Read More About:

Share This Post

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Following are Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks at the state memorial ceremony for victims of terror, which was held today (Wednesday, 11 May 2016) at Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem:

“Yesterday, a very moving ceremony took place at the Knesset, during which they sang Chaim Nahman Bialik’s wonderful song Take Me Under Your Wing. In this song, he says: ‘People say there is love in the world. What is love?’ And then onto the stage comes, Ahava [love], the young daughter of Dafna Meir, who was murdered by a miscreant in front of her children as she protected them. And little Ahava provided a response, no less wonderful, to what great love is – a mother’s love which Dafna showered upon her, and saturated her in throughout the few years they spent together. This love will help Ahava throughout her life, and will be missed at the significant moments of her life. The pain is immense.

As a son of a bereaved family, I feel your anguish with every fiber of my body. As a citizen of Israel, I share your grief, and as Prime Minister, I stand by you and commend you for your endurance.

We are fighting a national battle. It has been raging for over 100 years. Throughout our history, each generation has suffered under the hands of murderers, and sadly, each generation knew bereavement and orphanhood, despair and grief. Each generation was charged with withstand the test, and all generations survived.

I have been pondering the word hatred. It is not part of our people’s tradition; it is not one of our characteristics. In the history of Israel, the word has been used to describe hatred toward us for religious, social, economic and national reasons. We do not wave the flag of hatred. We raise the banner of brotherhood and extend our hand in peace to the nations of the world and to our neighbors. ‘Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.’ Who wrote that? Who introduced this idea to humanity if not our prophets? And this ideal continues to guide our generation, but our enemies refuse to accept our presence here. They see each and every one of us, whether in uniform or not, Jews and non-Jews alike, as a target. They attack mothers with children, they attack children, adults, the elderly – like the attack that happened only yesterday. They are bloodthirsty as a result of blind hatred and uninhabited incitement.

The terms are different, but the motives are the same. In the past year we have been calling the attacks lone-wolf terrorism, which is a supposedly a new concept in Israel. But terrorist attacks occur and reoccur, they wash over us in waves, and over time they take on a new form. This year too, we lost beloved people, and each incident is a tragedy that breaks our heart. It breaks the hearts of the families first, but the heart of the nation too. A father and son on their way to the celebratory Shabbat before a wedding ambushed and murdered in a shooting attack; a young women shouting for help in an alley in Jerusalem as her husband tries to fight off the terrorist and is eventually murdered in front of her eyes; and a group of Israelis on a tour in Istanbul who also fell victims to fundamental Islamic terrorism, which has no borders.

But it is on this day that – from the abyss of endless sadness, from the depths of darkness – the powers of life within us are revealed. Our mutual accountability is exhibited at the scenes of the attacks, as people hurry to help those being threatened, often with nothing but their bare hands and at great personal risk.

We continue the mission of those murdered, we continue their legacy. We have discovered the exceptional personalities of each and every one of them: nobility, charity, kindness, spirit, wonderful qualities that influenced those around them. I visit the families, I try to visit them all, and hear about these people after their deaths, and I am always amazed by our people. And for that reason, terrorism will persist.

The prophet Micah said: ‘Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy; though I am fallen, I shall arise.’ That is the message. I have fallen and I have arisen. We arise every time, after the Shiva, the week of mourning, and we stand with them. We are increasing our hold on our land; our determination to overcome those who wish to kill us and to get our own on them is undeniable.

My dear brothers and sisters, this is a difficult day. The wounds reopen. I believe, and the entire nation prays, that you will find the strength to heal the wounds and grow new tissue over them.

You are not alone. The love of the nation and its unity is with you. We find comfort in building of our country and in the glimmers of light left by our loved ones. I send heartfelt wishes for a speedy recovery to all the wounded, and may you know no more sorrow.

May the memory of the victims of terror forever dwell in our hearts.”

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Memories of an American Jewess that made aliyah to Israel over 50 years ago. II Donald Trump already knows about Israel!
Trump added “You have hundreds and I guess thousands of missiles being launched into Israel. Who would put up with that? Who would stand for it?” he added.

The miracle of our return to our homeland and heritage

By Yehudit Tayar

A few days ago, we, the Nation of Israel sobbed in memory of 6 million of our people including more than 1.5 million children who perished in the Holocaust.

Next week we will remember our brave defenders who fell and the victims of terror who were murdered – but we do not only remember them then- not the victims of the hatred that led to the murder of so many millions of our Nation- nor our loved ones who fell defending our heritage and our loved ones who were murdered because we are Jewish.

This is something that we live through our entire lives. And the importance of these memorial days directly before the celebrations of Independence Day is not by chance.

The hatred against us is just as intense now and the continued attempts to annihilate us are as motivated and encouraged now as back then with the added lies and propaganda of the media, the UN and so many other sources.

We are blessed to be here in our Land. We are blessed to be able to defend our heritage and we will never stray from this responsibility not only for us here – but for Jews no matter where they are.

We never imagined that we would have the privilege of bearing witness to the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. Those dreams seemed to be unreachable, and yet we have returned to the mountains of Jerusalem, to the ancient site of the City of David, to the path of our forefathers from Hevron to Shechem.

Each of us who lived through 1967 and the excitement of the feeling of awe and disbelief that we actually not only survived this war, but actually returned to reclaim our heritage, will never forget those days. Or will we? Is it only some of us who realize the miracle that we received?

When did Jerusalem become real estate? When did our history become negotiable? When did the governments of Israel begin to ignore our historical heritage and reward the murderers of our people who proclaim their intent to destroy our country?

I, for one, will never forget my first visit to Jerusalem on the first Tisha B’Av (ninth of Av, a day of mourning for the Jewish people throughout our history) following the Six Day War. Back then the Western Wall was almost buried with rubbish, the narrow strip allowing us to approach this part of our once glorious Temple was too small to hold the masses pushing to get closer – to touch – to reach – to kiss the stones, and leave perhaps a small note in the cracks.

Even today after so many years and so many blessed visits to Jerusalem my heart is lifted when I travel the path to the Kotel, when I see the return of our people to the City and to the Cave of Machpela in Hevron. For me it is not something to take for granted but, on the contrary to cherish, love and appreciate the miracle that we have been given; the return of our people to these Holy Sites.

I also am unable to forget the so called “Auschweitz Borders” of Israel as Haim Herzog called the pre-1967 borders of Israel. How can the governments of Israel allow themselves to forget? How can these politicians who are so wrapped up in their own ambitions endanger not only these treasures, but indeed our very existence?

We, the simple people who have returned to the ancient homeland of our forefathers have carved out a new history for our Nation. We have returned to the hills and plains of our Land, built thriving communities, raised families and now the fourth generation is continuing to build and reclaim our Land.

The incredible nerve of politicians to collaborate with the enemy, allow dissidents to roam freely throughout our Land, and on the other hand instruct the police to arrest loyal Jewish citizens for even merely planning demonstrations is not only unbelievable – it is unacceptable.

Our enemies openly sell t-shirts in the Moslem market in the Old City of Jerusalem decorated with the PLO flag and in bold print saying, “LIBERATE PALESTINE”. (Palestine to them is the entire State of Israel.)

This, while Jewish property is destroyed, Jewish residents of Yesha (Judea and Samaria (“West Bank by the Goyim -literal and figurative) are banned from their homes and families and are imprisoned.

What happened here? Where is the backbone of our Nation? Where are our people?
The answer is really more simple than is thought – we, the simple Jews, living in the many communities throughout the Biblical Land of Yesha are the answer. We are not afraid of looking back to our history in order to move on to ensure the future of the Jewish people in our Land.

We and our children are the hope for that future and we have the “emunah” – strong belief – in the absolute right of our people to continue to lay claim to our beloved Land. We are determined, no matter what, to fight for this – with the planting of our trees, building of our homes, educating our children in the direction we know must be taken.

We are absolutely determined because we know that governments rise and governments fall – but the Land stays. Those weak politicians along with our enemies may plan to destroy the miracles we received, but our faith is in the eternal promise given to our people by G-d HIMSELF and we know that it is up to us to ensure the fulfillment of this promise.

No matter how many times we are threatened, beaten, arrested, no matter how many one-sided agreements made by the destructive governments of Israel, we must continue to fight on, and in the end we shall continue to live the miracle of our return to our homeland and heritage. We will not forget the miracle we received and will do all we can to protect this gift forever.

Yehudit Tayar is a veteran spokesperson for the Jewish pioneers in Yesha, lives with her husband Ami and family in Bet Horon Shomron

II Donald Trump catches on quickly: Trump: Israel should keep building West Bank settlements

Republican front-runner rejects construction freeze as precursor to peace talks with Palestinians, blasts ‘devastating’ Gaza rocket fire into Israel

From article BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 4, 2016, 1:53 am 28

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, interviewed by the Daily Mail on May 3, 2016.

Trump wins Indiana, closes in on GOP nominationTrump says he will try to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace deal

Israel should keep building settlements in the West Bank, Republican front-runner

Donald Trump said on Tuesday, linking construction to the continued rocket threat that Israel faces from the Gaza Strip and which has seen it drawn into three wars against Hamas-run Gaza in recent years.

In an interview with the British Daily Mail on Tuesday, Trump said there should be no pause in settlement construction, a position at odds with that of the Obama administration …

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I  ‘Never Trump’ ringleader plots GOP surprise

It’s looking more and more like the Republican elites in Washington will have to be talked down off the ledge, now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the party.

Redacted from an article by Cheryl Chumley

World Net Daily (WND)

March 5, 2016

Donald Trump may have cleared the nomination path of other Republican presidential candidates, but to Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard – and one of the neoconservative movement’s biggest names and loudest voices – the billionaire businessman is still a no-go who ought to be overtaken by a third-party person.

Bill Kristol wrote a letter:

The letter, in part, read:

“TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward … If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together. … [M] voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that ‘although Trump is terrible,’ we ‘have to’ support him, ‘because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.’ This open letter aims simply to ask ‘WHY is that the only choice?’”

In answer to a question about whether Trump could ever win his support, Kristol said: “For me, it’s more a matter of character. I don’t know that you can change your character at age 69, and given the things he’s said even very recently about other people, the way he demeans other people. But I mean, I guess never say never. On the one hand, I’ll say never Trump, and on the other hand, I’ll say never say never and I’ll leave it ambiguous.”

And on CNN, also earlier this week, host Jake Tapper asked Kristol nearly point blank if he’d rather vote for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton than Trump. And Kristol’s response?

“I’m not with Trump, but I’m not with [Clinton], so I’m looking for an independent candidate. I think there – Ben Sasse, Senator from Nebraska, very bright, young, promising senator has said he can’t support Donald Trump and he doesn’t want to support Hillary Clinton. Let Ben Sasse run, he can take Nikki Haley, the governor of South Carolina, who would not accept being Trump’s vice-presidential candidate. Maybe she would like to run with Sasse, they can argue about which order to have the ticket in. So, I’m saying right here on CNN, Sasse, Haley, Haley, Sasse, they’re both fine with me. No, I would like there to be an independent Republican candidate because I can’t support Trump, and I can’t support Clinton.”

II Response to Kristol

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Spiro Agnew, infamous resigned Vice President under Richard Nixon, coined a phrase that I have never forgotten –  “effete intellectual snobs.” He originated that term for those that opposed the Viet Nam war.

Agnew was a staunch defender of the Vietnam War, so naturally he had to take a swipe at the protesters.

He characterized them as people who “overwhelm themselves with drugs and artificial stimulants.”

He went on to say:

“Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim rather than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated in a contemporary antagonism known as ‘The Generation Gap.’ A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Recent “establishment Republicans”  lend a new use to the term “effete intellectual snobs”.

Kristol, of course, qualifies. Then just a couple of days ago, we were treated to Paul Ryan’s  (Republican House leader)  outrageous disloyal politically stupid recent remarks and the comments of other declared establishment Republicans disowning Donald Trump, proudly proclaiming they would not vote for him and would try to find a third candidate.

Ryan too qualifies for Spiro Agnew’s phrase, along with other disenfranchised public figures, desperate defeated politicians and others jealous of Trump’s overwhelming success and fearful of their own little niche in the Republican Party and on the national scene.

Quickly come to mind many of the losers: Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Laura Bush, Presidents Bush 41, 43 choose to remain silent rather the automatic praise presented for the Republican nominee, Chas. Krauthammer, George Will — with no shortage of other effete intellectual snobs.

What exactly are they all doing except presenting their damning spleen, jealousy and supposed defense of a Party that was a complete loser in the last two Presidential elections abjectly failed to stop the relentless march by Obama who deftly engineered American military, economic and  political defeat all over the word.

These people should be ecstatic with the arrival of Donald Trump who has, for the first time in over a decade awakened the American Public and given the Republicans a fighting chance. But, these elitists snobs, offended by Trump’s manners, lack of political correctness, his unimpressed view of the abilities of those opposing him and politicians whose actions have contributed mightily to the demise of the United States are not supportive of Donald Trump.

Never mind all that. These losers are hell bent on snatching defeat from what could be an overwhelming defeat of Hillary Clinton. Hopefully, Donald Trump and American John Q Public are too quick and too smart for them.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment







Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Finally, I went tilt. All these months I have been stomaching the Palm Beach Post —pretending that it is a politically informative and objective newspaper.

In fact, in each daily paper the Post goes so far as to have a specific page entitled Balanced Views. Under that master heading are two different equally sized 1/2 page columns proudly listed as From the Left and From the Right respectively.

How wonderful! Right! Only one problem, the column on the Left is written by dedicated, over the top, card-caring Leftists while those writing on the Right  do not seem to understand  the designation given to them, tongue in cheek, by the Post.

Instead,  those on the Right use their columns to berate the Republican Party with concerted direct attacks on the Party’s  presumptive nominee for President —Donald Trump.

The Post is also kind enough to diligently list those columnists weekly that will appear as Right or Left.

For the Left is listed at the moment:

Paul Klugman – columnist New York Times who has been called, “The Prophet of Socialism who has been consistently wrong.” His March 28 column was titled, Cruz Policies out on fringe – as those of GOP elite.

Mary Sanchez  – Long time columnist for KC Star. On Oct 28, 2014 Columnist Judy Thomas wrote of Sanchez:. In her never-ending zeal to bludgeon the Catholic Church … She is also an ardent feminist that routinely “bludgeons” Donald Trump as arrogant, encourages physical violence and loathes woman — No less than one would expect from a consistent Leftist.

Maureen Dowd – called by columnist Ariel Levy “the most dangerous columnist in America—on her own, very female terms.” She also spends a great deal of her columns ragging on Donald Trump. Her column April 6. 2016 began a hatchet job with the title, Trump keeps on doing things his way and only his way

Thomas Friedman If you really want to despise someone, this guy is a perfect candidate — arrogant, factually distorting and politically manipulative in his reporting. He is also a life-long self hating Jew who invariably takes the Arab side against the Israelis — whatever the dispute.

More on the list of the Post’s dedicated Left-wing columnists include Leonard Pitts, E. J. Dionne Jr and Gail Collins. Is there any dispute as to their political identity?

On the other side of the page are those supposedly on the Right.

What strikes my eye immediately are the names of the renown Chas. Krauthammer and his buddy George Wills. Whatever thinking to the Right these men may have had in the past is now overwhelmed by their intense hatred of Donald Trump. Anyone truly to the right would immediately understand that the alternate to Trump will be Hillary Clinton. Criticizing Trump is thus a path only leading to the continuation of the nationally suicidal policies of Barack Hussein Obama enhanced by the gargantuan personal greed for money and power of the Clintons.

Examples of the Krauthammer/Wills about-face that have appeared in the Post:

Krauthammer’s columns

April 30, 2016 “The World according to Trump is a confusing place”

April 9, 2016 “Trump vs. Cruz has GOP headed for train wreck”


George Will’s  columns are truly astounding for one designated to the Right:

George Will tells Fox News the GOP should nominate Merrick Garland because God only knows “who Trump might put on the Court”

George Will unloads on “coward” Trump:  This Conservative icon calls him “a presidential aspirant who would flunk an eighth-grade civics exam”

George Will May 1, 2016:  Conservatives must fight Trump (and lose the election) With Eye to Future


The other great disappointment supposedly on the Right is Mona Charens.

Charens  seemed to know what is truly going on in the political world.  As a matter of fact, earlier in her career, she was the author of two best-sellers:

Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (2003)
Do-Gooders: How Liberals Harm Those They Claim to Help – and the Rest of Us (2005).

I don’t know what happened since then to Charen except maybe she finds presenting the views of the Left or alternately criticizing the Right is a far better way to increase the number of newspapers carrying her syndicated column and thus a better way to pay the bills. Some of her recent columns in the Post include:

Trump’s vicious character isn’t reflective of a leader.
Why are GOP candidates talking about GW Bush?
Why Trump likes bullies like Corey Lewandowski

The list of other suspect supposedly Right wing columnists featured by the Post include: David Brooks of the New York Times, Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, Ross Douthat of the NY Times. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post. The very fact that these people work at the NY Times and Washington Post is glaring evidence enough of their suspect identity as being on the Right.

As a result of all of the above —The Post, in its carefully delivered approach, has it both ways – Promoters for the Left appear on the Left column and Critics of the Right appear in the Right column! So, where indeed, are the opinions of those really on the Right?

How convenient and effective with the uninformed, naive reader.

Then, let the uninformed reader beware. Become more informed and carefully weigh the source of these confusing conflicting designations before swallowing the bait so cleverly presented.


Redacted from multiple sources

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher
Israel Commentary



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Monica Crowley

The Washington Times – April 13, 2016

As to the lyin’  “documentary” on Clarence Thomas

In its war for America, the left never rests, sometimes falters but rarely allows itself to fail. It works tirelessly to “fundamentally transform the nation” and smashes anyone and anything that gets in its way.

Consider the pitched battle it has waged against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over the past quarter-century. Instead of celebrating and honoring a black man who rose from grinding poverty in the segregated South to sit on the nation’s highest court, the left sees an existential threat: a black pro-life, pro-gun conservative who has spent his life crushing leftist orthodoxy. He must, therefore, not simply be opposed, but destroyed, regardless of how long it takes.

The left’s latest attack is “Confirmation,” a “dramatization” of his tumultuous 1991 confirmation hearings, premiering April 16 on HBO.

Key players in the real-life drama, including Senators. Al Simpson and John Danforth as well as a White House lawyer on Judge Thomas‘ team, Mark Paoletta, have called drafts of the script they had seen “dishonest” and a “seriously distorted” version of the actual events.

Anita Hill, who accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment, has re-emerged to refresh her egregious claims of victimhood. And Justice Thomas must endure yet another round of character assassination and ideological demonization.

In October 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee was expecting an easy confirmation process for Justice Thomas, who as a top Reagan administration official, had been previously vetted by the FBI and confirmed by the Senate four times.

Once Ms. Hill’s charges were published, however, the committee was forced to extend the hearings to include a public discussion of her allegations. This, of course, was central to the left’s plan to torpedo his nomination, the way it succeeded in doing four years earlier to Judge Robert Bork. Once it had Judge Bork’s scalp, its appetite was whetted for another.

The inquiry into Ms. Hill’s charges became a defining moment for the Senate institutionally, for “women’s issues” culturally and for the abortion issue politically.

Having created that synthetic moment, the left then followed its standard modus operandi: use a pretext, in this case “sexual harassment,” to smear and destroy. It tried to discredit a brilliant, accomplished and decent man in order to attack his conservative ideology, which it could not permit to be represented on the court by yet another justice.

As the hearings proceeded, an unflattering portrait of the accuser emerged. She appeared to be a woman of uneven temperament, with left-wing political biases, a history of cavalierly charging sexual harassment, and a reputation for dishonesty and dissembling.

Once it became apparent that her story didn’t add up, the left tried to fuzz up the hearings with irrelevancies and chaos. At one point, Mr. Thomas, the best witness for his own defense, described the proceedings as “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks,” a brutally honest summation of his persecution as a pawn in a great power struggle.

On Oct. 14, the day before the vote, Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden stopped two of Justice Thomas‘ witnesses outside the hearing room and told them that he believed him, not Ms. Hill.

The American people agreed with him. By a two-to-one margin in most polls, the public, which watched the hearings unfiltered by the liberal press machine, overwhelmingly believed Justice Thomas over Ms. Hill. They determined that she failed to provide evidence to support her claims, and they separated the facts of this particular case from sexual harassment as a general issue.

Mr. Thomas went on to be confirmed by the full Senate and continues to serve with distinction on the court.

The venom of the left’s assault lingers, however. The hearings triggered a national discussion about sexual harassment when they should have also alerted the American people of the extent to which people and institutions were being laid waste by the vicious ideological war waged by the left.

The leftists lost the battle over Justice Thomas, but they wasted little time before they regrouped and planned for future orchestrated clashes. The Thomas spectacle would presage their relentless battles against President George W. Bush, support for the fierce leftism of President Obama, and the radical activism of groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

They fight a ceaseless war against the Constitution, free-market economic principles, traditional values, limited government and individual freedom. It is a war to destroy the very pillars of American exceptionalism and replace them with those of collectivism, command economics and rule by the privileged vanguard.

Justice Thomas happened to be caught in the ideological crossfire. The fact that leftists continue to attack him reminds us that their memories are long, their political ammunition is always fresh, and their battle never ends.

• Monica Crowley is editor of online opinion at The Washington Times.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

III See below and … Megyn Kelly is voting for Trump!!

Exclusive: Joseph Farah deflates argument that Clinton will crush GOP front-runner

Whistle Blower Magazine from World Net Daily

March 27, 2016

I continue to be amazed by those pundits who suggest Donald Trump can’t beat Hillary Clinton.

There are three principal reasons for such faulty conclusions:

These folks are working under the strictures of an old paradigm. That is the one that says Democrats start out with a base of unlosable states and electoral votes and need only to win two or more swing states.

Polls taken  before the Trump-Hillary campaign began

.Trump’s high negatives.
Let’s look at one big reason none of these factors will come into play after the conventions.

The success of Trump’s earth-shaking bid for the presidency to date is actually unprecedented in America’s modern political history.

Try to think of any figure in the last 100 years who burst onto the scene, having never sought political office, and made such an immediate impression – winning the passionate support of Republicans, independents and Democrats and so many primaries in diverse states to become the front-runner for the nomination of his party.

Immediately, some might say, “Well, he’s a billionaire who is self-funding his campaign!” That’s true. But it literally has nothing to do with his success. Why? Because he really hasn’t needed to spend any serious money to accomplish his objectives. In fact, several candidates who have dropped out of the running spent far more. You can’t point to a single victory by Trump in any state in which he spent more than his opponents.

Trump’s money simply hasn’t been a factor in his success. He hasn’t needed to spend it. That may be the most astonishing and revealing fact of this historic campaign so far. In other words, he’s saving it for Hillary!

Given what Trump has accomplished in what we call “earned” media, which is all free, what do you suppose he could do with $1 billion of his own money? Personally, I can’t even imagine.

But I can imagine the kind of legitimate attack ads that can be put together on Hillary. So far, she has not faced any real adversity except from her left flank. And she’s still floundering. There’s no enthusiasm for her. She can’t turn out crowd, and she can’t turn them on. Compare that to what Trump has mustered – record crowds, long voting lines, excitement and domination of the news delivered by people who despise him.

That’s the new paradigm I refer to above.

There’s simply never been a candidacy like this – deserved or not. And, remember, I say this as a Ted Cruz supporter.

That’s why the polls matching up Hillary versus Trump are meaningless today, as I’ve pointed out before. Just look back at the Ronald Reagan landslide of 1980 for the precedent. He was far behind Jimmy Carter in the polls at this stage of the campaign and won 44 states that year, including New York and California.

Trump has also demonstrated the ability to attract new voters – people who long ago dropped out of politics altogether because they were fed up with the choice between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. He has demonstrated his ability to win over die-hard Democrats. He has demonstrated his ability to win independents.

What about his high negatives?

Look at Hillary.

She is seen as dishonest. She is not likable. She has no accomplishments – in or out of politics – to cite. She’s not even scoring high among women.

The Trump versus Hillary matchup will be a very tough campaign. Who do you think is better positioned to slug it out? Has Hillary demonstrated an ability to win a national campaign? In 2008, she had everything going for her. The entire Democratic establishment was behind her then, too. But she couldn’t beat a new face with bigger promises. This year, she has struggled against Bernie Sanders, heretofore seen as a fringe old face.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Should Trump win the nomination, he will be positioned for a landmark drubbing of his opponent. It could be 1980 all over again.

II Yes, Donald Could Beat Hillary

Conventional wisdom says he has no chance. But what if he blows up all the old rules?


The Wall Street Journal
March 28, 2016

Leave it to Al Sharpton to come up with the most compelling analogy for Mr. Trump: another New York promoter.

“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” Mr. Sharpton told Politico earlier this year.

Mr. King, of course, was the wild-haired boxing promoter who put on epic fights that included the 1975 “Thrilla in Manila”—the third and final time Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali met in the ring. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. King was accused of links to organized crime, invoking the Fifth Amendment in a deposition to Senate investigators when asked. Like Mr. Trump too, Mr. King has been sued by a number of his former associates, including Mr. Ali.

Before Barack Obama, Mr. King even supported George W. Bush.

For years Mr. King dominated his industry by combining an outsize personality with a willingness to blow up the rules. It is a similar brashness and defiance of convention that make Mr. Trump such a wild card today, which also suggests why it’s probably premature to write him off for November—assuming he will be the Republican squaring off against Hillary Clinton.

Let’s run through the arguments:

• Mr. Trump has high negatives. Notwithstanding the manifest enthusiasm of Trump voters for their man, they often fail to appreciate that he may turn off more voters than he turns on. Real Clear Politics puts the average of his negatives at 63.2% That would help explain his failure thus far to break 50% in any Republican primary, and it justifies worries about how he’d fare among, say, Latinos and women come November.

But Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives too. Her own RCP average is 53.9%.

Whom would the voters regard as the lesser of two evils? A candidate who is dishonest and untrustworthy at a political moment when distrust of government is ascendant? Or a candidate who is crude and inexperienced at a time when the terrorists we face are organized and sophisticated.

David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign, has been warning Democrats not to take a Clinton victory for granted in the event Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee.

He has also consistently reminded Democrats that the coalition that sent Mr. Obama to the White House—including women, minorities and young voters—is not one Mrs. Clinton can take for granted. She needs to earn their support, he says. Right now the Bernie Sanders wins are highlighting some of her soft spots, including with young women.

• Mrs. Clinton will use her knowledge and experience to make Mr. Trump look like an ignorant yahoo. Maybe. But again there are two caveats.

First, presidential match ups do not score like Oxford Union debates, and Mr. Trump plays his own game. For example, when Mrs. Clinton was readying the sexist meme against him, Mr. Trump took it away from her by bringing up the Bill Cosby-style allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against hubby Bill Clinton.

Who’s to say he won’t do the same in the debates? (“Did Goldman Sachs pay you to say that, Hillary?”) No one can know how Mr. Trump would debate Mrs. Clinton—or how voters would react.

Equally to the point, though pundits give great weight to candidate debates, plainly voters do not. In 2004 John Kerry demolished George W. Bush in the first debate, and the next two were generally given to him on points. But he still lost the election.

• Mrs. Clinton is a formidable candidate. The truth is, we don’t know how Mrs. Clinton would fare in a no-holds-barred debate with a tough challenger—because she’s not faced one in this primary. From the way the Democratic super-delegates have been awarded, to the number and timing of debates, the entire primary season has been orchestrated to serve Mrs. Clinton’s interests by a party that is mostly in her pocket.

This is why the last man standing is an angry, white-haired socialist. And yet the former first lady still can’t put him away. What does it say about large dissatisfactions within the Democratic Party that this cranky old guy continues to pull out victories?

In the long stretch between now and Election Day, many events could affect the outcome. More terror attacks à la Brussels or San Bernardino. More setbacks in Iraq or Syria. More belligerence from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And of course maybe even a Hillary indictment. Does anyone think any of this will help Mrs. Clinton?

Sure, it’s possible the GOP front-runner will implode, just as it’s possible all those polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a double-digit lead over Mr. Trump will indeed come to pass. But some of us who never thought he would get this far are a little more reluctant to be so categorical about an election that is still six months away.

III Donald Trump Votes May Set This New Record
By Joe Scudder April 28, 2016

The number of Donald Trump votes is in reach of shattering Republican records.

The number of Donald Trump votes in the primaries is… (forgive me) HUGE.

With his five blowout wins Tuesday night, Donald Trump has passed Mitt Romney’s popular vote total from four years ago and is on a trajectory that could land him more Republican votes than any presidential candidate in modern history – by a lot.

Trump surged to more than 10 million votes, according to totals that include Tuesday’s preliminary results across the Northeast. That’s already about 250,000 more than Romney earned in the entire 2012 primary season and 153,000 more than John McCain earned in 2008.


That presents an uncomfortable reality for anti-Trump forces: they’re attempting to thwart the candidate who is likely to win more Republican primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years, and maybe ever.
Meanwhile, Democrat voter turnout is low. It has been declining over the last eight years.
The question facing conservative voters who oppose Trump is, as I wrote yesterday, should we hope all these voters are overruled at the Republican Convention in Cleveland, in favor of a candidate who does not draw as many votes?

A few days ago, Mitt Romney’s niece spoke to Megyn Kelly about why she, as a delegate, plans to stay loyal to Donald Trump. Notice her reasoning. Because there were record-setting numbers voting for Donald Trump in her state she doesn’t want to disenfranchise voters.


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Somehow I found it incongruous that the sudden death of Prince, a long recognized drug addict was investigated so thoroughly with an immediate autopsy and numerous experts on the scene to determine the cause of death while Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s  death under somewhat unusual circumstances, did not warrant such an autopsy?

Dr. Judy Melinek, a renown forensic pathologist commented immediately upon this lack of a Scalia autopsy in an article redacted below.

I Justice Scalia’s unexamined death points to a problem

By Dr. Judy Melinek

Dr. Judy Melinek is a forensic pathologist who performs autopsies for the Alameda County Sheriff Coroner’s Office in California

February 20, 2016

“When my husband called and told me the news that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died, the first question that came out of my mouth was, “Where?””Texas,” he said. I said,  “Oh no.”

Conspiracy theories surround Scalia’s death

I have been called to testify as a forensic pathology expert in many legal cases in Texas. I know about the laws that govern death investigation in that state.

It came as no surprise to me that Justice Scalia, found cold and pulseless in bed with a pillow “over his head,” was declared dead of natural causes without an autopsy being performed.

I was not shocked to hear that a Texas county justice of the peace agreed to issue the death certificate without visiting the death scene or seeing the body for herself!

When President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the local medical examiner, a trained and experienced forensic pathologist, wanted to perform an autopsy.

He was thwarted by the Secret Service, which followed the wishes of the President’s widow and flew the body out of state for an autopsy at a naval facility.

Even the Warren Commission report and thoroughgoing congressional hearings never put to rest the speculation that still surrounds John F. Kennedy’s death — and that death was indisputably a homicide, with an autopsy.

Scalia’s unexamined death will add to the conspiracy theory industrial complex. It didn’t need to be so, especially since Scalia’s pre-existing medical conditions make it likely that his death was a natural one.

Why is it that in a nation with the best medical technology in the world, we are still allowing a law enforcement official and a judge on the end of a telephone line to declare someone dead and pronounce the manner of death as natural without an autopsy?

It is the one and only scientific method for definitively determining the cause and manner of death. Even if this decedent weren’t a controversial and powerful national figure, he should have had an autopsy.

Why? Because whenever someone is dead in bed at a private residence with a pillow over his head, there is the possibility that the death was not a natural one.

Yes, Scalia had underlying medical conditions, but he did not have a known terminal illness. He was not expected to die at any moment.

His demise was, by definition, a sudden and unexpected death, and those are the types of deaths that fall under a coroner or medical examiner’s jurisdiction.

Though John Poindexter, the owner of the ranch and the man who found Scalia’s body, later stated that the pillow was against the headboard and “not over his face,” there still should have been a death scene investigation by trained personnel.

And there should have been an autopsy by a board-certified forensic pathologist. Instead, we have a marshal and the property owner calling up a justice of the peace, and everyone agreeing that there must have been “no foul play.” Even if there was no foul play, the lack of an autopsy still leaves too many open questions.

Had Scalia died in an urban center with a medical examiner’s office, he would have had a thorough and complete death investigation, including an independent review of his medical records, and an examination at the death scene.

His body would have been brought to the morgue, and at the very least, an external examination would have been performed by a licensed forensic pathologist.

Now that a murky, rushed death certification has marred the passing of one of the very highest legal figures in the United States, shouldn’t we do something about it?

II This lack of an autopsy on Justice Scalia quickly linked me to an article that I recently published in Israel Commentary, April 14, 2016 called:

A Startling Parade of “Fortuitous Coincident events” that ended with Barack Obama becoming President of the United States. Hmm…

This is no space to re-list all these events. Please read the article. Any one of these ‘coincident events’ when taken singularly appear to not mean much, but when taken as a whole, a computer would blow a main circuit if you asked it to calculate the odds that they have occurred by chance alone.

Please read this list of events and then maybe wonder if Justice Scalia’s sudden uninvestigated death is another “Fortuitous Coincident event” in the ongoing legacy of Barack Hussein Obama.

Scalia had been a thorn in the throat of Obama since Obama, immediate to his ascent into the Presidency, flagrantly ignored the separation of powers between the Supreme Court,  the US Congress and the Presidency. As far as Obama has been concerned there is no separation. There is only Executive Power that supersedes the others with no debate required

Supreme Court Justice Scalia opposed virtually all of Obama’s executive actions. The effect of his loss is incalculable. The Court is now in a 4/4 decision making mode that makes many of the actions Scalia had initiated mute. We have already seen this disaster unfold.

III  There are the key cases facing the Supreme Court after Scalia’s death

By Robert Barnes February 14, 2016

Four cases that could re-shape the country will be heard when the Supreme Court meets this term without Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia consistently expressed conservative views when reviewing court cases. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia casts a cloud of uncertainty over a Supreme Court term filled with some of the most controversial issues facing the nation: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

An eight-member court could split on all of those issues. If the court ties in deciding a case, the decision of the appeals court remains in place, without setting a nationwide precedent.

Pending a new justice, the court now has three consistent conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and Anthony M. Kennedy, like Scalia a Reagan appointee but one who often sides with the court’s liberals on social issues, such as same-sex marriage.

The court has four consistent liberals: Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

III Unfortunately, Justice Scalia had numerous Left Wing enemies besides Barack Obama.

Wm. Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard  discusses:
Scalia and His Enemies

FEB 29, 2016

In January, The Scrapbook was privileged to be in attendance at a speech Antonin Scalia gave to a small audience at Catholic University. We can’t claim to have known the man or even to have met him for more than a handshake, but Scalia was such a presence that even being in the same room with him was a thrill.

His written words were surpassingly impressive, but his boisterous and gregarious delivery only added to the impression that one was in the presence of greatness.

One did not have to agree with Scalia to appreciate his personal qualities, to say nothing of his legal acumen. Nonetheless, as soon as Scalia died, the knives were drawn.

After Georgetown Law School sent out a press release noting the school was mourning his death (he received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown and was the 1957 valedictorian and a champion debater there), two of the school’s longtime professors, Gary Peller and Louis Michael Seidman, issued a public dissent saying that many at Georgetown’s community “cringed at .  .  . the unmitigated praise with which the press release described a jurist that many of us believe was a defender of privilege, oppression and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic.

There’s a great irony in Peller’s disdaining Scalia’s prodigious intellect as “simplistic.” Peller’s own specialty is in critical race theory and critical legal studies, which are hardly summits of academic rigor. As the Daily Caller put it, a “major part of Peller’s work is denying the very existence of objective knowledge or the value of concepts like rationality, on the grounds that knowledge is just ‘a function of the ability of the powerful to impose their own views.’ ”

Fortunately, more than a few honest liberals testified to the truth of who Scalia was. Cass Sunstein, a former Obama administration official and respected legal scholar, wrote a glowing remembrance for Bloomberg.

He recalled that in 1994 after Bill Clinton swore in his second liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, “Justice Antonin Scalia came up to me, put his arm around my shoulder, and said with a bright, mischievous smile, “First Ruth [Bader Ginsburg], and now Steve? Cass, it’s almost enough to make me vote Democrat.”

Still, the number of supposedly respectable liberal voices attacking Scalia is positively dispiriting. But we take comfort in the fact that Scalia was an indisputably great man. It’s not his life and work that are on trial. Those taking the occasion of his death to attack the man’s legacy are only indicting themselves.

IV Conclusion:

Where then is the autopsy? Was the death from natural causes or not. Is it one more episode in the “Fortuitous Coincidence” of Obama’s success story with his opponents taking a fortuitous exit or is it just another conspiracy theory!

All that could be clarified with a simple autopsy by a reputable forensic pathologist. Or, is that exactly what the present Administration with undoubtedly one of the most crucial, sea changing presidential election before us, does not want to determine?

Jerome S. Kaufman
Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post



The Brotherhood now sponsors an annual ‘Muslim Advocacy Day’ on Capitol Hill targeting U.S. members of Congress.

But some critics are saying the day was misnamed. It should have been “Muslim Brotherhood Day.”

That’s because the organization behind Muslim Advocacy Day is a front for the Brotherhood, an extremist Islamist group known for establishing scores of fronts – including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR – that fool the establishment media and many politicians.

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, penned an op-ed in the Hill that shined a light on the shadowy political group that sponsors the day of lobbying and activism for U.S. Muslims. It’s the United States Council of Muslim Organizations, or USCMO.

Gaffney said most congressmen were likely oblivious as to who is behind the USCMO and National Muslim Advocacy Day.

“The USCMO is the latest in a long series of front organizations associated with, and working to advance, the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States,” Gaffney writes.

The website for the USCMO suggests “advocacy issues” that Muslims should take up with their members of Congress. They were encouraged to talk to their elected leaders about condemning “Islamaphobia,” the website states.

A second suggestion is addressing concerns about a Homeland Security program known as Countering Violent Extremism, which President Obama introduced last year with an emphasis that seems to focus more on “right wing militias” than Islamic terrorists, but the Brotherhood is still worried about the program. Perhaps it feels it could be turned against Muslims under a future President Ted Cruz or Donald Trump?

The Brotherhood’s agenda is laid out in a document introduced into evidence by federal prosecutors during the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation in 2007-08. Obama’s former Attorney General Eric Holder abruptly ended the trial despite its success in shutting down a prime funding source for Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

During that trial, a document written in 1991 by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akram, and entitled “The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America,” was presented into evidence. It was one of dozens of pieces of evidence that ended up sending more than 100 Muslim Brotherhood operatives to jail. CAIR, the Muslim Student Association and the Islamic Society of North America were among the groups outed during the trial as Muslim Brotherhood fronts. They remain unindicted co-conspirators in that case.

It clearly states the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America as “destroying Western civilization from within … by [the infidels’] hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

There are two other important facts legislators should know about Akram’s memo, Gaffney states.

“First, the document helpfully attaches a list of 29 groups under the heading ‘Our organizations and organizations of our friends: Imagine if they all march according to one plan!’ A number of the identified Muslim Brotherhood fronts — and many others that have come into being since 1991 — are members of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations.

“Representatives and associates of such fronts will be among the Islamists in congressional offices on Monday,” Gaffney writes.

Second, the memo describes the Muslim Brotherhood’s favored technique for accomplishing its stated goal of destroying Western civilization – “civilization jihad.”

This kind of jihad is perfectly suited to a liberal Western democracy, Gaffney says.

“This sort of jihad involves employing stealthy, subversive means like influence operations to penetrate and subvert our government and civil society institutions,” he writes.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has been studying the Muslim Brotherhood agenda and tactics for years. Her warnings while in Congress were met with mocking derision.

“The Muslim Brotherhood together with its myriad fake front groups, like a demon, first charms then disarms, then contorts itself into a seemingly friendly face,” Bachmann told WND. “Once it’s beguiled its unsuspecting victim, it mercilessly unleashes death and destruction upon its unwary victims, like a viper.

“Congress has a constitutional duty to protect America against this intentional attack.”

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is vice president of the Family Research Council, is also seeing red flags in the Muslim Brotherhood’s all-out lobbying assault on Washington, D.C. Boykin, in an interview with American Family Radio, said Americans should not be fooled by the Brotherhood’s assertion that it speaks for all U.S. Muslims.

Boykin said Muslim Advocacy Day attempts to make Americans reluctant to stand up to the very groups that are attempting to change the culture and, in some instances, engage in terrorist acts. The strategy has already been very successful. In San Bernardino, California, a group of construction workers saw the unusual activity of Middle Eastern men coming and going from terrorist Syed Farook’s house, and the constant deliveries of supplies, but they said they were afraid to report the activity to police for fear of being labeled “anti-Muslim.”

You will remember that Farook and his jihadist wife, Tashfeen Malik, entered a Christmas party in December and shot to death 14 Americans.


Robert Spencer, author of the JihadWatch blog for the David Horowitz Freedom Center and of several books about Islam, said there is no “Islamophobia” in America. A “phobia” is defined as an irrational fear.

He said there is nothing irrational about seeing and believing the Brotherhood’s plan for America, as stated in its own words. The Brotherhood should be banned in this country as a terrorist organization, he said.

Legislation has been introduced recently in Congress that would do exactly that, but so far it hasn’t gotten much traction under the GOP leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations says its second annual National Muslim Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill today is ‘designed to connect national, regional and state Muslim organizations, community members with their elected representatives in Congress,’” Spencer said. “However, the ties that some of the foremost organizations making up this coalition have to the Muslim Brotherhood reveal the sinister aspect of this agenda – and underscore the necessity of passing S. 2230, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.”

Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Bahrain and Jordan have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, and the group’s motto would seem to be a self-incriminating statement as to its objectives, Spencer noted.   (Unfortunately, many in the Congress don’t seem to be aware of this obvious warning alert).

Their motto states: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at CSP, said the group can wrap itself in the American flag all it wants, but the USCMO is still “openly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist organization dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization from within.”

Linking its agenda with the Black Lives Matter movement doesn’t much help its image either, Lopez said. The Muslim Association of America, at its annual conference in December, openly called for U.S. Muslims to join as revolutionary comrades with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Israel Commentary

Source: The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching!

The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching!



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Source: The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching!



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


The Passover video you will not be able to stop watching! –


Have to copy and paste to your own search engine: Google, Yahoo, Firefox whatever


Honest Injun!





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(Communicated by the Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Media Advisor)

At the weekly Cabinet meeting, today (Sunday, 17 April 2016), which was held at Maaleh Gamla, on the Golan Heights, in honor of the 34th Government’s first year in office:

1. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks:

“We are here, on the Golan Heights. This is the first time that the Government of Israel has held an official meeting on the Golan Heights in the 49 years that they have been under Israeli rule. The Golan Heights have been an integral part of the Land of Israel since ancient times; the dozens of ancient synagogues in the area around us attest to this. The Golan Heights are an integral part of the State of Israel in the new era. During the 19 years that the Golan Heights were under Syrian occupation, when they were a place for bunkers, wire fences, mines and aggression, they were for war. In the 49 years that the Golan Heights have been under Israeli rule, they have been for agriculture, tourism, economic initiatives and building. They are for peace. In the stormy region around us, Israel is the stabilizing factor; Israel is the solution, not the problem.

I must tell you that many countries in the region have already recognized this and the trend of understanding and cooperation with them is strengthening. Israel will continue to act in order to maintain its security and the quiet on our northern border and opposite the Gaza Strip. The quiet has been maintained as a result of the defensive and counter-terrorist operations of the IDF and, if need be, certainly if we are attacked, of the understanding by our enemies that we will respond against them in very great strength.

I chose to hold this festive Cabinet meeting on the Golan Heights in order to deliver a clear message: The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands. Israel will never come down from the Golan Heights. The population on the Golan Heights grows year by year; today it numbers approximately 50,000 and there are thousands of families due to join them in the coming years. We will continue to strengthen the residents, the communities, the industry and the agriculture however we can, including through the decisions that we will make at this meeting.

While what is happening on the Israeli side of the Golan Heights is clear, one cannot say this about what is happening on the Syrian side. I spoke last night with US Secretary of State John Kerry and I told him that I doubt that Syria will ever return to what it was. It has persecuted minorities, such as the Christians, Druze and Kurds, who are justly fighting for their future and their security. But it also has terrorist elements, especially Daesh, Iran and Hezbollah, and others, that want to impose radical Islam on Syria and the region, and from there continue to impose it throughout the world.

I told the Secretary of State that we will not oppose a diplomatic settlement in Syria, on condition that it not come at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, i.e. that at the end of the day, the forces of Iran, Hezbollah and Daesh will be removed from Syrian soil. The time has come for the international community to recognize reality, especially two basic facts. One, whatever is beyond the border, the boundary itself will not change. Two, after 50 years, the time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israel’s sovereignty permanently.”


Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Chronicling the collapse of Syria and the rise of the Islamic State.


The Weekly Standard
APR 11, 2016

It is an ordinary summer day in northern Syria, in 2013. No barrel bombs filled with shrapnel that indiscriminately kill all living things; just a few artillery shells that no one pays much attention to.

Suddenly a bomb hits close to a house where members of the Free Syrian Army are drinking tea. The men are thrown violently to the ground. Then they begin to laugh.n“They never stopped laughing, these men,” writes Samar Yazbek in The Crossing. “It was as though they inhaled laughter like an antidote to death.”

Yazbek, an outspoken critic of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, was forced into exile from her homeland in 2011, only to make several clandestine trips back to war-torn northern Syria in 2012 and 2013. Her language is personal and powerful. She describes acts of horror that are almost too unbearable to process: corpses, crippled children, survivors clustered in shacks and hovels, constant airstrikes from the sky.

“The only victor in Syria is death: no one talks of anything else,” she writes. “Everything is relative and open to doubt; the only certainty is that death will triumph.”

This is a powerful, moving, and often poetic account of a peaceful uprising that began with much promise only to descend into bloodshed. She conducts long interviews with warlords, men from the Free Syrian Army as well as representatives of the Islamic State.

The armed people’s resistance brigades, as she calls them, trying to defend their communities, were not strong enough and, ultimately, lacked antiaircraft missiles to protect the civilian population against Assad’s relentless bombing campaign. When better-armed and better-funded Islamic extremists moved in, their influence over villages and towns grew, and northern Syria gradually fragmented into independent areas controlled by different rebel groups.

By the time ordinary Syrians realized what was happening, it was too late. By 2012, a power vacuum had spread across the northern part of that country. It was quickly filled by the Islamic State and groups such as the al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, which set up a network of local informants and sharia courts to control the population.

On December 6, 2014, a year and a half after Yazbek’s last trip to Syria, the 74-year-old German journalist, publisher, and former Bundestag member Jürgen Todenhöfer traveled from Turkey to territory claimed by the Islamic State. He was the first Western journalist allowed into areas controlled by the Islamic State, and his journey is meticulously described in My Journey into the Heart of Terror.

Todenhöfer’s book, like many other first hand accounts from inside authoritarian regimes, has its limitations: It is not always clear if the story unfolds through the eyes of the author or the jihadists that are all too eager to serve as his guides.

He travels with a guarantee of safe passage from the office of the caliph, which is dominated by ex-officers from Saddam Hussein’s army and security services. At every checkpoint, before every interview, he flashes the letter and animosity quickly turns to camaraderie. It is all a bit too convenient.

In fact, it is hard not to suspect that Todenhöfer is (or allows himself to be) taken in by his jihadist hosts, who pose with their M16s, sport Bayern Munich jerseys, play video games, and drink Pepsi. But thanks to the courage and commitment with which he reports from deep inside Islamic State territory, the reader is treated to some rare and intimate encounters with Islamists.

A car trip through IS-controlled territory with Jihadi John as driver and Abu Qatadah—also known as Christian E., a sandy-haired former IT specialist from the Ruhr—as tourist guide is a surreal experience.

Todenhöfer asks Abu Qatadah if IS has anything to do with religion, and quotes the verse from the Koran saying that whoever kills a person unjustly has killed all mankind.

Abu Qatadah calmly explains that all infidels must die, and Shiite Muslims, as apostates, are no exception. “If they do not convert,” he says, “then they must die. It sounds crass, but we do not care about numbers. We have no borders, only front lines. The goal is world domination.”

At the Syria-Turkey border, Todenhöfer watches as trucks filled with new recruits arrive every 20 minutes. “I just could not believe the glow in their eyes,” he writes. “They felt like they were coming to a promised land, like they were fighting for the right thing.” The would-be jihadists are carefully documented and screened:

What are their weaknesses? Who can be blackmailed into remaining with the group? Which addictions can be exploited? The Islamic State operates like any other well-organized intelligence agency during wartime, with informants placed in strategic locations.

In Mosul, the largest city occupied by IS, Todenhöfer meets many Europeans. These are young men and women who, frustrated with life in the West, have been lured to the Middle East by promises of adventure and the good life. (Recent research shows that the vast majority of people who join IS and other jihadist groups are recruited by family and friends; radicalization hardly ever occurs in mosques.)

Todenhöfer paints a picture of a vibrant city full of life, where a curious sense of normality reigns. The stores are open; the streets are full of people; father and sons enjoy raisins, ice cream, and coffee as they stroll around the ancient streets. It is like any Western city—except that 1.5 million people are brutally controlled by no more than 15,000 jihadists.

At the end of his journey the façade starts to crumble. Todenhöfer tries on a suicide vest; but when he examines the trigger, the young fighters standing around him quickly put an end to the demonstration. Fear overcomes bravado.

These are two very different firsthand accounts from behind the borders of the Islamic State. Above all, Samar Yazbek bears witness: The Crossing is a personal account of her devastated homeland, a chronicle of how Syria has systematically been “hanged, drawn and quartered.”

Jürgen Todenhöfer’s reportage is, at times, tediously admonitory but provides a fascinating account of people little understood in the West. He sets out to understand life among the jihadists and returns with a stark warning:

The Islamic State is “much stronger and much more dangerous” than the West realizes. And regardless of who is dropping the bombs, the civilian population is suffering unimaginable horrors.

Kip Eideberg is a writer and consultant in Washington.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Any one of these ‘coincident events’ when taken singularly appear to not mean much, but when taken as a whole, a computer would blow a main circuit if you asked it to calculate the odds that they have  occurred by chance alone. Unfortunately, by no coincidence his time table corresponds exactly with the impending demise of the United States as a world power.

Do we want a successor that promises to continue his agenda?

Read below and  ponder the Obama-related ‘coincident events’, that  superimpose the bigger picture  i.e., Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the National Security Agency revelations with Hillary Clinton.

(Who surely deserves a carefully outlined summary of “fortuitous coincident events” of her own)

Barack Hussein Obama:
just happened to know 60s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father
just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who
just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who
just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who
just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama
just happened to choose as his closest White House adviser, and who
just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which
just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which
just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which
just happened not to properly maintain the housing which eventually
just happened to require demolition.  Not to mention that this is the property that would have been the grounds that hosted the Olympics, had Obama’s efforts been successful.


Valerie Jarrett also
just happened to work for the city of Chicago, and
just happened to hire Michelle LaVaughan Robinson (later Mrs. Obama), who
just happened to have worked at the Sidney Austin law firm, where former fugitive from the FBI Bernadine Dohrn also just happened to work, and where Barack Obama
just happened to get a summer job.


Bernardine Dohrn:

just happened to be married to William Ayers, with whom she
just happened to have hidden from the FBI at a San Francisco marina, along with Donald Warden, who
just happened to change his name to Khalid al-Mansour, and Warden/al-Mansour who
just happened to be a mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and a close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and al-Mansour
coincident events just happened to be financial adviser to a Saudi Prince, who
just happened to donate cash to Harvard, for which Obama
just happened to get a critical letter of recommendation from Percy Sutton, who just happened to have been the attorney for Malcolm X, who
just happened to know Kenyan politician Tom Mboya, who
just happened to be a close friend of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who
just happened to meet Malcolm X when he traveled to Kenya .
Obama, Sr.


just happened to have his education at the University of Hawaii paid for by the Laubach Literacy Institute, which
just happened to have been supported by Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, who
just happened to be a friend of Malcolm X, who
just happened to have been associated with the Nation of Islam, which was later headed by Louis Farrakhan, who
just happens to live very close to Obama’s Chicago mansion, which also
just happens to be located very close to the residence of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who
just happens to have been occasional baby-sitters for Malia and Natasha Obama, whose parents
just happened to have no concern exposing their daughters to bomb-making communists.


After attending Occidental College and Columbia University, where he
just happened to have foreign Muslim roommates, Obama moved to Chicago to work for the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization that
just happened to have been founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul the Red Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who
just happened to be the topic of Hillary Rodham Clintons thesis at Wellesley College, and Obamas $25,000 salary at IAF
just happened to be funded by a grant from the Woods Fund, which was founded by the Woods family, whose Sahara Coal company
just happened to provide coal to Commonwealth Edison, whose CEO just happened to be Thomas Ayers, whose son William Ayers
just happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund, along with Obama.


Obama also worked on voter registration drives in Chicago in the 1980s and
just happened to work with leftist political groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Socialist International (SI), through which Obama met Carl Davidson, who
just happened to travel to Cuba during the Vietnam War to sabotage the U.S. war effort, and who
just happened to be a former member of the SDS and a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which
just happened to sponsor a 2002 anti-war rally at which Obama spoke, and which
just happened to have been organized by Marilyn Katz, a former SDS activist and later public relations consultant who
just happened to be a long-time friend of Obamas political hatchet man, David Axelrod.


Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), whose pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fiery orator who

just happened to preach Marxism and Black Liberation Theology and who delivered anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American sermons, which Obama
just happened never to hear because he
just happened to miss church only on the days when Wright was at his most enthusiastic, and Obama
just happened never to notice that Oprah Winfrey left the church because it was too radical, and
just happened never to notice that the church gave the vile anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.


Although no one had ever heard of him at the time, Obama
just happened to receive an impossible-to-believe $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations, which he
just happened to fail to write while using the cash to vacation in Bali with his wife Michelle, and despite his record of non-writing he just happened to receive a second advance, for $40,000, from another publisher, and he eventually completed a manuscript called Dreams From My Father, which
just happened to strongly reflect the writing style of William Ayers, who
just happened to trample on an American flag for the cover photograph of the popular Chicago magazine, which Obama
just happened never to see even though it appeared on newsstands throughout the city.


Obama was hired by the law firm Miner, Banhill and Galland, which
just happened to specialize in negotiating state government contracts to develop low-income housing, and which
just happened to deal with now-imprisoned Tony Rezko and his firm Rezar, and with slumlord Valerie Jarrett, and the law firms Judson Miner
just happened to have been a classmate of Bernardine Dohrn, wife of William Ayers.
In 1994 Obama represented ACORN  and another plaintiff in a lawsuit against Citibank for denying mortgages to blacks (Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank), and the lawsuit
just happened to result in banks being blackmailed into approving sub-prime loans for poor credit risks, a trend which
just happened to spread nationwide, and which
just happened to lead to the collapse of the housing bubble, which
just happened to help Obama defeat John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.


In 1996 Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate and joined the New Party, which
just happened to promote Marxism, and Obama was supported by Dr. Quentin Yong, a socialist who
just happened to support a government takeover of the health care system.


In late 1999, Obama purportedly engaged in homosexual activities and cocaine-snorting in the back of a limousine with a man named Larry Sinclair, who claims he was contacted in late 2007 by Donald Young, who


just happened to be the gay choir director of Obamas Chicago church and who shared information with Sinclair about Obama, and Young
just happened to be murdered on December 23, 2007, just weeks after Larry Bland, another gay member of the church
just happened to be murdered, and both murders
just happened to have never been solved. In 2008 Sinclair held a press conference to discuss his claims, and
just happened to be arrested immediately after the event, based on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who
just happens to be the son of Joe Biden.


In 2003 Obama and his wife attended a dinner in honor of Rashid Khalidi, who
just happened to be a former PLO operative, harsh critic of Israel , and advocate of Palestinian rights, and who Obama claims he does not know, even though the Obamas
just happened to have dined more than once at the home of Khalidi and his wife, Mona, and
just happened to have used them as occasional baby-sitters. Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at the decidedly anti-Semitic event, which William Ayers
just happened to also attend, and the event Obama pretends he never attended was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network, to which


Obama just happened to have funneled cash while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers, and one speaker at the dinner remarked that if Palestinians cannot secure a return of their land, Israel will never see a day of peace, and entertainment at the dinner included a Muslim children’s dance whose performances
just happened to include simulated be-headings with fake swords, and stomping on American, Israeli, and British flags, and Obama allegedly told the audience that Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine and there has been genocide against the Palestinian people by (the) Israelis, and the Los Angeles Times has a videotape of the event but
just happens to refuse to make it public.


In the 2004 Illinois Democrat primary race for the U.S. Senate, front-runner Blair Hull


just happened to be forced out of the race after David Axelrod just happened to manage to get Hulls sealed divorce records unsealed, which just happened to enable Obama to win the primary, so he could face popular Republican Jack Ryan, whose sealed child custody records from his divorce
just happened to become unsealed, forcing Ryan to withdraw from the race, which
just happened to enable the unqualified Obama to waltz into the U.S. Senate, where, after a mere 143 days of work, he
just happened to decide he was qualified to run for President of the United States!


And now you really do know some of the rest of the story…..Perhaps you know someone else who also might like to read it, especially  before the forthcoming  Presidential, Senatorial and House elections


II  Since this article was written another unusual fortuitous coincidence occurred – The sudden death of Right Wing stalwart Supreme Court Chief Judge, Antonin Scalia and …

For some reason Antonin Scalia’s family waives autopsy after justice is found with pillow over his head; death certificate will say ‘natural causes’


Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”
Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.“How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”
Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara said she declared Scalia dead via telephone based on what cops and marshals at the scene told her — that there were no signs of foul play.
“How in the world can that Texas judge, not even seeing the body, say that this is a heart attack?” Ritchie wondered. “A US marshal can’t tell you. You need a medical professional. If this was Joe Blow, you say OK, 79 years of age, health problems, maybe natural causes. But this is a sitting justice of the Supreme Court!”


Subscribe Israel Commentary:


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Geert Wilders, Leader of Dutch Party of Freedom – Islam’s War against the Free World  (Jews and the State of Israel)

Looking in vain for glasnost in Tehran.


The Weekly Standard,  MAR 14, 2016
Barack Obama and his tireless secretary of state, John Kerry, sold the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in part as a means to reinforce Iranian “reformers,” “moderates,” and “pragmatists.” They were always quick to add that the atomic accord stood on its own technical merits. Yet the non-nuclear dimension of the deal was no small part of the sugar that made the JCPOA more appealing.

A more temperate Islamic regime, which gave first priority to the well-being of its people, would be less likely to abuse the JCPOA’s weaknesses. And the accord has serious limitations: Within 8 years, the Islamic Republic can start producing advanced centrifuges; within 15 years, clerics will be free to construct as many centrifuges and enrich as much uranium as they wish.

The unorthodox inspection regime that the White House agreed to, which at the suspect Parchin facility restricted the International Atomic Energy Agency to remote, robotic sampling, also suggests that the administration really hopes to see the Islamic Republic moderate over the next decade.

The 2016 Iranian parliamentary elections ought to be viewed as one more sign that the overarching political premise of the deal made no sense. (Just as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocably warned before the US Congress, March 3, 2015 — much to the anger of arch-narcissist Barack Obama) The new parliament voted in at February’s end is composed of—and again the Western nomenclature is far from ideal—radical hardliners, hardliners, conservatives, and a few tepid, nervous reformers.

Real reformers, Iranian politicians and intellectuals who want to change radically the governing structure of the Islamic Republic and convert a theocracy into a democracy, were silenced, imprisoned, exiled, murdered, and banned from politics when the pro-democracy Green Movement was stamped out after the fraudulent presidential election in 2009.

What we have left in the Islamic Republic’s theocratically managed democracy, in which parliament has no real power, are regime-loyal laymen and mullahs who are all Islamic revolutionaries but differ, at times strongly, on who should lead the cause and how the country’s economic system should be structured.

Anyone who isn’t a member of the third-world-loving-please-don’t-let-America-bomb-Iran-stop-the-warmongering-neoconservatives movement and has studied the Islamic Republic knows that when parliament chairman Ali Larijani, a highly intelligent, dissent-crushing, women’s-rights-loathing, supreme-leader-loving, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, allies himself with President Hassan Rouhani and his followers, the latter aren’t seeking to change fundamentally the Islamic Republic.

Many Westerners want to believe that Rouhani’s economic preferences, which would reduce the state’s heavy hand in commerce and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s monopolizing role in industry, will sooner or later lead to greater political and cultural freedom. The power of Adam Smith will triumph over Islam, so to speak.

Hassan Rouhani and his former mentor, the clerical major-domo Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, liberalized Iran’s economy in the 1990s when Rafsanjani was president and the de facto co-equal of Ali Khamenei, whom he had elevated to supreme leader in 1989 upon Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s death.

Rafsanjani eased up a bit on cultural expression and didn’t blow a gasket when middle-class and affluent Iranian women started to add a bit of color to their clothing and push back the scarves covering their hair. Rafsanjani made a personal pitch to successful Iranian expatriates to come home and invest. Rafsanjani and his aide-de-camp Rouhani especially tried to attract European money to Iran.

As Rouhani put it in 1994, “Because of the fierce competition between Europe and the United States, we must expand our relations with Europe and counter America’s conspiracy.” The two clerics tried—and failed—to check the growing economic and political power of the Revolutionary Guards.

However, Rafsanjani, with Khamenei, could come down brutally on those who politically or culturally pushed the envelope too far. Many intellectuals, at home and abroad, were assassinated during Rafsanjani’s presidency by officers and agents of the ministry of intelligence. Rafsanjani and Rouhani, who’d been the driving forces behind that ministry’s creation and had men closely aligned with them serving in its highest ranks, were unquestionably culpable for this terrorism, as they were also undoubtedly “in” on the attack at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, which left 19 Americans dead and 372 wounded.

Some Iranian students believed that Mohammad Khatami, a complicated cleric who sincerely wrestled with the collision of Western and Islamic ideas, would usher in an age of reform after he succeeded Rafsanjani in 1997; Rouhani’s deeply felt antipathy toward them exploded during the 1999 student protests. Rouhani, then secretary of the supreme national security council, gave a fire-breathing speech threatening the students with death.

Clerics do change. There are many Iranian mullahs who were once die-hard believers in theocracy and the Islamic Revolution who have grown disenchanted. Most of them have been harassed, some even tortured and exiled for their growing doubts. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that Hassan Rouhani or the vast majority of his supporters who won parliamentary seats in Tehran are what we might call discreet evolutionary mullahs and laymen. There is no reason to believe that the Iranian president has even a smidgen of the reflection and self-doubt that Mikhail Gorbachev did when he attempted to save communism through glasnost.

Foreign policy analysts and grand strategists don’t have to be slaves to history and read meticulously every speech and book of foreign VIPs, but they can’t ignore them and gainsay the obvious. Mutatis mutandis, Rouhani is the same man he was in 1999. That he might look better than he did then is only because the Iranian political system has moved so far “right” since the halcyon days of the “Islamic Left” in the 1990s, when reformist clerics and laymen tried peacefully and democratically to introduce change into Iranian society and politics. The only ones who’ve really changed are the fallen heroes of Khatami’s brief period of reform. They’ve become forlorn, desperate to see hope even in men who once literally gave the orders to jail and beat them. It is an Orwellian irony.

Regardless of what happens inside Iran, President Obama and his supporters will continue to embrace the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. They will never accept the argument that a nuclear agreement that enhances the power of Islamic revolutionaries is so politically counterproductive as to negate the logic of the deal itself. The truth: Since the second Iraq war became politically unpalatable, the vast majority of American progressives haven’t cared that much about what happens inside the Islamic Republic, whether hardliners rise and moderates fall.

Liberals may cite, with the greatest of reverence, Iranian dissidents who are praying that Rouhani 2.0 won’t be as nasty as Rouhani 1.0; that his enmity towards the Revolutionary Guards will spill over into civil society and at least create buffers between their demurrals and the guards’ rapacity. But for the American left, what really matters is that the United States isn’t going to war over the Iranian nuclear issue. As long as that is true, Rouhani is a moderate. The Iranian people just need to be patient. The arc of history is on their side. Crony capitalism will eventually set them free.  (as will elephants eventually fly)

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a contributing editor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Subscribe Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments