaza. The Panamanian-flagged cargo vessel, Klos-C, was boarded in international waters without resistance and is being escorted to the Israeli port of Eilat.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Lt-Col Peter Lerner said dozens of M302 rockets were found. “The M302 in its most advanced model can strike over 100 miles, and if they would have reached Gaza, ultimately that would have meant millions of Israelis under threat.” Lerner said the rockets were flown from Syria to Iran, from which they were shipped first to Iraq and then toward Sudan. Iran had orchestrated the shipment, Lerner said, describing the process as months in the making.

The Iranian arms vessel was intercepted about 930 miles from the Israeli coast by special forces from the Flotilla 13 (naval commando) unit. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Wednesday: “It has once again become clear that Iran continues to be the greatest exporter of terror in the world…and its failed effort to transfer the weapons discovered this morning is additional evidence. The Iranian regime continues to deceive the world; while it shows its smiling face it continues to be the biggest threat to world peace.” 

Netanyahu Promotes Efforts Toward a Peace Deal (Huh!)

By Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday made an enthusiastic pitch for a peace accord with the Palestinians, saying it would enable Israel to tighten ties with its Arab neighbors and “catapult the region forward” on issues like health, energy and education. “We could better the lives of hundreds of millions,” Netanyahu said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “We all have so much to gain from peace.”
 ”I hope that the Palestinian leadership will stand with Israel and the United States on the right side of the moral divide, the side of peace, reconciliation and hope,” Netanyahu said. (New York Times)

II Is the Obama administration condoning sanctions and boycotts against Israel?

The Jerusalem Post
Feb. 12, 2014

When Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a Joint Session of Congress two years ago, he accurately proclaimed “Israel is not what is wrong with the Middle East. Israel is what is right with the Middle East.” Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s actions have repeatedly contradicted that longstanding belief, which has stood as the cornerstone of our valued 65-year relationship with the Jewish State of Israel.

It is imperative, for our mutual best interests, that America and Israel remain the reliable and solidly staunch allies they have always been. 

Given Congress’ almost unanimously positive bipartisan response to the prime minister’s speech is further proof of that sentiment.

Then why does the Obama administration continue to engage policies that are clearly detrimental to Israel’s best interests? At the recent Munich Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry’s never before heard comments from a US administration regarding Israel shocked the international community, and gave comfort and resolve to Israel’s enemies. 

Secretary Kerry clearly stated that if the status quo is maintained, and peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians fail, Israel could face further “boycotts” and “de-legitimization.”

It is clearly this administration’s expectation that Israel must submit to the outrageous demands of Hamas, Hezbollah and the mullahs in Tehran.

 Not surprisingly, the swift and thunderous outrage of the Israeli people has put the Israel-American relationship in a most perilous position.

And in a recent interview with CNN, Secretary Kerry had an opportunity to clearly enunciate that the United States will oppose any boycott or de-legitimization efforts against Israel, but failed to affirm that long-held position.

The policy of the United States should and must be to boycott any company that boycotts Israel, and to openly and aggressively counter any country that even infers de-legitimization of Israel. The United States needs to be clear that it will expeditiously and robustly respond accordingly to anyone who maliciously attempts to sabotage Israel.

 It is historically inaccurate and diplomatically deplorable to suggest the peace process has or will fail because of Israel.

Most recently, the Obama administration pressured Israel to release terrorist murderers as a necessary prerequisite to meeting with the Palestinians, for which Israel got nothing else in return. The unreasonable demands continue to mount from the Palestinians, and rather than rebuke these requests to continually move the goalposts, the Obama administration has unconscionably insinuated that there will be further economic consequences if Israel does not acquiesce and surrender land that is most vital to its security interests.

The root of the problem, which dates back 65 years, is that the Palestinians and most of Israel’s neighbors refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

 As a result, its neighbors will not assent to the fact that Israel has a right to defend its borders, its way of life, and to protect its Jewish identity.

Given that reality, it stands to reason that it would be irresponsible for any nation to accept such a so-called “peace.”

 IT BECOMES even more reprehensible when one considers the fact that the threats against Israel are today laid in the context of a nuclear Iran, a stronger Hezbollah and an active Muslim Brotherhood that reportedly recently found itself graciously invited to a White House meeting with the president and vice president of the United States.

The only thing worse than Secretary Kerry’s words are his deeds, particularly when it comes to Israel and America’s greatest threat – a nuclear Iran. Recently, without Israel’s involvement and despite Israel’s strong objection, he carelessly and naively negotiated a P5+1 agreement with Iran that does nothing to bring to an end or even temporarily halt their enrichment of uranium. And just when sanctions on the Iranian regime, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, were finally beginning to bear fruit, the Obama administration agreed to significantly ease the pressure?

It is the irony of our time that while the US agreed to ease sanctions on Iran, which has continually refused to follow UN resolutions, they reaffirmed the threat of sanctions against Israel, a friend and an ally that has fulfilled the obligations it committed to in all previously negotiated “peace” agreements.

The United States House of Representatives voted to increase sanctions on Iran by the overwhelming vote of 400-20. The Senate companion bill to increase sanctions boasts 58 bipartisan co-sponsors, and would almost certainly pass if it was allowed to have an up or down vote. But the administration’s pressure not to move it forward, and the president’s threat to veto the legislation if passed, has temporarily put the bill “on ice.”

To listen to this president and his secretary of state is proof that the de-legitimization campaign against Israel is underway, and United States policy, which infers prejudice and pressure against Israel, only exacerbates the situation. President Obama should know that words matter, and the actions of his administration have worked to embolden and legitimize our common enemies.

President Obama has dangerously taken a calculated position that Iran can be trusted, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have reconciliatory intentions, and Israel needs to be pressured into acquiescence.

 Since Israel’s rebirth on May 15, 1948, the one thing that could always be counted on was the loyal and unwavering support of the United States. That unqualified support still exists, with the American people and in the US Congress.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s policies sadly do not reflect it.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , ,

Share This Post

By Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher
Israel Commentary

March 2, 2014

It was time to commemorate the annual day of my Dad’s passing, as is our custom, and the rabbi was kind enough to give me an opportunity to say a few words about my Dad. I told the rabbi that I had instead prepared a commentary on this week’s Haftorah reading and he was happy to give me permission to do that.

But, I chickened out. As soon as I walked into the lunch room I realized that this crowd of 150 plus people was there for the lunch not to hear a lecture from me — especially one with which most of them disagreed mightily. Rather than embarrass the Rabbi and spoil this usual festive occasion, I just excused myself.

But, the message has already been written, is burning a hole in my head and happens to be posted just below.

My Dad was a man with simple tastes and I believe he considered his only role in life was to support his family. As far as himself, he appeared to have no desire to obtain fame and fortune. He took delight in the most simple of pleasures. Give my Dad a firm ripe tomato, a good sweet corn, a slice of ripe water melon and finally his beloved schmaltz herring with a boiled potato.

To finish this elegant meal let him sit and read his Sunday Yiddish newspaper and my Dad appeared perfectly content with his lot in life.

What dawned on me in later years was that I never heard a word of envy or resentment in his mouth. He did not begrudge some one’s else bigger home, shinier car, greater fame and fortune. There was never any denigration of the wealthy or the successful.

Which brings us to this week’s Haftorah portion, Shekalim, that I chanted to the congregation in Hebrew to commemorate My Dad’s passing in the Jewish Leap Year Adar II 1, 5722, one month after his third grandchild was born.

Shekalim refers to the 1/2 Shekel coins that the Israelis were required to donate once per year. Their main purpose was to purchase communal sacrifices to atone for their sins.

What always struck me about this custom was the stipulation that all men, rich or poor, contributed the same 1/2 Shekel. The wealthier man was not punished. He was not asked to put in more money. He was not penalized for his success or good fortune.

Hashem (G-d) seems to have taken a similar approach in the Torah reading four Shabbats ago called Parsha Terumah. He ordered the Israelis to build a Temple to contain his spirit, his holiness. His recommendations for the construction were most exacting and luxurious. But, when it came to asking contributions from the Israelis, he again did not punish anyone because of their riches, their position, their supposed ability to give.

Instead, God spoke to Moshe, saying: “Speak to the children of Israel, and have them dedicate to Me a contribution. Take My offering from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity.” Not from how much he might have in stocks and bonds or cash under his bed but what he wanted to give from his heart.

You may know that I publish a blog called Israel Commentary. Anyone can subscribe to it. Just type the two words “Israel Commentary” into your search engine, whether it be Google, Google Chrome, Yahoo, Firefox, whatever and it is usually the first item found at the top of some 79 million plus articles using those words.

On February 3, 2014, I published an article from the Wall Street Journal by the brilliant Ruth Wisse, professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard university and an astute political observer.

Professor Wisse called the article, The Dark Side of the War on the 1%.

Professor Wisse commented on the Obama Administration and Democratic Party’s deliberate focus on class warfare, the re-distribution of wealth and the virtual punishment of the wealthy, the successful, the top 1% of the population.

She went on to describe the frequent connection between Class warfare and anti-Semitism. Professor Wisse warned that stoking class envy is a step in a familiar, dangerous and highly incendiary process. The perfect example is of course, Adolph Hitler. She described this political gambit as a very slippery slope that can result in awful consequences. Who should know that better than the Jews?

Who is automatically included in the minds of some non Jews with this War on the 1%? Of course, we the Jews are and, if you remember those sick people in that awful Occupy Wall Street fiasco creating a disgusting blight right in many of your own back yards, Jew hatred was on the tip of many of their tongues but, of course, not reported in the left wing press.

And, now at this very moment, the Jew haters have plenty of evidence in their own sick minds, of the Jews apparently controlling this country. The last three chairmen of the Federal Reserve have been Jews; Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and now Janet Yellen. Also the Treasury Secretary (Jack Lew) is Jewish.

Never mind the fact that American Jews have their share of citizens living well beneath the poverty level. That fact never gets in the way of the mind set of the Jew haters.

Unfortunately, Professor Wisse goes on to say, if and when the economy drops like a lead balloon, it will be the Jews who will be, Hashem forbid, blamed and a very easy target.

The irony is that the majority of Jews still vote for the party and the administration espousing and promoting class warfare and punishing by every means possible the 1% — those people that have always been most responsible for this great country’s success.

Hopefully one day, very soon, the Jews will open their eyes to their own uncanny ability to self destruct and re-think their voting habits.

Jerome S. Kaufman (Yaacov ben Shimon)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Video: Neil Cavuto, Fox News, gives Obama What For!

From an in-depth must read article by David Kupelian

Managing Editor of World Net Daily
January 2014

…While health care has dominated center stage, other Obama-era scandals litter the D.C. political landscape like wreckage from a 50-car pile-up.

According to top retired generals and other senior officers, the current commander in chief is waging a war of sorts against the U.S. military. The attack is playing out on multiple battle fronts, including the firing of close to 200 senior officers during Obama’s first five years in office — nine generals in 2013 alone. Some retired generals are openly calling it a “purge.” Add to that the promotion of open homosexuality, women in front-line combat, suicidal rules of engagement, unwinnable counterinsurgency strategies and, to top it off, increasing official antipathy toward God and Christianity, and you have a military in serious crisis. All manufactured in Washington – by Democrats.

There’s much more: America under Obama has no coherent foreign policy, resulting in this nation’s precipitous loss of power, influence and respect worldwide. Likewise, our national economy is being so abused by government borrowing and ill-considered Federal Reserve monetary intervention that the world is close to abandoning the dollar as its reserve currency — a huge loss to America with grave, if yet unseen, ramifications. And of course, many government agencies are drowning in their own Obama-era scandals — from the Justice Department to the Internal Revenue Service to the National Security Agency to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The good news is that the great illusion is evaporating. Nobody gets a “thrill up their leg” anymore when Obama speaks (except Chris Matthews). Few Obama “true believers” remain. Mistrust is high. Just as in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” America’s would-be monarch is now widely seen as he really is — a charismatic but immature, narcissistic and shockingly deceitful far-left agitator who somehow ended up in the White House.

The next play?

… To rule like a dictator from his White House inner sanctum, and to succeed in moving the progressive agenda continually forward, one more thing is necessary: Obama needs crises. Otherwise, the spell of deception tends to break and too many people wake up and complain … and vote.

Therefore, 2014 could be called “the year of manufactured crises.”

The No. 1 crisis of the year, at least for now, is Obamacare, which after all is essentially a huge, completely manufactured national disaster. … Obamacare, which was packaged and gift-wrapped as the solution to the flaws in America’s health-care system, is actually a crisis-causing “transition” stage between free-market health care and a socialist state.

David Kupelian is managing editor of WorldNetDaily and editor of WND’s Whistleblower magazine

II Video: Neil Cavuto, Fox News, gives Obama What For!



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , , , ,

Share This Post

The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press (AP) and published in The Washington Post – 90+ years ago.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Soros Bankrolls Pot Legalization
By Art Moore, News Editor
Whistleblower Magazine
February, 2014

LEFTWINO billionaire activist George Soros has been a prime proponent and funder of marijuana legalization in America.
He has been behind most of the successful medical marijuana initiatives in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington since 1996.

And last year, his money was a major factor in the passage of the first laws in the nation allowing recreational use, in Colorado and Washington state. In Washington, backers of the marijuana law outspent their opponents 400 to 1, thanks mostly to Soros and Progressive Insurance Chairman Peter Lewis. Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance and Lewis’ Marijuana Policy Project gave a combined $3.54 million of the $6.2 million raised by New Approach Washington, which led the effort to pass Washington states Initiative 502.
Opponents, meanwhile, raised only $15,995. Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance also gave $1.4 million to the legalization campaign in Colorado.

Meanwhile, New Approach Oregon, a group that hopes to legalize marijuana in Oregon next year, already has reported a $50,000 contribution from Soros’ Drug Policy Alliance, Willamette Week in Oregon reported. The funding is significant, said the paper, nothing that a legalization measure in the state failed in 2012, in part due to lack of funding. “Soros’ deep pockets mean that funding should not be a concern now,” Willamette Week said.

New Approach Oregon is trying to persuade state lawmakers to pass a legislative measure, but also is prepared to launch a ballot-initiative campaign. When Soros donated $1 million to support legalization of recreational marijuana use in California in 2010, he wrote a commentary published in the Wall Street Journal to explain his position on the issue.

“Laws banning marijuana, said Soros, are clearly doing more harm than good.” (HUH!) “The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries ” he argued. “But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.”

Endorsing California s Proposition 19 – which was defeated later that year by voters, 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent – Soros said law enforcement agencies spend billions of taxpayer dollars annually “trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition

He pointed out that the roughly 750,000 arrests made each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40 percent of all drug arrests. And he urged individual states to repeal laws against marijuana use, just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states.

Soros acknowledged in a Reuters interview in 1997 that he had tried marijuana and enjoyed it. But, he said, “it did not become a habit and I have not tasted it in many years.”

Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance said at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Denver last October that the world has hit a “tipping point on marijuana” because of what Colorado and Washington did and what Uruguay is going to do,” wrote Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid. Nadelmann was referring to Uruguay’s decision to legalize marijuana cultivation and distribution. The president of Uruguay, Kincaid pointed out, is a former Marxist-Leninist guerrilla.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Please just watch this short powerful video. This picture is worth an infinite number of words.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , , , , ,

Share This Post

Redacted from an article by Gil Solomon

February 10, 2014

I could not have been more disgusted when hearing about a recent prayer rally organized by thousands of orthodox Jews at the Kotel (Western Wall), the aim of which was to beseech the almighty to “cancel the decrees” of the US Secretary of State. Cancel the “decrees”! Do they regard Kerry as an Emperor who issues decrees from on high for which they, as poor ghetto Jews, have no power over whatsoever? This act of cringing passivity only reinforces the view that these people do not regard Israel as a sovereign nation in control of its own destiny.

The way Israel is behaving one could easily come to this conclusion but to the main issue, if a rally is organized it should be to beseech G-d to put some sense and a spine into the current Israeli leadership and once the prayers are over to move on and:

1. Demand that the sovereign nation of Israel finally gets up off its knees and cease its relentless capitulation to Kerry’s demands.

2. Demand that the true story of the nation be told whereby the so called “Palestinian” narrative be exposed as the fiction that it is.

It is my opinion that Obama and Kerry aim to destroy Israel or at least bring it to its knees. The 2003 Bush Road Map was in theory a blueprint of where these so called “negotiations” could revolve, but Obama and Kerry have deviated so far off course as to make this “roadmap” a dirt track in the middle of nowhere. This is the track they want Israel to travel on and to date Israel has foolishly indulged their every whim, including the release of the most heinous terrorist murderers in order to just bring Abbas to the table. It should be of great significance that Obama has put Muslim Brotherhood members/sympathizers in key administrative positions in his administration.

The current US administration, headed by someone whose credentials for office are dubious, is a clear and present danger to the Jewish nation, yet American Jews, by a vast majority and to their shame have voted for Obama not once but twice!

All the warning signs were there for those whose eyes were open and were not deaf. Now we have the disgraceful recent spectacle of a brainwashed American Jewry, a group truly worthy of the title of ghetto Jews of the diaspora, attacking the New York City (NYC) Mayor, Bill de Blasio for his support of Israel!

(The author neglects to mention the vaunted American Jewish political lobby AIPAC (American Israel Political Affairs Committee) that recently genuflected, capitulating to Obama/Kerry and pouring cold water in the faces of the dedicated 42 Republican Congressmen that demanded sanctions continue and in the process AIPAC also spat in the faces of PM Netanyahu and the state of Israel that knows these sanctions are the only weapons remotely successful in slowing down Iran’s nuclear arsenal. Someone at AIPAC evidently forgot that supporting Israel is supposedly AIPAC’s main raison d’être ) jsk

Israel’s own paralysis is the net result of being sucked into the Obama so called “peace process”. Combined with the constant lack of support and hostility towards Israel and what it stands for has led to an IDF that has lost the confidence or will to even deal with a rag tag bunch of rock throwers on the West Bank. The IDF is taunted daily but refuses to respond in the only way that these people will understand. No other army on the face of the earth would put up with this nonsense.

Worse still, according to Israel’s Chief of Military Intelligence, Major General Aviv Kohavi, Israel faces 170,000 rockets aimed at her. To quote General Kohavi: “Israel is surrounded by 360 degrees of actual enemies. We call this period in time the ‘Era of Fire,’ in light of the amount of missiles and rockets we face as a constant threat. There are about 170,000 rockets and missiles that threaten Israel. For the first time the enemy now has the ability to hit Israeli cities hard. IAF pilots can no longer move freely towards their targets and have to dodge missiles that threaten them.”

MK Tzipi Livni, is the disaster of a “negotiator” — a woman totally out of her depth but who unbelievably heads the so called “peace talks” on behalf of Israel is a prime example of a left winger hell bent on capitulation. A woman who has no concept of the fact that capitulation after capitulation brings more and more outrageous demands.

Not lost too are Kerry’s stupid hints that, should the peace process fail, the intifada will resume. One has to assume that Abbas is not a fool. He would have realized that he has just been given the green light by a US Secretary of State to restart a massive terrorist campaign when these talks break down. Peace to Abbas would mean obscurity and this man, together with the rest of the PA will not give up their lavish lifestyles which includes them being feted by world leaders on centre stage and indulging themselves with money that is bestowed on them by foolish nations who think they are aiding the cause of peace and the supposed suffering of a people who have attempted to rewrite history.

The Israelis, for some inexplicable reason, fail to present the irrefutable history that in biblical times, all of what is now Israel and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was Jewish. When the Romans conquered the territory they named the entire area “Philistina” in order to rub salt into the wounds of the defeated Jews by renaming it in honour of the Jews’ ancient and mortal enemies the Philistines. Decades later, Arabs cleverly commandeered the term “Palestinian” as their own designation when for all the centuries before they were just Arabs who happened to be living on what was historically Israeli land.

No other country or people on the face of the earth would have even indulged their ludicrous and incessant claims nor given them the time of day. Unfortunately for Israel, it to this day has no concept of Hasbara (public relations), let alone realizes that Hasbara is a war that Abbas and Co. have mastered to an extent beyond their wildest imagination. They have turned history on its head and convinced the world of the truth of the Palestinian narrative.

It is now up to supporters of Israel and finally the Israelis to counter this gross lie and get Israel off the defensive and unleash the great power that G-d has once more given the Jews to insure their survival.

(Gil Solomon is a retired finance manager and author.)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

From the brilliant RUTH R. WISSE
The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 3, 2014

Two phenomena: anti-Semitism and American class conflict. Is there any connection between them? In a letter to this newspaper, the noted venture capitalist Tom Perkins called attention to certain parallels, as he saw them, between Nazi Germany’s war against the Jews and American progressives’ war on the “one percent.” For comparing two such historically disparate societies, Mr. Perkins was promptly and heatedly denounced.

But is there something to be said for his comparison—not of Germany and the United States, of course, but of the politics at work in the two situations? The place to begin is at the starting point: with the rise of anti-Semitism, modernity’s most successful and least understood political movement.

The German political activist Wilhelm Marr, originally a man of the left, organized a movement in the 1870s that charged Jews with using their skills “to conquer Germany from within.” Distinguishing the movement that he called anti-Semitism from earlier forms of anti-Judaism, Marr argued on professedly rational grounds that Jews were taking unfair advantage of the emerging democratic order in Europe, with its promise of individual rights and open competition, in order to dominate the fields of finance, culture and social ideas. Though some of Marr’s rhetoric and imagery was based on earlier stereotypes, he was right to insist that anti-Semitism was a new response to new conditions, channeling grievance and blame against highly visible beneficiaries of freedom and opportunity.

These were some of its typical ploys: Are you unemployed? The Jews have your jobs. Is your family mired in poverty? The Rothschilds have your money. Do you feel more insecure in the city than you did on the land? The Jews are trapping you in factories and charging you exorbitant rents.

Anti-Semitism accused Jews of undermining Christian authority and corrupting the German legal system, the arts and the press. Jews were said to be rabid internationalists spreading Bolshevism—and ruthless capitalists exploiting for their own gain the nation’s natural and human resources. To ambitious politicians seeking office, to rulers of still largely illiterate populations, “the Jews” became a convenient catchall explanation for deep-rooted and sometimes intractable problems.
(So, What else is new?)

But though the origins of modern anti-Semitism may be traced to Germany, anti-Semitism itself remains sui generis and cannot be simply conflated with either Germany or Hitler. True, the latter gained power on a platform of anti-Semitism and then proceeded to put his Final Solution into effect, but the modern organization of politics against the Jews is independent of Nazism—and of fascism, since the Italian variant did not specifically target the Jews. Features of anti-Semitism are present in other political movements, on the left fully as much the right.

The parallel that Tom Perkins drew in his letter was especially irksome to his respondents on the left, many of whom are supporters of President Obama’s sallies against Wall Street and the “one percent.” These critics might profitably consult Robert Wistrich, today’s leading historian of anti-Semitism. His “From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel” (2012) documents the often profound anti-Semitism that has affected socialists and leftists from Karl Marx to today’s anti-Israel movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions. It was Marx who said, “The bill of exchange is the Jew’s actual god,” putting a Jewish face on capitalism and accusing both Judaism and capitalism of converting man and nature into “alienable and saleable objects.”

Herein lies one structural connection between a politics of blame directed specifically at Jews and a politics of grievance directed against “the rich.” The ranks of those harping on “unfairly” high earners include figures in American political life at all levels who have been entrusted with the care of our open society; in channeling blame for today’s deep-rooted and seemingly intractable problems toward the beneficiaries of that society’s competitive freedoms, they are playing with fire.

I say this not only, and not even primarily, because some of those beneficiaries happen also to be Jews. So far, mainstream American politicians and supporters of movements like Occupy Wall Street have confined their attacks to the nameless “one percent,” and in any case it is doubtful that today any U.S. politician would be electable on an explicitly anti-Jewish platform.

My point is broader: Stoking class envy is a step in a familiar, dangerous and highly incendiary process. Any ideology or movement, right or left, that is organized negatively—against rather than for—enjoys an inherent advantage in politics, mobilizing unappeasable energies that never have to default on their announced goal of cleansing the body politic of its alleged poisons.

In this respect, one might think of anti-Semitism as the purest and most murderous example of an enduring political archetype: the negative campaign. That campaign has its international as well as its domestic front. Modern anti-Zionism, itself a patented invention of Soviet Communism and now the lingua franca of the international left, uses Israel just as anti-Semitism uses Jews, directing grievance and blame and eliminationist zeal against an entire collectivity that has flourished on the world scene thanks to the blessings of freedom and opportunity.

Herein lies a deeper structural connection. On the global front today, the much larger and more obvious beneficiary of those same blessings is the democratic capitalist system of the United States, and the ultimate target of the ultimate negative campaign is the American people. Anyone seeking to understand the inner workings of such a campaign will find much food for thought in Mr. Perkins’s parallel.

Ms. Wisse, a 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).



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , ,

Share This Post

By Jerome S. Kaufman

On January 30 we viewed a live debate between Dinesh D’Souza, political commentator and author and William Ayers, retired educator and political activist. The focus of the debate was What is so great about America?

D’Souza is the author of six New York Times best-selling books. In 2012, D’Souza released 2016: Obama’s America, a film based upon his 2010 book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage. The film has been the highest grossing conservative political film produced in the United States. D’Souza also served as a policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and, during 2010–2012, as president of The King’s College, a small Christian school in New York City.

William Ayers is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the counterculture movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he proudly noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days. Diana Oughton, his former girlfriend, died in 1970 after a bomb exploded while she was preparing the bombs for Weather Underground activities!

Ayers opened the discussion What is Great about America by making the outrageous statement that his home city of Chicago was what is great. He authenticated this statement with a rambling bunch of platitudes including Chicago being the former home of community organizer Barack Obama along with Michael Jordan with an aside for Al Capone.

Somehow absent from his discussion was the fact that University of Illinois at Chicago professor and former alderman, Dick Simpson labeled Chicago, “The Most Corrupt City in the Nation.”

As to the state of Illinois, its previous Governor, Rod Blogojevich, was convicted of corruption in 2011, including allegations that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat for personal gain. Incidentally, Illinois’s last four of seven Governors have served prison terms!

No wonder Ayers is so proud of Chicago and the state of Illinois. Their actions obviously conform to the basic tenets of his destructive communist Weather Underground.

The rest of his speech was devoted entirely to advising the students to keep an open mind, stay clear of the recommendations and orders of the establishment, view Congress as just an auction house. No need for them to accept rulers or authority of any kind — certainly no need to follow society’s mores outlining manners, sexual preferences, or anything counter to their own idea of social justice.

Ayers has never expressed regrets over his bombing career and seemed to be advising the students to take a similar path. He was very proud of the fact that his wife, Bernadine Dohrn was part of the leadership of the Weather Underground, has a long history of arrests and finally did spend several months in jail.

He recommended absolutely nothing constructive. How to study for a profession, learn a trade, make an honest living, start a family, participate within the political system and try to change it within the law. None of these archaic establishment ideas were presented. He also managed to make a pitch for the Left’s ridiculous, scientifically denied “global warming.”

Ayers must be very proud of his star pupil, Barack Obama, who is doing a fine job of destroying the United States of America in every possible way — economically, politically, militarily and obliterating its aura as an exceptional nation and a force with which to be reckoned.

What did Dinesh D’Souza say? He rightfully paid no attention whatever to Ayers rambling dissertation that could only appeal to naive first and second year college students. He instead made a genuine attempt to stay on topic as to What makes America Great.

D’Souza presented, with his brilliant mind, an unusual concept. He said the unique contribution of America to the world was the “Creation of Wealth”. Somehow, no previous nation in history has ever concerned itself with allowing the common man to make a decent living and to genuinely participate and develop the wealth of the nation in which he lived.

Quite the opposite — the little guy has always been kept down. D’Souza described his India where lump-teen classes of society were created and climbing up from one to the other was virtually impossible — little different from the apartheid state of South Africa. What about the Czars of Russia, the various European Kings, the Kings, Queens, Noblemen of England, France? Were they concerned with “creating wealth’’ or prosperity for their common man? To my mind that is indeed the basis of how this country became great and D’Souza hit the nail right on the head.

D’Souza did disappoint me badly in one area.

At the end of the question and answer session some sick little pip squeak got up and launched into the usual spew of Jew Hatred declaring that Israel was an apartheid state and the Arabs were a persecuted minority and lived as second class citizens. His motive was transparent — the Jew Hater’s and far Left’s supreme goal of destroying the Jewish nation.

It was a terrific moment for William Ayers who immediately jumped on the pip squeak’s band wagon echoing his words saying that Israel was indeed an apartheid state and why should we support them.

I know that D’Souza understands and greatly appreciates the importance of Israel to US interests and democratic philosophy and vice versa. Unfortunately, he presented a very weak, apologetic defensive response to the little pip squeak.

He did say that Israel is our best friend in the Middle East; that the Arabs declared Israel as the little Satan while the US is the Big Satan and both were destined to destruction by the Arabs, the Muslims and the haters of the world.

But, then he backed off and explained to the audience that the US was just picking the lesser of evils. How dare he? Is he really that stupid. I doubt it. He relegated Israel as the lesser of evils thus placing the Israelis in the same general category as the Muslims and Arabs who are directly responsible for the death of thousands of American soldiers while Israel saves American lives through their shared intelligence and military prowess every hour of the day.

D’Souza did not, nor did anyone in the audience, refute the obvious lie of the pip squeak. 1.6 million Arabs, roughly 20% of the population are full citizens and have full voting rights in Israel. They now have currently 12 members of the total of 120 in the Knesset (The legislative body of the Israeli government) to protect their rights. The Arabs have full access to all of Israel’s many social services and take overwhelming advantage. As to apartheid state, Miss Israel is a gorgeous black Ethiopian whose parents escaped to Israel and the harassment and killing of Jews in virtually all Arab countries. The 800,000 Jews that had lived for centuries there as second class citizens, were driven out penniless, their property confiscated. The few Jews left have no voting rights, no civilian rights and the thought of a representative in the government is laughable. They are afraid to even walk the streets.

As to Israel “occupying Arab land” That is another gross lie since the Israelites were a nation in Israel over 1600 years before Mohammed was even born!

As to US aid to Israel. Israel pays back every dollar and is the best bargain the US ever had. Israel is saving American lives contributing to the American economy in thousands of ways every day of the week. One admiral years ago described Israel as a virtual US aircraft carrier at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean and much more.

D’Souza failed to say all that even though I am sure he knows it, In a moment of weakness he may have just been catering to his Left leaning student audience.

But, never mind all that. How did the debate turn out? I am not so sure. It seemed as if many in the young, unworldly, naive bright faces were buying into Ayers descriptions of nothing but falsehood, evil, revenge, hatred, jealousy and defeatism . How long will it take for them to shake off the likes of the Wm Ayers and Barack Obamas of the world plus the thousands of other academics that brain wash them against the very country that furnishes the great largess that few of these same academics deserve?

I hope not too long. Dinesh D’Souza believes we are on a downward slope right now.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Obama Goes Through the Motions

By Jonathan S. Tobin

January 28, 2014

There was plenty of big talk in the 2014 State of the Union address. President Obama exhorted Americans to accept his baseless claim that the economy is reviving and urged them to believe his jarringly upbeat view of the nation’s future. He tried to sound assertive as he vowed to use executive orders to get his way if Congress didn’t give him what he wanted. He touted ObamaCare. And he closed with an inspiring story of a wounded Army Ranger.

But there’s no mistaking that this was a speech given by a president mired in second-term doldrums. There were not only a total of zero new ideas; almost everything in it was recycled from past addresses including a grimly risible vow to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that he has kept open throughout his presidency even though he’s been promising to close it since 2008.

Although everything in this message was poll-tested and designed to be popular, this State of the Union (SOTU) did nothing but reinforce the impression that the president is mechanically going through the motions. The press had been prepped to believe the president would come out swinging tonight, defying Congress and vowing to seize the reins of government into his own hands. But what the country heard instead was confirmation of what many had already suspected after a disastrous 2013 for the president: he has passed over the historic bridge from celebrated re-election to the status of an irrelevant lame-duck.

Virtually every item in the president’s speech had been heard before and introduced with greater passion and urgency in the past. Everything on his long, dreary laundry list had a tired feel to it, showing the country and the world that his only answer to the nation’s problems is to continue recycling the timeworn and ineffective policies that he’s been peddling for five years.

All his proposals were cribbed from the 2013 State of the Union including calls to address income inequality, raise the minimum wage, invest in solar energy, universal pre-kindergarten, and student loans. But the difference between the two speeches could be measured not simply in terms of the mind-numbing number of tedious repetitions, but in the drab, lethargic affect the president projected as he droned on.

Last year he managed to convey the liberal agenda with confidence and urgency. That energy was completely lacking in tonight’s speech. After a year of scandals and a disastrous rollout of his signature health-care plan—whose problems were never once mentioned in the speech—the president seems unable to muster the requisite emotional enthusiasm or the intellectual firepower to challenge or inspire the nation.

As to specifics, the much-trumpeted “year of action” on inequality was merely a rehash of the same proposals that have already been rejected. The only new idea he presented was an absurd call for all employers to give their employees raises, a shameless populist appeal that makes no economic sense. The man who promised to turn back the oceans and remake America is now reduced to an utterly pathetic plea that America should get a raise. Even the talk of governing by executive orders was delivered more as a talking point than a genuine appeal for change.

On foreign policy, his strongest words were delivered in a threat to veto new economic sanctions on Iran that he thinks will upset his diplomatic outreach to the Islamist regime. His drive for détente with Iran—bolstered by false claims about inspections and Iran destroying its uranium stockpile—seems to fire him up but his chutzpah in proclaiming Syria—where he endured total humiliation in 2013—as a triumph for his policies shows just how shockingly removed from reality this administration has become.

With three years to go, there is still plenty of time for Obama to continue spinning his wheels on a health-care plan that is a fiasco and proposals such as the minimum wage that will only serve to increase unemployment. But tonight made clear that there is nothing new left in his bag of tricks. The sounds you’re hearing now, and will for the next three years, are the querulous quacks of a very lame duck.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: , , , , , , ,

Share This Post

Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs Newsletter

Redacted from a much longer, and his usual eloquent address, by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
January 28, 2014

Speaking at the seventh conference in The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) annual series “Security Challenges of the 21st Century,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed three principal issues: Iran, the Palestinian issue, and the global economic challenge.

“Thank you for the opportunity to discuss several of the larger challenges we face, some of the largest ever faced by the state of Israel. There are three such challenges, or at least three which I wish to discuss: Iran, the political process vis-à-vis the Palestinians and the global economy.

With regard to Iran, although there is internal dissent in Iran about the allocation of resources — how much comes in, how much goes out — there is no dissension in the Iranian regime, which continues to be controlled by Ayatollah Khamanei. There is no dissension, first about its aspirations to obtain military nuclear capability and there is also no dissension regarding the goal of erasing the State of Israel from the Earth. They say it all the time domestically of course, and occasionally also internationally.

Iran “remains close to nuclear weapons,” it must be understood that there are three stations when producing nuclear weapons, in manufacturing the fissile material needed for nuclear weapons: producing enriched uranium at a level of 3.5%, uranium enriched to 20% and finally a quick jump to uranium enriched to 90%, which is the level needed for a weapon.

What the Iranians did, and this is what the agreement determined is that they would return the train to the first station, but at the same time, they are upgrading the engine and strengthening it so that they will be able to break through all at once, without any stations in the middle, straight to 90%.

The agreement made in Geneva is not a good agreement — it is a bad agreement. In our estimation, this agreement delayed Iran by six weeks — no more — from where they were before, and therefore the test was and remains the final agreement, if such an agreement is achieved, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

Of course, Iran is trying to fool the West; it makes all kinds of statements and claims. You heard Rouhani in Davos recently. He said, for example, that they object to any intervention in Syria at a time when they are up to their necks in Syria. In fact, they are propping up Assad’s regime. They actively participate in the mass slaughter there. He said they object to harming the innocent; in Iran hundreds of people every year are executed. Most of them are innocent, including dozens of people who were hung there last week. You would undoubtedly define most of them as innocent. They were executed.

He speaks of free access to technology; that’s what Rouhani said in Davos at a time when Iran is denying its citizens to surf on the internet freely. And of course, he repeated his statement that Iran does not seek to obtain nuclear weapons, that it only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran has directly invested at least 40 billion dollars in its nuclear facilities and nuclear program, and an additional 140 billion dollars as the cost of the sanctions. A country does not invest nearly 200 billion dollars in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes when it is so rich in other sources of natural energy.

Now of course the Iranian threat is not just an unconventional threat; it is also a conventional threat which mainly focuses on missiles and rockets brought to the Iranian enclave which surrounds us, in an attempt to strangle us from two sides, from Lebanon and from Gaza.

We want to ensure that in the political negotiations with the Palestinians, we achieve two goals: one, we don’t want, I don’t want a binational state. I think that in this, I reflect the will of most citizens of Israel. And second, we do not want another country to be established here under Iran’s sponsorship that fires missiles and rockets at us or that launches terror attacks on us. We need to achieve both these goals, not just one of them — both of them.

The Americans are working to formulate the American positions. But I would like to emphasize that they are not Israeli positions, but rather American ones. Israel does not have to agree to anything the Americans present, but we insist on two fundamental things. The first is, of course, recognition of the Jewish State or the nation-state of the Jewish people. I would like to explain the reason for our insistence on this issue, because it is at the root of the conflict. This conflict has gone on for nearly 100 years. The date I choose to mark for its beginning is 1920, 1921 – one year after my late grandfather arrived in Jaffa. When he arrived, he made his way to the Jewish immigration office. In 1921, rioting Palestinian Arabs attacked that office; they attacked in Jaffa. There were no settlers there; there were no settlers as they are defined today. There were no territories. There was a basic objection to any Jewish presence, an opposition that grew and resulted in the attacks in 1929 in Hebron and of course the great riots of 1936-1939.

This struggle, which continued through the War of Independence and afterwards until 1967 – this struggle was not over the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Those were in Arab hands. This struggle was against the very existence of the Jewish state, against Zionism or any geographic expression of it, any State of Israel in any border.

The conflict is not over these territories; it is not about settlements; and it is not about a Palestinian state either. The Zionist movement agreed to recognize a Palestinian state during the partition plan, and various governments also agreement later on to recognize a Palestinian state. But this conflict has gone on because of one reason: the stubborn opposition to recognize the Jewish state, the nation-state of the Jewish people. To end the conflict, they must recognize that in our land, this land, in the Jewish homeland, there are two peoples.

We cannot be sure that this recognition would take root in Palestinian society which has experienced and continues to experience methodical incitement against Jews and the Jewish state. And that is why there must also be robust security arrangements. These security arrangements must also include long-term Israel Defense Forces (IDF) presence along the Jordan River and other security arrangements that fundamentally rest on the State of Israel, the IDF and Israel’s defense system.

The most condensed version of the formula for a peace agreement with the Palestinians is a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. I cannot tell you this arrangement will take place.

I said there was a third challenge and that was the global economy. We are in the age of knowledge, in an outburst of knowledge, and the economy is globalized. This provides the State of Israel with a tremendous opportunity. Not only do we produce more knowledge-based products per capita at the highest level in the world, we can do more. Even in absolute terms, our technological product is large, even very large. For example, in the cyber field, we create approximately 50 times more than our relative size. That means that the State of Israel has the same weight as a country with a population of 400 million in terms of these products, and that provides us with an opportunity, alongside the development of the global economy, to reach many more markets that would have been very hard to reach if it were not for these two trends, globalization and technology, especially the internet.

I do not know how many of you were at the cyber conference we held yesterday. It was pioneering. There were 1,500 people there, including the most advanced companies in the world in this field — and they did not come here because of our beautiful eyes, nor did they come because of any kind of political consideration. They came, they told me, for three reasons — those same three reasons I am given with I meet with the leaders of China or of Mexico or of other countries, as I did recently.

They want three things: Israeli technology, Israeli technology and Israeli technology. They know what they want. Our advantage in this field, I believe, results from unique reasons that created a crystal of tremendous technological capabilities here, and we must continue to nurture it.

The reasons are, first of all, our military needs which created special capabilities in the ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES (IDF) and the security branches; our excellent universities – I am at one of them — our research institutions; our special culture, which is connected to the fact that we always ask questions. This tradition burst forth after the French Revolution and the fall of the ghetto walls into new fields, fields like science, mathematics, physics and chemistry. The results of this are clear.

Let me touch on China. China is very interested in Israeli technology, to say the least. We think we can gain a small share of a huge market, which for a country with eight million citizens can help us a great deal. This is an opportunity which exists and there are other opportunities with China.

China must still move a significant portion of its goods for the next 20 years to central markets in the West, including Europe. These goods still must move there physically. 95%-98% of them come by sea, a significant portion of that through the Suez Canal, and we are building a valve in the form of a train that would connect the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, between Eilat, Aqaba to Ashdod and Tel Aviv. This is a land connection between Asia and Europe and between Europe and Asia, and then there will be a passenger train that will allow you to travel from here, from Tel Aviv to Eilat in two hours.

If there are two huge engines driving the global economy today, the first is the rise of Asia, first and foremost China; and the second is the rise of the internet. I made the decision to ease the exportation of Israeli cyber companies. There are now several hundred and their numbers continue to increase — half of them didn’t even exist four years ago. We are in a position where we can transform Israel into a world power in technology.

Let me say a few words about the Israel Defense Forces, especially about the members of the regular army. Everything we are describing: these tremendous opportunities alongside dealing with the dangers lurking at our doorstep and the desire on the one had to prevent the dangers of a nuclear Iran and terror, while on the other hand ensuring a stable agreement with the Palestinians – our entire existence depends on the IDF. It also depends on many other factors, but first and foremost it depends on the IDF, and the core that leads the IDF is the regular army and the regular army has recently suffered irresponsible attacks.

In order to sustain a regular army, in order to achieve the goals of repelling the threats we face and advancing the secure peace at the same time — this obligates a very strong army. I do not see a situation in which we will not need a very strong army and an additional security system — including the Mossad and the Shin Bet – in the coming years. We will also need special cyber capabilities. All this necessitates a great deal of money. We will not get this money through contributions and handouts. It will come from the development of that same economic capability in a global economy and the economy of tomorrow. We are developing it with the goal of reaching our main target: the Jewish state.

Thank you very much.”

Complete speech at:



Powered by Facebook Comments