David Kupelian on why Muslim religion is growing rapidly in world’s most Christian nation

(Redacted from a more detailed, must read article (Whistleblower Magazine/World Net Daily, May 2017)

It’s not that unusual for an Islamic society

After all, the usual features are all on display – the Muslim call to prayer, the teaching of Islam in the nation’s schools to the exclusion of other religions, preferential treatment afforded Muslims by government and the courts, news coverage reflexively portraying Islam in a positive light, the rapid growth in mosque construction – and also the disturbing cultural phenomena of female genital mutilation, “honor killings” and so on.
Except this is not Saudi Arabia or Egypt we’re talking about, or any of the world’s approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries.

This is the United States of America. Not America as it might be one day if current trends continue, but as it is right now – today.

That’s right. While North Korea threatens to nuke the U.S. mainland, while the left (including most of the media) continues its infantile post-election meltdown into madness, while President Trump endeavors to remedy the torrent of national and international problems unleashed by his predecessor Barack Obama – beneath the radar and largely out of view, America is inexorably becoming ever more Islamized.

While a few brave souls have been sounding the alarm over the progressive inroads Shariah Islam is making into American culture, schools, colleges, religion, medicine, law, government and even the military, perhaps the most important question that needs to be addressed at this point is, why?

Why, when Judeo-Christian America has been hands-down the most successful nation in history – indeed why, when Americans are blessed with a crystal ball called Europe in which they can clearly see the disastrous future awaiting a once-Christian civilization that recklessly embraces Islamic expansionism – would we continue down the same suicidal path that has led to Europe’s virtual suicide?

There are several reasons, some obvious, some less so.

Let’s start with the obvious: Power-mad Beltway Democrats’ obsession with importing multitudes of voters in hopes of attaining a “permanent progressive voting majority,” since statistically the vast majority of Muslims in America vote Democrat. Big business’s selfish desire for cheap immigrant labor. Liberal-left Christians’ naive compulsion to “welcome” Muslim “refugees,” not simply to help the needy and downtrodden, but to prove to others – and to themselves – that they are good people and not “racists,” “Islamophobes” or “xenophobes.”

And of course, Muslim Brotherhood-front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ go-to tactic of exploiting America’s expansive First Amendment religious freedom protections to aggressively advance their Shariah-supremacist agenda.
This inversion of Americans’ traditional core values, which causes us, for example, to glorify and celebrate immorality, perversion and mental illness (like troubled people amputating healthy body parts and pretending to be the opposite sex) while reviling and punishing virtue (like the Christian county clerk jailed for conscientiously objecting to signing a marriage license for two homosexuals) is the same inversion of values that inspires us to enthusiastically import into our country as many people as possible who are steeped in a religious and political ideology dedicated to crushing our own.

It’s as though we’re living in a hypnotic trance, in a dream state, wherein we are moving in slow motion toward certain destruction. A few of us see the danger and shout warnings, but to no avail. No one seems to hear us, or else if they do hear they don’t comprehend the peril and instead attack us and call us terrible names – or worse.

There’s another critical dynamic that explains, at least in part, the cravenly pro-Muslim “trance state” of the leftist media, academy and culture: Terrorists provide powerful public relations cover for non-violent “moderate” Muslims seeking the same ultimate end as jihadists – for America to become Islamic. As Author McCarthy explains:


“Just as the Soviet collapse has been a boon for the left, the ferocity and overreach of Muslim terrorists has been a dual boon for Islamism. So atrocious has been the bloodbath wrought by al Qaeda, its affiliates and its imitators that it has enabled more methodical Muslim extremists to operate under the radar. Repeated terror strikes, culminating in the death of nearly 3,000 innocents and the surreal demolition of the seemingly impregnable Twin Towers, shock Americans and their government into a myopic determination to prevent additional mass-murder attacks.

“In this climate of fear, the calculating but apparently non-violent Islamist compares favorably with the uncompromising, blood-soaked Islamist terrorist. He is thus regarded as cause of hope – indeed, as a moderate – by government and opinion elites. This, despite the fact that his agenda is essentially the same as the terrorist’s: Only their methods differ, and even those differences are shades of gray.”


We are just scratching the surface here. I invite you to join me in exploring this crucial subject much more fully in the current eye-opening issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled “HOW ISLAM IS SECRETLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA.”

David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, vice president and managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine and widely read columnist. He is also the best-selling author of “The Marketing of Evil” (2005), “How Evil Works” (2010) and most recently, “The Snapping of the American Mind” (2015).


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


On Radical Islam, Trump Has Lost His Focus

There’s no promised  ‘extreme vetting,’ no outreach to moderates, and too much coziness with Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Wall Street Journal

Aug. 10, 2017



Candidate Donald Trump vowed to take a fresh approach to Islamic extremism. He ditched the politically correct language of the Obama administration by declaring that we were mired in an ideological conflict with radical Islam, which he likened to the totalitarian ideologies America had defeated in the 20th century.


Mr. Trump also promised, as part of his immigration policy, to put in place an extreme vetting system that screens for Islamic radicalism. He vowed to work with genuine Muslim reformers and concluded with the promise that one of his first acts as president would be to establish a commission on radical Islam.
Mr. Trump has had more than six months to make good on these pledges. He hasn’t gotten very far. The administration’s first move, a hastily drafted executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries backfired when it was repeatedly blocked in court. (And, the Democratic Party)
Worse, subsequent moves have tended to run counter to Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges. Aside from a new questionnaire for visa applicants, there has been no clarity regarding the promised extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants and visitors. The promise to work with and empower authentic Muslim reformers has gone nowhere. The status of the promised commission on radical Islam remains unclear.
Perhaps most discouragingly, the administration’s Middle Eastern strategy seems to involve cozying up to Saudi Arabia, for decades the principal source of funding for Islamic extremism around the world.
Some administration critics have blamed the loss of focus on Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who became White House national security adviser in February. The most charitable formulation of this criticism is that military men who slogged their way through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have an aversion to the argument that we face an ideological opponent, as opposed to a series of military problems.
But I put the responsibility on Mr. Trump. With regard to radical Islam, he simply seems to have lost interest.
Is all hope of a revamped policy on radical Islam lost? Not necessarily. Prominent members of Congress, among them Sens. Ron Johnson (R.Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R. Iowa) and Reps. Ron DeSantis (R.Fla.) and Trent Franks (R. Ariz.) understand that Islamism must be confronted with ideas as well as arms.
And this need not be a partisan issue. In the early years after 9/11, Sens. Jon Kyl (R. Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D.Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D. N.Y.) worked together to analyze the threat of Islamist ideology.
Even President Obama’s former representative to Muslim communities, Farah Pandith, who visited 80 countries between 2009 and 2014, wrote in 2015: “In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence, Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams.
In 2016, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Chris Murphy (D.,Conn.) sounded the alarm over Islamist indoctrination in Pakistan, noting that thousands of schools funded with Saudi money teach a version of Islam that leads into anti-Western militancy.
We have already seen one unexpected outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington this summer, over tightening sanctions on Russia in retaliation for President Vladimir Putin’s many aggressions.
I propose that the next item of cross-party business should be for Congress to convene hearings on the ideological threat of radical Islam.
Who wants America on offense, with a coherent and intelligible strategy?
Newt Gingrich asked in 2015, when he called for such hearings. Then as now, if the president has forgotten his campaign commitments lawmakers can and should step up to the plate.

Ms. Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and founder of the AHA Foundation.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

The Jerusalem Holy Temple Mount was Empty – For a moment – Until the Israelis interfered once again in their own destiny.


By Moshe Feiglin



12 Av 5777 – August 4, 2017

Although I anticipated that Netanyahu would remove the metal detectors from the Temple Mount, and although I very much hoped that I would be proven wrong, things developed in such an amazing and fascinating manner that I couldn’t help but think that perhaps we were on the threshold of an historic change.

Everything that happened on the Temple Mount is the opposite of what you would have expected. After Israel liberated the Temple Mount in the Six-Day War, then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan returned the keys to the Temple Mount to the Muslim wakf.


The wakf was in shock. Fifty years later, Netanyahu begged the wakf to take the Mount back, but they were simply unwilling to do so, deciding instead to boycott the site. This was inexplicable. Israel had already removed the metal detectors and even took down the security cameras.


Just as Jordan’s King Hussein forced Israel to liberate Jerusalem in 1967, so too the Muslim wakf was forcing Netanyahu to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Temple Mount. This historic change could only happen to the Nation of Israel. It was simply amazing.


The Temple Mount was empty. After 50 years, it was in our hands! The Arabs were not there. Only Jews were on the Temple Mount. This was absolutely astounding! The problem is that Am Yisrael (The Israeli people) did not have the leadership capable of understanding this historic moment and translating it into practical strategy.

The Muslim wakf was completely right about the metal detectors. For years, Israel had been saying that the Temple Mount belongs to the Arabs. So if it is theirs, why were we putting metal detectors at the gates of their home? The Arabs understood very well that the metal detectors are a flag that symbolize sovereignty.

The entire situation on the Temple Mount revolves around sovereignty – not prayer. When Netanyahu folded and agreed to remove the metal detectors, he cut the rope that ties us to this land precisely at that stake to which everything else is tied.

All of rights on this land, all of our connection to it, to Zionism, to Mount Zion – everything from which we draw our identity – revolves around the Temple Mount. From the moment that Netanyahu folded and indicated that the Mount is theirs, not ours, he opened the door, G-d forbid, to ever-increasing pressure on Israel.


We have just missed an extraordinary opportunity. In my estimation, Israel’s weakness on the Temple Mount will bring a very serious conflict upon us with much more difficult starting conditions because, with our capitulation, we have lost our sense of justice. And a nation that has lost its sense of justice cannot win – even if it has the most sophisticated army, the smartest submarines, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-35.


A young Arab girl with a pair of scissors who knows what she is doing here will defeat an Israeli soldier with the most sophisticated weapon. Ultimately, justice is the best weapon of all.

Moshe Zalman Feiglin (Hebrew: משה פייגלין, born 31 July 1962) is an Israeli politician and columnist. A former member of Likud, he headed the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction within the party, and represented Likud in the Knesset between 2013 and 2015.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Another crucial Trump appointment deservedly, about to backfire — Sec’y of State, Rex Tillerson?


From: Clarion Project — Challenging Radical Islam. Promoting Human Rights


July 25, 2017

Administration still hasn’t designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization as it was expected to do. Designation falls under the purview of Secretary of State Tillerson, who has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood and its backers in Qatar and Turkey over their Arab rivals.

Tillerson recently signaled his opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood in mid-June. He only has negative things to say about the idea. His main point is that the Brotherhood’s political parties have representatives in governments like those in Bahrain and Turkey.

That is irrelevant. If it was such a problem, Bahrain itself wouldn’t have banned the Brotherhood and the U.S. wouldn’t be dealing with the Lebanese government that has Hezbollah in it, which is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Tillerson also repeated the “non-violent” and “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. He claimed that the Brotherhood’s political parties in governments “have become so by renouncing violence and terrorism.” That was false when the Obama Administration said it, and it is false now. The disappointment in Tillerson’s position is made exponentially greater by the fact that now is an optimum time to designate the group.

The Arab world (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain) is putting unprecedented pressure on Qatar over its support of the Brotherhood and other jihadists in the Islamist swarm. Muslim foes of the Brotherhood are left wondering where the U.S.stands because Trump and Tillerson aren’t on the same page.

Counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole goes so far as to assert that Tillerson is “sabotaging” Trump’s foreign policy and urges his departure from the administration.

While President Trump expressed his support for the Arab measures against Qatar and unequivocally described Qatar as a major terrorism-financier, Tillerson did the opposite. He described Qatar as “very reasonable” in its reaction to the Arabs’ pressure.

His spokesperson read a scripted statement accusing the Arab states of having ulterior motives, saying the U.S. is “mystified” by their complaints. The State Department even cast doubt on the credibility of the Arabs’ accusations, claiming that they haven’t provided supporting details.

Qatar’s lavish sponsorship of terrorism and extremism is incontestable. As Poole documents, far from offering support for those Arab states opposing Qatar, Tillerson publicly made moves towards Qatar’s Turkish allies and increased criticism of Qatar’s Saudi adversaries.

The Trump Administration also agreed to sell up to 36 fighter jets to Qatar right after the Arabs began their campaign.

Tillerson even signed a counter-terrorism agreement with Qatar, spitting in the faces of the Arab countries fed up with Qatar’s repeated breaking of its promises to change its behavior. Immediately after signing the deal, Qatar reiterated its firm commitment to Hamas (and therefore, the broader Muslim Brotherhood organization of which it is an official branch).

Tillerson’s Ties to Qatar

People are inevitably influenced by those they surround themselves with, especially if that interaction is lucrative. Perhaps Tillerson’s favoring of Qatar has something to do with the close relationship he had with the Qatari government as a businessman with ExxonMobil, which has a decades-long association with the rulers.
ExxonMobil was a founding member of the U.S.-Qatar Business Council in 1996, an entity created by the Qatari regime. Tillerson was a senior official at the time. Another listed founding member is Al-Jazeera, the jihadist-friendly propaganda network run by Qatar and the Brotherhood. One of the Arab states’ top demands is the closure of the network headquartered in Doha.

After becoming chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, Tillerson became a member of the U.S.-Qatar Business Council’s advisory board. He apparently held this position up until when he became Secretary of State, as his name is still listed with that title on the website.

The Vice President of ExxonMobil Production’s name is currently listed as a member of the Council’s board of directors. Al-Jazeera officials also appear on the advisory board and board of directors.

The organization’s website says that the U.S.-Qatar Business Council “played a major role in the formation of Qatar Foundation International (U.S.-based).” The Qatar Foundation headquartered in Doha is a major promoter of Islamist extremism, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, including Islamists in America.

When the Arab campaign against Qatar began, the Qataris immediately began utilizing their contacts to try to win the State Department over. It deployed its lobbyists in America and they had leverage: The West’s three biggest energy companies, including ExxonMobil, were trying to strike a deal with the Qatari government for expanding liquified natural gas production.

But Qatar isn’t the only country working aggressively to influence U.S. foreign policy in a direction favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey’s government is also leading the Islamist charge.

Tillerson’s Ties to Turkey

ExxonMobil is a member of the U.S.-Turkish Business Council. The chairman is Ekin Alptekin, the very same Turkish businessman at the center of the controversy with President Trump’s former National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn.

Alptekin’s company had a $600,000 contract with Flynn to promote the Erdogan government’s interests. Flynn’s firm registered as a lobbyist but did not register as a foreign agent. The Justice Department’s National Security Division began an investigation last November. Flynn registered as a foreign agent of Turkey after he was fired and replaced by General H.R. McMaster.

We do not currently know of direct dealings between Tillerson and Alptekin, but ExxonMobil’s involvement in the U.S.-Turkish Business Council highlights how his prior relationship with the Turkish government may influence his behavior.

At a time when Erdogan has few defenders, the Islamist dictator finds a supporter in Tillerson.

On July 9, Tillerson traveled to Istanbul to receive an award from the World Petroleum Congress. There, he heaped praise upon those who defended Erdogan against a coup attempt last year, going so far as to describe the Islamist government as a democracy. He said:
“Nearly a year ago, the Turkish people – brave men and women – stood up against coup plotters and defended their democracy. I take this moment to recognize their courage and honor the victims of the events of July 15, 2016.

It was on that day that the Turkish people exercised their rights under the Turkish constitution, defended their place in a prosperous Turkey, and we remember those who were injured or died in that event.”

Tillerson doesn’t defend Erdogan in all circumstances, as he did condemn the Turkish security personnel who attacked protesters in Washington D.C. in May. But that’s not exactly a bold stand; it’s something that any public official would condemn.

When it comes to the tough issues, Tillerson has sided with Qatar and Turkey, even when it contradicts the commander-in-chief who picked him for secretary of state.

On designating the Muslim Brotherhood, Tillerson sides with Qatar and Turkey. When the Arab states piled unprecedented pressure on Qatar for its sponsorship of terrorism and extremism including the Brotherhood and Hamas, Tillerson sided with Qatar and Turkey.

When it comes to last year’s coup in Turkey, Tillerson sided unequivocally with Erdogan’s Islamist dictatorship. He didn’t even necessarily have to talk about it during his visit to Istanbul. He chose to.

When it comes to the Kurds, our best allies in fighting ISIS, Tillerson’s State Department sided with Turkey in criticizing the Iraqi Kurds’ referendum on independent statehood. It also implied opposition to Kurdish independence, reacting to the referendum with a statement in support of a “united” and “federal” Iraq.

Political analysts always say that Trump was elected because people wanted change from an outsider. Tillerson is not bringing change. When it comes to Islamism, it’s the same-old same-old. Possibly worse.


Ryan Mauro is’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Why Israel Removed the Metal Detectors from the Jerusalem Temple Mount (Why, indeed?)

Neglected information and opinion relative to Israel, the Middle East and the immediate world.

Why Israel Removed the Metal Detectors from the Jerusalem Temple Mount (Why, indeed?)

By Daniel Pipes

Wall Street Journal
July 26, 2017
II  Commentary Jerome S. Kaufman

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Party announced Saturday that the “campaign for Jerusalem has effectively begun, and will not stop until a Palestinian victory and the release of the holy sites from Israeli occupation.”

Fatah demanded the removal of metal detectors and other security devices from the entrance to the Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. A week earlier two Israeli policemen were killed by terrorists who had stashed their weapons inside the mosque.

The Fatah statement was illogical and hypocritical. Many mosques in Muslim-majority countries use the same security technology to protect worshipers, tourists and police. Yet Mr. Abbas managed to force the Israeli government to remove them.

He did it by deflecting attention from the policemen’s murders and stoking fear of a religious conflagration with vast repercussions.
The Temple Mount crisis highlights with exceptional clarity three factors that explain why a steady 80% of Palestinians believe they can eliminate the Jewish state: Islamic doctrine, international succor and Israeli timidity.

Islam carries with it the expectation that any land once under Muslim control is an endowment that must inevitably revert to Muslim rule. The idea has abiding power: think of Osama bin Laden’s dream of resurrecting Andalusia and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s hopes of regaining influence over the Balkans.

Palestinians consistently report their belief that the state of Israel will collapse within a few decades.
A confrontation over the Temple Mount uniquely excites this expectation because it reaches far beyond the local population to arouse the passions of many of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
The most prominent Muslim leaders and institutions overwhelmingly supported Fatah’s position on the Temple Mount security provisions.

Islamic voices outside the pro-Palestinian consensus are rare. Palestinians rejoice in their role as the tip of an enormous spear. Palestinians’ illusions of might enjoy considerable international support.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization routinely passes critical resolutions aimed at Israel. Columbia University houses something called the Center for Palestine Studies.

[“Columbia, which counts President Barack Obama, singer Art Garfunkel and hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb among its alumni, said its endowment stood at $8.2 billion on June 30, the end of its fiscal year”] – with much coming from naive, uninformed Jews, by the way. jsk

Major corporations such as Google and news organizations like the British Broadcasting Corp. pretend there’s a country called Palestine. Foreign aid has created a Palestinian pseudo-economy that in 2016 enjoyed a phenomenal 4.1% growth rate.

In the Temple Mount crisis, the U.S. government, the Europeans and practically everyone else lined up to support the demand for the elimination of metal detectors, along with high-tech cameras or any other devices to prevent jihadi attacks.
The Quartet on the Middle East welcomed “the assurances by the Prime Minister of Israel that the status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem will be upheld and respected.” With this sort of near-unanimous support, Palestinians easily imagine themselves stronger than the Jewish state.

Israel’s security services timidly avoid taking steps that might upset the Palestinians. This soft approach results not from starry-eyed idealism but from an exceedingly negative view of Palestinians as unreformable troublemakers.

Accordingly, the police, intelligence agencies and military agree to just about anything that ensures calm while rejecting any initiative to deprive the Palestinians of funds, punish them more severely or infringe on their many prerogatives.

The Israeli security establishment knows that the Palestinian Authority will continue to incite and sanction murder even as it seeks to delegitimize and isolate the state of Israel.

But those security services emphatically prefer to live with such challenges than to punish Mr. Abbas, reduce his standing and risk another intifada. The collapse of the Palestinian Authority and a return to direct Israeli rule is the security services’ nightmare.

Mr. Abbas knows this, and this week’s fiasco demonstrates that he’s not afraid to exploit Israeli fears to advance his dream of debasing and eventually eliminating the Jewish state.
Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum.
II  Commentary:

[PS This latest capitulation by Netanyahu to PA and Islamic terror has many Israelis and Diaspora Jews believing that PM Netanyahu may have seen his best days. This may spell the beginning of the end of his master balancing act maintaining his own power.  One can go backwards only so far in the charade of a fully empowered PA terrorist State in the next block.  Not possible.

A fully committed, unequivocal  Israeli commander-in-chief must so advise the Arabs and the immediate world and Israel be fully prepared to face the long-delayed inevitable consequences

By the way and, right on schedule, as soon as Israel gave up the metal detectors, Abbas threatened more riots if all surveillance cameras were not also removed. How long before Netanyahu’s next capitulation?]  jsk
Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

President Trump appointee, Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, continues to correct Obama’s deliberate destruction of the US

Redacted from article by Steve Milloy

Wall Street Journal
July 17, 2017

The Trump administration in May began the process of replacing the small army of outside science advisers at the Environmental Protection Agency. In June, 38 additional EPA advisers were notified that their appointments would not be renewed in August.

To Mr. Trump’s critics, this is another manifestation of his administration’s “war on science” Histrionics aside, the administration’s actions are long overdue.

The most prominent of the EPA’s myriad boards of outside advisers are the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC. Mostly made up of university professors, these boards also frequently draw members from consulting firms and activist groups.

Only rarely do members have backgrounds in industry. All EPA boards are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that they be balanced and unbiased.

While the EPA is required by law to convene the SAB and CASAC, the agency is not bound by law to heed their advice. The EPA’s Obama “war on coal” rules and its standards for ground-level ozone are possibly the most expensive EPA rule ever issued and depend on the same scientifically unsupported notion that the fine particles of soot emitted by smokestacks and tailpipes are lethal. The EPA claims that such particles kill hundreds of thousands of Americans annually.
The EPA first considered regulating fine particles in the mid-1990s. But when the agency ran its claims past CASAC in 1996, the board concluded that the scientific evidence did not support the agency’s regulatory conclusion.

Ignoring the panel’s advice, the EPA’s leadership chose to regulate fine particles anyway, and resolved to figure out a way to avoid future troublesome opposition from CASAC.

In 1996 two-thirds of the CASAC panel had no financial connection to the EPA. By the mid-2000s, the agency had entirely flipped the composition of the advisory board so two-thirds of its members were agency grantees. Lo and behold, CASAC suddenly agreed with the EPA’s leadership that fine particulates in outdoor air kill.

During the Obama years, the EPA packed the CASAC panel. Twenty-four of its 26 members are now agency grantees, with some listed as principal investigators on EPA research grants worth more than $220 million.

Although the scientific case against particulate matter has improved since the 1990s, the EPA has tightened its grip on CASAC. In effect, EPA-funded researchers are empowered to review and approve their own work in order to rubber-stamp the EPA’s regulatory agenda. This is all done under the guise independence.

Would-be reformers have so far had no luck changing the culture at these EPA advisory committees. In 2016 the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, where I am a senior fellow, sued the agency. We alleged that the CASAC fine-particulate subcommittee was biased – a clear violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Congress has also tried to reform the EPA’s science advisory process. During the three most recent Congresses, the House has passed bills to provide explicit conflict-of-interest rules for EPA science advisers, including bans on receiving EPA grants for three years before and after service on an advisory panel. The bills went nowhere in the Senate, where the threat of a Democrat-led filibuster loomed. Had they passed, President Obama surely would have vetoed them.

President Trump and his EPA administrator have ample statutory authority to rectify the problem. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt spent years familiarizing himself with the EPA’s unlawful ways. He is in the process of reaffirming the independence of the agency’s science advisory committees.

This won’t mean that committee members can’t have a point of view. But a committee as a whole must be balanced and unbiased. Mr. Pruitt’s goal is the one intended by Congress’s peer review.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Liberals Still Slow, Unwilling ?, to Recognize Anti-Semitism in their own increasingly Left Democratic Party

By Jonathan S. Tobin

The Jewish Press
July 14, 2017

By Jonathan S. Tobin

It isn’t easy for some Jewish liberals, but many of them are waking up to a world that doesn’t neatly conform to their existing prejudices.

The event that really set off the alarms took place last month when a gay pride parade expelled LGBT Jews who carried rainbow flags with a Star of David. The reason was that this symbol of the Jewish people offended the left-wing parade organizers who felt “triggered” by anything that reminded them of “racist” Israel and Zionism.

Much like the statements of Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian activist who is a leader of the anti-Trump “resistance,” insisting that Jews must choose between their support of Israel and feminism, the Chicago march organizers claimed the Jewish star made “people feel unsafe” at an event that they said was avowedly “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.

It didn’t matter that the overwhelming majority of American Jews support gay rights or even that the state of Israel is one of the world’s most gay-friendly nations. Nor are they interested in the fact that Palestinian LGBT individuals must either stay in the closet or flee to the Jewish state for their lives from a Muslim society where they are oppressed.

That counts for nothing when weighed against “intersectionality,” which asserts the fight for gay rights is indivisible from the efforts of Arabs and Muslims to eradicate the one Jewish state on the planet that also happens to be the one democracy in the Middle East.

The one element that lends an element of logic to this ironic stand: anti-Semitism.

To those who hate Jews, any inconsistency is permissible. But what makes this hard for many Jews to understand is that it doesn’t conform to their pre-existing worldview, in which enemies are on the right and allies are on the left.

We saw how that worked earlier this year when mainstream liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and others were quick to blame President Trump for a surge in anti-Semitic incidents that mainly centered on a series of bomb threats at JCCs around the country.

Trump’s views about immigration and volatile rhetoric were assumed to be the source of the trouble. But it turned out the culprits were a left-wing American writer and an Israeli teen with a mental health condition. Yet embarrassed liberals still refused to apologize.

That doesn’t mean right-wing anti-Semitism doesn’t exist. But the neat lines in which political foes must somehow always be anti-Semites, and sympathetic allies must be friends of the Jews, don’t exist except in the minds of liberals living in a dream world.

One such dreamer who may be slowly snapping out of it is ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt, whose recent article in Time magazine carried the headline “Anti-Semitism is Creeping Into Progressivism.” But to claim that it is “creeping” into the landscape of the political left is shockingly ignorant. It has been an integral part of it for decades.

Unfortunately, many decent liberals have turned a blind eye to left-wing anti-Zionist agitation that is indistinguishable from anti-Semitism. Those who say they wish to deny Jews statehood, the right of self-defense, or the ability to live in peace in their homeland are practicing discrimination against Jews. This is the definition of anti-Semitism.

And it is on the left, not the right, where support for such hatred, whether in the form of backing for the BDS movement or cultural boycotts, is growing.

It isn’t alt-right Internet trolls who are orchestrating anti-Jewish protests like those of Sarsour or efforts to boycott Israeli plays at Lincoln Center, where the appearance of even the work of a critic of Israel like David Grossman was enough to generate protest from mainstream artists.

Nor is it Trump who is responsible for turning universities into places where Jewish students no longer feel safe expressing their Jewish identity. But unfortunately, all too many liberals would still rather believe Trump, their main political foe, is the real reason anti-Semitism is growing.

It’s long past time for the Jewish community to understand that its best allies in this struggle are conservative Christians with whom they disagree on social issues, while it is their alleged friends on the left who are preaching intolerance for Jews.

That doesn’t obligate liberal Jews to abandon their political principles, but they need to understand the world is a complicated place where Jewish safety can be endangered by abject, naive, solidarity with the left.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Indian PM Modi and Israeli PM Netanyahu Begin a Beautiful Friendship

After Meeting Indian PM, Mumbai Terror Survivor to Accompany Netanyahu to India, Israel’s prime minister invites the boy to join him on upcoming visit

By Staff   |   July 4, 2017

JERUSALEM—Eleven-year-old Moshe Holtzberg, who survived a November 2008 terrorist massacre in Mumbai that took the lives of his parents, Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg accepted an invitation today to travel to India with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after the boy’s emotion-filled meeting with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi of India, now on a historic three-day trip to Israel.

“I grew up there in Mumbai,” Moshe, speaking in English, told the dignitaries. “This is my home. I hope I will be able to visit Mumbai, and when I get older, live there. I will be the director of our Chabad House.”

The small crowd broke into cheers when he completed his speech with, “Dear Mr. Modi, I love you and your people in India.”

Moshe now lives in Afula, Israel, with his maternal grandparents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who along with his paternal grandparents, Rabbi Nachman and Fraida Holtzberg, attended the meeting with the Indian premier. Samuel, 53, who was granted honorary Israeli citizenship in 2008 and frequently travels from her home in Jerusalem to visit Moshe, received special thanks today from Moshe and from Prime Minister Modi as well.

Kozlovsky said he appreciated that the prime minister met with Moshe and recognized the sacrifice of his parents, and that he looked forward to welcoming Netanyahu during his visit to Mumbai with Moshe.

“It is our hope that this historical visit and meeting will create awareness of the memorial museum project, and the vision of the Rebbe—Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory—for a better, more peaceful world.”

II The Indian premier’s visit marks a diplomatic coming of age for India and Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu with Narendra Modi in Tel Aviv, July 5

By Tunku Varadarajan

July 5, 2017

When you hear the prime minister of one country tell his counterpart from another that their nations’ friendship is “a marriage made in heaven, but we are implementing it here on earth,” your first reaction is likely to be: Get this man a new speechwriter! Yet, had you been following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Israel visit, which concludes Thursday, you’d understand that those words, spoken by Benjamin Netanyahu, were euphoric and not cloying.

Mr. Modi’s visit to Israel is the first by an Indian prime minister in the 70 years since India’s independence. The countries have had diplomatic relations for a quarter-century, but no Indian premier considered visiting Israel for fear of upsetting India’s Arab allies—and thereby, its supply of oil—as well as its sizable Muslim population, for whose political leaders Israel has always been anathema.
India also turned its back on Israel as a result of its commitment to a dishonest “anti-colonial” foreign policy—that of nonalignment—under which it was kosher to berate the Israelis for being colonial interlopers on Palestinian land.

In truth, India and Israel have long done clandestine business. Israel helped India with weapons in its war with Pakistan in 1965. India returned the favor in 1967 when it gave Israel spare parts for its Ouragan and Mystere fighter planes.

Mossad and RAW—the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s intelligence agency—worked closely for many years before diplomatic relations began in 1992. Israel played a key role in helping India win its war with Pakistan in 1999, with its supply of Searcher-1 drones. These enabled India to detect, and destroy by air, Pakistani troops entrenched in mountain fastnesses.

India has reciprocated diplomatically, particularly since the election of Mr. Modi’s nationalist BJP government in 2014. New Delhi has abstained in recent United Nations resolutions critical of Israel, remarkable for a nation that has had a near-perfect record of anti-Israeli voting at the U.N. There is every indication, now, that these abstentions will turn into votes in Israel’s favor.

The Israelis see Mr. Modi’s BJP as an Indian version of the Likud Party, and they are not wrong. The parties and their leaders share a determination to yield nothing to Islamist terrorism. The uninhibited warmth between the two prime ministers has been on full display on Mr. Modi’s visit—as of this writing, the two men have embraced each other five times in 24 hours. A new fast-growing breed of chrysanthemum was unveiled by Israeli agronomists. Its name? The Modi.

The florid stuff aside, this visit marks a diplomatic coming of age for India and Israel: India because it has now shed the last of its dead skin of nonalignment. Remarkably, India is the only major power that can claim to have excellent relations with every country in the Middle East.

With the global surplus in oil and gas, India no longer fears an Arab backlash to its embrace of Israel. After the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Saudis had ordered India to shut down Israel’s Consulate in Bombay or face a cutoff of oil. Indira Gandhi refused, and the country had to resort to a deal with the shah’s Iran that involved paying huge sums into a slush fund for a senior member of the shah’s household.

The present Indian government is—to put it delicately—less mindful of the Indian Muslim vote-bank than its Congress Party predecessors were. There is still leftist Indian opposition to Israel, but these are irrelevant groups that also reject the strengthening of ties with the U.S.

This is also a defining moment for Israel, and there is a reason why Mr. Netanyahu’s entire cabinet turned out to welcome Mr. Modi at the Tel Aviv airport on July 4. The world’s biggest democracy is now unabashedly, unequivocally in Israel’s corner.

Israel’s ties with India, unlike with China, aren’t purely transactional. Messrs. Modi and Netanyahu have formally acknowledged a civilizational bond between two peoples that share many of the same values and all of the same fears. India and Israel are allies for the long haul.

Mr. Varadarajan is a fellow in journalism at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

The UK is “done for” (Islamic Sharia has taken over. Guess who is next?)

Pamela Geller: The UK is “finished”

Head of American Freedom Defense Initiative: ‘Ideology is the one thing culture elites will not touch. This is why the West is losing the war.’ Founder and editor of The Geller Report, President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and authoress of The Post-American Presidency – the Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America, a Practical Guide to the Resistance

Pamela Geller spoke with Rebel Media’s Caolan Robertson about how far down the road to Islamization Britain and the US are relative to each other, and what may be done to stop it.

“If you consider that a bomb designed for maximum carnage, for maximum pain; a bomb with nails and shrapnel and nuts and bolts to tear through children’s flesh and bones, to maim and mutilate and dismember; if that was not The Call, if that was not the wake up  call for the British people, I’d say you were done for.

“And it pains me, because the idea of America being alone – and we have our own struggle in this; we have the same Leftist/Islamic alliance, we have the same thing, it’s just that the Brits are ten years ahead of us in this.

“But we see no real action; we do not see they’re surveilling mosques, you do not see the shutting down of mosques, you do not see the stopping of foreign funding – in America 80% of our mosques are funded by the Saudis.

You do not see the shutting of Islamic schools that teach misogyny, that teach Islamic Jew-hatred, creed apartheid, gender apartheid, holy war, Islamic supremacism… The motivation, the ideology is the one thing that the elites in academia, in media, in culture, in entertainment, in music – will not touch. This is why the West is losing the war.”

Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel, specifically for Europe?

“The only light I see at the end of the tunnel for Europe is Geert Wilders, is Paul Weston. Now, I’ve yet to see the people really get behind these candidates. I understand the information battle space. I understand the war of ideas. And I also understand that the enemy has the biggest and the most powerful weapons. They have the elite media, or as I like to call them, the ‘enemedia’ and culture.

“But the fact is we are right, and we are righteous, and I don’t know how many kids have to die, and I don’t know how many people have to die… What’s interesting to me to see – the Left sprung into action in the wake of the Finsbury incident, by, I might add, a man who was properly insane. He tried to kill himself a couple of weeks prior, he’s tried to institutionalize himself, I mean this is truly the definition of a madman.

“And yet when Muslims scream ‘Allahu Akbar’ and jam a knife into, let’s say as happened yesterday in America, the neck of a cop, the knee-jerk reaction is, ‘Ah, he must be mentally ill.’ So is the Left saying that Islam is a mental illness? Isn’t that Islamophobic?”
Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


“Some people like the Jews and some do not”
Winston S. Churchill:
“Some people like the Jews, and some do not.
But no thoughtful man can deny the fact
that they are, beyond any question,
the most formidable and most remarkable race
which has appeared in the world.
John F. Kennedy:
Israel was not created in order to disappear-
Israel will endure and flourish.
It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.
It can neither be broken by adversity
nor demoralized by success.
It carries the shield of democracy and
it honors the sword of freedom.
David Ben Gurion:
“In Israel , in order to be a realist,
you must believe in miracles.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe:
“Energy is the basis of everything.
Every Jew, no matter how insignificant,
is engaged in some decisive and immediate pursuit of a goal.
It is the most perpetual people of the earth.”

John Adams:
“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more
to civilize men than any other nation.
If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate,
I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews
to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.
They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth.
The Romans and their empire
were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.”

Leo Tolstoy:
“What is the Jew?
What kind of unique creature is this
whom all the rulers of all the nations of the world
have disgraced and crushed and
expelled and destroyed;
persecuted, burned and drowned,
and who, despite their anger and their fury,
continues to live and to flourish.

What is this Jew
whom they have never succeeded in enticing
with all the enticements in the world,
whose oppressors and persecutors
only suggested that he deny (and disown) his religion
on and cast aside the faithfulness of his ancestors?!

The Jew – is the symbol of eternity. …
He is the one who for so long had guarded
the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind.
A people such as this can never disappear.
The Jew is eternal.
He is the embodiment of eternity.”

Eric Hoffer:
“The Jews are a peculiar people:
Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people,
and there is no refugee problem.
Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.
Turkey threw out a million Greeks and
Algeria a million Frenchmen.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese–
and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel,
the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs
an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield
dictate peace terms.
But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews
to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Mark Twain:
“…If statistics are right,
the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race.
It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust
lost in the blaze of the Milky way.
Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of,
but he is heard of,
has always been heard of.
He is as prominent on the planet as any other people,
and his commercial importance
is extravagantly out of proportion
to the smallness of his bulk.
His contributions to the world’s list of great names
in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine,
and abstruse learning
are also away out of proportion
to the weakness of his numbers.
He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages;
and had done it with his hands tied behind him.
He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.
The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose,
filled the planet with sound and splendor,
then faded to dream-stuff and passed away;
the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise,
and they are gone;
other people have sprung up
and held their torch high for a time,
but it burned out,
and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.
The Jew saw them all,
  beat them all, and is now what he always was,
exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age,
no weakening of his parts,
no slowing of his energies,
no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind.
All things are mortal but the Jew;
all other forces pass, but he remains.

What is the secret of his immortality?”
Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

This brave “lifer” soldier tells it the way it is now and then. A breath of fresh air.

By George Roof, Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired)

http://www.truthorfiction. com/George-roof-presidents- ive-known/

Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of a president more than many of you can imagine.  I enlisted with President LBJ and saw just what a Democrat clusterflock was all about.  I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micromanagement from Washington that got thousands of military people killed. I sometimes wonder if I’ll get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above that bastard Robert McNamara , LB Johnson, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and yes, even the “hero” John McCain.

After Johnson “abdicated” rather than having his ass waxed in the next election,  I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) run the show.  Nixon was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented.

Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy ‘Peanuts’ Carter who’d been funded by Saudi money.  The military was turned into Section 8 and even the Whitehouse suffered the austerity.

Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray.  He not only loved the country and the military, they loved him back.  Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his presidency.  The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960’s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy ‘Peanuts’ were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.

Bush 1 was an enigma from the CIA and though he never did much either way, he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.

Welcome to Bill Clinton.  Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the ‘Oral’ Office, sending a bomber to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation.  He made history by becoming only the second president to be impeached.

I actually felt sorry for Bush 2.  He was doomed to infamy from the start.  He thought most of America was still the rah rah patriots of WWII when they were ‘simply socialists’ waiting to feed him to the sharks.

Then there came the Manchurian Candidate Obama with a faked (OK Democrats, let’s say “of questionable origin” to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been ‘sealed.’  (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle , OR their two faked kids.)

From his inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage dissension of the races as well as slandering police who “acted stupidly.”  That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the national debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, feeding us bullshit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries.

Fueled by George Soros’ money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority. He trashed the Constitution by installing “czars” (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority.  By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle.  No one had balls to impeach this charlatan Obama.

Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pal’s hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split.  Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nomination.  The Libertards aren’t worried because the fix is in.

Soros ‘has paid’ demonstrators to cause turmoil at ‘all the Republican gatherings.’  Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they won’t be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts.  Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her.

But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum.

Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince middle America not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp.  It was time.  Florida was designated a “swing” state ignoring that all those old retirees living in St. Petersburg, and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform.  Ohio and Pennsylvania , where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” lay awaiting this supposed “landslide” Hillary vote,…. and creamed it.

The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated.  An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed. A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the old hag Ginsburg who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually retire and leave, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 40-50 years.

Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election ‘was’ rigged.  They even advocated having the election repeated.  They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, battery and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon.  They run like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol.

This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over and participation trophies are awarded to everyone.  They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become.  Donald Trump may NOT be the best person for the job, but he’s such a welcome respite from the candy-assed wimps who’ve been running the swamp that it’s refreshing to see.

At the very least, Donald Trump derailed the Socialist train and bought us precious time.  If he only does half of what he’s promised, we’ll still be legions ahead of where Obama has dragged us.  Already countries who held us in contempt are lining up to be found in the favor of America.  Donald Trump has done more in his short time in the public eye…he prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming president!

So for you liberal lurkers and you half-assed fence-sitters, Tough Shit!  You had your big hurrah and now your party is over.  For you staunch Republicans in office, don’t gloat so much yourselves.  You’ve been put on notice by the American people that we’re fed up with ALL YOU BASTARDS and if you don’t start putting America first, you do so at your own peril.


You might want to buy a copy of George McGovern’s autobiography and see how shocking and humbling it can be for a professional politician to have to try to find legitimate work once he falls from grace.
This election was pure, unadulterated AMERICAN.  Hillary got beaten and AMERICA WON THE ELECTION. You can claim he’s not “your president” all you want, but unless you ‘forfeit’ your American citizenship, ……


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


Europe’s Elites Seem Determined to Commit Suicide by ‘Diversity’

Politicians say with fury that their migration policies ‘must’ work. What if they don’t?

By Douglas Murray

Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2017

Europe in 2017 is racked with uncertainty—the eurozone crises, the endless challenges of the European Union, national elections that resemble endless rounds of bullet-dodging. Yet even these events are insignificant compared with the deep tectonic shifts beneath the Continent’s politics, shifts that Europeans—and their allies—ignore at our peril.

Throughout the migration crisis of recent years I traveled across the Continent, from the reception islands into which migrants arrive to the suburbs in which they end up and the chancelleries which encouraged them to come.

For decades Europe had encouraged guest workers, and then their families, to come. As Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel once admitted, nobody expected them to stay.

Yet stay they did, with their numbers swelling even when there were no jobs. Waking up to the results of their policy, European societies rebranded themselves “multicultural” societies, only to begin wondering what that meant. Could a multicultural society make any demands of its newcomers? Or would that be “racist”?

From the 2000s legal and illegal immigration picked up. Boats regularly set out from Turkey and North Africa to enter Europe illegally. Syrians fleeing civil war pushed into the Continent, soon joined by people from across sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East and Far East.

Today the great migration is off the front pages. Yet it goes on. On an average weekend nearly 10,000 people arrive on Italian reception islands alone. Where do they go? What do they expect? And what do we expect of them?

To find the answer to these and other questions it is necessary to ask deeper questions. Why did Europe decide it could take in the poor and dispossessed of the world? Why did we decide that anybody in the world fleeing war, or just seeking a better life, could come to Europe and call it home?

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia.

Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

It is often argued that our societies are old, with a graying population, and so we need immigrants. When these theories are challenged—by asking, for instance, why the next generation of Germany’s workforce might not come from unemployed Greece rather than Eritrea—we are told that we need low-skilled workers who do not speak our languages because it makes Europe more culturally interesting. It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Yet still it is possible that the publics will not go along with the instincts of their leaders. Earlier this year, a poll of European attitudes was published in which citizens of 10 countries were asked a tough question: whether they agreed that there should be no more Muslim migration into their countries. Majorities in eight out of the 10 countries, including France and Germany, said they wanted no more Muslim immigrants.

Over recent decades Europe has made a hasty effort to redefine itself. As the world came in, we became wedded to “diversity.” As terrorism grew and more migrants arrived, public opinion in Europe began to harden. Today “more diversity” remains the cry of the elites, who insist that if the public doesn’t like it yet, it is because they haven’t had enough of it.

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal. The interesting thing to watch in the years ahead will be whether the publics join them in that pact. I wouldn’t bet on it.

Mr. Murray is author of “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam,” out this week from Bloomsbury Continuum.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital. Why Can’t the U.S.?…why-cant-the-u-s

Unfortunately, despite the recommendation below, Pres Trump did not move the US Embassy to Jerusalem but did leave the door wide open for six months hence.

By Eugene Kontorovich
The Wall Street Journal

President Trump’s visit to Israel next week is expected to lead to some announcement about his Jerusalem policy. The trip will coincide with celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the city’s reunification after the Six Day War. Only days after the visit, the president will have to decide between waiving an act of Congress or letting it take effect and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv—as he promised last year to do if elected.

Jerusalem is the only world capital whose status is denied by the international community. To change that, in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which mandates moving the U.S. Embassy to a “unified” Jerusalem. The law has been held in abeyance due to semiannual presidential waivers for “national security” reasons. President Obama’s final waiver will expire June 1.

There’s no good reason to maintain the charade that Jerusalem is not Israeli, and every reason for Mr. Trump to honor his campaign promise. The main arguments against moving the embassy—embraced by the foreign-policy establishment—is that it would lead to terrorism against American targets and undermine U.S. diplomacy. But the basis of those warnings has been undermined by the massive changes in the region since 1995.

While the Palestinian issue was once at the forefront of Arab politics, today Israel’s neighbors are preoccupied with a nuclear Iran and radical Islamic groups. For the Sunni Arab states, the Trump administration’s harder line against Iran is far more important than Jerusalem. To be sure, a decision to move the embassy could serve as a pretext for attacks by groups like al Qaeda. But they are already fully motivated against the U.S.

Another oft-heard admonition is that America would be going out on a limb if it “unilaterally” recognized Jerusalem when no other country did. An extraordinary recent development has rendered that warning moot. Last month Russia suddenly announced that it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Note what happened next: No explosions of anger at the Arab world. No end to Russia’s diplomatic role in the Middle East. No terror attacks against Russian targets. Moscow’s dramatic Jerusalem reversal has largely been ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of mayhem.

To be sure, Russia limited its recognition to “western Jerusalem.” Even so, it shifted the parameters of the discussion. Recognizing west Jerusalem as Israeli is now the position of a staunchly pro-Palestinian power. To maintain the distinctive U.S. role in Middle East diplomacy—and to do something historic—Mr. Trump must go further. Does the U.S. want to wind up with a less pro-Israel position than Vladimir Putin’s ?

The American response to real attacks against U.S. embassies has always been to send a clear message of strength. After the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington did not shut down those missions. Instead it invested in heavily fortified new facilities—and in hunting down the perpetrators.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would also improve the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It would end the perverse dynamic that has prevented such negotiations from succeeding: Every time the Palestinians say “no” to an offer, the international community demands a better deal on their behalf. No wonder no resolution has been reached. Only last week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insisted that new negotiations “start” with the generous offer made by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Relocating the embassy would demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that rejectionism has costs.

 If Mr. Trump nonetheless signs the waiver, he could do two things to maintain his credibility in the peace process. First, formally recognize Jerusalem—the whole city—as the capital of Israel, and reflect that status in official documents. Second, make clear that unless the Palestinians get serious about peace within six months, his first waiver will be his last. He should set concrete benchmarks for the Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to negotiations. These would include ending their campaign against Israel in international organizations and cutting off payments to terrorists and their relatives.

This is Mr. Trump’s moment to show strength. It cannot be American policy to choose to recognize a capital, or not, based on how terrorists will react—especially when they likely won’t.

Mr. Kontorovich is a department head at the Kohelet Policy Forum and a law professor at Northwestern University.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Robert Mueller’s Mission – An exercise in fortuitous duplicity, obscene politics and misinformation.

The special counsel needs to rise above his Comey loyalties.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

June 17, 2017

FBI Director Robert Mueller is sworn in during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on June 13, 2013 on Capitol Hill. Photo: Getty Images

That didn’t take long. Barely a week after James Comey admitted leaking a memo to tee up a special counsel against Donald Trump, multiple news reports based on leaks confirm that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the President for obstruction of justice. You don’t have to be a Trump partisan to have concerns about where all of this headed.

President Trump has reportedly stepped back this week from his temptation to fire Mr. Mueller, and that’s the right decision. The chief executive has the constitutional power to fire a special counsel through the chain of command at the Justice Department, but doing so would be a political debacle by suggesting he has something to hide.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, would surely resign, and other officials might resign as well until someone at Justice fulfilled Mr. Trump’s orders. The President’s opponents would think it’s Christmas. The dismissal would put the President’s political allies in a terrible spot and further distract from what are make-or-break months for his agenda on Capitol Hill. His tweets attacking the probe are also counterproductive, but by now we know he won’t stop.

There are nonetheless good reasons to raise questions about Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and those concerns are growing as we learn more about his close ties to Mr. Comey, some of his previous behavior, and the people he has hired for his special counsel staff. The country needs a fair investigation of the facts, not a vendetta to take down Mr. Trump or vindicate the tribe of career prosecutors and FBI agents to which Messrs. Mueller and Comey belong.

Start with the fact that Mr. Comey told the Senate last week that he asked a buddy to leak his memo about Mr. Trump specifically “because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Did Mr. Comey then suggest Mr. Mueller’s name to Mr. Rosenstein? He certainly praised Mr. Mueller to the skies at his Senate hearing.

The two former FBI directors are long-time friends who share a similar personal righteousness. Mr. Mueller, then running the FBI, joined Mr. Comey, then Deputy Attorney General, in threatening to resign in 2004 over George W. Bush’s antiterror wiretaps.

Less well known is how Mr. Mueller resisted direction from the White House in 2006 after he sent agents with a warrant to search then Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office on a Saturday night without seeking legislative-branch permission. The unprecedented raid failed to distinguish between documents relevant to corruption and those that were part of legislative deliberation. GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert rightly objected to this as an executive violation of the separation of powers and took his concerns to Mr. Bush.

The President asked his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, to ask Mr. Mueller to return the Jefferson documents that he could seek again through regular channels, but the FBI chief refused. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was also unable to move the FBI director. When Mr. Bolten asked again, Mr. Mueller said he wouldn’t tolerate political interference in a criminal probe, as if the Republican Mr. Bush was trying to protect a corrupt Democrat. Mr. Mueller threatened to resign, and the dispute was settled only after Mr. Bush ordered the seized documents sealed for 45 days until Congress and Mr. Mueller could work out a compromise.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that the FBI raid had violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause and Mr. Jefferson’s “non-disclosure privilege” as a Member of Congress, though the court let Justice keep the documents citing Supreme Court precedent on the exclusionary rule for collecting evidence.

We relate all this because it shows how Mr. Mueller let his prosecutorial willfulness interfere with proper constitutional and executive-branch procedure. This showed bad judgment. He shares this habit with Mr. Comey.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mueller’s staff appointments suggest that he is preparing for a long prosecutorial campaign. One unusual choice is Michael Dreeben, a highly regarded Deputy Solicitor General whose expertise is criminal law and the Constitution. He is not a prosecutor or counter-intelligence expert. Is Mr. Dreeben on hand to make a legal case for impeachment?

The special counsel has also recruited Andrew Weissmann, who oversaw the Enron Task Force and led the prosecution of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Andersen’s conviction, though too late for Andersen’s 28,000 U.S. employees.

Mr. Weissmann has donated to Hillary Clinton’s political campaign, but more relevant for this case he was highly criticized for his legal conduct over the years by the New York Observer newspaper. “In Andrew Weissmann, The DOJ Makes a Stunningly Bad Choice for Crucial Role,” said one headline in January 2015. The owner of the Observer at the time? Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son in law and now a White House aide.

With that history, can Mr. Weissmann fairly judge the actions of the Trump family and campaign? And knowing that history, why would Mr. Mueller choose Mr. Weissmann for his prosecutorial team when the appearance of fairness is crucial to public acceptance of the result?

As it happens, the Washington Post reported in its second big story this week that Mr. Mueller “is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner.” A fair question is whether Mr. Weissmann is another Patrick Fitzgerald who won’t stop until he nails someone in this probe.

Mr. Mueller is widely admired and no one questions his personal integrity, but we raise these issues because the stakes for American democracy are so high. As we’ve said from the beginning, Russian meddling in U.S. elections is a serious matter and Americans need to know what happened. If Mr. Trump or key associates canoodled with the Russians to steal an election, then he must face the likely consequence of impeachment.

But the public has seen no such evidence, and the FBI has been looking for months. Instead we have leaks that the special counsel whose friend was fired by Donald Trump is focusing on obstruction of an investigation into an underlying crime that so far doesn’t exist. In Watergate at least there was a third-rate burglary.

Much of Washington clearly views Mr. Mueller as their agent to rid the country of a President they despise. Every political and social incentive in that city will press Mr. Mueller to oblige. But you cannot topple a duly elected President based merely on innuendo or partisan distaste without doing great harm to democracy.

Richard Nixon’s road to resignation was painful but the facts were clear enough at the end that most Americans accepted the result. The country deserves no less concerning Donald Trump, no matter his character flaws. Mr. Mueller and his team of zealous prosecutors have a duty to bring a case based only on solid and conclusive evidence. Otherwise close the case with dispatch and move on.

American politics is divisive and dysfunctional as it is. Imagine what it will be like if millions of Americans conclude that a presidential election is being overturned by an elite consensus across the vast ideological and cultural divide running all the way from the New York Times to the Washington Post.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

The Jew and the Promised Land

From: To Be a Jew

By Rabbi Hayim HaLevy Donin

Basic Books A Division of HarperCollins Publishers 1991 (page 14-15)

… In 70 AD The destruction of the Second Temple at the hands of the Romans with the downfall of the Second Commonwealth dealt another severe blow to the Jewish people. Several attempts to reestablish independence to and throw of the yoke of foreign rule took place during the next sixty-five years, but all these attempts failed.

While small settlements of Jews remained on the soil, the bulk of the people scattered to countries far and wide, almost literally to the ends of the earth. Wherever they were, Jews dreamed of some day returning and re-establishing their independence, of restoring their national existence. They dreamed of it and prayed for it; never for a day was the Holy Land out of their thoughts.

During the centuries, the land was overrun by a series of invading and conquering Byzantine, Romans, Arabs, European Crusaders, Turks and finally by British forces during World War I.

And while individual Jews throughout the centuries sometimes returned to the Holy Land, if only to finish out their years (My grandparents returned to Israel circa 1930 to be buried in Mount Scopis,  Jerusalem) an organized effort for a mass return and resettlement of the land aiming toward the re-establishment of an independent sovereign Jewish State did not begin to materialize until the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Zionism, the name given to this organized effort, was and is a struggle for national liberation and for the crystallization of a national identity on the part of a nation that had been forced to wander from country to country over the centuries.
The early settlers found a land that had been neglected through the centuries, abounding in malarial swamps and diseases. It was a barren land of rock, sand, and desert. The few remaining Jewish communities were concentrated in the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed

While not all Jews were involved in the organized struggle to achieve these aims, every devout, believing Jew was in faith a Zionist since the aspiration to return to Zion is built into the very fabric of traditional Jewish faith. Wherever we find any mention of God’s blessings upon Israel in the religious literature or any vision of “the end of days” which speaks of the coming of the Messiah* and the Messianic period for all the world, it also refers to Israel’s return to the land and to its dwelling safely and securely therein.

The Jew living in any other land was regarded in every religious source as being in a “state of exile” regardless of how comfortable, how secure the Jew may have been in the land of his dispersion and how satisfying his personal life. The return to the land of Israel was not only a nationalistic sentiment harbored by the Jewish people, but a deeply religious sentiment providing the opportunity for a fuller relationship to God than was not possible anywhere else. It would pave the way for the Messianic era which would bring peace not only to Israel but to all mankind.

Such religious sentiments were incorporated into prayers of the daily, Sabbath, and festival services. There is hardly a a ritual where Zion is not recalled, where the return to Zion and the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is not mentioned.

The word Messiah is derived from the Hebrew word, mashiach which means anointed (with oil). The Messiah in Jewish thought was never conceived of as a Divine Being. As God’s anointed representative, the Messiah would be a person who would bring about the political spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by their ingathering to their ancestral home of Eretz Yisrael and the restoration of Jews and the restoration of Jerusalem to its spiritual glory.

He would bring about an era marked by the moral perfection of all of mankind and the harmonious coexistence of all peoples free of war, fear, hatred and intolerance. (Isiah 2 & 11, Micah 4).


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment