Read More About:

Share This Post

Obama’s Climate Trick

Summary of the fascinating, informative seven page study found in the Capital Research Center pamphlet, Green Watch

By Marlo Lewis

The Obama administration announced that 2014 was “the hottest year on record” by a margin of O.O4 degrees (four one- hundredths of a degree) compared to 2005 — a fake fact that was repeated in hundreds of “news” media, virtually none of whom, it appears, bothered to check out the claim.

A simple check would have revealed the problem with the administration’s assertion — that, as every scientist should know, the supposed increase, which is the basis for the claim of a “record” temperature, is too small for science to measure. It t would be as if government experts announced that the average height of ten-year-old boys in America had increased in the past nine years from 55 inches to 55.OO765 inches. How could you possibly measure such a thing so precisely? The answer is, you couldn’t.

How insignificant is O.O4 degrees? Regarding the worldwide temperature in 2014, the difference between the official estimates made by NASA vs. the National Oceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration-two parts of the Obama administration-is two-and-a-halftimes as big as the amount of the supposed 2005-2014 increase.

By the way, even a O.O4 degree increase, the Obama administration’s latest fake fact, doesn’t serve their case very well. That’s because a O.O4 degree increase in the past nine years would mean that that warned-about two-degree increase, now projected to take place by the year 2050, would take 450 years to occur!

The Global Warmers’ climate predictions — literally, the only scientific standard by which to determine whether the Warmers are correct — have been proven wrong once again, even based on the figures they provide.

As one might expect, the White House used the “hottest on record” report to justify the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, part of its War on Coal. But the backlash against the Plan is growing.

Lawrence Tribe, a strong supporter of the President (and one of Mr. Obama’s professors at Harvard Law School) wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Plan is unconstitutional and the EPA does not have the authority to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid.

“Frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the Constitution overboard to rescue this lawless EPA proposal-especially when the EPA itself . . . has touted its proposal as ‘an investment opportunity’ that isn’t really about pollution control at all.”

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pledged to do all he could to stop the regulations, declaring that a White House “crusade” had devastated his state’s economy. 

Murray Energy, the nation’s largest privately held coal-mining company, asked a federal court to block the rules as a violation of the Clean Air Act, and 12 state governments filed a similar lawsuit. At least 26 state governments have urged EPA to withdraw the rules.  The American Legislative Exchange Council, which represents conservative mainstream state legislators, has drafted model resolutions and legislation to be used by lawmakers to fight the EPA plan.

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a former utility regulator, said the Plan would raise electricity prices and threaten the power grid. “EPA personnel are environmental regulators, not electrical engineers, and have no experience in or knowledge of the construction and operation of power grids,” he wrote, and the agency “failed to heed the advice” of people with such experience.

While campaigning for President, Barack Obama declared that, under his energy plan, electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” Sure enough, the U.S. Energy information Administration projects that coal plant closures, driven by the Plan, could drive natural gas prices up 150 percent by 2040, causing electricity prices to climb 22 percent.

The Plan is part of a pattern of ultra-regulation. Between January 20, 2009, when the President took office, and December 23, 2014, the EPA issued 3,120 new final regulations filling 27,854 pages, almost 28 million words  43 times as long as the Bible.

Ideologically, government environmental regulators appear to be closely aligned with the President. Shortly before the election, the Center for Responsive Politics analyzed contributions by federal employees to candidate and political campaigns. Unsurprisingly, 91 percent of EPA employees who made contributions made those contributions to Democrats. Employees of the Departments of Energy and the Interior, which deal with environmental issues, also contributed to Democrats at a rate of more than 90 percent.

Marlo Lewis, Ph.D.,  is a senior fellow in energy and environmental policy at The Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C.

Green Watch is published by Capital Research Center, a non-partisan education and research organization  1513 16th Street NW,  Washington, DC 20036-1480,  (202)483-6900,  E-mail:

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

An Extraordinary Show of Weakness
Redacted from  an article BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

The Weekly Standard

OCT 12, 2015

It was the middle of the night in Washington, D.C.—the early morning of September 30, 2015, in Iraq—when a three-star Russian general, Sergey Lavrov walked into the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, announced that Russian jets would soon begin airstrikes in Syria, and demanded that the United States stop flying combat missions in the country.

John Kerry, lackey of Barak Obama responded emphatically, WHATEVER YOU SAY, SERGEY.

Several hours later, in remarks at the United Nations, Secretary of State John Kerry signaled approval of this Russian military action. The Russians had told their American counterparts that their efforts would be directed against ISIS, and that, apparently, was good enough. If the Russians are targeting ISIS, Kerry said, “we are prepared to welcome those efforts.”

The Russians were not, in fact, targeting ISIS. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter acknowledged this in a late-morning press conference at the Pentagon, saying that none of the Russian strikes had taken place in ISIS-controlled areas. And yet when reporters pointed out the inescapable conclusion—the Russians had lied—Carter refused to accept it. “I take the Russians at their word,” he said. (Huh?)

The bad news soon got worse. Reports out of Syria made clear that not only were the Russians not targeting ISIS, they were methodically attacking and destroying positions held by opponents of ISIS and of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, including rebels supported by the United States. They weren’t going after our enemy in Syria, as they’d said; they were targeting our friends.

U.S. officials might have been expected to condemn the Russian aggression in the strongest terms. They might have been expected to confront directly the Russians who had misled them. They might have been expected to threaten to respond swiftly in the event of further provocation. Instead, Kerry appeared alongside his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and announced that the United States and Russia had many “big agreements” about the right course in Syria.


Kerry gently raised “concerns” about “the nature of the targets, the type of targets, and the need for clarity with respect to them,” but he went out of his way to emphasize the goodwill in their “constructive meeting.”

So at precisely the time the Russians were undertaking military action that they’d forsworn, senior Obama administration officials were downplaying the importance of those actions and the breach of faith they represented. It was an extraordinary show of weakness. And it was all the more remarkable because the very same thing had happened before, involving some of the very same officials.

On February 28, 2014, Kerry briefed reporters after a phone call with Lavrov to discuss developments in Ukraine, where the Russians were infiltrating the military and menacing their neighbor. Kerry conveyed assurances he’d received from Lavrov, who insisted Russia’s motives were benign. Kerry said Lavrov had told him “that they are prepared to be engaged and be involved in helping to deal with the economic transition that needs to take place at this point.”

What was actually taking place, just as Kerry offered reassuring words about Russia’s intentions, was a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Within hours, news channels across the world broadcast images of Russian soldiers moving across the Crimean Peninsula and Russian artillery rolling through Sevastopol. An Obama administration official told CNN’s Barbara Starr that the incursion was not so much “an invasion” as an “uncontested arrival” and that understanding this distinction was crucial to making sense of the developments.

Then, as now, Obama administration officials downplayed the reality of Russian aggression by arguing feebly that such actions wouldn’t be in Russia’s interest. Five days before Russian troops poured into Ukraine, National Security Adviser Susan Rice dodged a question about a possible invasion, saying on Meet the Press that a return to a “Cold War construct” would be counterproductive because such thinking is “out of date” and “doesn’t reflect the realities of the 21st century.”


A week before Russian fighter jets pounded targets in Syria, administration officials shrugged off warnings about possible military action by Moscow, and Kerry dismissed the Russian buildup as a mere “force protection” measure.

It has become perhaps the defining characteristic of the Obama administration’s foreign and national security policy—a stubborn insistence on seeing the world not as it is but as the president wishes it to be.

Al Qaeda was said to be on the run, even as it strengthened. ISIS was alleged to be junior varsity terrorists, even as it amassed territory. Iran was treated as a diplomatic partner, even as its leaders shouted “Death to America.” China was feted at a state dinner, even as it escalated cyberattacks against the United States. Russia was said to want peace, even as it made war. And on it goes.

Historians may well record the last day of September in the seventh year of the Obama presidency as the nadir of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, a day that illustrated the weakness and self-delusion of the administration perhaps better than any other.


Unfortunately, the consequences of this weakness and self-delusion won’t end with the exit of this president. They will pose a challenge to the next president the magnitude of which we haven’t seen in a long time.

(And… May Hashem please help us)

To Subscribe:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from a much grander, really fun article

By Saul Jay Singer

The Jewish Press

Faced with the threat of imminent death to their beloved infant son, his parents launched him out into the unknown and toward an unknowable fate in a specially-constructed craft in a desperate last-ditch attempt to save his life. Cast adrift from a society on the brink of extinction, he grew up in an alien culture to be a hero, a leader for all time who achieved great feats beyond even the imagination of his people.

No, not Moses. Superman.

Commentators often link Superman’s roots to both the Jewish immigrant experience and the Exodus account of Moses. Jules Feiffer, who dubbed it “the Minsk theory of Krypton,” may have been the first to suggest that the Man of Steel is Jewish, albeit surely not in the halachic sense; circumcision and upshirin, for example, would prove challenging.

The story begins with two young American Jews, Jerry Siegel (1914-1996) and Joe Shuster (1914-1992) who, deeply troubled by their sense of Jewish powerlessness in the face of rising anti-Semitism at home and overseas, created Superman, a fabled character who reflected their own Jewish values. In fact, from the very beginning Superman was created to help fight Hitler and the Nazis. As Siegel explained:

What led me into creating Superman in the early thirties? Hearing and reading of the oppression and slaughter of helpless, oppressed Jews in Nazi Germany…. I had the great urge to help somehow. How could I help them when I could barely help myself? Superman was the answer.

Several early stories highlighted Superman fighting the Nazis, including one in which he even socked Hitler on the jaw. Shown here is a modern comic signed on the cover by Siegel in which Superman travels to the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943; saves hundreds of Jews aboard a train transporting them to a concentration camp; and destroys a high-level Nazi atomic weapon experiment, thereby saving the entire world.

Superman’s birth name is Kal-El, which means either “voice of God” or “God is all.” His adopted name came from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in which Nietzsche introduces the concept of Superman (“Ubermensch“), the hero who transcends what Nietzsche considered the enslavement of Christian morality by his “will to power.”

Superman’s father warned his people of the imminent destruction of their planet but he was ignored, much as those who forecast the impending European Holocaust were ignored – and, as a result, the people of Krypton and the Jews of Europe were both exterminated.

Superman and Moses were each adopted by non-Jewish parents, who quickly understood just how extraordinary were their abandoned babies. Much as Moses, Superman eventually used powers “beyond those of mortal man” to save his people; he dedicated himself to fight for “truth and justice” – tzedek, tzedek tirdof – and, lest we forget, “the American Way;” and his life epitomizes the concept of tikkun olam.

Much as Moses kept secret his Jewish identity while growing up in the house of Pharaoh, Superman, the alien-born assimilationist-survivor who left his planetary shtetl and escapes to America, hid his “otherness” and heroic qualities behind the alter ego of a bespectacled nebbish.

And there is more. Much as Eretz Yisrael, the eternal homeland of the Jewish people, has continued to exercise its pull on Jews throughout their centuries in the Diaspora, Superman could never forget his homeland, in part because the remnants of his home planet constitute his only Achilles heel: “Kryptonite.”

Superman’s yearning for the land of his ancestors is analogous to the longing of the Jews to return to the land God promised them, and the respect he continues to feel for his departed biological parents, along with his desire to honor their memories through the performance of good deeds, could have come right out of our Torah.

Moreover, it is notable that Superman’s archenemy was never, as might be expected, another alien or superhero – though he certainly has battled his share of such rogues and villains during his long and illustrious career – but, rather, the Nazi-like Lex Luthor, the prototypical evil megalomaniac.

On many occasions, Siegel and Shuster used Luthor to echo racist rants by Senator Ellison DuRant (“Cotton Ed”) Smith, a virulent segregationist whose infamous “Shut the Door” immigration speech led to the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act and, ultimately, the deaths of millions of Jews who remained trapped in Europe, unable to escape the impending Holocaust.

Had the act been ratified earlier, among the families most likely to have been exterminated by the Nazis were Siegel’s parents, who came to America from Lithuania, and Shuster’s parents, who immigrated here from Kiev and Rotterdam.

There are a variety of sources that, comics historians claim, served as sources of inspiration for the Superman character.

First, as Siegel himself often stated, he modeled Superman on Samson, the mighty Jewish leader, Hebrew strongman, judge, and scourge of the Philistines about whom he and Shuster had learned in Hebrew school. In fact, original drawings of Superman depict him, like Samson, wearing sandals laced up to his calf rather than the red boots we all have come to know and love, which came later.

Another possible link to the development of the Man of Steel may be Siegel’s father, who in 1932 was killed by three assailants while working at the family’s second-hand clothing store. The oldest surviving artwork featuring Superman depicts him flying to the rescue of a man being held up at gunpoint, and Superman may have been Siegel’s fantasy response to his feeling of helplessness with respect to his father’s murder, a crime that was never solved.

In a major hoot, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, once brandished a comic book in his hand during a cabinet meeting and furiously denounced Superman as a Jew.

Another group that seems to have no problem identifying Superman as Jewish is Hizbullah. In a February 10, 2014 report on Al-Manar, its Lebanon-based TV station, the terrorist group charged that Superman is nothing more than “a Jewish conspiracy” and that “Jews created Superman to take over the greatest superpower in the world, controlling all aspects of her daily life and harnessing it in service to Jewish interests all over the world.” Siegel and Shuster would have been proud.


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


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Michael Oren’s memoir blasts Barack Obama but pulls its punches elsewhere.

The book,  ALLY


Redacted from a review by ELLIOTT ABRAMS



It was a political and historical anomaly for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dispatch the historian Michael Oren to Washington D.C. to represent him and his country in 2009. Oren was not a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party; he had no political involvement inside Israel; he had no foreign-policy or diplomatic experience; and he was not an intimate of the prime minister’s.

Today Netanyahu’s man in Washington is one of his closest advisers, Ron Dermer, who spent the first Obama term in an office 20 feet from Netanyahu’s. Oren, by contrast, is a mildly right-of-center academic with a Ph.D. from Princeton whose politics, he rightly explains in his new memoir, were “difficult to pigeonhole.” An American from New Jersey who made aliyah when he was 17, Oren was known for his authorship of two excellent and well-received books, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2002) and Power, Faith, and Fantasy: The United States in the Middle East, 1776 to 2006, which came out in 2007.

Presumably Netanyahu decided not to send a Likudnik to Washington in 2009 because in the newly elected Congress, both houses had strong Democratic majorities and the new president was a liberal Democrat himself. The choice of Oren was a gesture and a hope: Dispatch an academic, an intellectual, who might develop better relationships with Democratic politicians in Congress, with Obama and his new team, with the liberals (many of them liberal Jews) in the media, and with the overwhelmingly liberal American Jewish community.

Oren has now told the tale of his four years in Washington in Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide.

The first thing to say about the book is that it should not have been published—not before January 2017,  that is. Oren writes about Netanyahu, Obama, and many other people who are still in power, and he writes about issues and problems over which they are still fighting. Revealing such matters while Netanyahu and Obama are still in office complicates their relationship. Doing so might have helped the commercial success of Oren’s book, but it is harmful to the prime minister for whom he worked and the interests of the country he was representing.

To be sure, such conduct is not without precedent: Robert Gates, who (after succeeding Donald Rumsfeld in 2006) stayed on to serve Obama as secretary of defense for two-and-a-half years, until mid-2011, published his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, in January 2014. Obama then had three years left to serve as president. Presumably Gates did not feel his “duty” included keeping his mouth shut at least until his former boss and colleagues left office. Oren also felt no such obligation, and he is as wrong as Gates was.

But to judge it on its own terms, Ally is very well written, engaging, and enormously interesting. Beginning with his own youth in New Jersey, and going chronologically through his aliyah to Israel, education, military service, and writing career, Oren then takes us almost day by day through his four years as ambassador.

What emerges is an absolutely devastating portrait of Barack Obama and his minions, whose distaste for Israel infects the president’s thinking, his diplomatic activities, and by the end even his willingness to send Israel badly needed military supplies.

Oren began his posting by reading everything by and about Obama he could get his hands on. What he read alarmed him, and that included the portrait of the United States in Obama’s memoir: “Vainly, I scoured Dreams From My Father for some expression of reverence, even respect, for the country its author would someday lead.”

When it came to Israel, Oren found that among Obama’s few gut causes were creating a Palestinian state and reconciling with Islam, which, as Oren says, “intersected with Israel’s interests, and in potentially abrasive ways.” Oren says he concluded that “Barack Obama was about ideology,” and in his book he returns repeatedly to Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech as the manifestation of a worldview that “identified American interests with the Palestinians.”

This led to  “the Obama administration’s quenchless demand for Israeli concessions,” none of which was ever viewed as adequate and none of which ever evoked real gratitude or reward. Meanwhile, as Oren recounts accurately, no action on the part of the Palestinian Authority aroused much reaction from the administration.

When the Palestinian Authority announced a reconciliation agreement with Hamas just days after Hamas terrorists had shot an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school and killed a student there, Oren reports that “Obama’s reaction was subdued.”

When it came to Iran, Oren watched a recurring pattern “in which the White House pushed back on sanctions bills and then, once they passed, took credit for them.” He argued unsuccessfully against a White House that increasingly saw Iran as a potential partner and concluded early on that while Obama said “all options are on the table” to stop Iran’s nuclear program, in fact “the United States would not use force against Iran.”

What is more, he writes, “Washington quietly quashed any military option for Israel.” And he was “brusquely” told at the Pentagon to “make no mistake about it, the way Israel handles the Iranian issue will determine the future course of your relations with the United States.”

Adding insults to the injury of serious policy disagreements over Iran, Israel was handled shabbily month after month. Oren cites one small incident as revelatory of the Obama treatment: Haiti. When a terrible earthquake struck there in January 2010, Israel was—as usual after natural disasters around the globe—first on the scene with assistance, sending a field hospital. The day after the quake, 220 Israeli doctors, nurses, and rescue workers landed. Three days later, President Obama issued a statement: “Help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic.” Can anyone believe this omission of Israel, which had already made a far larger contribution, is anything but a deliberate slight?

More seriously, Oren recounts how “administration sources leaked the news” when Israel bombed convoys in Syria delivering weapons to Hezbollah, leaks that occurred repeatedly. There was absolutely no benefit to the United States in these revelations and considerable danger of drawing some Syrian, Iranian, or Hezbollah response against Israel—yet “administration sources . . . continued leaking reports of IDF air strikes in Syria.”

After the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010, when a Turkish ship tried to break through Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and armed militants attacked Israeli commandos seeking to take control of the ship, Obama pressed over and over again for an Israeli apology. When Netanyahu finally and reluctantly did apologize to Turkey to propitiate the United States, he and Israel got no thanks from the Obama White House whatsoever.

To take an Iran-related example of the Obama treatment, the United States engaged in nuclear talks with Iran that were kept secret from Israel. As Oren rightly says: “Our closest ally had entreated with our deadliest enemy on an existential issue without so much as informing us.”

On the Palestinian front, Oren recounts that when Israel finally reacted to the attacks from Hamas in Gaza with Operation Protective Edge in late 2014 (after Oren’s tenure in Washington had ended), Obama condemned Israel for doing “appalling” damage in Gaza. And far worse, during those weeks of war, Obama “delayed the delivery of munitions needed by the IDF.”

So much for the claim that whatever the nature of the diplomatic disputes between the U.S. and Israel, the military and security relations between the two countries have been perfect.

The Obama administration’s ‘total freeze’ precondition made talks between Israel and the Palestinians impossible, which is why none were held during Obama’s entire first term. Oren also describes the unprecedented personal attacks on Netanyahu, which clearly amazed him. These culminated in Netanyahu’s being called a “chickenshit” by an administration official who was speaking to Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg.

Oren covers U.S. policy on Israeli–Palestinian matters in great detail, and here the story reflects just as badly on Obama and his administration. As Oren recounts, the administration was absolutely determined “to pressure Israel into accepting a settlement freeze.”

No new settlements were to be made, and no additional land was to be taken in the West Bank for settlement expansion. The financial inducements to Israelis to move to settlements were to be ended, and new construction within settlements was to occur only in already built-up areas. Settlements would grow in population but not in territory, and the so-called peace map would not change.

This agreement was immediately discarded by the Obama administration in 2009. It demanded instead an absolute freeze on all construction in all settlements—even those Israel was quite obviously going to keep in any eventual peace deal—and in East Jerusalem as a precondition for Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. No Israeli prime minister, not even in a Labor Party government, would have agreed to this, and Netanyahu did not.

As Oren states: “America’s new policies set conditions for talks that Israel could never meet and that Palestinians could not ignore.” In fact, this “total freeze” precondition made talks between Israel and the Palestinians impossible, which is why none were held during Obama’s entire first term. But the administration cast all the blame on Netanyahu.

The Israelis knew from bitter experience, moreover, that a settlement freeze would achieve little, because they knew that a new round of negotiations with the Palestinians would achieve little. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak had made Yasir Arafat a peace offer, and in 2008 Prime Minister Olmert had made an even more generous offer. Both had been rejected by the Palestinian leadership. A new round of talks would end in stalemate, most Israelis believed, both because the Palestinians would not get a deal better than the 2008 Olmert offer and because in the end Abbas was not going to take the risk of doing any deal at all.

On several occasions, Netanyahu rejected Oren’s advice ‘to conciliate rather than confront Obama,’ but on the evidence in this book, Netanyahu had the better of the argument between them. Oren’s portrait of Obama is extremely tough. The president “seemed to prefer contemplation to leadership” and “ideas to hands-on action.”

Even worse was his “coldness” and “insularity,” and Oren says that “a similar chill distanced him from traditional American allies—not only Israel—whose ambassadors complained to me of the administration’s unprecedented aloofness.” In fact, Oren quotes an unnamed European ambassador as saying “Obama’s problem is not a tin ear, it’s a tin heart.”

In truth, it is not all that uncommon for individual leaders to dislike each other. What is striking in Oren’s book is that the Obama team did not view this mutual aversion as a problem to be alleviated but as a license to further the assault on Netanyahu, his government, and his country.

… These matters of language and comportment could be viewed as trivial, but they are not. They suggest an attitude toward Israel’s government that is quite simply contemptuous, disrespectful, and hostile. It is unlikely that such treatment was accorded to the British or French ambassadors, even by people like Emanuel who appear to equate vulgarity with strength or persuasiveness.

Nor, as we have been seeing week after week, was such treatment ever accorded to the vicious Communist dictatorship in Cuba or to the brutal theocracy in Iran. Oren, the ambassador had, for purposes of diplomacy, had to deny all these adverse Obama actions politically and militarily and personally against Netanyahu were not happening.

As he writes, “I had to swear that American and Israeli leaders were on the same page regarding Iran when, in reality, they often worked from different books.” The Obama team thought that “daylight” between the United States and Israel on political issues was a good thing, as long as there was no such gap on security issues.

But Oren explains that even in principle this does not work: In the Middle East, security “is largely a product of impressions. . . . In a region infamous for its unforgiving sun, any daylight is searing. By illuminating the gaps in the political positions, the administration cast shadows over Israel’s deterrence power.”

Nevertheless, his job was to make believe this was not occurring and that all was well between the two governments. Oren quotes the old line that “an ambassador is a man of virtue sent abroad to lie for his country” but ruefully adds that “an ambassador sometimes lies for two countries.” Oren has said that he is ‘deeply concerned about the future of the Democratic Party, with the progressive wing in the background.’ But that ‘deep concern’ is rarely made evident in Ally.

Therefore, one would expect that in his memoir, Oren might settle some scores with the latter group, especially the Jews among them, who must have driven him crazy. One might expect that even though he himself had publicly been saying that relations were peachy, he would now offer searing criticism of them for ignoring the facts, ignoring what they could hear privately in visits to top officials in Jerusalem, ignoring the deep and dangerous differences over Iran, and choosing party loyalty over a balanced assessment of the threats Israel faced. One would be wrong.

Throughout Oren’s four and a half years as ambassador, a variety of voices spoke out repeatedly in defense of Netanyahu and of Israel, supporting Israel’s view of the Iranian threat, and decrying Obama’s treatment of Israel—this magazine, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal, not to mention a large number of members of Congress and former officials.

But these voices are almost always on the right. Democrats who stood up against the Obama assault on Israel publicly, such as New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, were relatively rare. Several of the major American Jewish organizations and a raft of Jewish leaders began and ended Oren’s years silent or complaining only behind closed doors.

Indeed, in a lengthy interview with the Times of Israel at the time of his book’s release, Oren said that his “biggest fear is not the Obama administration. I am deeply concerned about the future of the Democratic Party, with the progressive wing in the background.” But that “deep concern” is rarely evident in Ally, and in fact Oren appears to go out of his way to avoid criticizing liberal or “progressive” Democrats.

Oren recounts his first meeting with Jewish members of Congress —29 Democrats and Eric Cantor — and likens it to “stumbling into a blizzard.” His own remarks at that meeting “generated little sympathy” and several members “accused Netanyahu of showing ingratitude toward the United States.” But his summary of what he calls “my most troubling experience on the Hill” refers to “Jewish legislators,” and there is no further discussion of the failure of these Democrats to show support for Israel when the Democrat in the White House was sailing in a different direction.

His portrait of Hillary Clinton suffers from the same unwillingness to draw the conclusions to which his own evidence clearly points. Then he came to Washington as ambassador and of course asked for a private, introductory meeting with Secretary of State Clinton. This is normal for a country that is a close and important friend. But she refused to see him and in fact made him wait nearly a full year for a private session. Such treatment of an ally is astonishing, but Oren reports the fact without comment.

He does mention the way she browbeat and pushed Netanyahu to apologize to Turkey over the Mavi Marmara, as well as the time she “excoriated Netanyahu for 45 minutes over the phone” over an announcement of new construction in settlements while Biden visited Israel. But again, he mentions these incidents without comment—and on other occasions Oren seems to go out of his way to protect Clinton.

When Oren speculates about why some American Jews—and especially journalists such as Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich, whom he singles out by name—are so critical of Israel, his answer is not politics and ideology but insecurity.

“I could not help questioning whether American Jews really felt as secure as they claimed,” he writes. “Perhaps persistent fears of anti-Semitism impelled them to distance themselves from Israel and its so often controversial policies.”

But nothing in the book substantiates this opinion, while a great deal that Oren writes about Obama and his entourage—from Jeremiah Wright to Rashid Khalidi in the past, to those who have manned his White House staff in the present—points to a very simple answer: Around the world, the Left has turned against Israel. Are American Jews on the Left really afraid of pogroms, or are they afraid instead of disloyalty to the Democratic Party and accusations that they are “moving Right”?

Poll after poll reveals a deepening partisan gap on Israel: Democrats and the Left are far more likely than Republicans and conservatives to view Israel as aggressive, racist, and uninterested in peace. Oren’s portrait of the Obama administration and of the president himself fits easily within these trends, but he is oddly reluctant to place them there.

It was Oren’s job as ambassador to avoid toppling into what he calls “the partisan fissure between American Jews,” but he left that post nearly two years ago. Ally would have been strengthened by a greater degree of candor about where Israel’s allies were to be found, and where they were missing, during his years as Israel’s man in Washington.


The Book Reviewer,  Elliott Abrams:

Is a diplomat, lawyer and political scientist who served in foreign policy positions for U.S. Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. While serving for Reagan, Abrams and retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Oliver North were integral players in the Iran-Contra affair. 

He is currently a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Additionally, Abrams holds positions on the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), Center for Security Policy & National Secretary Advisory Council, Committee for a Free Lebanon, and the Project for the New American Century. He also was the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington in 1996. Abrams is a current member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and teaches foreign policy at Georgetown University as well as maintaining a CFR blog called “Pressure Points” about the U.S. foreign policy and human rights.

To Subscribe:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Defender of Fidel


The Weekly Standard

August 10, 2015

Juan Reinaldo Sánchez was drafted into the Cuban Army in 1967 and assigned to the Department of Personal Security, the branch dedicated to protecting Fidel Castro. Starting at the lowest rung, where he was assigned to the blocks where Cuba’s top revolutionary leaders worked, Sánchez quickly rose through the ranks because of his good performance and revolutionary attitude. As a result, he was selected to join an elite group, made up of two divisions of 1,500 handpicked troops, who protected Fidel Castro 24 hours a day.

Sánchez certainly stood out: In 1976, he graduated from a new training school for elite security agents where he earned a black belt in karate and became Cuba’s top sniper and best pistol shooter, a status gained from national military competitions. Eventually chosen to be Castro’s main security guard, Sánchez accompanied Castro everywhere he went, including trips to the Soviet Union, Central and South America, and Western European capitals. As such, he was in the unique position to observe Castro and his actual lifestyle, one 180 degrees from the “socialist” values he preached and supposedly lived.

In fact, according to Sánchez, Castro lives like a typical Latin American caudillo: He “transformed and enlarged his father’s [large plantation] property to make Cuba into a single hacienda of eleven million people” in which, as lord and master, he would control the lives of his subjects, virtually the entire Cuban population of poor peasants and urban dwellers.

Fidel Castro has often told Cubans and the world press that he is an exemplary revolutionary leader who works day and night for the revolution and lives as simply as the poorest Cuban, taking only a meager official salary of $38 per month (in American dollars). Sánchez finds this myth “highly comic,∫” since, in reality, Castro was the CEO of what might be called Cuba Holdings, an entity with sums in the millions, all of it available for Castro’s personal use at a moment’s whim.

Sánchez details how Castro uses this wealth for his personal comfort, a state secret carefully hidden from the people he led until his recent official retirement. For the first time, Sánchez exposes the secret properties Castro owns, giving exact locations, using maps and Google satellite imagery. The leader who preaches the need to sacrifice for the revolution has, in addition to 20 homes throughout the island, a private island called Cayo Piedra, where he and his entourage would go each weekend in June and for the entire month of August. It was, writes Sánchez, a “millionaire’s paradise” where Castro kept his private yacht, Aquarama II, and had his own ecological underwater sanctuary.

Despite Castro having an official photographer, Sánchez notes that no photos were ever allowed to be taken of his vacation paradise. Few, except his immediate family—his wife Dalia and their five children—were allowed to go there. There were a few exceptions, including the explorer Jacques Cousteau; news people such as Barbara Walters of ABC and Ted Turner, whose favorable coverage on CNN Castro appreciated; and Erich Honecker, the leader of East Germany to whom Castro was indebted for his Stasi-trained state security agents.

Among Castro’s other indulgent privileges was his insistence that, whenever he traveled abroad, he had to sleep in his favorite bed from his main Havana residence. Every time he traveled, his aides had the bed taken apart and shipped to Castro’s destination, where it would be put together in his hotel or lodging and ready for use before his arrival. The former guerrilla leader, evidently, was making up for the time he spent sleeping outdoors on the Sierra Maestra, fighting the Batista regime.

Sánchez goes after other stories surrounding the revolution’s history. He contests the myth that, in the 1980s, during the Reagan presidency, “indigenous” revolutions broke out in Central America. Sánchez argues that they were exports by Fidel Castro of his revolution. He reveals the existence of a secret training camp 15 miles east of Havana, where the government trained and directed foreign guerrilla operations all over the world. Recruits came from Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, and Nicaragua, and included Basque separatists, members of the Irish Republican Army, and, of course, soldiers from Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It was here that Carlos the Jackal, Daniel and Humberto Ortega, and Abimael Guzman, leader of Peru’s violent Shining Path, were all trained.

During the Allende years in Chile, Sánchez writes, Castro preferred (and trained) the leaders of Chile’s far revolutionary left, who thought Salvador Allende was too moderate. Castro was preparing for a deepening of the Chilean revolution at a time when his own Cuban-trained forces would overthrow Allende. We learn that Castro used Allende’s daughter to persuade her father to fire his own Chilean Army guards and replace them with left-wing revolutionaries under Cuban control.

Most important, Sánchez offers details that confirm allegations made by the Reagan administration regarding the Nicaraguan revolution. Calling it “Fidel’s Other Revolution,” Sánchez reveals how, in secret meetings with the Sandinistas, Castro organized unity among the various fighting factions. He notes that “Fidel’s involvement was crucial in the Nicaraguan revolution”; Castro considered Nicaragua his first real success in exporting the Cuban revolution. Sánchez personally witnessed how Castro smuggled arms to the Nicaraguans, and to El Salvador’s FMLN, during the latter’s attempt to overthrow the centrist Duarte government.

Finally, Sánchez learned something that led him to question everything he had believed in. Having faithfully served Fidel Castro for almost two decades, he overheard a meeting between Castro and his minister of the interior, who spoke about the details of smuggling hard drugs to the United States by way of Colombian drug lords. “In a few seconds,” Sánchez writes, “my whole world and all my ideals had come crashing down.” Never, he thought, would Cuba’s revered leader be organizing cocaine trafficking from the island, “directing illegal operations like a real godfather.”

Indeed, when the effort became too big to hide, Castro did the only thing possible: He accused army commander Arnaldo Ochoa, the most revered Cuban leader who had returned from leading Cuban troops in Angola and received the government’s highest award, of tainting the revolution by engaging in drug smuggling for personal profit—an operation Castro had ordered him to undertake. General Ochoa was soon put to death after a Soviet-style purge trial.

Many believe that this step, along with the restoration of American tourism, will lead to a relaxation of the dictatorship in Cuba as Western values (and dollars) begin to transform the country.

But Sánchez provides considerable evidence to suggest that new Western investment is unlikely to assist the Cuban people. He observes that Cuban workers, even people laboring in new tourist hotels, are given but a fraction of the salaries they’ve earned. The hotels in which they are employed are owned by the government or armed forces, after investments by French, Spanish, and Italian business interests, who pay Western salaries not to their employees but to the Cuban state. They have “invoiced this labor at a high price (and in cash) before transferring a tiny proportion to the workers concerned in virtually valueless Cuban pesos,” Sánchez writes, who considers this arrangement to be a “modern variant on slavery,” reminiscent of “the relationship of dependence that existed in the nineteenth-century plantations toward the all-powerful master.”

Two years away from retirement age, and growing more disillusioned by the day, Juan Reinaldo Sánchez made a formal request to retire early. Immediately, he was arrested by Castro and spent two years in harsh prison conditions. He was released in 1996, 40 pounds lighter than he had weighed upon entry. After a dozen attempts to escape Cuba, he succeeded in 2008. Hoping to devote the last chapter of his life to working for freedom in Cuba, he died just as this American edition of his book was published.

Ronald Radosh is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and coauthor, with Allis Radosh, of A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel.

To Subscribe:

Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from: An Open Letter to Pope Francis About Islamism, from a Concerned Muslim Reformer

By M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D.

The Independent Journal

September 24, 2015

Dear Pope Francis,

First, I’d like to join millions in welcoming you to the United States – an extraordinary nation founded on the sacred principle of freedom of conscience. It is a nation where you, a Catholic, can be openly welcomed by me, a Muslim – during the same week that the Jewish community freely observes their holiest of holidays, and we Muslims celebrate Eid al-Adha, the festival honoring the sacrifice asked of our mutual ancestor, Abraham.

I write with deep respect for your position as the religious leader of roughly 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. As a Muslim whose faith communities are estimated to include over a billion adherents as well, I recognize your example as one that has the power to inspire change across religious lines across our planet.

I also acknowledge your commitment to set a different example for religious leadership: at times, you have dissented with leaders in the Vatican on matters you deem important. As a dissident hungry for change in my faith communities, I respect your tenacity and concern for humanity. It is a concern I share at a time when once in a millennium tectonic shifts are creating vacuums. Nature abhors a vacuum. The world order is unraveling day by day and the forces of evil are quickly filling it in the absence of genuine leadership from the religious and political leaders of the Free World.

It is out of that concern that I write, not just to offer you my humble welcome to our nation that gave my family freedom from the oppression of Syrian Ba’athism, but to ask for your moral courage on the issue of Islamism (political Islam)- the root cause of radical Islam.

Islamism, the theo-political ideology that inspires all Islamic states (whether full-fledged or quasi-theocracies) and which seeks the subjugation and even death of all who fail to comply with its barbarism, is undeniably the greatest threat to global peace and security today.

It is a deep-seated cancer within the House of Islam, wherein a cosmic battle between the forces of Sunni Islamism, Shia Islamism and secular fascism is taking place. Together, these forces are responsible for the oppression, torture and murder of countless Muslims and non-Muslims today. We can continue to share blinders in the West and commiserate over the metastases which this battle spreads across the planet whether through hate, terrorism, or refugees. Or we can open our eyes and hone in on the common root cause: it is that time in history when Muslims and our Islam must now come to terms with modernity.

The historic bonds between your faith and mine are undeniable, and it is because of these bonds, and your influence, that you are perfectly positioned to emulate for the Muslim world what it means to advocate for individual liberty, and to protect universal human rights – most importantly, freedom of conscience, which can only be protected when religion and state are separate. It is this truth that has failed to take hold in the Middle East.

While Islamism is a problem within the House of Islam and thus certainly requires a Muslim-led solution, we dissidents are in dire need of support from outside of our community.

You are in a position to facilitate a massive reality check worldwide. But to do this, you must also commit to and model the separation of faith from politics. Political lobbying on matters like climate change may be compelling to some, but I would argue that your voice as a man of religion is more urgently needed on matters like women’s bodily autonomy, the rights of children to be free from sexual abuse, forced marriage and other evils; and the plight of persecuted Christians, Jews, reformist Muslims, atheists and dissidents across the Middle East. In brief, you must make clear your own commitment to the separation of church and state, which will embolden freethinkers the world over to support the separation of mosque and state.

Your legacy is already being established – and it is that of a courageous forward-thinking man of faith. Will you join reform-minded Muslims in our fight against Islamism, lifting up our cause, thereby helping to secure global peace and cementing your legacy as one of the great spiritual leaders of our time?

You have a choice: to give a voice to your brothers and sisters in humanity, those dissident Muslims languishing inside and out of jails across Muslim-majority societies whose plight mirrors that of all minorities inside their oppressive Islamist societies; or to remain silent as Islamists radicalize our youth, supported by billionaires who export a malignant interpretation of Islam that is against all you stand for?

Once again, Pope Francis, I am honored to write you and to welcome you to this great blessed country. I hope that my words are received in the spirit in which I offer them: one of brotherhood, one of shared values and the deepest respect.

May the one God bless and keep you.  (And, you too, Dr. Jasser. You are a very courageous man)

In liberty,

M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD

Biography: M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D. is the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). A devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, and the separation of mosque and state.

Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose parents fled the oppressive Baath regime of Syria in the mid-1960’s for American freedom. He is leading the fight to shake the hold that the Muslim Brotherhood and their network of American Islamist organizations and mosques have on organized Islam in America.

Dr. Jasser earned his medical degree on a U.S. Navy scholarship at the Medical College of Wisconsin in 1992. He served 11 years as a medical officer in the U. S. Navy.  He is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal. Dr. Jasser is a respected physician currently in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology. He is a Past-President of the Arizona Medical Association.

To Subscribe:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Sandy Koufax, Dodger Hall of Fame Pitcher and his Yom Kippur, “Sermon on the Mound”

Redacted from an article:

By Michael Freund

Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2015

This Yom Kippur marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most seminal moments in post-war American Jewish life, an event that occurred – or, to be more precise, one that didn’t – which had a profound impact on how US Jewry came to feel about itself and its place in society.

In 1965, the Day of Atonement coincided with October 6, the date on which the Los Angeles Dodgers were going up against the Minnesota Twins in the first game of baseball’s World Series.

The Dodgers’ best pitcher, Sandy Koufax, was expected to lead the charge for the team. With a dazzling overhand curveball that seemed to defy gravity and a blazing fastball that was virtually unhittable, it is no wonder that Koufax was dubbed by Hall of Famer Ernie Banks as “the greatest pitcher I ever saw”. Or, as Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci once wrote, “Koufax was so good, he once taped a postgame radio show with Vin Scully before the game.”

But Koufax wasn’t just a baseball superstar. He was also a Jew from Brooklyn and a proud one at that. And although he was completely secular, he found himself facing a dilemma: stand by his teammates and play or respect the sanctity of the day.
Koufax chose the latter, sitting out the first game (which the Dodgers went on to lose). His choice caused a sensation among an entire generation of American Jews, from the most observant to the least active. It underlined that Jews need not feel discomfort about their identity while taking part in American public life.

After all, if young Sandy Koufax could place fidelity to tradition ahead of pitching in the World Series without fear of a backlash, then clearly America was a place where Jews could assert their identity more securely than previously thought.

In an interview, Jane Leavy, author of the New York Times bestselling book “Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy”, told me that, “Sandy’s decision not to pitch had a tremendous impact on the American Jewish community, on God knows how many Bar Mitzvah boys whose rabbis always summoned Koufax as an example of why they should be in shul not on a baseball field on the High Holidays, on those rabbis who have sermonized at length on Koufax’s impact on the American Jewish community, and on countless Jews—practicing and cultural—who saw in Koufax an exemplar of Jewishness, refuting negative stereotypes in his actions and his being.”

Don’t forget: Koufax’s decision came just twenty years after the Holocaust and at a time when many American Jews were still subject to discrimination in hiring and housing and fearful of being identified as “too Jewish.” Suddenly, their fears seemed to be a thing of the past.

As historian Rabbi Berel Wein told the New York Jewish Week last year, “When Sandy Koufax stated that he would not pitch on Yom Kippur, many Jews in America stood a little taller and had a better sense of self-worth and Jewish pride. That was as true in the Orthodox observant community as it was in the general Jewish community.”

Koufax’s decision “influenced that generation of American Jews to become more publicly assertive and to be less ashamed of their Jewishness. The decision of Koufax to do the Jewish thing so publicly and in such a quintessential American setting as the World Series pumped a new confidence into that generation of American Jews.”

Koufax also helped to shatter the common stereotype that Jews and sports did not mix, or that the People of the Book could not excel on the playing field. In that sense, he paved the way for greater acceptance of Jews in American society.

Despite the renown which followed his decision not to pitch, to this day it remains unclear what Koufax’s reasons were, or what he did on that fateful Yom Kippur. Leavy told me, “I believe that it was a reflexive, dutiful decision for him. He did it out of respect for his parents, then alive, his community, his sense of right and wrong.”

“From his point of view,” she said, “it was no big deal because after all, the Dodgers had Don Drysdale to start in his place and so they flip-flopped in the starting rotation. I think he was surprised by the response of the Jewish community and a bit embarrassed by his elevation to the ranks of a New American Patriarch.”

Drysdale did indeed start the game, but he gave up seven runs in 2 2/3 innings. When Dodger manager Walter Alston made his way to the mound to take Drysdale out of the game, the pitcher handed him the ball, smiled and said, “I bet right now you wish I was Jewish, too.”

Koufax returned for the next game, which he lost, but rebounded in Game 5 of the series, when he pitched a complete game shutout. After just two days rest, he started the decisive seventh game, throwing a three-hit shutout to win the championship for the Dodgers, as well as his second World Series Most Valuable Player award.

Koufax, who is an extremely private person, has shied away from publicity, especially since his retirement due to an arthritic arm in 1966, and has rarely spoken in public about his decision not to pitch on Yom Kippur. Nor has he chosen to clear up the mystery of how he spent the day.

According to an article that appeared in a local St. Paul, Minnesota, newspaper prior to the start of the 1965 World Series, Koufax had left the team’s hotel in order to attend Yom Kippur services and said that he wouldn’t watch or listen to the game on the holy day.

And on the afternoon of Yom Kippur, Rabbi Bernard Raskas of Temple Aaron in St. Paul told his congregants that Koufax had attended services with them that morning but that he hadn’t wanted to violate the ballplayer’s privacy by singling him out in front of everyone.

Whatever may have happened that day, by refusing to play on Yom Kippur, Sandy Koufax inadvertently entered American Jewry’s record books as a national figure, a courageous and confident Jew who did not let his professional success overwhelm his tribal loyalty.

Despite his career ending after just 12 seasons, Koufax later became the youngest player inducted into Baseball’s Hall of Fame, and many consider him to be one of the greatest left-handed pitchers in the game’s history.

But for many American Jews who were struggling to decide which part of their identity took precedence, Sandy Koufax will be remembered not so much for the pitches he threw as for the ones he chose not to.

To Subscribe:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

By Mychal Massie in Daily Rant

His new book on race, “Blacks Are Victims: Because They’re Told They Are”

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obamas. Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obamas? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family picture.”

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.

Barack Obama’s  arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing Congress is impeachable. Eric Holder was the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie. But even using that low standard, the Obamas have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths.

They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly.

I do not like Michelle Obama’s  code-speak pursuant to finally being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mind set as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that. I have a saying that “the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide.” No President in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family.

He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman.

He has surrounded himself with today’s  most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of  their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are.

There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white President and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.”

He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his Presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected President, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a First Lady who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and  unemployed.

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. Mychal is also a syndicated op-ed columnist and former host of the top-rated talk show on the Rightalk Radio Network – “Straight Talk with Mychal Massie.”  Mychal holds degrees in education, theology, and pastoral counseling. He is the author of “Random Rants: I Was Right Then And I Am Right Now.” His new book on race, “Blacks Are Victims: Because They’re Told They Are,” was released January, 2015.

To Subscribe:


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Putin Sends His Dirty War Forces to Syria

Redacted from an article written by Michael Weiss

The Daily Beast, Sept. 9, 2015

The Kremlin isn’t sending just any troops to prop up the Assad regime. It’s dispatching units that spearheaded Russia’s slow-rolling invasion of Ukraine.

Reuters confirmed Wednesday what The Daily Beast first reported last week—not only have Russian troops been deployed to Syria but they are indeed taking part in active combat operations, although against which of the manifold enemies of the Assad regime remains unclear.

U.S. government sources told the news agency that two tank-landing ships, aircraft, and naval infantry forces have arrived in Syria in the past 24 hours, with the largest buildup occurring in Latakia, the northwest coastal province—ancestral home of the Assad family—which Islamist rebels have been fiercely contesting of late. Russia, Reuters confirmed, is constructing a new airfield in Latakia, which would represent its second military installation in Syria after its decades-old naval supply base in Tartus, also its only warm-water port since the end of the Soviet Union.

One U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast that Moscow likely has taken the decision to directly intervene in the 4½-year civil war after opposition gains, contrary to what Vladimir Putin told reporters last week—that any such talk was “premature.”

“Russia’s military involvement raises a number of concerns, especially because it does not appear to be coordinated with the other countries operating in the area,” the official said. “It is not clear what Russia intends to actually do. However, Russia has generally not exercised restraint in military confrontations.”

An oft-cited fear in the U.S. is that Russia won’t target ISIS, or only ISIS, but also Free Syrian Army rebels who may be working with the CIA or Pentagon.

But what’s most interesting about this news isn’t that Putin has unilaterally decided to rescue his embattled client in Damascus—it’s the kind of Russian troops he’s using to do it. Some of them are from the same units that spearheaded Russia’s year-and-a-half-long dirty war in Ukraine, which may now be in abeyance.

“It is not clear what Russian intends to actually do. However, Russia has generally not exercised restraint in military confrontations.”

According to an investigation by Ruslan Leviev, a specialist in social-media intelligence, the soldiers are from the 810th Marine Brigade, which is based in Sevastopol, Crimea. The 810th is one of the few units of the Black Sea Fleet known to have played an active role in Russia’s military takeover of the Ukrainian peninsula 18 months ago.

The deployment of an elite unit from Crimea, which inaugurated Russia’s standoff with the West, is an intriguing choice. Moscow has spent enormous resources moving troops into Crimea and eastern Ukraine over the past year. Moving even some of them out of the area to a different conflict zone, particularly one outside of Europe, gives the lie that sanctions and diplomatic isolation have forced the Kremlin into compromise; rather, Russia appears ready and willing to take on multiple wars at once.

Doing so requires a delicate balancing of the ledger, however. Moscow’s belligerence in Syria coincided almost exactly with its (relative) enforcement of a year-old and serially violated ceasefire in Ukraine.

Oleksandr Turchynov, the secretary for Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has said that the lull in Ukraine fighting is a feint by Russia to build up materiel and troops behind the front line in preparation for another big offensive, which, he said, could occur “at any time,” though Turchynov doesn’t expect this to happen before the three-week UN General Assembly in New York, which starts on September 15.

Indeed, as Reuters also reported today, Russia’s Defense Ministry is building a 6,000-square-meter military complex to house “3,500 soldiers, warehouses for rockets, artillery weapons, and other munitions” in Valuyki, a village about 15 miles from Ukraine’s border. Bases such as these, NATO has alleged, are how Russia trains its proxies in Ukraine and keeps them steadily resupplied with tanks and anti-aircraft and radar guidance systems.


That Putin may be keeping one conflict frozen but oven-ready to start cooking another is also suggested in his diplomatic maneuvering and messaging in the last week. He has reportedly negotiated overflight rights to Syria for Russian military transport planes with Greece and with Iran and called for the creation of an “international coalition against terrorism and extremism,” to include the U.S., knowing that his definition of terrorism and extremism encompasses many American partners in Syria.

Putin knows that the U.S. may be tacitly OK with seeing Russia directly safeguard “state institutions” in Damascus—i.e., the Syrian army and the security services responsible for the bulk of the country’ carnage—especially as the so-called Islamic State widely known as ISIS creeps ever closer to the capital. He need only read U.S. newspapers, which cite anonymous White House officials objectively supporting Assad’s longevity, to glean as much. He also knows that calls for Russia to “stop arming and assisting and supporting Bashar al-Assad” can be met with an implied, “Yeah, yeah” because the U.S. will never come close to arming and supporting Assad’s opposition in a commensurate manner.

Finally, anti-Americanism is now a central plank of Russian foreign policy, which depicts Russia as the only nation brave enough to stand up to American hegemony. Rebuffing and outfoxing Washington is a now a national pastime.

As ever, the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose conundrum only pays off because the West is so willing to play along. Any number of European leaders have not so subtly indicated that they’d be quite happy to barter for an end to an older Russian war in Europe in exchange for a newer Russian war in the Middle East.

Just a week into the Ukraine ceasefire, France’s President Francois Hollande wasted no time in hopefully glimpsing an end to Western sanctions on Russia, which have hurt French business interests and bilateral trade. A former minister and opposition politician, Bruno Lemaire, has called for the creation of “as broad a military coalition as possible, including European states, Russia and the states of the Middle East”—but, pointedly, not the U.S.

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

To Subscribe:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Every Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) Israel Commentary publishes a condensed outline reminding the Jews and Non-Jews of how the Non-Jews have treated us over the centuries.

And virtually nothing has changed as of this very moment — Rosh Hashanah September 14, 2015 (Jewish calendar year 5776).

The P 5+1 World Powers consisting of Obama’s fiefdom (the United States), the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany are in the process of delivering Israel (The Jewish Biblical Homeland) to the Iranians, on a plutonium nuclear platter for annihilation (G-d forbid).

Only this time, instead of the less efficient Nazi gas chambers, the Jew Haters are being given any number of nuclear bombs, a sophisticated missile system, a complete defensive system plus all the fringes that $150 billion dollars in cash plus all the income their bottomless oil industry can generate.

Thank you very much, you world class bastards.

A very condensed version of the world’s previous history of animus toward the Jewish people is listed below plus incidental commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman. The list has been redacted from a column compiled by historian, Jeff Reznik published weekly over the years in the Jewish Press.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher
Israel Commentary

Please note that when it comes to the recording of the exact dates of events in ancient history, there are disagreements between various biblical and temporal sources. But, no matter. The end results are the same.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new about anti-Semitism. Successive Gentile and Muslim generations continue to use the Jew as a useful defenseless fall guy to blame for their own inadequacies — frequently when there is not a Jew in sight!

Biblical History:

According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was told by G-d, “ Leave your country, your family and your father’s house, for the land I will show you. I will make of you a great nation: I will bless you and make your name so famous that it will be used as a blessing.”

Abraham was then seventy-five years old

When he got to Canaan G-d said to Abraham “It is to your descendants that I will give this land”
According to Genesis 21:5, Abraham was “one hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.”

Since Isaac was “sixty years old” when his own son Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26) and Jacob was “a hundred and thirty years old” when he stood before the Pharaoh of Egypt (Genesis 47:9), the total is found by adding 25 years for Abraham, 60 years for Isaac, and 130 years for Jacob, giving 215 years as the length of the period from Abraham’s arrival in the country until Jacob’s exit from it.

3700 years ago (1700 BCE). Abraham bought the cave in Machpaleh in Kiryat Arba facing Hebron, with surrounding land for 400 shekels from Ephron of the existing tribe, and buried his wife, Sara there. She had lived for 125 years, he lived 175 years. They had sons Isaac and Ishmael.

2121 BCE Jews entered biblical Canaan, their promised homeland, fulfilling G-d’s Biblical Promise.
At this point please try to ignore conflicting biblical dates. The basic story remains the same.

1556 BCE – Jacob finally left his father-in-law Laban’s home, taking Rachel and his entire family with him.

1555 BCE Birth of Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th son to Rachel and Jacob

1532 BCE Joseph, Jacob’s 11th son was released from Egyptian prison to begin the history of the Hebrews eventual exodus from Egypt to re-establish Israel’s homeland in Canaan.

1312 BCE Egyptians smitten with plague of darkness. One of the 10 plagues assessed upon them by G-d forcing them to let his people go, as  commemorated at the Passover service.

1312 BCE – Moses ascended Mt. Sinai to receive the Torah

1290 BCE Jews left Egypt – (Big debate over some of these BCE dates – obviously don’t always correlate.)

1274 BCE Death of Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron, age 126

1273 BCE Jews crossed Jordan to Jericho to receive G-d’s gift of Canaan to become Israel, homeland of the Jews.

1243 BCE – death of Joshua, Moses successor

722 BCE Assyrian conquest of 10 Israeli Tribes of North and their subsequent disappearance — the 10 lost tribes. Judah remained as the Southern kingdom and from where all subsequent Jews are descended

586 BCE First Hebrew Holy Temple destroyed by the Babylonians, The siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BCE. King Darius later permitted the return of the Jews to Israel and the rebuilding of the Second Temple (Ezra 4:24).

520 BCE Second Temple completed. Begun 537 BCE

515 BCE Esther meets King Achashveiros and saves the Jews from extinction by the evil Haman (Celebrated in the Jewish holiday of Purim)

4 BCE (Before the Christian Era) Death of king Herod who had been appointed by the Romans to rule over the Jews.

5th CE Persia – Religious persecution prevented Jews from saying their daily prayers

70 CE (Christian Era) – Romans conquered Israel completely, destroyed the Second Temple and forced the 2000 year plus Jewish Diaspora in which most Jews still live.

Following the Diaspora and later Spanish Inquisition of 1492, many Jews began new lives throughout the countries along Mediterranean Sea, primarily in lands dominated by Arabs.

After the 1948 war of Israel’s Independence, near 800,000 Jews were forced by the Arabs to emigrate from these areas penniless, leaving behind the wealth and possessions accumulated over hundreds of years. As a result of this later history, the number of Jews in the Diaspora and those in Israel are now reaching parity.

354-430 CE St. Augustine Confessions, 12.14:
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!” (Hmm… No wonder Christians grew up to hate Jews for centuries!) jsk

732 CE Muslim Army which was moving on Paris was defeated and turned back at Tours, France by Charles Martell

1095 Nov 26, First Crusade began (1096-99) Despite the French community’s initial fears, it was villages in Germany that bore the brunt of the Crusaders’ wrath, where entire Jewish communities being deliberately slaughtered and their wealth and possessions confiscated.

1096 Crusaders kill 297 of the 300 Jews in German town of Eller in a 2 day massacre

1099 First Crusade attacks Jerusalem

1147 Second Crusade to Jerusalem (Now “The Holy Land” not “Judea” to Christians as a result of Christ, the Jewish carpenter having been born there)

1163  China – Kaifeng’s Jews built a large and beautiful synagogue, which was subsequently renovated and rebuilt on numerous occasions throughout the centuries. At its peak, during the Ming Dynasty (1368- 1644), the Kaifeng Jewish community may have numbered as many as 5,000 people.

1189 London. Prominent Jews barred and attacked attempting to attend coronation of Richard Lion Hearted,  30 killed, began in Norwich Eng.

1190 Crusaders arrived in Stanford, England on the way to the Holy Land where they brutalized, stole all the Jew’s money and murdered hundreds of the “Murderers of our Lord” officially called “Christ Killers”  en passant.

1209 Pope Innocent III launched a crusade against the town of Beziers, France. 200 Jews were killed

1221 – Jews of Erfurt Germany falsely accused of ritual murder, synagogue stormed, Jews given choice of conversion or death, tortured, killed, synagogue burned down.

1244 Pope Innocent IV – ordered 24 cartloads of the Talmud burned

1253 Pope Innocent IV allowed expulsion of Jews from France

1260 Jews expelled from England in 1260 and would not be allowed to return until 1656

1267 Jews of Silesia forced to wear skull cap in public appearances

1269 – King Louis XI ordered all Jews in France to wear a yellow badge

1270 Oct 18 – Bloody Christian Crusades ended with treaty signed by King Louis and the Berbers.

1278 Jews were ordered to attend theological sermons, delivered by Christians, by decree of Pope Nicholas III

1283 Jews of France forbidden to repair their synagogues by decree of King Phillip the Bold

1290 Jews expelled by Edward I from England

1322 Jews expelled from France again

1348 Black Plague arrived in France. The Jews were made the scapegoat, accused of poisoning wells. Several Jewish communities were massacred.

1348 Jews of Zurich, Switzerland accused of ritual murder, driven out and murdered.

(Ritual Murder: The absurd ridiculous malicious lie that Jews routinely kill Christian children to get blood to make Matzos.)

1349, Jan. 17 Jews of Basile Switzerland burned alive when they refused to convert to Christianity

1349 Aug 24 – 6000 Jews tortured and murdered in  Mainz Germany accused of causing Black Death epidemic,

1349 Feb 14 – Jews of Strasbourg Alsace were falsely accused of poisoning wells. 2000 men, women and children were placed in a huge pyre and burned to death.

1391 5000 Jews killed in Seville, Spain

1391 Anti-Semitic mobs murdered 250 Jews in Barcelona and Toledo

1394 Jews expelled from France again by King Charles VI

1396 – Jews in Austria have their civil rights suspended

1415 CE – Pope Benedict XIII – bull condemning the Torah

1427 – Jews expelled from Berne Switzerland

1492 Jews expelled from Spain and Sicily (100,000)

1492 Aug. Christopher Columbus, many historians believe was Jewish,  sailed with many Jews likely aboard escaping the Spanish Inquisition. The navigators of the three boats were all Jews, a profession to which Jews gravitated at the time.

1496 Jews expelled from Burgsdorf, Switzerland

1498 Death of Tomas de Torquemada, Leader of the Spanish Inquisition

1516 – Ghetto established for Jews in Venice, Italy

1517 October 31 Martin Luther Protestant Reformation Day – Church of All Saints in Wittenberg. A failure by Luther (and later John Calvin 1536) to reform Christianity’s warped view of their spiritual brethren — the Jews.
He initially had a benevolent attitude toward Jews, denouncing the church’s demonization of them. Later in life, however, Luther turned against the Jews with passion when they refused to bow to his new religion. His curses rained upon them, especially at Easter, in direct sermons for centuries and laid the groundwork for the German Nazi genocide centuries later — with the enthusiastic help of the nations of Europe

1526 Maria of Hapsburg expelled the Jews from Bratislava, Hungary

1536 John Calvin – founder of Calvinism, published Protestant Systematic Theology in Latin. His comments on Jews: “Their rotten and unbending stiff-necked-ness (for not accepting Christ) deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”

1539 Jews expelled from Hungary

1567 Jews expelled from Genoa, Italy

1567 Jews, decreed by Regent Don Henrique, not allowed to settle in Brazil

1569 The Inquisition was established in South America

1569 Jews expelled from Papal State by Pope Pius V

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

1648 Jews escaping from Russian General Chmielnicki massacres fled to a fortified castle in Polonnoye Ukraine where 10,000 were cornered and massacred.

1655 Peter Stuyvesant thwarted in his attempt to expel Jews from New Amsterdam by the Dutch West India Company

1656, March 13 Permission denied to build a synagogue in New Amsterdam (later NYC) by Governor Peter Stuyvesant.

1656 Jewish burial in a Jewish cemetery became legal in New Amsterdam.

1656 Jewish community of Amsterdam excommunicated the great philosopher Baruch Spinoza

1670 Jews of Vienna, Austria – Emperor Leopold I expelled 4000 Jews who would not convert. Great Synagogue burned down and replaced by church St. Margaret

1675 Death of Bogdan Chmielnicki, who was responsible for Cossacks murder of 300,000 Jews

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

1695 Sep 12 – New York Jews were denied petition to worship openly as Jews.

1716 Jews expelled from Brussels

1727 Jews expelled from Ukraine by Empress Catherine I

1731 Vatican librarian Costanzi led search parties to all Jewish quarters throughout Papal States to confiscate Jewish holy books. This would continue for decades.

1737 New York Assembly disallowed Jews to vote.

1742 Jews expelled from Great Russia by Empress Elizabeth

1745 Jews expelled from Prague

1763 Cornerstone of first American synagogue, Touro Synagogue laid in Newport, R

1765 Chair created at Harvard College for study of Hebrew

1791 Pale of Settlement, Russian forced upon Jews by Empress Catherine. Jews allowed no where else in Russia

1774 Jews expelled from Prague by Empress Maria Theresa

1798 Rabbi Schneur Zalman was released from St Petersburg prison, Founder of Lubavitch dynasty and author of Tanya

1808 Napoleon required all Jews in France to use surnames

1811 Napoleon emancipated the Jew’s from the ghetto

1814 The French Congress officially in 1814 made Jew’s full citizen but attempted via Napoleon to eliminate their Jewish identity and religion to become French citizens.

1815 Battle of Waterloo, where Napoleon was defeated by a coalition of British and European armies headed by the Duke of Wellington, brought an end to Napoleon’s empire

1816 Jews expelled from Lubeck, Germany

1835 Jews of Hebron, Palestine attacked by Ibrahim Pasha and his army

1838 Arabs attack the Jews of Safed, Israel (By the way, Jews were killed by Arabs in Israel 110 years before State of Israel was ever founded)

1855 June 5 First Jewish Hospital in America, Jews Hospital of New York – Known today as Mt. Sinai Hospital all over the United States

1861 Pres. Abe Lincoln moved to change the law so that Jews could serve as chaplains in the army.

1868 Dec. Romanian Jews forbidden from being Drs., 1864 – Lawyers

1868 The KKK lynched a Jew named S.A. Bierfield in Franklin. TN on some trumped up charge later proven false.

1873 Death of first Jewish Mayor of London, Sir David Salomons

1881 Pogroms in Konotop and Waslikov Russia against Jews, continued for 3 years

1897 Theodore Hertzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) forecasting the grave necessity of a Jewish Homeland where Jews would finally be freed from persecution and deliberate slaughter and ostracism.

1894 October 15, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew from the Alsatian region of France, was accused of spying for the Germans and falsely imprisoned.

1899 Romanian Jews blacklisted from Universities

1901 Arabs attacked Jews of Gedera, Palestine

1902 Formation of Union of Orthodox Rabbis in US and Canada

1903 Russia outlawed Zionism and funding Zionism (First Zionist Congress with Theodore Herzl 1899, Herzl died July 3, 1904)

1909 Dagania Alegh, first recent settlement founded in Palestine

1909 Long before becoming Hitler’s  “Willing Executioners” of Jews  – Polish Legionnaires looted and burned Jewish section of Vilna during a 4 day pogrom. Hundreds of Jews murdered and arrested and tortured.

1909 City of Tel Aviv founded in Palestine that became Israel 1948

1917 November 17 The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild declaring the right of the Jews to repossess their homeland in Palestine. It presented a biblical boundary map extending all the way from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates River to the east well into the land now called Iraq.

1917 Dec. 9, British took Jerusalem from the defeated Ottoman Empire

1921 May 7 Arabs attacked the first Jewish settlement of Petach Tikva, killed three people and drove them out. But, the Jews returned after 1948 and in 2010 numbered 210,341 Jews. (Thank G-d)

1921 Arab riots in then Palestinians killed dozens of Jews in Jaffa

1924 Nov 23, City of Herzliya, Israel founded in honor of Theodore Herzl

1929 Arabs attacked Jews throughout Palestine. Many Jews beaten and killed. The attack in Hebron was particularly brutal. Arabs using swords attacked men, women, children an students. 67 Jews including 23 Yeshiva students were killed.

1935 Sep 15, Hitler published Nurenberg Laws against Jews stripping them of all their civil rights

1935 Death of Colonel Alfred Dreyfus of French Army, falsely accused of treason and framed at trial. Finally exonerated through efforts of author, Emile Zola.

1936 Dec 26 – Palestinian Philharmonic (all Jews) played for first time under the baton of Arturo Toscanini (In what is now Israel).

Note: (“Palestinian” was the designation for Jews in the Holy Land, until Yasir Arafat was clever enough to abscond with the term and the Arabs of Palestine suddenly became the “Palestinians” instead of just plain Arabs. Ipso facto, the Arabs became the “Palestinians” and the Jews became the invading European Jews on “occupied “Arab Land. ”
And the world bought into this gargantuan lie and the Jews did not even bother to vigorously dispute this obvious propaganda distortion that has proven so successful)

1938 Evian Conference July 6 to 15 at Évian-les-Bains, France .
Representatives from 32 countries and 39 private organizations and some 24 voluntary organizations, convened by Franklin Roosevelt, met formally to decide if the West would accept the displaced Jews of Europe,  They voted not to!
Golda Meir, the attendee from Palestine was not permitted to speak or to participate except as an observer. Some 200 international journalists gathered at Évian to observe and report the conclave. This event should remain for the Jews a significant conference and all that Jew’s need to know to formulate their own personal lives and that of the State of Israel.

1938 Nov 9-10 Kristallnacht in Germany – Synagogues, shops, cemeteries, anything Jewish attacked in Germany and Austria. Jews beaten and murdered at will.

1938 Nov.17 Italian version of Nurenberg laws published. Jews stripped of their civil rights

1939 May Nurenberg Laws in Germany, stripping Jews of their civil rights

1939 Sep 4 Hundreds of Jews slaughtered during a pogrom organized by the Nazis in Poland

1940 May 1, Churchill replaced Chamberlain

1940 Battle of Britain raged against the Germans

1940 Feb 200,000 Jews of Lodz, Poland moved into Baluty Ghetto prior to execution.

1940 Lubavitcher Rebbe taken out of the Warsaw Ghetto brought to the US.

1940 Aug. 4 – Death of Vladimer (Z’ev) Jabotinsky – Ardent Zionist leader, orator, writer, linguist, poet, journalist, Founder of Revisionist Zionism, who spent years begging the Jews to leave Europe before it was too late and was despised for his efforts and called an alarmist. 6 million exterminated Jews resulted from ignoring his warnings.

1941 June Vichy France warplanes bomb Tel Aviv, 20 Jews killed

1941 July – 200 Torahs gathered from synagogues in Poland and burned in special ceremony. Later that day, Heinrich Himmler arranged for the creation of the Maidanek murder camp in Lublin Poland

1941 Aug 21 – 18,000 Jews arrested in Hungary and deported to Poland. Many murdered right on the spot. Others marched 10 miles and made to dig their own mass graves.

1941 Nazis and Willing Executor Latvians killed 2300 Jews in Riga

1941 Sep 29 Babi Yar Ravine – Took Germans just 2 days to machine gun to death 33,771 Jews in this ravine near Kiev

1941 Dec 8, Birkeneku – 1500 older Jews from Riga ghetto slaughtered by SS in forest.

1941 June 22, Hitler turns against Soviet Union

1941 June – Germans occupy Lithuania and begin the round up and slaughter of Jews with plenty of willing Lithuanian fellow executioners.

1941 July 7, Ukrainians joined the party and murdered 1200 Jews near town of Otynia, Poland. (So, do I really care if Russians kill Ukrainians or vice versa?  And, you can throw in the Pollacks, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, etc and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Makes me no never mind.) jsk

1941 Sep 29 – Babi Yar ravine, near Kiev. Russia – over 2 day period, Nazis shot to death 33,771 Jews – the single largest mass murder of the Holocaust

Nov 4, 1941, 483 locals killed by Nazis ending the Jewish presence in village.

1941 Dec 10, Hitler declares war on US after Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941

1941, Dec. Weeks of rampage ended with the death of 32,000 Jews in Vilna, Poland

1942. Sept Jews of Lida Poland Ghetto, 10,000 killed

1942, Feb. Himmler selects 80 Jews from Auschwitz for his skeletal collection museum at Univ. of Strasbourg. Murdered by lethal injection and then corpses burned to prevent damage to their bones to become part of Nazi planned Jewish museum of an extinct people they had deliberately exterminated. (Too bad we don’t have a museum of Nazi German bones to display – jsk)

1942 July – The German Nazi SS murdered 10,000 Jews in the ghetto of Minsk, Byelorussia.

1942 Aug 21 SS Nazis murdered 2750 Jews of Lancut, Poland in Falkinia forest

1942 – 600,000 Jews murdered in Hungary by the Hungarians

1942 Sep 6 4000 Jews taken from Wolbrom ghetto in Krakow Poland and sent to Belzec murder camp.  2000 old people  were shot dead in forest before making trip

1943 After the beginning of WWII in 1941, the Allied fleet had regained the Mediterranean as its own lake.

1942, October Norway – all Jewish men arrested and shipped to Auschwitz concentration camp

1943 Oct 14 Jewish uprising in Sobibor death camp under leadership of Alexander Pechersky. 200 Jews, 11 SS Nazis killed while 400 Jews escaped.

1944 600,000 Jews killed in Hungary by Hitler’s Germans and Hungarian Willing Executioners. The Hungarian Gov’t March 2014, 70 years later, still denies complicity

1944 – March 7, 99,941 Jews gassed in Auschwitz during that day

1944 October – Anne Frank transferred from Auschwitz to Bergen Belsen where she died.

1945 April 12, Buchenwald murder camp liberated by US Army. From 1938-1945 238,000 Jews were held there. 56,000 murdered.

1945 Feb 12 Death of Hadassah founder Henrietta Szold

1945 May 2 – Goebbels and wife Magda poisoned their 6 children and then committed suicide.

1945 May 4, Germany surrenders unconditionally.

1945 May Dachau Concentration Camp liberated.

1946 42 Jews killed by Pollocks when they returned to Kielce to claim their pre-war homes then occupied illegally by Poles.

1946 June, British arrested 100 Jewish Agency leaders in Palestine – hundreds of others rounded up, called Black Shabbos.

1947 Nov 29 – UN agreed to partition Palestine between Jews and Arabs with the Jews getting the short end, as usual, and given a sliver piece of territory that the UN thought would never survive the onslaught by surrounding Arabs they had armed to the teeth.  But this time the Jews depended upon themselves and they, thanks to G-d, prevailed over 5 Arabs armies surrounding them.

1947 Dec. Jordanians laid siege to Jerusalem, 40 Jews killed at Haifa oil facility

1948 May 14 – Declaration of Israel Independence, Yom Ha’Atzmaut

1948 May 15 5 Arab nations (Egypt,Jordan,Syria,Iraq,Lebanon) attacked Israel immediately attempting to annihilate the reborn Jewish State.

1948 800,000 Jews driven out penniless, their properties confiscated by the gov’t of Arab nations in which they had lived for thousands of years. At most apx. 400,000 Arabs left Israel and swelled to millions under UNESCO, a unique UN relief program just for Palestinian Arabs unlike no other refugees and displaced persons following WWII.

1948 Dec. 16 Operation Magic Carpet – Thousands of destitute Yemenite Jews rescued via multiple air transport flights to their reborn sanctuary for the Jewish people — Israel

1949 March 10. IDF liberated Eilat

1949 Cheshvan – Jewish Population in Israel reached 1 million people, now, 2015, over 6 million

1949 March David Ben-Gurion formed Israel’s first government, Baruch Hashem.

1950 The passing of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, the Sixth Lubavitcher Rabbi

1950 Aug 24   The Jews finally created a safe haven of their own – The Re-creation of the State of Israel  May 14,1948 following the War of Independence. The last of 45,000 Yemenite  Jews, escaped the Arab persecution of centuries and arrived in Israel during the successful air lift of waves of Israeli planes bringing them back to their ancient homeland via Operation Magic Carpet

1951 Jan 17, The succession of Rabbi Menachim Mendel Schneerson as Seventh Lubavitcher Rabbi, above’s son-in-law, delivered his first Maamar confirming his succession. Lyubavichi is a village in District of Smolensk, Russia. existed since at least 1654, had 2500 residents in 1857, large market place, declined with onset of Communism,

1951, May 3 The Israeli Knesset designated this day as Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom HaShoah, under PM David Ben Gurion

1952 Dec. 26 Israel’s first ambassador to Japan presented his credentials to the Emperor (Can you imagine if Abraham, Isaac, Jacob witnessed that one!!)

1953 February Soviet Union recalled its ambassador and cut off relations with Israel which had just been reborn May 14, 1948

1958 Oct 14 – Cornerstone for Israel Legislature, the Knesset laid in Jerusalem

1960 Adolph Eichmann captured in Argentina , Buenos Aires, where had lived for years, hanged in Israel

May 31, 1962, sentenced to death Dec. 15, 1961 for crimes against the Jewish people and humanity

1961 July 31. The one millionth immigrant arrived in Israel. Israel reborn in 1948. Up until that time, Britain severely limited the number of Jews they would allow into their biblical homeland.
In the meantime, not one so-called Palestinian refugee was absorbed by the 21 huge sparsely populated Arab states that surrounded Israel. They preferred to keep them as political ploys paid for in camps financed by the UN and mostly the US!

1963 December 5 Herbert Henry Lehman – died (March 28, 1878 – December 5, 1963) First Jewish Governor of New York (1933-1942) He also represented New York State in the United States Senate from 1950 to 1957.

1967 Six Day War – June 6 – June 11, 1967 – After just 36 hours of fighting, the IDF were deep into Sinai, captured Gaza, Kalkilya, Jenin in Samarian Hills and surrounded Jerusalem.
June 28, 1967 Israel regained and annexed Jerusalem after over 1900 years of exile following Roman Conquest and Diaspora began 70 CE

1969 Death of Levi Eshkol – former Israel PM (right after Ben Gurion)

1970 Libya All Jewish property confiscated and Jews driven out penniless, no compensation ever since

1973 Oct 26. General Ariel Sharon trapped the Egyptian Third Army on the Eastern side of the Suez Canal. Sharon allowed them to surrender in honor and retreat to Egypt. Menachim Begin snatched defeat from this victory in the 1979 agreement with Jimmy Carter and Anwar Sadat of Egypt.

1973 Nov. 6 – New York City elects its first Jewish mayor, Abraham D. Beame

1973 Henry Kissinger, First Jewish Secy of State sworn in, under Nixon

1975 Nov 10 General Assembly of United Nations declared Zionism a form of racism

1976 Entebbe rescue of over 100 Jews in airport Uganda.  Jonathan Netanyahu, Bibi’s older brother killed during the rescue.

1977 Nov. 20 Egyptian Pres. Anwar Sadat addressed Knesset,

1977 Dec Menachim Begin met with Sadat at Ismalia, Egypt.

1978 Sep 17 – Carter/Begin/Sadat Camp David talks ended. Peace agreement with Egypt was signed a few months later and Anwar Sadat assassinated in Egypt by Arabs opposed to peace with Israel.

1980 Israel’s embassy in Egypt, the first of its kind in any Arab country, was established in 1980, soon after the Camp David peace treaty was signed in 1979

1981 June 7, Israel destroys Iraq nuclear weapon

The above dates were compiled from entries, over several years, by and published in the Jewish Press.

Perhaps this is an appropriate time to quote from the most important prayer in the Hebrew Liturgy – The Shemoneh Esrei. It is recited by observant Jews three times a day. One prayer  within is the Birkat Haminim. It is quite simple and direct and simply asks Hashem:

“May all the enemies of the people of Israel, your Nation, be cut down and completely destroyed”

And, let us say, Amen.

Commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher of Israel Commentary

To Subscribe:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from an article by Isi Liebler

September 8, 2015

The bitterness of the debate in the United States in relation to Iran has again raised questions concerning civil discourse when contentious and emotional issues arise.

Israeli politicians are renowned for resorting to hyperbole and even outright abuse. One need only observe the behavior in Knesset debates with individual MKs verbally assailing one another like animals. In contrast, Americans conduct their congressional proceedings with greater decorum and civility.

However, U.S. President Barack Obama unleashed unprecedented anger in his own country by his obsessive determination to enshrine his legacy by consummating a deal empowering the Iranian terrorists, irrespective of the cost. This, despite the fact that even in the midst of the negotiations, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei endorsed calls of “death to America” and adamantly reiterated that the destruction of Israel would remain a primary objective of Iran.

Obama effectively agreed to transform Iran into a threshold nuclear power and released billions of dollars of frozen funds, much of which the Iranians proudly boast will be directed toward bolstering their terrorist surrogates. If that wasn’t sufficient, the administration also agreed to trust the duplicitous Iranians to supervise their own compliance.

Last week, a new Quinnipiac University poll indicated that 58% of Americans oppose the Iran nuclear deal, with only 28% supporting it. Clear majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives also oppose the deal in its current form.

If, as expected, Congress votes to reject the deal, Obama will veto that decision. Further, the president has gone to unprecedented lengths, bordering on hysteria, to prevent a bipartisan effort to overturn his veto, and made support for his Iranian policy a litmus test of loyalty to the Democratic Party.

He also made disparaging remarks about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — describing it as a powerful lobby employing vast funds to promote warmongering — which were considered by many to be a throwback to the outdated and discredited traditional anti-Semitic slur implying that Jews were disloyal citizens. Jewish leaders were also accused of being hijacked by Likud and neoconservatives.

Only after releasing the demons did Obama focus subsequent comments on asserting his friendship to the Jewish “family” and commitment to Israel, condemning extremism and somewhat hypocritically calling for civil discourse when “families have disagreements.”

More out of self-interest than conviction, (To their great shame and may they get their just deserts) the majority of Democratic legislators — including most Jewish members — finally succumbed unenthusiastically to presidential pressure and supported the deal, rupturing the hitherto bipartisan approach toward Iran and stymying the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto. Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the few Jewish Democrats who opposed the deal, was accused of harboring dual loyalties and betraying his country.

Supporters of Israel unleashed their rage and fury on Jewish Democratic legislators endorsing the deal, especially those with substantial Jewish constituencies.

This was exemplified by a wave of vitriol directed against Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who represents one of the largest constituencies of religious and committed Jews including Borough Park. In response to his announcement that after painfully reviewing the issue he would back Obama, he was accused of being a coward, of betraying and abandoning his people, and of being a traitor to Israel and the U.S. He was assailed with obscenities, was called a “Nazi” and a “stinking kapo,” and allegedly received death threats.

These primitive outbursts, aside from their vulgarity and repudiation of any modicum of civility, were utterly counterproductive. They diverted the debate away from a condemnation of Obama’s Iran deal to the liberal media’s condemnation of ad hominem attacks against Nadler.

Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, which opposes Obama’s Iran deal, issued press releases condemning the “appalling” lack of civility and upholding Nadler’s pro-Israel record. There were intensified pressures on critics of Obama to cool it and ease protests and demonstrations.

The media was replete with articles alleging that the Jewish community was now divided and many were fed up with the right-wing Israeli government. But this was nonsense, because despite some initial doubts, the reality was that no issue has united American Jews to such an extent since the Yom Kippur War.

As details emerged amplifying Obama’s craven capitulation to Iranian demands, every major Jewish political organization, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee, and the ADL publicly backed AIPAC’s initial lead of opposing the deal. Even the Reform movement leadership, noted for its traditional slavish support for Obama’s policies, remained silent. The only exception was the so called “pro-Israel-pro Peace” J Street, which intensively canvassed on behalf of the administration and applauded Obama’s “victory,” again demonstrating its inherently anti-Israel stance.

There are of course some Jews so totally involved with the Democratic Party that liberalism has become part of their DNA, and many even confuse or substitute it for their Jewish heritage. There are others who are Jews in name only, utterly assimilated, with no understanding of Judaism or any genuine feeling for Israel.

The majority of Americans and committed Jews are totally opposed to the Iran deal. More importantly, over 90% of Israelis consider seriously Iran’s ongoing threats to wipe them off the map and bitterly oppose Obama’s policy.

Pro-Israel elements should continue campaigning against this wretched deal despite Obama’s success in intimidating sufficient Democratic legislators to prevent voiding his veto. This will create the climate for Obama’s successor to review the situation and send a message to future administrations that there are strong Jewish and pro-Israel forces that are willing to stand up and resist efforts to undermine Israel and the U.S. – Israel relationship. But they must do so with civility and courtesy, avoiding vulgarity and abuse.

(Isi Leibler is a veteran international Jewish leader with a distinguished record of contributions to the Jewish world and the cause of human rights. Born in Antwerp Belgium in 1934, Leibler was brought to Australia by his parents as an infant just before the outbreak of World War II. Described in the  Encyclopaedia Judaica as “unquestionably the dominant Jewish lay leader in Australia during the previous quarter century.” He made aliyah to Israel in 1999 and there became  a prolific writer, publishing weekly columns in the Jerusalem Post, the Hebrew daily Israel Hayom, and on his blog Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem.)

To Subscribe:


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

PS   Non-Denominational

Jerry Kaufman
Israel Commentary

wish you and your families a Shana Tova
– a year of good health, happiness and serenity.
May our prayers be answered and our leaders endowed with wisdom and integrity.
May we merit a year of peace and security for the State of Israel, good tidings for the Jewish people, and may all good people throughout the world be blessed.



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Yes the glacier of Glacier Bay is receding—as it has from time to time for centuries.


The Wall Street Journal

Sept. 3, 2015

When President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry visited Alaska this week, they pointed to the receding glaciers as evidence that humans are the cause of “dangerous,” even “catastrophic,” climate change. Messrs. Obama and Kerry have been seriously misinformed by their advisers, including chief science adviser John Holdren, who is a leading alarmist on the subject.

If only the president had consulted the history of Glacier Bay, where the Huna Tlingit people have lived for more than 4,000 years, he would have found a different story.

It is a historical fact that the glacier in Glacier Bay began its retreat around 1750. By the time Capt. George Vancouver arrived there in 1794 the glacier still filled most of the bay but had already retreated some miles.

When John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, visited in 1879, he found that the glacier had retreated more than 30 miles from the mouth of the bay, according to the National Park Service, and by 1900 Glacier Bay was mostly ice-free.

All of this happened long before human emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, could have had any impact.

In the oral tradition of the Huna Tlingit people, it is said that the glacier has advanced and retreated a number of times during their occupation of the area. Each time the glacier advanced they would move to the village of Hoonah in Icy Strait outside Glacier Bay. When the glacier retreated, many of them would move back into the bay. These multiple migrations were certainly caused by climate change, but it had nothing to do with human activity.

The fashionable tendency to blame every change in climate and every extreme-weather event on human emissions is doing a grave disservice to the scientific tradition. We know that the climate has been changing for millions of years due to a multitude of perfectly natural factors. There is no reason to believe that those factors have suddenly disappeared and now humans are the all-powerful shapers of global climate destiny. Yet this entirely unproven hypothesis of catastrophe is compelling to those who would control our beliefs.

Politicians want us to believe they are saving us from ruin; religious leaders want to reinforce original sin and the need for repentance; some business leaders want us to subsidize their expensive “green” technologies; and the climate activists want their money-machine to keep on giving.

This powerful convergence of interests ignores the fact that carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth, that plants could use a lot more of it, and that the real threat is a cooling of the climate, not the slight warming that has occurred over the past 300 years.

Mr. Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is the chairman of Ecology and Energy with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Canada, and a director of the CO2 Coalition in Washington, D.C.



Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

No wonder so many are shouting, WE WANT TRUMP

While keeping Alaskan natural resources and oil on a yo yo string, Obama is simultaneously employing the EPA in a pincer movement destroying the American economy under the twin bug bears of global warming and supposed preservation of the environment – all sacred to the loony Left with no scientific correlation to the actual threat.

The EPA Doubles Down

Redacted from an in-depth expose’

The Weekly Standard

AUG 17, 2015

Over the years, “agency capture” has been a staple of the economic analysis of regulation—the phenomenon whereby regulatory agencies would come to be largely controlled by the industries they are purported to regulate. Railroads dominated the Interstate Commerce Commission during much of its early life, and for decades airlines used the Civil Aeronautics Board to stifle competition and innovation.

Unfortunately Agency capture is still rampant in many politically motivated regulatory schemes.

The Federal Communications Commission is likely to implement its new “net neutrality” rules in such a way as to cement an Internet cartel to the detriment of consumers and innovation.

The Dodd-Frank Act appears headed toward the cartelization of the big banks, to the detriment of medium-sized and small banks.

Increasingly the regulatory state has solved the problem of agency capture by instead becoming captive to such ideological interest groups.

This is nowhere more evident than at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has for practical purposes become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Environmental Movement. Beyond a revolving door between environmental advocacy and senior EPA staff positions, there is ample evidence of close collaboration between environmental organizations and EPA staff in regulatory rule-making and even in permitting decisions.

A cache of emails and other communication records that the Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute pried from the EPA through Freedom of Information Act litigation reveals close connections between EPA and the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

And as with Hillary Clinton’s private email server, senior EPA officials went out of their way to communicate through pseudonymous email addresses and private accounts, in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid public scrutiny. In addition, EPA staff sometimes arranged to meet environmentalists offsite to avoid having to log visits to EPA offices.

The most significant collaboration, though, concerns Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” the final rule for which was released on August 3. The record is clear that environmental organizations—especially the NRDC—had major input into the design of the Clean Power Plan that was first announced a year ago, and are likely responsible for the major changes in the final, tougher Clean Power Plan rule just released.

The final rule calls for larger greenhouse gas emissions reductions by the year 2030, and will compel the use of wind and solar power over natural gas much more aggressively than the initial proposed rule of last year.  (All this with the destruction to our economy gargantuan while the supposed benefits are admittedly minimal) jsk

The Sierra Club has openly said that after it succeeds in killing coal, natural gas is next on the menu. Having failed to stop the fracking revolution that has brought us cheap and abundant natural gas (the EPA recently gave fracking a clean bill of health after a four-year study), environmentalists now plan to constrict natural gas through the climate plan.

On the surface the final rule appears to be slightly more “flexible,” as the EPA describes it, as it has pushed back compliance timetables by two years. But the EPA’s “flexibility” is a euphemism for ambiguities that will enable arbitrary state-by-state diktats by the EPA, which must approve compliance plans that states are required to develop and submit (Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont are exempted).

The original deadline for the state plans was to be next summer, right in the middle of the presidential campaign, so pushing back the due date was likely done to avoid an election year controversy that would be unhelpful to Democrats.

There is one other small but highly revealing change in the final rule.

… This change involves environmentalists having to undergo an embarrassing about-face and recognize that one of their favorite slogans isn’t true. For years environmentalists have promoted energy conservation measures for buildings and homes with the claim that such improvements “paid for themselves” and were more cost-effective than building new power plants.

But there’s a growing body of economic research going back more than 15 years that finds the conservation claims to be exaggerated, when they are not completely wrong. Last month the National Bureau of Economic Research published a devastating study that concluded energy efficiency investments on average had a negative 9.5 percent rate of return, and that the actual reduction in energy use was less than half as much as the government models assert.

But the ultimate intellectual bankruptcy of the Clean Power Plan is this: According to the EPA’s own models, full implementation of the plan will lower global warming in the year 2100 by 0.018 degrees Celsius. That’s two one-hundredths of a degree.

If you believe that the world faces a climate catastrophe several decades hence, the Clean Power Plan is deeply unserious. In fact, the EPA claims no actual climate benefits from the plan. All of its claimed benefits come from ancillary reductions in conventional forms of air pollution (such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). And the EPA is double-counting benefits, since other Clean Air Act measures are already reducing conventional air pollution.

Any private company that used accounting methods like this for its profit and loss statement would be hauled before the Securities and Exchange Commission for fraud.

The whole scheme is driven by larger politics, namely, the U.N. climate summit scheduled for Paris at the end of the year. The U.N. climate circus has been deadlocked for more than a decade, and Obama was humiliated at the 2009 Copenhagen summit that was supposed to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which has expired.

Obama has decided to embark on a new strategy. With the Clean Power Plan now in motion, he will show up with a firm U.S. emissions reduction commitment in hand. Along with some bilateral tentative commitments to future action from China, Obama hopes to stitch together a potluck-style treaty in which each nation will determine its own contribution to solving climate change. (Shades of Obama allowing Iran to be the primary inspector of its own nuclear facilities!) jsk

The U.N. climate caucus will tie all this up in a fancy bow and call it a “breakthrough,” hoping that no one will notice what a retreat it represents from the pretensions of climate change activism of the 1990s. The important thing is to be seen taking “action,” and keeping the diplomatic circus going.

Steven F. Hayward is the Ronald Reagan distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy.


Twitter: @israelcomment





Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

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

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

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

Redacted from a complete evaluation.

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

Thank you for your confirmation

Twitter: @israelcomment

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

Redacted from a complete evaluation. 

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

Jerusalem Issue Briefs Vol. 15, No. 27

August 27, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments