Read More About:

Share This Post

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, February 9, 2017

The State Department has more than doubled the rate of refugees from Iraq, Syria and other suspect countries in the week since a federal judge’s reprieve, in what analysts said appears to be a push to admit as many people as possible before another court puts the program back on ice.

A staggering 77 percent of the 1,100 refugees let in since Judge James L. Robart’s Feb. 3 order have been from the seven suspect countries. Nearly a third are from Syria alone — a country that President Trump has ordered be banned altogether from the refugee program. Another 21 percent are from Iraq. By contrast, in the two weeks before Judge Robart’s order, just 9 percent of refugees were from Syria and 6 percent were from Iraq.

“There’s no doubt in my mind they would be doing whatever they could to get people in before something changes because, from their perspective, their motivation is to resettle these folks. It would not be the first time that State Department officials have prioritized facilitating someone’s entry to the United States over security concerns,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mr. Trump issued an executive order Jan. 27 putting in place the early stages of his extreme vetting policy, including an immediate 90-day pause on admitting visitors from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — all countries where the government says it can’t be sure of its vetting procedures.

The executive order also called for an immediate 120-day halt to admitting refugees from anywhere around the globe. Mr. Trump singled out Syria in particular, saying refugees from there are halted indefinitely.

Late last week Judge Robart ruled Mr. Trump had likely overstepped legal boundaries and issued a temporary restraining order for most of the policy. An appeals court ruled Thursday to uphold the “TRO,” as it’s known in lawyer-speak.

(And, down the tube we are going with no end in sight and Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democrat Party are delighted!) jsk

Immediately after Judge Robart’s decision, the State Department and Homeland Security agencies kicked back into gear, beginning to accept both refugees and visitors from the suspect countries.

Numbers weren’t available on the effects of the broader travel ban, but 1,110 refugees were admitted in the days since the program was restarted — and of those, 849 were from the seven danger countries the president singled out. A whopping 346 were from Syria alone, and another 232 were from Iraq.

The surge has also meant a major jump in the number of self-identified Muslims admitted: 64 percent of the new batch of refugees are from some sect of Islam, compared to just 31 percent in the first weeks of the Trump administration.

“It would appear, based on the numbers, that there is an effort within the refugee resettlement program to rush in as many of the nationals of these seven countries as possible before a ruling is made on the TRO,” said Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager at NumbersUSA.

Mr. Trump himself seemed to be aware of the changes, posting an oblique Twitter message on Wednesday asking the courts to issue a new decision overturning Judge Robart and reinstating his extreme vetting policy.

“Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!” the president tweeted.

The State Department, in a statement to The Washington Times explaining the numbers, said it was focusing on “rescheduling those whose travel had been suspended the previous week.”

Nine organizations in the U.S. are chartered by the government to help with resettling refugees here. Several of them didn’t respond to requests from The Washington Times, but Erol Kekic, executive director of the Church World Service’s refugee program, said it might be a coincidence that so many refugees from the seven countries were being admitted. (Huh! Talk about wishful thinking, cop-out)

He said the cases that have been prioritized are those with urgent medical needs or those whose immediate safety is in question if they remain outside the U.S. Mr. Kekic said the refugee program has been maligned by the ongoing debate, and he pleaded for a chance to make his case to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Kekic bristled at allegations that the refugee program is a security problem for the U.S., saying the chance of being killed by a refugee in the U.S. was less than the chance of being struck by lightning. “Refugee is not a dirty word,” he said.

One part of Mr. Trump’s order that hasn’t been blocked in the courts is his reduction in the number of refugees to be accepted this year. President Obama had set a 110,000 cap for fiscal year 2017, which runs through Sept. 30. Mr. Trump cut that to 50,000.
Some 34,000 refugees have already been admitted, meaning that even if the courts do keep the program operational, the number of people that can be admitted is severely constrained.

There has been no slowdown in processing cases of asylum claims, which are refugees who manage to make it to the U.S. and claim protection once here.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Homeland Security agency that first judges asylum claims, said that program wasn’t affected by Mr. Trump’s order.

In a Feb. 2 memo, USCIS Acting Director Lori L. Scialabba said they would also continue processing applications for family members of those approved for refugee or asylum status who were already in the U.S., even if they were from the seven countries Mr. Trump had singled out.

She also said: “USCIS will continue refugee interviews when the person is a religious minority in his or her country of nationality facing religious persecution.

Additionally, USCIS will continue refugee interviews in jurisdictions where there is a preexisting international agreement related to refugee processing. USCIS will not approve a refugee application for an individual who we determine would pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.” (And, good luck to your ability to determine that or even try)


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The Iran Deal Can’t Be Enforced

Read More About: These are weasel words of the highest order coupled with flat-out misrepresentation by Iran and willful blindness by the United States

The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 6, 2017

Iran’s continued missile testing on Saturday has given President Trump one more reason to tear up his predecessor’s deal with the regime in Tehran. After Iran’s Jan. 29 ballistic-missile launch, the Trump administration responded with new sanctions and tough talk.

But these alone won’t have a material effect on Tehran or its decades-long effort to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons. The real issue is whether America will abrogate Barack Obama’s deal with Iran, recognizing it as a strategic debacle, a result of the last president’s misguided worldview and diplomatic malpractice.

Terminating the agreement would underline that Iran is already violating it, clearly intends to continue pursuing nuclear arms, works closely with North Korea in seeking deliverable nuclear weapons, and continues to support international terrorism and provocative military actions.

Escaping from the Serbonian Bog that Obama’s negotiations created would restore the resolute leadership and moral clarity the U.S. has lacked for eight years.

But those who supported the Iran deal, along with even many who had opposed it, argue against abrogation. Instead they say that America should “strictly enforce” the deal’s terms and hope that Iran pulls out.

This would be a mistake for two reasons. First, the strategic miscalculations embodied in the deal endanger the U.S. and its allies, not least by lending legitimacy to the ayatollahs, the world’s central bankers for terrorism.

Second, “strictly enforcing” the deal is as likely to succeed as nailing Jell-O to a wall. Not only does the entire agreement reflect appeasement, but President Obama’s diplomacy produced weak, ambiguous and confusing language in many specific provisions.

These drafting failures created huge loopholes, and Iran is now driving its missile and nuclear programs straight through them.

Take Tehran’s recent ballistic-missile tests. The Trump administration sees them as violating the deal. Iran disagrees. Let’s see what “strict enforcement” would really mean, bearing in mind that the misbegotten deal is 104 pages long, consisting of Security Council Resolution 2231 and two attachments: Annex A, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the main nuclear deal, known by the acronym JCPOA); and Annex B, covering other matters including ballistic missiles.

Annex B isn’t actually an agreement. Iran is not a party to it. Instead it is a statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, intended to “improve transparency” and “create an atmosphere conducive” to implementing the deal. The key paragraph of Annex B says: “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” for eight years.

Note the language: Iran is not forbidden from engaging in all ballistic-missile activity, merely “called upon” to do so. The range of proscribed activity is distinctly limited, applying only to missiles “designed to be capable” of carrying nuclear weapons. Implementation is left to the Security Council.

The loopholes are larger than the activity supposedly barred. Iran simply denies that its missiles are “designed” for nuclear payloads—because, after all, it does not have a nuclear-weapons program. This is a palpable lie, but both the JCPOA and a unanimous Security Council accepted it.

Resolution 2231 includes a paragraph: “Welcoming Iran’s reaffirmation in the JCPOA that it will under no circumstances ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” The ayatollahs have been doing precisely that ever since their 1979 revolution.

Finally, Resolution 2231 itself also merely “calls upon” Iran to comply with Annex B’s ballistic-missile limits, even as the same sentence says that all states “shall comply” with other provisions. When the Security Council wants to “prohibit” or “demand” or even “decide,” it knows how to say so. It did not here.

The upshot is very simple: Iran can’t violate the ballistic-missile language because it has reaffirmed that it doesn’t have a nuclear-weapons program. Really, what could go wrong?

These are weasel words of the highest order, coupled with flat-out misrepresentation by Iran and willful blindness by the United States. The Jell-O will not stick to the wall. The deal cannot be “strictly enforced.” And this is only one example of the slippery language found throughout the deal.

Pentagon sources have said that the missile Iran recently tested failed while re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere. This is telling. If the missile program were, as Iran claims, only for launching weather and communications satellites, there would be no need to test re-entry vehicles. The goal would be to put satellites in orbit and keep them there.

But nuclear warheads obviously have to re-enter the atmosphere to reach their targets. The recent tests provide even more evidence of what Iran’s ballistic-missile program has always been about, namely supplying delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

Time always works on the side of nuclear proliferators, and the Iran deal is providing the ayatollahs with protective camouflage. Every day Washington lets pass without ripping the deal up is a day of danger for America and its friends. We proceed slowly at our peril.
Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Jackie Mason from whom you could plotz discussing Trump’s election.



Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

‘Tough Love’—The First and Last Obama Lie



JAN. 13, 2017

I wrote an article in this space six months into the Obama presidency entitled “The Turn Against Israel.” It appeared in the July 2009 issue. These were its concluding paragraphs:

“The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself.

“A great deal is, however, expected of Israel. Settlements are to be frozen, including their ‘natural growth.’ Israel must bolster the Palestinian economy, provide Palestinians with jobs, and make things better in Gaza. Israel is to give; the Palestinians are to receive. Israel’s giving is to be accompanied by a promise of reduced violence. Palestinian receiving will be accompanied by Israel’s surrender of more territory beyond the entirety of Gaza and the near-entirety of the West Bank already in Palestinian hands.

Israel, the president asserts, will be better off if all this happens. Trust him. He’s Israel’s friend. A better friend than anyone else, remember, because he’s willing to be honest about Israel’s need to sacrifice itself on the altar of nothing more than a promise, and maybe not even that.

“And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass—with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite.”

The decision in December by President Obama to abstain on a UN Security Council vote effectively declaring any Jewish presence in East Jerusalem or the West Bank a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore illegal under international law marked the moment he crossed the finish line in the course he had charted from 2008 onward.

The turn against Israel was complete. And, as he had when he began it, in farewell interview after farewell interview, he characterized his assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in the Holy Land as an act of tough love. “Friends need to tell each other the hard truths,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in a speech defending the abstention.

Which raises the key question: Why abstain? If “hard truths” define friendship, then by all means they should have made the truths as hard as possible. If Obama and Kerry truly believe the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem is illicit, then they should have voted for the resolution. Instead, they took the coward’s way out. They opened the vault to the criminals and placed the jewels in their hands while wearing white gloves so there would be no residual trace of their fingerprints. The abstention was in some weird sense the mark of their bad conscience. They wanted something to happen while maintaining some historical deniability about their involvement in it.

In the eight years of the Obama presidency, war broke out twice between the Palestinians and the Israelis and nearly broke out a third time. In each case, the issue was not the West Bank, or East Jerusalem, or anything near. The two wars and the third near-war took place in and around Gaza, from which Israel had withdrawn unilaterally in 2005—more than three years before Obama took office. The wars were the result of aggressions by the terrorist organization Hamas.

The idea that the settlements and the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem are the main barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was proved to be a lie right before Obama’s eyes in 2009, and 2012, and 2014. And he didn’t care to see it, because he is blinded by an antipathy he wishes to ascribe to Israeli action when honesty would compel him to find it in his own misguided leftist ideology—or within his own soul.

Baruch Hashem (Thank G-d) Israel has survived the horrendous blessing of Barack Obama’s false friendship.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

A Beautiful Tale: Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump’s Synagogue and his adopted Rabbi in Flatbush, Brooklyn

Read More About: In terms of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election Rabbi Wagner has no doubt as to the reason.

Related by Rabbi Wagner, Mashgiach Ruchani (Spiritual Supervisor)
Yeshiva (Hebrew religious learning institution) Ohr Yerushalayim in Moshav (Israeli socialist community), Beit Meir, Israel

Rabbi Wagner shares the incredible story of how Donald Trump’s father, Frederick Trump, built a shul (Orthodox synagogue) for the congregation, headed by his father, Rabbi Yisrael Wagner, and how Trump went  on to make annual donations of funding for the kehilla (local  Jewish community)  and to aid Jewish families in financial distress.

Redacted from: ISRAPUNDIT+DAILY+DIGEST++FEB+1 2017

Even today, after Donald Trump has already been inaugurated as President of the United States, many pundits are still trying to figure out how it happened.

How did the man with the smallest chance of victory manage to win this election in complete defiance of all the predictions and assessments of the experts and all the polls that seemed to be against him? In retrospect, there are many explanations for his astounding victory, some of which are more logical, while others are less so.

There is one man, Rabbi Shmuel Wagner, who has no background whatsoever in the media or in political commentary but, who is confident that he knows of at least one reason for Trump’s stunning victory: the zechus of his father.

(Zechus Avos means that one derives the merit of the good deeds of his parents or ancestors that brought him or assisted in bringing him good fortune, either financial or sources of pride and happiness in his family or the prominent position he himself might have obtained)

The Rabbi of Trump’s Neighborhood

After Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, several publications featured a grainy sixty-year-old photograph that depicts Fred Trump, the new president’s father, in a shul in the neighborhood of Flatbush in Brooklyn. The photograph was accompanied by a terse caption that did little to shed light on the background to this unusual picture.

Rabbi Shmuel Wagner is a son of Rabbi Yisrael Wagner of blessed memory, the rov (rabbi) of the shul in Flatbush where the picture was taken. Rabbi Shmuel reveals a truly incredible story behind it.

“To give you a little background information about Fred Trump’s generosity and his special relationship with my father,” Rabbi Wagner says, “let me take you several years further into the past. My father was born in Galicia (small locked in land area between Poland and the Ukraine that was home to many Jews, who, unfortunate to still live there at the time of the Holocaust, were killed). The Rabbi’s father happened to be an illuy (genius and Torah scholar).

He was a prominent bochur (honor student) in Belz and was very close with Rav Aharon of Belz. He was about 18 or 19 years old when World War II began. He father was engaged at the time to a daughter of Rav Shraga Feivel Willig, the rov of the city of Buchach in Galicia.

When the war began, he and his kallah (bride)  were both displaced from their homes, and each of them miraculously survived the war. They were re-united after the war, also miraculously, in a displaced persons camp, and they got married in Salzburg, Austria.

From Salzburg, Rabbi Yisrael Wagner made his way to Bolivia, where he served as the rov (rabbi) of a Jewish community. “At first, my parents received immigration papers for Bolivia,” Rabbi Wagner continues his account. “After he served as a rov there for two years, they came to California, in the United States, in the year 1950. That is where I was born. My father was the rov of a shul in California, but there were no suitable schools for children there, so the family moved to New York, where there were chadarim (Hebrew classrooms) and yeshivos.”

A few weeks after the Wagner family arrived in New York, Reb Yisrael was appointed rabbi of a residential area belonging to a businessman named Fred Trump, father of Donald Trump.

Reb Shmuel says, “Fred owned 31 residential buildings in the area, with many apartments for rent. It was an area on the outskirts of Flatbush, near the beach. Most of the tenants in those apartments were Jews, and almost all of them were irreligious.”

Reb Yisrael quickly created A Shul (synagogue)  in a parking garage

Despite the fact that most of the local residents were not frum (religious), they took an interest in Rabbi Wagner’s shul. “There was a minyan (group of at least 10 men necessary to conduct crucial parts of the service)  in the shul as soon as it opened,”

Rabbi Wagner recalls. “There were Jews from Europe there and they cared about davening (praying) in a shul. The shul operated in a parking garage of one of the buildings, and my father received the position of rov ( rabbi)  through a relative.

“The shul began with thirty members, but it experienced tremendous growth in just a few years, to the point that it came to serve hundreds of families. Many of the mispallelim (Jewish community) were not religious, but they were very much attracted to the shul, to my father, and to the warmth that he radiated to them. They loved the experience of the shul and listening to my father’s devar Torah (explanations of the Torah readings)  And he, with his kindhearted manner and his trademark warmth, taught them Torah and chassidus.

(Chassidus – The study of Chassidic philosophy – An  applied custom to practice the Jewish faith emphasizing the joy of the religion rather than as some onerous burden or heavenly command).

At some point the shul’s membership grew to where the facility was no longer large enough to house the congregation. It was understood that the shul needed a proper building in order to function. “My father had an idea,” Rabbi Wagner recalls. “He offered to approach Fred Trump, whom he didn’t know personally, even though Trump was his landlord.

He hoped that he could use his wisdom to convince Trump to give him a building for his shul. He thought that he might influence his landlord by explaining that Jews, who were Trump’s largest group of customers, need a shul near their homes. He also knew that Fred Trump was a man of faith, and he was likely to relate to the request.

“Thus, my father’s request appealed both to Trump’s emotions and to his shrewd business mind. And it worked. My father and Fred both understood that a kehillah (community) that revolved around a shul would be one whose members led a proper spiritual lifestyle and his business would benefit from that.

My father managed to reach Fred Trump’s heart. Trump was very moved by the idea my father expressed and the two became close friends. Fred proceeded to donate a piece of real estate for the shul, and he even made a very generous donation so that a magnificent shul building could be built.”

Rabbi Wagner adds that over time, Fred Trump’s donations grew progressively more generous. “Sometimes, my father would tell him about various Jewish families in the area who were needy, and he would give large sums to help them as well.”

What motivated a non-Jewish businessman to make such large charitable donations to needy Jews? “He was devoted to my father,” Rabbi Wagner asserts. “He admired him deeply, and he used to ask his opinion on many things. He was very impressed by the fact that my father, a Chassidic Jew from Belz in Europe, became the rov of a more modern congregation and inspired many Jews to keep Shabbos (the rules of the Sabbath)  and even to become fully religious.

When Donald Trump Worked in the Laundry Room

Rabbi Wagner has vivid recollections of Fred Trump’s son, a wild, blond-haired youth. “Donald’s father left him and his brother an inheritance of over a million dollars. In effect, Fred was the one who launched his son’s business career.

I still remember going to shul with my father for Shacharis (morning prayer) early every Sunday morning. The laundry room, where all the tenants washed their clothes in coin-operated machines, was in the basement of the building. And do you know who collected the money from those machines in the mornings? Donald Trump and his brother!

“Donald was Fred Trump’s second son. I remember him from the age of about 14 or 15, with his wild shock of blond hair and his endless reserves of energy and drive. His father used to send him to collect the money from the laundry machines. Fred taught his children from a very early age to take responsibility; he gave them no breaks. Donald may have been wild as a youth, but his father raised him well.”

Donald Trump’s Faith

During the election campaign in New York, Donald Trump told the Jews of the city that his father had built a shul there. He remembered the location well, and he recalled the work that his father had sent him to do in the residential buildings of the Jewish neighborhood.

In terms of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections, Rabbi Wagner has no doubt as to the reason. His father had the zechus of paying for a shul to be built and maintaining it for years. He gave money to many struggling Jewish families and he gave great honor to the rov of the shul and to Jews in general.

Donald thus has zechus avos, (G-d given honor from his father’s good deeds) and that is what has brought him to the White House.”

Redacted by Jerome S. Kaufman in consultation with Rabbi Avrohom Wineberg, Sara and Morris Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Center, West Bloomfield, MI

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

The Far Left Democrat Party going even farther Left via Rep. Keith Ellison

Redacted from an article  BY SETH MCLAUGH­LIN

The Washington Times

Rep. Keith El­li­son, the Min­nesota Demo­crat seek­ing to be the next leader of the DNC, is once again be­ing dogged by ac­cu­sa­tions of past anti-Semitism and black na­tion­al­ism that haunted his 2006 cam­paign, which saw him be­come the first Mus­lim elected to Congress.

It’s like deja vu for Rep. Keith El­li­son. More than a decade after he per­suaded Min­nesota vot­ers to look be­yond his con­tro­ver­sial past and re­ward him with a seat in Congress. Mr. El­li­son is now ask­ing na­tional Democrats to do the same as he seeks to lead their party.

The first Mus­lim elected to Congress, Mr. El­li­son is now run­ning to lead the Demo­cratic Na­tional Com­mit­tee when the party will at­tempt to re­build in the wake of yet an­other elec­tion spank­ing. But the con­gress­man’s bid has been com­pli­cated by ques­tions about his views on Louis Far­rakhan, the pol­i­tics of Is­rael and black na­tion­al­ism.

Writ­ing un­der the name Keith Hakim, Mr. El­li­son penned col­umns while at the Univer­sity of Min­nesota Law School in which he de­fended Na­tion of Is­lam chief Mr. Far­rakhan against ac­cu­sa­tions of be­ing a racist and an anti-Semite.

Mr. El­li­son also said a sep­a­rate black state might be a bet­ter op­tion for black Amer­i­cans than af­fir­ma­tive ac­tion.

Ad­di­tion­ally, he’s faced crit­i­cism for the lead role he played as a mem­ber of a Black Law Stu­dents As­so­ci­a­tion, invit­ing black na­tion­al­ist speak­ers to the Univer­sity of Min­nesota — events that drew op­po­si­tion from cam­pus groups rep­re­sent­ing Jewish, women and gay and les­bian stu­dents.

Joshua Wirtschafter, who led the Jewish as­so­ci­a­tion at the time, says he saw Mr. El­li­son more as a de­fender of free speech rights than a backer of the speak­ers’ sep­a­ratist views. “Even in that pe­riod, he did not en­dorse the anti-Semitic mes­sages of black na­tion­al­ist speak­ers,”

“I think the man should be judged in his 30s and 40s and early 50s, rather than his ex­plo­ration in his 20s of black na­tion­al­ism,” he said. “I saw Keith try out the big firm lawyer role, I saw him try­ing out the black na­tion­al­ist role, and nei­ther of them fit him.”
In­stead, Mr. El­li­son cut a ca­reer path that saw him take over as ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of the Le­gal Rights Cen­ter, a non­profit group that pro­vides le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for poor peo­ple. He won his seat in Congress in 2006.

For a DNC strug­gling to fig­ure out how it lost an elec­tion that ap­peared, ear­lier this year, to be sewn up, Mr. El­li­son of­fers a back-to-ba­sics ap­proach. He says the party needs to em­power lo­cal ac­tivists and par­ties and drive a pro­gres­sive agenda that res­onates with the work­ing-class vot­ers that ditched Democrats in the 2016 elec­tion.

He has called for ex­pand­ing So­cial Se­cu­rity, rais­ing the min­i­mum wage to $15 per hour, pro­tect­ing vot­ing rights for unions, de­crim­i­nal­iz­ing mar­i­juana, coun­ter­ing cli­mate change criticism, stand­ing up for il­le­gal im­mi­grants, in­creas­ing taxes on the rich and strength­en­ing col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing for union and la­bor groups.

(Huh! The above are all the things most of us do no want and that is why we voted for Trump. Maybe, like Barack Obama, Ellison thinks he just has to be more effective in presenting the message rather than the content itself?)
The field also in­cludes New Hamp­shire Demo­cratic Party Chair­man Ray Buck­ley, South Carolina Demo­cratic Party Chair­man Jaime Har­ri­son and Sec­re­tary of La­bor Thomas E. Perez, who was urged to en­ter the race in part be­cause of con­cerns over Mr. El­li­son’s past and lib­eral lean­ings.

The Min­nesota con­gress­man has al­ready earned the sup­port of some of his party’s big­gest names, in­clud­ing Sen. El­iz­a­beth War­ren, in­com­ing Se­nate Mi­nor­ity Leader Charles E. Schumer and Sen. Bernard San­ders, who ran for Democrats’ pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion this year.
Two dozen mem­bers of the House, ac­tivist group and pow­er­ful la­bor unions are also back­ing his bid.

(These recommenders constitute damn good reasons not to have the Democrat Party back in power and return to the disaster Barack Obama created) jsk

Ellison’s mo­men­tum, how­ever, has been slowed by his ini­tial re­luc­tance to make clear he would give up his con­gres­sional seat to be a full-time chair­man, and by warn­ings from the Anti-Defama­tion League over his lack of sup­port for Is­rael.

Oth­ers have noted that Mr. El­li­son helped lead a march in Min­nesota in re­sponse to the 1992 Rod­ney King verdict, telling the Min­nesota Star Tri­bune: “Black peo­ple do not live un­der democ­racy. You don’t have an obli­ga­tion to obey a gov­ern­ment that con­sid­ers you to be less hu­man.”

Mr. El­li­son was born in Detroit and grad­u­ated from Wayne State Univer­sity, where he con­verted from Catholi­cism to Is­lam, be­fore mov­ing to Min­neapo­lis for law school.

Mr. El­li­son en­tered the Min­nesota leg­is­la­ture in 2002 and made a name for him­self as a cham­pion on en­vi­ron­men­tal, la­bor and voter rights is­sues, said Rep. Frank Horn­stein, who en­tered at the same time and sat next to Mr. El­li­son in the state House chamber.

The ques­tions about Mr. El­li­son’s views on Mr. Far­rakhan sur­faced when he ran for Congress in 2006, and he tried to put them be­hind him by telling the Jewish Com­mu­nity Re­la­tions Coun­cil that “I should have come to that con­clu­sion that they were anti-Semitic ear­lier than I did.” “I re­gret that I didn’t,” he said.

(The chameleon-like characteristics of politicians are always amusing and terrifying to observe. How easily politicians shed past awful positions to please the current circumstance and audience. And, I don’t believe a word Ellison now says.)  jsk

II  There will be Democrat Party Forum in Detroit, Feb 4, 2017 with 10 possible candidates for Democrat Party Chairman

“The Democratic Party welcomes all Americans from all backgrounds. What we do not welcome is people discriminating against others based on who they are or how they worship,” interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile said in a statement to The Hill.

(You may remember that Donna Brazile, anchored one of the Hillary Clinton debates  and  is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught.)

CNN has dropped her as an analyst but the Democrat Party has no such reservations. She thus completes the group of nefarious characters mentioned above who are in the camp of Keith Ellison)

Ellison and former Labor Secretary Tom Perez are viewed as the favorites to be the next DNC chair. Those two and five other candidates — New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Ray Buckley, South Carolina Chairman Jaime Harrison, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former DNC official Jehmu Greene and Idaho Democratic official Sally Boynton Brown — have participated in all of the DNC’s Future Forum events at cities across the country.

The official field of candidates will likely narrow by Feb. 21, when the contenders are required to submit petitions signed by 20 DNC members.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The controversy over the White House Holocaust statement

Updated by Libby Nelson@libbyanelson Jan 30, 2017,

President Donald Trump released a brief statement to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a small, symbolic step taken by past presidents to mark one of the world’s greatest tragedies. It didn’t take long for many people to notice that a key word was missing: Jews.

“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust,” Trump’s statement began. “It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”

As critics quickly noted, there was no mention that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, or an acknowledgment of the virulent, state-sponsored anti-Semitism that led to their deaths — details that are crucial and commonplace in most discussions of the Holocaust.

Then, on Saturday, the White House said that Jews had been omitted from the statement on purpose because other victims also suffered and died in the Holocaust, an explanation that seemed to minimize the effects of a genocide that killed two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe. Sen. Tim Kaine called it “Holocaust denial.”

II Conservative commentator John Podhoretz in his Saturday column slammed the White House’s defense of its actions

Jake Tapper of CNN reported Saturday night that Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks defended and even celebrated the White House statement. The decision not to mention the Jews was deliberate, Hicks said, a way of demonstrating the inclusive approach of the Trump administration!

“Despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered…it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day.”

John Podhoretz retorted:  No, Hope Hicks, and no to whomever you are serving as a mouthpiece. The Nazis killed an astonishing number of people in monstrous ways and targeted certain groups—Gypsies, the mentally challenged, and open homosexuals, among others.

But the Final Solution was aimed solely at the Jews. The Holocaust was about the Jews. There is no “proud” way to offer a remembrance of the Holocaust that does not reflect that simple, awful, world-historical fact. To universalize it to “all those who suffered” is to scrub the Holocaust of its meaning.

Given Hicks’s abominable statement, one cannot simply write this off. For there is a body of opinion in this country, and in certain precincts of the Trump coalition, who have long made it clear they are tired of what they consider a self-centered Jewish claim to being the great victims of the Nazis.

Case in point: In 1988, as a speechwriter in the Reagan Administration, I drafted the president’s remarks at the laying of the cornerstone of the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

As was the practice, the speech was sent around to 14 White House offices, including an office called Public Liaison staffed by conservatives whose job it was to do outreach to ethnic and religious groups.

The official at Public Liaison who supported anti-Communist groups in Eastern Europe was tasked with the job of reviewing it. She sent the speech back marked up almost sentence by sentence. At the top, she wrote something like, “This must be redone. What about the suffering of the Poles and the Slovaks? The president should not be taking sides here.”

I was astonished, and horrified, and took the document to my superior, who told me to ignore it. “She has a bee in her bonnet about this,” he said of the Public Liaison official.

On another occasion, in an article commissioned by a conservative magazine, I wrote a sentence in which I called the Jews “the most beleaguered people in history.” An editor there objected, and insisted we add the word “uniquely” between “most” and “beleaguered” because there was an element, he said, of “special pleading.”

I bring these anecdotes up to say that the Hope Hicks statement does not arrive without precedent. It is, rather, the culmination of something—the culmination of decades of ill feeling that seems to center on the idea that the Jews have somehow made unfair “use” of the Holocaust and it should not “belong” to them.

Someone in that nascent White House thought it was time to reflect that view through the omission of the specifically Jewish quality of the Holocaust. Now the question is: Who was it?

In those remarks at the cornerstone laying, President Reagan said this: “I think all of us here are aware of those, even among our own countrymen, who have dedicated themselves to the disgusting task of minimizing or even denying the truth of the Holocaust.

This act of intellectual genocide must not go unchallenged, and those who advance these views must be held up to the scorn and wrath of all good and thinking people in this nation and across the world.” This was in reference to the new and horrifying field of Holocaust denial.

It is heartbreaking to think these are words that can now be applied to the White House in which a Republican successor to Reagan is now resident, only 28 years after he departed it for the last time. Heartbreaking and enraging.

(Please recall that John Podhoretz is a well known Trump hater and has been trying to disparage and eliminate him though the whole nominating process and his resounding victory over Hillary Clinton. What with all of  Podhoretz’s own slanted previous reporting, I don’t think we should rush to judgement against Trump.

Trump-hating is much too popular with CNN and the rest of the establishment media. There is a vendetta here that will undoubtedly persist throughout President Trump’s administration. Thus, this expected Podhoretz screed must be taken with a grain of salt.

I don’t believe Donald Trump has an iota of Jew Hatred in his body. He has lived among and done business with tons of Jews his whole life. And, need we forget his brilliant daughter Ivanka married an Orthodox Jew and is keeping the faith better than about 90% of Jews in this country — many of whom have the same view of Donald Trump as does John Podhoretz.

Of course Jews have never been good at picking their heroes  Consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt and you may also remember that they spent most of their time in the desert giving Moses a bad time.)

Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Miami Drops Sanctuary City Status Because of Trump Exec Order

by Jeff Dunetz | Jan 26, 2017 | U.S. News

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times
January 9, 2017

The Obama administration has made significant headway in cutting down the number of sanctuary cities, but 279 municipalities are still holding out, refusing to cooperate with federal authorities on at least some cases involving illegal immigrants, Homeland Security officials said as they detailed year-end enforcement numbers last week.

Those sanctuary communities released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants back onto the streets rather than turn them over to federal authorities in fiscal year 2016, and were on pace for even more in the first two months of fiscal year 2017, which began Oct. 1.

The numbers were part of Homeland Security’s year-end immigration enforcement update, which said border agents and officers are reporting more illegal immigrants attempting to cross into the U.S., in what has been dubbed a new surge of migration.

Yet fewer are being caught in the interior by ICE, as President Obama continued to make good on his vow to stop deporting all but the most serious of illegal immigrants.

Last year, ICE caught 114,000 illegal immigrants, the lowest number in Mr. Obama’s tenure. That represented only 1 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be at large in the U.S.

More than 90 percent of those ICE apprehended had criminal convictions, had gang ties, were deemed national security risks, were new illegal arrivals or were defying active orders of deportation.

Security analysts say that makes the number of people released by uncooperative sanctuary cities even more troubling. The Obama administration wouldn’t be asking for them unless they were priorities for deportation, either as convicted criminals, national security risks or people who are ignoring recent orders of deportation.

Led by Philadelphia and Cook County in Illinois, which refuse all cooperation with the federal government, sanctuaries are likely to be one of the thorniest issues confronting Donald Trump as president. He has vowed penalties for defying immigration laws.

Mr. Trump’s selection to be attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, has also expressed support for blocking some federal funds from sanctuary cities — and even suggested bringing criminal charges against them.

The Obama administration has also called for sanctuary cities and localities to cooperate, saying communities that refuse to turn over illegal immigrants wanted by federal agents are making the streets less safe and causing more hassle for immigration agents.

“Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in its 2016 review released Friday. “Detainer” is the term ICE uses when it asks a local police or sheriff’s department to hold an illegal immigrant for pickup by federal agents. A declined detainer means the locals refused, and instead released the person onto the streets.

ICE has been making some progress. In fiscal year 2015, there were 395 jurisdictions that acted as sanctuaries, refusing to turn over a total of 8,546 illegal immigrants that were being sought by ICE agents.

In 2016, the number of jurisdictions dropped to 279, and the total number of illegal immigrants shielded was down by more than three-quarters to 2,008. It’s not a straight 1-to-1 comparison, however, because ICE likely stopped asking in 2016 for detainers on some illegal immigrants in communities that have gained reputations for refusing to cooperate.

Of the 25 largest jurisdictions that offered sanctuary a few years ago, 21 of them have started to work with ICE in some capacity since Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson made a major push to establish better cooperation.

Still, even those 21 municipalities don’t fully cooperate, officials acknowledged. Asked over the summer, Philadelphia officials insisted that they attempt to cooperate on “violent criminals or suspected terrorists,” but they didn’t answer specific Justice Department allegations that the city refused cooperation. Cook County, meanwhile, didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

On broader measures of overall immigration enforcement, the numbers show continued struggles both at the border and inside the U.S. Just five years ago, ICE agents apprehended 338,000 people in the interior of the U.S. — nearly three times the 114,000 captured in 2016 with Barack Obama in power. “

That’s where we’ve really seen changes,” said one Homeland Security official who briefed reporters on the numbers Friday afternoon on the condition that he not be named publicly.

Stung by criticism from immigrant rights advocates who dub Mr. Obama the “deporter in chief,” the administration has made a concerted effort to start kicking out fewer migrants from inside the U.S. The president and Mr. Johnson laid out a series of priorities and ordered agents to drop other cases.

Those priorities include serious felons and national security risks, those with multiple misdemeanors, recent border crossers and those who have been ordered deported since 2014, but who are refusing to go.

Of those ICE kicked out in 2016, nearly 84 percent were serious felons, national security risks or gang members, or were caught at the border. Another 13 percent had repeat misdemeanors or were caught in the interior after sneaking in after 2013.

Even as interior agents catch fewer immigrants, Border Patrol agents and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers who man the ports of entry are reporting a spike in migrants attempting to enter illegally.

Homeland Security officials say the number caught at the border is an indicator of the number getting through it, so it signals an overall increase in the flow.
Border Patrol agents caught 415,816 people trying to enter illegally over the last fiscal year, which was up 23 percent from 2015. Still, it was far fewer than the 1.5 million regularly caught each year in the late 1990s.

CBP officers, meanwhile, encountered nearly 275,000 other migrants who showed up at the ports of entry but didn’t have permission to be in the U.S.


II Miami Drops Sanctuary City Status Because of Trump Exec Order

By Jeff Dunetz | Jan 26, 2017 | U.S. News

If Hillary had been elected almost every city in the US would have been declared a Sanctuary City.

Thank God Trump was elected and good old Miami has been saved by the actions of their city governing body

Money does make the world go round especially when a municipality relies on federal dollars.

Today the mayor of Miami-Dade County, Carlos Gimenez responded to President Trump’s executive order withholding federal aid from sanctuary cities by ordering the county’s jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.

“In light of the provisions of the Executive Order [Wednesday], I direct you and your staff to honor all immigration detainer requests received from the Department of Homeland Security,” Mayor Carlos Gimenez told the county’s corrections department, in a letter reported by the Miami Herald.

Unlike cities like San Francisco, Miami-Dade never declared itself a “sanctuary” and has resisted the label ever since the Justice Department listed the county as one in a May 2016 report. Foreseeing Trump’s crackdown on “sanctuary” jurisdictions, the county asked the feds to review its status last year. A decision is still pending.

In an interview with the Miami Herald, Gimenez, a Republican who attended Trump’s inauguration last week but said he voted for Hillary Clinton, said he made a financial decision. Last year, the county declined to hold some 100 inmates wanted by the feds. Keeping them in local jails would have cost about $52,000 — a relative drop in the bucket for a county with a total annual budget of $7 billion.

Almost immediately President Trump congratulated the Mayor for his wise decision.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Netanyahu’s vision of an independent Arab Palestinian State is a whole lot different than that of Mahmud Abbas, Hamas and the rest of the Arabs
Read More About: The efficacy of such an arrangement hinges on having a “watertight” agreement. But there is no such thing as a “watertight” agreement

Final result “negotiations” = ZILCH!

Redacted from article by Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Israel, 25 January 2017

This week (namely after President Trump’s inauguration)  Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated that his goal is a sovereign Palestinian state that is demilitarized and within which Israel retains security control.
Mr. Netanyahu terms this a “state minus”.

This isn’t a new concept.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has been talking about it for several years, citing the post World War II deployment of troops in sovereign Germany and Japan as a precedent for the Palestinians to accept such an arrangement in a sovereign Palestinian state.

The efficacy of such an arrangement hinges on having a “watertight” agreement. But there is no such thing as a “watertight” agreement. History is fraught with “watertight” programs that failed. And in our case, unfortunately, even a mediocre Palestinian leadership could come up with a scenario that would free them of the “indignity” of demilitarization and the “violation of its sovereignty” by the IDF.

And let’s face it:  we Israelis have a miserable track record dealing with substantive violations of agreements by our neighbors.

At this very moment Hamas is openly producing missiles and other weapons in gross violation of signed agreements that were witnessed by the USA, Russia
and others.
Our response?  “Quiet for quiet”. (That is as stupid as don’t ask, don’t tell)

Hamas can make any and all battle preparations as long as it doesn’t shoot.

Dear Reader:   There are many well meaning experts out there who paper over this fundamental problem by saying that their policy analysis and recommendations are predicated on there being “appropriate security arrangements.”

But no such arrangements can exist.

Once there is a sovereign Palestinian state it will remain a sovereign Palestinian state even after it bars the IDF and openly arms itself with prohibited weapons.

“Autonomy on steroids” as Minister Bennett put it?

Absolutely. But not sovereignty.

In a few short weeks Prime Minister Netanyahu will be meeting with President Trump where he intends to lay out his “state-minus” solution.

It is my fervent hope that, in the interim, Mr. Netanyahu is somehow convinced to substitute “state minus” with “autonomy on steroids.” ________________________________________
Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

January 12, 2017

By Joan Swirsky

Nothing could have surprised the national and international public more than learning through a Boston Globe article by Jennifer Anne Perez on February 2, 2003, that U.S. Senator John Kerry – who presented himself as a born-to-the-purple “Boston Brahmin” of Irish-Catholic ancestry – was in fact the grandson of Czech Jews.

Like another Democrat (piece of dreck) former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Kerry pretended to be shocked! shocked! to learn of his Jewish heritage.

Only when he was outed did this poseur – more known for marrying heiresses then for any legislative accomplishments in his over 30 years as a U.S. senator – admit that, yes, his Eastern European ancestors, surnamed Kohn (a variation of Cohen) were Jews.

But why, after he knew the truth, would he be one of the major architects of a policy to destroy the Jewish state of Israel, as he did with his genocidal speech in the State Department at the end of December?

Of course, the same can be asked of Jews like George Soros, Peter Beinart, and dozens of other Jewish Jew haters who lie awake nights roiling and ruminating over Israel’s success – indeed, its very existence – and feel so distressed by their own Jewishness that they spend their entire lives plotting and planning and spending millions of words and dollars to obliterate Israel, which they no doubt fantasize will kill the Jew inside themselves.

Here’s an ironic twist: Kerry’s younger brother Cameron, an attorney, converted to Judaism in 1983.

Getting back to John Kerry, however, we now know that from the very beginning of his public life, he knew he had Jewish roots but lied about them. I think this is called being a liar.

Once a liar…

No one has said it better than the founder and editor of the New York Sun, Seth Lipsky: “It looks like Secretary of State Kerry is determined to go out the way he came in – wrapping himself in the flag while betraying the causes of both America and its allies. He came in by doing that to Vietnam and is going out by turning on Israel. “

To be sure, if there’s one thing most Americans are certain about it’s that Kerry lied through his teeth when he defamed the heroic soldiers he fought with in Vietnam, accusing them – falsely – of hideous war crimes.

Lipsky explains that, “Kerry’s tirade against Jewish settlements and liberated Judea and Samaria was breathtaking in its mendacity.” And what is the definition of mendacity? Lying!

It’s that very fatal character flaw in Kerry that led the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to destroy his campaign for president in 2004 when the soldiers who were fighting alongside him convinced the public that he had lied about his record and accumulated medals he didn’t deserve...medals he subsequently threw over a fence in front of Congress in utter contempt of his fellow warriors.

Worse were the accusations of treason that were mounting against Kerry as his accusers cited the 1970 meeting he conducted with North Vietnamese Communists in absolute violation of U.S. law, and other meetings with enemy parties in Paris. According to best-selling author Jerome Corsi, Kerry violated the U.S. code that forbade a U.S. citizen from negotiating with a foreign power. “Kerry was openly advocating that the Communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the Communist Party.”

Corsi noted that Kerry’s presidential campaign was “trying to fudge on the issue of meeting with enemy agents….” And what is the definition of fudging? Lying!

And here is Mr. Kerry again, over 45 years later, still on the wrong side. In Vietnam, a noble war fought for the cause of stemming the rising tide of worldwide Communism, he slandered both his fellow soldiers and America itself, while today he slanders – and lies about – Israel, our most trusted and stable ally in the tumultuous Middle East.

As Mr. Lipsky says, “Mr. Kerry’s speech [against Israel] is just a transparent attempt at shifting onto Israel blame for his own failures in peace negotiations he should never have entered.”

As Wesley Pruden has written, Mr. Kerry “doesn’t come late to the betrayal of friends. He has had considerable practice.” Explaining his betrayal of Israel, Pruden says that, like “diplomats before him…he has no permanent friends, only his own permanent interests….like the president, [Kerry] seems to have been waiting for this moment in time, to stick it to the pesky and resolute Jews who have no taste for the second Holocaust when, as promised by the Iranians, Israel is ‘wiped off the map.'”

Here’s the amazing Brittany Hughes telling John Kerry the difference between right and wrong, a lesson he clearly never learned. And telling the whole world what this preposterous and anti-Semitic territory dispute is all about.

Once a traitor…

To shed light on Kerry’s strange attraction to leaders around the globe who have nothing but detestation and loathing for America, it is significant that his 2004 presidential campaign promises were aired on Al Jazeera and he received – and never rejected – the endorsements of the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat, the murderous Communist leader of North Korea Kim Jong II the virulent anti-Semitic and American-hating prime minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, and the terrorist-appeasing president of Spain Jose Luis Zapatero.

But that is not where Kerry’s craven nature ends. In 2004, I wrote an article for, “Kerry & Company’s Homeland Insecurity,” in which I detailed how Sen. Kerry – who sat on both the Foreign Affairs and Select Intelligence committees – was warned for four months before September 11th of a possible terrorist attack at Logan Airport in Boston (from which one of the planes took off that fateful day). The information was given to him by a recently retired special agent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who had spent over 10 years as a risk-management specialist charged with the security of air traffic control facilities throughout New England.

For three months, Kerry did nothing, finally passing the information to the one agency the FAA agent had warned him was the most remiss in addressing terrorist threats: the Department of Transportation.

Kerry was never called before the self-described “non-partisan” 9/11 Commission, a commission composed of many members with a deep interest – like Kerry’s – in not turning the spotlight on the real suspects in the Clinton administration who for nearly a decade systematically facilitated the encroaching terrorist threat to our nation. In fact, it was Clinton’s FAA that allowed knives with blades less than four inches long to be taken aboard commercial airliners!

This was a very bad thing for America, so it is easy to see why John Kerry said and did nothing to make it less bad.

As in the Obama years, the Clinton administration loathed the military and tried its best to diminish our military strength. Clinton’s cuts included 709,000 active-duty personnel, 293,000 reserve troops, eight standing army divisions, 20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2000 combat aircraft, 232 strategic bombers, 19 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles, 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads, four aircraft carriers and 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.

Americans looking forward to a huge economic recovery, a reconstituted military, protected borders, and a robust foreign policy can thank President-elect Donald J. Trump for decimating the Democrat Party, the far-left media, and the credibility of most pollsters, as well as sending both Clintons and creepy flunkies like Kerry into the political wilderness forever.

I suppose that someday someone will have the stomach to analyze John Kerry – a soldier who turned on his fellow soldiers, an American attracted to all things anti-American, a man with Jewish blood who turned on the Jewish homeland.

In his absence, America will be stronger than ever and Israel will survive and continue to flourish. Translated: Mr. Kerry, with all your pretensions and posturing, your thinly-disguised anger and hostility, your attempts to excise from yourself the things you hated most – your military status, your American identity, your Jewish blood – you failed!

Joan Swirsky ( is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Home Prayers for Sabbaths and Festivals

Rabbi Hayim David Halevy sees a Jewish religious ideal expressed in the link between Kiddush (initiating blessing over wine) and the meal — namely, the fusion of the spiritual and material, the sacred and the secular.

The intense spirituality and deep faith of the sages did not make them disown the material comforts of life or affect their appreciation for the good things in life.
“Three things expand a man’s spirit: a pleasing dwelling, a pleasing wife and pleasing clothing” (Berakhot g7b).

The spiritual and material worlds are compatible, even good one for the other. Perfection in this world, to whatever degree this is possible, cannot be obtained through one or the other.

The material must be infused with the the sacred must be joined to the secular. As the natural wholeness of man consists of both the physical and the spiritual, so does the wholeness of the Sabbath.

Shabbat shalom (Gut Shabbas)

From: To Pray as a Jew by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin
Basic Books, member of Perseus Books Group, p. 321


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II Video below: Sound of the Soul. The Contributions of Jewish Music

Some Impressive New York Jewish History – You Learn Something New Every Day!

Author unknown but likely Jewish!  Ya think?
1.  The first Jews to set foot in North America arrived in New York as a group of 23 in 1654.

2.  Congregation Shearith Israel, founded in New York in 1654, was the first synagogue in the colonies. It was the sole purveyor of kosher meat until 1813.

3.  By the late19th century, there were over 5,000 kosher butchers and 1,000 slaughterers in New York.

4.  In1902, the Beef Trust raised the price of kosher meat on the Lower East Side from 12 to 18 cents per pound. After butchers’ boycotts proved ineffectual, 20,000 Lower East Side women stole meat from kosher butcher shops and set it on fire on the streets in protest. The Forward supported their efforts, running the headline “Bravo, Bravo, Bravo, Jewish women!”

5.   On March 25, 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire claimed the lives of 146 garment workers, the majority of whom were Jewish immigrants. Reporting on the tragedy, the “Forvitz” wrote that ‘the disaster is too great, to dreadful, to be able to express one’s feelings.”

6.  When entertainer Al Jolson came to New York City at age 14, he held jobs in the circus and as a singing waiter. Born to a cantor, Jolson’s career took off when he began performing in black face.

7.  In 1903, the Lower East Side Chinese and Jewish communities formed an unlikely partnership when Chinese organizers put on a benefit for Jewish victims of the Kishinev pogrom, raising $280.

8.  In 1930, there were over 80 pickle vendors! in the Lower East Side’s thriving Jewish pickle scene. The briny delights were brought to America in the mid-19th century by German Jewish immigrants.

9.   The egg cream is thought to have been invented by the Jewish owner of a Brooklyn candy shop. Musician Lou Reed was a famous admirer of the frothy drink.

10.   From the beginning of the 20th century till the close of World War II, the Lower East Side’s 2nd Avenue was known as the Yiddish Theater District, or the Jewish Rialto. It extended from 2nd Avenue to Avenue B, and from 14th Street to Houston. Considered Broadway’s competitor, the Jewish Rialto was home to a variety of productions including burlesque and vaudeville shows, as well as Shakespearean, Jewish and classic plays, and were all in Yiddish.

11.  The Jewish Rialto’s most popular haunt was the Cafe Royal on Second Avenue and 12th Street, where one could find performers such as Molly Picon and Charlie Chaplin sharing blintzes.

12. Pushcarts were all the rage among Jewish vendors on the Lower East Side from the turn of the century until 1940, when Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia banned their use. Jewish pushcart operators sold everything from vegetables to cigars to stockings.

13.   At Sammy’s Roumanian Steak
House on Chrystie and Delancey, every table is provided with a bottle of chicken fat as a condiment; resident emcee Dani Luv entertained diners with renditions of Jewish standards and punchy Borsht Belt humor.

14.  One of the first kosher Chinese restaurants in New York was Moshe Peking, whose all-Chinese wait staff wore yarmulkes. (Too funny!)

15.  The Second Avenue Deli opened in 1954 in the then-fading Yiddish Theater District. It featured a Yiddish Walk of Fame on the sidewalk outside its original location on Second Avenue and Tenth Street, and served up such Jewish specialties as matzo ball soup and corned beef. In 2007, it closed and reopened in Murray Hill.
16.  Famed music club CBGB was opened in 1973 by Jewish founder Hilly Kristal.

17.  Mayor La Guardia, who served for three terms from 1934 to 1945, was born to a Jewish mother and descended from Rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto, but practiced as an Episcopalian.

18. The Jacob K. Javits Convention Center was named in honor of the Jewish U.S. senator, who served from 1957 to 1981.

19.  Sig Klein’s Fat Men’s Shop opened in the late 1800s at 52 Third Ave., and carried plus-sized clothes for men. Its sign featured the slogan: “If everyone was fat there would be no war.”

20. Abraham Beame was the first practicing Jew to become mayor of New York. He held office from 1974 to 1977.

21.  The popular and proudly Jewish mayor Ed Koch, who served from 1978 to 1989, was known for the phrase “How’m  I doing?” which he would ask passersby while standing on street corners or riding the subway. Newsday called him the “ultimate New Yorker.”

22. The erection of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 and the Williamsburg Bridge in 1903 catalyzed a Jewish exodus from the Lower East Side to Southside Williamsburg. Crossing the bridge on foot, the LES’s Jews left in search of better living conditions.

23. By 1930, more than 40% of New York City’s Jews lived in Brooklyn.

24.  Jewish-fronted band, The Ramones formed in the Forest Hills neighborhood of Queens in 1974.

25.   Allen Ginsberg moved to New York to attend Columbia in 1943. He was purportedly related to seminal Zionist thinker Ahad Ha’am.

26.  Poet and kabbalist Lionel Ziprin entertained visitors including Thelonius Monk, Charlie Parker, and Bob Dylan in his Lower East Side living room, expounding for hours on Jewish esoterica and history.

27. The bagel originated in Poland, and arrived in New York City in the 1880s in the hands of Eastern European Jewish immigrants.

28. Three hundred all-Jewish New York bagel craftsmen formed a trade union in the early 1900s, the Bagel Bakers Local 338, which established standards for bagel production and conducted meetings in Yiddish.

29.  In December 1951, New York City was hit with what The New York Times termed the “bagel famine,” when a dispute between the members of the Bagel trade union and the Bagel Bakers association led to the closing of 32 out of 34 of the city’s bagel bakeries.

30.  As a result of the bagel outage, the sale of lox dropped nearly 50%. Murray Nathan, who helped resolve an earlier lox strike in 1948, was brought in to mediate the situation. The outage lasted until February.

31. Coney Island Bagels and Bialys, the oldest kosher bagel shop in New York, was set to close in 2011 until two Muslim businessmen, Peerzada Shah and Zafaryab Ali, bought the store and promised to keep it kosher. Ali had previously worked at the shop for 10 years.

32.  Lou Reed was born in Brooklyn, and in 1989 released an album whose title, “New York,” paid tribute to the city.

33.  In a reinterpretation of Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Raven,” Lou Reed asked the four questions at the Downtown Seder at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in 2004.

34.  Musician Lenny Kaye was born in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Manhattan in 1946. He met Patti Smith while working at Village Oldies on Bleecker Street and went on to become a member of the Patti Smith Group.

35.  Starting in the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of Jews left the Soviet Union for New York, many settling in Brighton Beach, which came to be known as “Little Odessa.”

36.   Established in 1927, Kehila Kedosha Janina at 280 Broome St. is the last remaining Greek Jewish synagogue in the Western Hemisphere.

37.  Streit’s Matzo Company, the last remaining neighborhood matzo factory, stands at 148-150 Rivington St.

38.  The oldest Orthodox Jewish Russian congregation in the United States, Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, is still active at 60 Norfolk St.

39.  On the corner of Essex and Rutgers, down the street from the original Forvitz building on Seward Park, the Garden Cafeteria served as a gathering place for Jewish actors, artists and playwrights such as Sholem Aleichem and Isaac Bashevis Singer from 1941 to 1983. It became Wing Shing, a Chinese restaurant, in 1985, and now houses Reena Spaulings Fine Art.

40.  Seward Park on the Lower East Side was created in 1900. New immigrants worked in the park’s artisan market, and on special occasions such as elections, thousands gathered in the park to watch the Forvitz’s flashing news sign in Yiddish.

41. Ouch! Jewish gangs rose to prominence during the Prohibition; at a conference in New York in 1931, Jewish gangsters agreed to partner with Italian Americans, and together remained the most dominant groups in organized crime until several decades after WWII.

42.   After an appeal from a New York judge, Nathan Perlman, Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky and members of Murder Inc. broke up Nazi rallies around the city for over a year, with the one stipulation that there be no killing.

43.  Lines of a sonnet by Sephardic poet Emma Lazarus, who was born in New York City in 1847, are inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

44.  The house that stands at 770 Eastern Parkway in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn is the center and spiritual home of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. Formerly inhabited by Chabad’s late leader Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Lubavitchers have built replicas of the building all over the world to serve as movement outposts.

45. The first Reform congregation in New York City, Temple Emanu-El, was founded in 1845 by 33 mostly German Jews, and moved to its present location in 1929. Members have included Joan Rivers and Michael Bloomberg.

46.  As large numbers of German Jews fleeing Nazi persecution made their homes in Washington Heights in the mid-1930s, the area was dubbed “Frankfurt on the Hudson.”

47.  Sweet ‘n’ Low was invented in 1957 in Brooklyn by Benjamin Eisenstaedt.

48.  Bronx-born Milton Glaser designed the “INY” logo in 1977.

49.  Eight hasidic dynasties are headquartered in the Borough Park neighborhood of Brooklyn.

50. Outside of Israel, New York City is home to the largest population of Jews in the world.

51.  As of 2011, 1 in 6 households in New York were Jewish.

(Of course, this just scratches the surface of Jewish contribution to this marvelous country – The US of A.) jsk

II Sounds of the Soul. The Contributions of Jewish Music

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Redacted from an article by Leon Aron @AronRTTT


January 2017

The Eurasian judo master

Russia’s story today is largely Vladimir Putin’s story, and this story is neither short nor simple —nor yet anywhere near its end. Contrary to the fairly common view, which Putin himself encourages, key decisions that have shaped and will continue to shape that story are not made on an ad hoc basis, in fits of rage, or out of pique or petulance.

This is not Putin’s way of doing things. He is a judo enthusiast, a judoka. By every account, including those by Putin himself, judo has been far more than a sport to Putin. It has changed him profoundly. It remade a mama’s boy, hooligan, C student, and street urchin from the slums of Leningrad into a determined and hard-working man. Putin became the judo champion of Leningrad. His former judo partners are still among his closest friends (and billionaires). As president, he journeyed to St. Petersburg for the funeral of his judo coach.

Much of the way that Vladimir Putin views Russia and the world—and his understanding of how his country should live and what it should strive for—is rooted in Eurasianism: part philosophy, part history (often dubious), but mostly a sensibility based on myth and wishful thinking.

Look at Russia’s position on the map: not fully in Europe but somewhere else. But the term’s meaning is intended to evoke something larger than geography: a separate civilization, bound by an almost mystical unity—linguistic, cultural, religious—and profoundly distinct from Europe and Asia and their respective values.

In all ways, Russia stands apart. Although the boundaries that separate the Eurasian Russia from Europe may be invisible, they are real, eternal, and impermeable—a kind of civilizational watershed.** And despite occasionally foolish attempts on either side of the border to breach or move it, it magically renews and reasserts itself time and again–usually in battle, blood, and tragedy. In this narrative, Russia is perennially victimized, yet always morally superior to its tormentors, heroic, and ultimately victorious. In the process, Russia is also Europe’s savior: from the Mongols, from Napoleon, from Hitler.

That it should be so is due to Russia’s being not merely a country or even a civilization, but an eternal mission. That mission, whether under the tsars or the Communists, was to be the light among nations, to lead the world toward a glorious future, to be a moral beacon, and to resist and ultimately to destroy the dark forces of evil.

Eurasianism is a peculiar combination of almost Calvinist predestination and agency, unyielding fate, and personal greatness. Geography is destiny. History is destiny. Religion is destiny. One cannot fight fate. And one must not! Instead, destiny must be embraced as a sign of fate’s—and increasingly, God’s—intent for greatness.

The key to fulfilling this destiny is an omnipotent Russian state. Those Russian rulers who tried to deviate from this destiny by weakening the state have brought Russia nothing but shame and defeat, with the most recent traitorous liberalizers being Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin. Those who embraced Russia’s destiny by strengthening the state have added to its glory and become heroes regardless of the crimes they committed and the blood they spilled: Ivan the Terrible,*** Peter the Great, and of course Josef Stalin.

There is little doubt about which category Putin wishes to be in. His spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, has declared him “the defender of Russians wherever they live.” Putin’s Deputy Chief of Staff has avowed that “there is no Russia without Putin.”

Superimposed on his professional training as a KGB officer, and likely explaining to him his own and his country’s recent history, Eurasianism and his favorite political philospher, Ilyin,  have shaped what can be called Putin’s operational credo. “Western nations don’t understand and don’t tolerate Russian identity,” Ilyin wrote. “They are going to divide the united Russian ‘broom’ into twigs to break those twigs one by one and rekindle with them the fading light of their own civilization.”

Hence the first, overarching tenet of Putin’s credo: The West’s plots against Russia are relentless, and while truces with the West are often tactically advantageous to Russia, genuine peace is impossible. This is because the West’s hostility to Russia is eternal and prompted by jealousy of her size, natural riches, and, most of all, her incorruptible, saintly soul and a God-bestowed mission to be the Third Rome, the light among nations.

This West’s hatred of Russia leads to the next precept: The end of the Cold War was Russia’s equivalent of the 1919 Versailles Treaty for Germany—a source of endless humiliation and misery .The demise of the Soviet Union was, in Putin’s words, “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

During the Gorbachev revolution, Putin was deployed in East Germany, the Warsaw Pact country most insulated from the moral and intellectual ferment of glasnost and perestroika. As a result, Putin’s most vivid memory from that time is an angry crowd surrounding the KGB residence in Dresden after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Inside, Putin and his colleagues were burning documents, expecting to be stormed and perhaps lynched at any minute.

Thus the third and final precept: The ultimate strategic goal of any truly patriotic Russian leader (not an idiot or a traitor like Gorbachev or Yeltsin) is to rectify this profoundly immoral historical injustice by recovering and repossessing at least some of the key political, economic, and geostrategic assets lost by the Soviet state at its fall. A few years back, I called this the Putin Doctrine, which the Russian president proceeded to implement virtually from day one of his first presidential term in 2000.

In the 80 years between its inception among Russian emigres in Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Germany in the 1920s, elements of Eurasianism have surfaced among nationalists on both the left and right in the émigré community, among the Soviet dissidents, and within post-Soviet parties, especially the Communists. But never before has as much of its content reached so high among the country’s leaders. Eurasianism binds many—perhaps most—key political actors in Russia today.

This is especially true of the cohort closest to Putin, the so-called siloviki: top members of the secret services and armed forces, many of them graduates, like Putin, of the Soviet KGB. In their articles and interviews, they portray a Russia menaced by external forces, the greatest of which are NATO and the United States.

In his speeches and articles during the run-up to the 2012 presidential election in Russia, Putin declared Russia a “unique civilization,” bound together by the ethnic Russians who form its “cultural nucleus.” The culture and values of this civilization are profoundly different from what Putin called a “neutered and barren” Europe.

In the most important oration of his life, the March 18, 2014 address to the joint session of the Russian National Assembly on the annexation of Crimea, he declared that the West is “guided by the rule of the gun” and seeks to “drive Russia into a corner.” And in the post-Soviet era, Russia “has always been deceived, has always been [confronted with] decisions made behind its back.”

Following the boss’s lead, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (or “my friend Sergei” as Secretary of State John Kerry likes to call him) wrote in the spring of 2016 that it was in “in the genes” of the Russian people “to defeat attempts of the European West to completely subjugate Russia, and to deny [Russia] its national identity and religious faith.”

In the same article, Lavrov also contended that World War II was caused by the “anti-Russian European elites [who] had sought to push Hitler to attack the Soviet Union.” And today, too, Lavrov continued, “We see how the U.S. and the Western alliance it leads try to preserve their dominance by any means possible . . . . The use all sorts of pressures, including economic sanctions and even direct military intervention. [The U.S.] wages large-scale information wars. It has perfected the technology of the change of regimes by organizing ‘color revolutions.’”

The implementation of the Putin Doctrine has been supported by two overlapping propaganda narratives, both straight out of the Eurasian canon’s core of fate and heroism, predestination and agency.

The first is that Russia is “rising from its knees,” and because of that the West—first and foremost the United States— declared war on it. And second, although threatened on all sides by implacable enemies, Russia has nothing to fear so long as Putin is at the helm: Not only will he protect the Motherland, but he will also restore Russia’s status of being feared and respected again.

Without a doubt, it has been an effective and relentless propaganda campaign. But Putin’s success in selling his agenda to Russia has signaled something far more dangerous: the emergence of a Eurasian Russia. Since Putin’s election to his third term in 2012, and especially since the Crimean Anschluss, public opinion surveys have consistently and increasingly revealed the embrace of the key precepts of Eurasianism not only by Putin and the top government elite but by strong pluralities or outright majorities of Russians.

Thus, Russians now believe that their country is “peaceful” and does not seek war; war is threatened only from the outside. If there is to be a war, the fault is “not anything Russia has done, and the blame is, apriori, on the West or its marionettes.’”

Proxy battles with the West, first and foremost, the United States, are already raging in Syria and Ukraine. Most important, Russia and the U.S. are the “two main world powers, the two poles of the modern world.” Although people are aware of the worsening economic situation, they are “ready to bear it for the glory of the nation,” leading Russian political sociologist and pollster Alexei Levinson concluded in October 2016.

Russia is ready to respond to any threat: It has nuclear weapons and, most important, it is “always more right than they,” the West. Historic justice is “always on Russia’s side.” Levinson called this “a key” element of Russian public opinion today. “A unique consensus of the public and the authorities has been created,” Levinson wrote. “It has proven its value: two-thirds of the population now approves of the activities of [the authorities’] chief representative, Putin.”

No, this is not the Cold War. But as we look at Putin’s Eurasian Russia, there is less and less comfort in repeating this.

As I have noted in the December 2014 issue of Commentary Putin follows in Ivan’s footsteps as an “in-gatherer of Russian lands.” Thus, for the first time in Russian history, a monument to Ivan, astride a charger, was unveiled this past October in the regional capital of Oryol, which was founded by Ivan as a fortress in 1566.

But, apparently, there are other similarities between Vladimir and Ivan. “Ivan the Terrible forced everyone to sit up and take note of Russia,” the governor of the Oryol region said at the unveiling of the monument. “He made Russia what it is. I have a great respect for strong leaders, because only a strong leader can move the nation forward.”

On the eve of the unveiling, Russia’s Minister of Culture, Vladimir Medinsky, contended that the West’s “information war” against Russia “harked back to the days of Ivan the Terrible,” and was responsible for the unjust blackening of the Tsar’s reputation. (“Even the Millennium of Russia” monument [erected in the Novgorod Kremlin in 1862 under Alexander II] does not feature Ivan the Terrible,” commented Andrei Zubov, former Professor at Moscow State Institute of International Relations. “[The great Russian historian] Karamzin condemned him as the scourge of the people, the greatest there was. His deeds were awful.”

On “missions” and predestinations: Putin’s grandfather, Spiridon, was a chef at the famous Hotel and Restaurant Astoria, which is still in St. Petersburg. Among his guests was Grigory Rasputin, the “black monk” at the court of the last Russian tsar. Rasputin liked the food and was also impressed by the similarities in their names—Putin and Rasputin.

He gave Spiridon a gold ruble. Spiridon later cooked for an ailing Lenin, his widow Nadezhda Krupskaya, and then the Moscow City Party Committee. It is hard to imagine that Spiridon could have avoided being at least an informer for the Cheka, OGPU, NKVD or whatever the secret service acronym de jour was at the time. He could have easily been an operative, like his grandson, or at least run by one.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Author Unknown

8 days for him to be out of office and his origins and history are as obscure and guarded as ever.

Talk about public retribution. When does that finally kick in – at the gravesite? I doubt it.

When Obama is out of office it will be interesting to see what they put in his “Library” regarding his early years.   In a country where we take notice of many facets of our public figures’ lives, doesn’t it seem odd that there’s so little we know about our current man in the White House, Barack Obama?
For example, we know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery.  Abe Lincoln never went to school.  Jack Kennedy wore a back brace.  Harry Truman played the piano.

As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single amazing fact about the history of our two term president — Barack Hussein Obama.

We are all aware of the lack of incontestable birth records for Obama, because the management of that document has been spectacularly successful.

There are however, several additional oddities in Obama’s history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

Another interesting thing:  There are no birth certificates of his daughters that can be found?

It’s interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up.  The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign would, in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself.

We all know about JFK’s magnetism; that McCain was no monk; quite a few details about Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess; Joe Biden’s aneurisms are no secret;  look at Cheney and Clinton — we all  know about their heart  problems.

Certainly Wild Bill Clinton’s exploits before and during his White House years, were well known.  That’s why it’s so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy…” or “What a great dancer…”

It’s virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow.   Who was the best man at his wedding?   Start there. Then check groomsmen.

Then get the footage of his graduation ceremony.   Has anyone talked to the professors?  It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

When did he meet Michele, and how?   Are there photos there?  Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc.    What has he released?    And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010?    Doesn’t this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him, or was his friend ?   Not one person has ever come forward from his past, and that certainly is very, very strange.

This should be a cause for great concern.   To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.   Have you seen a movie named “The Manchurian Candidate” ?   It is a classic, and it is pertinent.

Maybe the Russians don’t even need sophisticated cyberattacks that could be neutralized? Maybe they have had Obama and Hillary’s significant other right there in the White House all this time? Why bother with cyber systems when you can go right to the horse’s mouth? jsk

As to Obama’s shrouded past —As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face.  Someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about  us.  Where are all the Obama someones?

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus.  Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984.  He says he never had a single class with  him.

If he is such a great orator; why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him?  Why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records?  The fact is that  Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University.

Looking for evidence of Obama’s past,    Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there… but none remembered him.

Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983.    In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever.”

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of ’83 Political Science, and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.

At class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class?   Me.  No one ever heard of Barack!   And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘the macho’ who knows everybody, has yet  to find a person, a human who ever met  him.”

And Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, or to provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.

Some other interesting questions:   Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002?   It is said there is no record of him ever taking the Bar exam.  and  Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order?   We understand that was forced or required to avoid fraud charges.

It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama, but there are 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias connected to him.

The Social Security number Obama now uses originated in Connecticut, where Obama is reported to have never lived. The number was originally registered to another man (Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut, who died in Hawaii while on vacation there. As we all know, Social Security Numbers are only issued once, and they are not reused.   No wonder all his records are sealed !!!

Surely in the near future, when he no longer has the power of the presidency, much will come to light about this highly unqualified person who has been president of the United States for 8 years.

Soon, we will know how badly we were all doped and duped by this imposter who has, with much help from “those who created him,” nearly brought the greatest nation in history to its knees in ruins.  And that will be his legacy — the man who destroyed the Integrity, Morals and Christian Heritage of our once great country.

Who in the hell is this man?  Is America stupid or what?

It is vital to the integrity of the United States of America to really know who has been in the White House the past eight years, understand how he was manufactured, and know the details of this essentially successful anti-American, anti-culture, anti-Christian conspiracy.


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(Please copy and paste link to your search engine if necessary to visualize video)

L. Brent Bozell III

Founder and President Media Watch

Appearing on Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney & Co., MRC founder and president Brent Bozell said the liberal media were the second-biggest losers on election night: “They were crushed. They were the second-biggest losers. But the difference between them and Hillary Clinton is that their loss continues. She is finished, but they still stay in the game. They have a public that simply repudiated them. The public didn’t distinguish between her calling them a basket of deplorable and the media treating them like a basket of deplorables.”

Bozell harped on leaks exposing the media’s shameless collusion and cheating with the Clintons:

VARNEY: Do you think they’ll ever acknowledge their sins, so to speak, of working actually with and for the Clinton campaign? Because those Wikileaks revealed exactly what they were doing. Will they acknowledge that?

BOZELL. Never. Not in a million years. And they will excuse this election as some kind of aberration., you know, the The poor, uneducated and easy to command types, those rural hillbillies, the basket of deplorables, they had their say. In four years we’ll get back to normalcy. That’s going to be their attitude. They will never concede that they worked hand in glove with the Clinton campaign that they were defeated as much as she was. They’ll never concede that — and Stuart, we have to understand that they were cheating all along, they were cheating! That Donna Brazile – she’s going to become the face of the national media. They cheated in this campaign and they were caught.

But looking ahead to the media’s coverage of the incoming Trump administration, Bozell predicted: “Well, I think they will become even more radical, believe it or not. Because, my God, they’ve got to stop this man. I mean, he’s going to introduce freedom in America — we can’t have that! So they will be going ballistic.”

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments