“Some people like the Jews and some do not” https://youtu.be/eR-xRwPvU6I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the secret of his immortality?”
Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

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


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

By Douglas Murray

Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital. Why Can’t the U.S.?


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

By Eugene Kontorovich
The Wall Street Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

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

The special counsel needs to rise above his Comey loyalties.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

June 17, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

The Jew and the Promised Land


From: To Be a Jew

By Rabbi Hayim HaLevy Donin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments



‘Why would we continue down the same path that has led to Europe’s virtual suicide?’

Redacted from an eye-opening collection of articles by:

By David Kupelian, Editor

World Net Daily Magazine
May, 2017

The dictated path is not unusual for an Islamic society.

After all, the typical features are all on display – the Muslim call to prayer, the teaching of Islam in the nation’s schools to the exclusion of other religions, preferential treatment afforded Muslims by government and the courts, news coverage reflexively portraying Islam in a positive light, the rapid growth in mosque construction – and also the disturbing cultural phenomena of female genital mutilation, “honor killings” and so on.

Except this is not Saudi Arabia or Egypt we’re talking about, or any of the world’s approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries.This is the United States of America. Not America as it might be one day if current trends continue, but as it is right now – today.

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

While a few brave souls have been sounding the alarm over the relentless inroads Shariah Islam is making into American culture, education, religion, law, government and the military, perhaps the most important question needing to be addressed up front is, why?

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

As Kupelian explains: “The current inversion of Americans’ traditional core values – which causes us, for example, to glorify and celebrate perversion and mental illness (like troubled people amputating healthy body parts and pretending to be the opposite gender) while reviling and punishing virtue (like the Christian county clerk jailed for objecting to signing a marriage license for two homosexuals) – is the same inversion of values that inspires us to enthusiastically import into our country large numbers of people steeped in a religious and political ideology dedicated to crushing our own.

It’s as though we’re living in a hypnotic trance, in a dream state, wherein we are moving in slow motion toward certain destruction. It’s time to wake up.”

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Are we able to look back and learn? Barack Obama – A Terrifying Analysis

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Redacted from a speech by Dinesh D’Souza, President King’s College, NYC, NY

By Jerome S. Kaufman

On March 15, 2011, the Heritage Foundation sponsored a telecast featuring Dinesh D’Souza, President of King’s College New York and author of the best selling book, Roots of Obama’s Rage. After introducing himself, D’Souza got right into an in-depth analysis of current US President Barack Obama. Obama is the product of an unusual family history, far different from most Americans or people anywhere, for that matter. To say Obama is the product of his parentage and previous environment is a gross understatement.

D’Souza first described his own difficulty understanding Obama. Who did Obama represent, what were his ambitions, his goals, his mind set, etc.? D’Souza concluded that Obama was a different leader from previous Democrats – especially different from so-called liberals like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton.

There are a host of theories trying to explain Obama. By the Right he has many different designations – a Progressive, a conventional Liberal, a Socialist, a Muslim, not born an American, an alien. But, all of these javelins bounce off Obama with no effect or just glancing blows. He continues to act in apparently mysterious ways – not easily explained. If he were truly a Socialist he would have tried to command the means of production. But, Obama did not nationalize banks but rather infused capital to them. Another inconsistency: Recently banks wanted to pay back their government loan and get off the hook with the Obama administration. But, Obama did not want to take their money. Rather he insisted that the bank undergo some sort of stress test before allowing them off the hook? Why?

There are claims that he is an environmentalist and simply acting out that role – banning vital oil drilling in America, limiting the production of coal, introducing and pouring billions into hair brain solutions like wind mills and sun energy which are far more expensive and will not supply anywhere near the energy required besides, requiring years to develop properly.

Others say he has been motivated by Al Gore’s global warming theory. Gore asks for the use of less energy and a smaller carbon footprint to solve this debatable problem. However, Gore wants everyone in the world to cut back, not just the US. Obama does not care who conforms or not. Faster growing economies like China and India, far more responsible for future theoretical global warming, are ignored. Obama’s thinking is thus, not that of a true environmentalist.

In addition, Obama is blocking oil drilling all over America and its coastline while, at the same time, encouraging oil drilling in Mexico. To add salt to our wounds, The US Export Import bank has given a two billion dollar loan guarantee to Brazil to do their own off shore drilling. But, the oil is not to go to us but to the Chinese!

Then, there is his inconsistent and apparently illogical approach to all our problems in the Middle East – one minute he is siding with the dictators of Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the next minute, making obligatory gestures of compassion to their long suffering populations. (Not to mention his dissing and enthusiastic participation in the dismantling of our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel) jsk

Other inane gestures: He somehow made the Muslims party to our space program praising them for their great contributions to its development – huh? He returned a bust of Winston Churchill given to us by the Brits that had been gratefully placed by us in the White House because of Churchill’s crucial contribution to the defeat of Adolph Hitler in WWII.

D’Souza ended up concluding it was difficult accounting for all of Obama’s apparent weirdness until D’Souza came to his own epiphany that Obama is not weird, foolish, inexperienced naive or any of the above. He knows exactly what he is doing and we had better stop misinterpreting and underestimating the man.

D’Sousa presented his conclusion combining these disparate facts in one impossible to refute hypothesis which negates all the previous theories we might have had. Obama is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or just another American Black shake down artist. Obama has not really been raised American. His early years were in Kenya and then Indonesia. He was first thrust into American culture by his mother when he was already 10-12 years old.

Then, D’Sousa read Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father. D’Sousa discovered that indeed, Obama has nothing to do with Black America. He never sat at a segregated lunch counter nor was he descended from slaves. His Dad was an educated immigrant from Kenya and his Mom was white from Kansas. His is not an American dream. He has no understanding or sympathy for American exceptionalism. In fact, he resents the concept.

So, what is Obama’s dream? He tells us very explicitly that his dream is his father’s dream. Obama Sr. was raised in Kenya. In his 20‘s, he married a Black woman in Kezia, had two children by her, and while she was pregnant with the second, he left his family and went to Hawaii as a student. He there met Obama’s Mom – Stanley Ann, married her and before Obama Jr. was age two also left her. He then went to Harvard where he took up with a third woman, took her back to Africa and had two children by her. At the same time he reunited with his first wife, from Kezia, and had two more children with her. In total he had four wives, usually two at the same time, and 8 children and with no sense of obligation nor did he supply care for any of them.

Obama Sr. was a chronic alcoholic who had multiple driving accidents. He kills a man in one, in another hurts himself so badly his two legs have to be cut off and replaced with iron rods. Nevertheless, his courtship style remains intact. He takes up with another woman who bears his eighth child, George Obama.

In summary – he was quite an unusual role model for President Obama! Later, Obama Jr’s sister took him to task and demanded how could he admire this despicable man who had abandoned all his wives and children, never gave them a dime or even paid them a visit. Obama Jr., in fact, barely knew him since his Dad had visited him only once, when he was about 10 years old. Consequently, Sr. had no direct influence upon Jr.

That influence was wielded by Obama Sr.’s first convert – Jr’s mother, Stanley Ann Obama. Obama’s mother was an only child. She grew up in Kansas and somehow became a bohemian rebel against her parents and her country. Despite her marriage and rapid abandonment by Obama’s father, she refused to learn from her experience. She finds and marries another third world, anti-American guy, Lolo Satora, He was Indonesian and grew up under the colonial Dutch. Satora wooed Stanley Ann Obama with stories of Indonesian colonialism, married her and took her and her son, Jr. to live in Indonesia.

By a quirk of fate and bad luck for the American people, the Indonesian husband becomes more pro Western, pro American, and anti Communist. He signs up with an oil company and fights against Indonesian rebels in his own countryside. Ann then attacks him as a traitor to the greater cause and quickly sends Jr. back to Kansas to be raised by her parents and escape the pro-American thinking of the Indonesian husband. She remains in Indonesia the rest of her life.

Obama’s father, Obama Sr., was basically an anti-Colonialist – the dominant idea in the third world of the 20th Century. The simple core of this idea was that the world is divided into two – the colonizers or oppressors and the colonized or victims. The colonizers used to be Europe, Britain, France and now it is America in this line of thought. Furthermore, the rich got rich only by looting the colonized and even when they left, powerful economic forces remained in a position of exploitation. Banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and anyone else that happens to make money are simply now the economic wing of colonialism still into exploitation. And, who to Barack Obama, Jr. is the lead elephant and current exploiter? Why we are, of course.

How is Obama to deal with us, the problem? First, bring us under the rod of the Federal government. Obama’s father in 1965 wrote an article in an East African journal saying how this should be done. Bring down all the rich guys by the power of the state, confiscate their land, property, raise taxes as high as you want – 100% if necessary, and obtain their wealth through fiat and legislative piracy. The rationale is that the wealth is not rightfully theirs in the first place, but had been ripped off from the poor .

That is Dinesh D’Souza’s basic hypothesis. So, Obama far from being a multi-culture guy, far from being the first African American president, is actually the first anti-American, anti-colonialism president and driven by that mind-set!

Obama, like the naive would like to believe, is no buffoon, not inexperienced, not unworldly, not apolitical and not a mediocrity. He is a very clever but misdirected guy and out to do us all in. He is the most effective Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. He has gotten more programs passed in the shortest time, by Democrat or Republican, since Reagan.

If he is to be voted out of office in 2012, Republicans will have to take the full measure of the man. They need a strong guy, perhaps a father figure, a person that appeals to the American public. It will be a very difficult election made more so by mindless, irresponsible media genuflections and the Obama useful idiots that may never see the awful danger that this man represents.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Anatomy of a “Deep State” (Explain, Please.)

The EPA’s ‘Science Integrity Official’ is plotting to undermine Trump’s agenda.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wall Street Journal
May 25, 2017

On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited to develop “future plans for scientific integrity” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meet the deep state. That’s what conservatives call it now, though it goes by other names. The administrative state —The entrenched governing elite. Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description, what’s pertinent to today’s Washington is that this cadre of federal employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from within to thwart Donald Trump’s agenda.

There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to “restore science to its rightful place”—his way of warning Republicans that there’d be no more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities.
Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement “scientific integrity” policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing these rules. But the EPA—always the overachiever—bragged that it alone had chosen to “hire a senior level employee” whose only job would be to “act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency.”

In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, longtime activist at the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained that EPA scientists were “under siege”—according to a report she helped write—by Republican “political appointees” and “industry lobbyists” who had “manipulated” science on everything from “mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate science.”

As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity Committee, write an annual report documenting science “incidents” at the agency, and even “investigate” science problems—alongside no less than the agency’s inspector general.

And get this: “Her job is not a political appointment,” the Science article continues, “so it comes with civil service protections.” Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration.

Ms. Grifo perhaps wasn’t too busy in the Obama years, since EPA scientists were given carte blanche to take over the economy. She seems to have been uninterested when EPA scientists used secret meetings and private email to collude with environmental groups—a practice somewhat lacking in scientific integrity.

She has been busier these past few months. In March the Sierra Club demanded that the EPA’s inspector general investigate whether the agency’s newly installed administrator, Scott Pruitt, had violated policy by suggesting carbon dioxide might not be the prime driver of global warming.

The inspector general referred the matter to . . . the Scientific Integrity Official. So now an unelected, unappointed activist could pass judgment on whether the Senate-confirmed EPA chief is too unscientific to run his own agency. So much for elections.

There’s also that “scientific integrity” event planned for June. Of the 45 invitations, only one went to an organization ostensibly representing industry, the American Chemistry Council. A couple of academics got one. The rest? Earthjustice. Public Citizen. The Natural Resources Defense Council. Center for Progressive Reform. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Environmental Defense Fund. Three invites alone for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Anyone want to guess how the meeting will go?

This is a government employee using taxpayer funds to gather political activists on government grounds to plot—let’s not kid ourselves—ways to sabotage the Trump administration. Ms. Grifo did not respond to a request for comment.

Messrs. Pruitt and Trump should take the story as a hint of the fight they face to reform government. It’s hard enough to overcome a vast bureaucracy that ideologically opposes their efforts. But add to the challenge the powerful, formalized resistance of posts, all across the government, like the Scientific Integrity Official.

Mr. Obama worked hard to embed his agenda within government to ensure its survival. Today it is the source of leaks, bogus whistleblower complaints, internal sabotage.

Pitched battle with these folks is no way to govern. The better answer is dramatic agency staff cuts—maybe start with the post of Scientific Integrity Official?—as well as greater care in hiring true professionals for key bureaucratic posts. The sooner department heads recognize and take action against that deep state, the sooner this administration might begin to drain the swamp.

Write to kim@wsj.com.
Appeared in the May 26, 2017, print edition.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Trump’s New Foreign Policy — Same as the State Department’s Old


By John Bolton  (The long obvious perfect choice for Secretary of State)

Wall Street Journal
May 23, 2017

The White House decided last week to continue President Obama’s waiver of significant economic sanctions against Iran. The news, coming hard on the heels of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s April 18 certification that Iran is complying with the 2015 Vienna nuclear agreement, was both revealing and distressing. New missile-related sanctions, simultaneously imposed, were small consolation.

This continuity with Obama-era policies fits a larger pattern. Despite generally tougher rhetoric against Iran and North Korea—including the president’s weekend speech in Saudi Arabia—the Trump administration’s actions against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction increasingly resemble its predecessor’s.

Rhetoric doesn’t faze Iran so long as the nuclear deal’s goodies keep coming, and the ayatollahs have had the effrontery to complain they aren’t flowing fast enough. President Obama and Tehran crafted the Vienna accord in ways that front-loaded the benefits for Iran, intending to lock America and Europe into economic ties that would be too costly to untangle. Every passing day validates that strategy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s violations—regarding uranium enrichment, heavy-water production, ballistic-missile testing and concealed military dimensions such as warhead development—continue unimpeded. Unexpected, unnecessary and divorced from reality, Mr. Tillerson’s certification of Iranian compliance blindsided the White House, which responded by toughening up the final presentation but lacked the wherewithal to reverse the decision.

Friday’s election returning Hassan Rouhani to Iran’s presidency changed nothing, since the nuclear and ballistic-missile programs are controlled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

A similar policy continuity can be seen regarding North Korea. Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Obama did not obsess over negotiations with North Korea (preferring to obsess over negotiations with Iran). Instead, he propounded the doctrine of “strategic patience,” a synonym for doing nothing, which proved equally as dangerous as making foolish concessions.

Predictably, Pyongyang took advantage of American passivity. It concentrated on making steady, significant progress on both nuclear weapons (a sixth test is reportedly being readied) and long-range missiles.

Mr. Trump’s current policy differs little from that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Mr. Obama, relying mistakenly on China to pressure Pyongyang.
As before, Beijing is feigning pressure, but as yet there is no evidence it will be any tougher than is necessary to quiet America down.

South Korea has just thrown Kim Jong Un a lifeline by electing a president eager to return to the “sunshine” policy—appeasement by another name. And the full scope of Pyongyang’s cooperation with Tehran remains unknown.

Why do President Trump’s proliferation policies increasingly echo his predecessor’s? Although Mr. Obama’s aides derided Washington’s foreign-policy establishment as “the blob,” they were part of it, and, progressively, so are Mr. Trump’s.

The failure to make decisive changes in policy during the administration’s early days, coupled with delays in making presidential appointments in the national-security departments, is taking its toll. Washington’s political distractions aren’t helping.

Mr. Trump’s “new” power elites are increasingly succumbing to (or were already adherents in good standing of) the conventional wisdom, as their respective agency bureaucracies define it. The “capture” problem (more pointedly known as “clientitis” or “going native”) is hardly new. Jim Baker once wisely said about becoming secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush: “I intended to be the president’s man at the State Department, not State’s man at the White House.”

The State Department is Washington’s most sophisticated bureaucracy in capturing political appointees and acculturating them to accept existing policies, but the military and intelligence bureaus are no slackers. The policies they pursued on Jan. 19, the day before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, are the same they pursue on Jan. 21, and Jan. 22, and so on until their direction is changed. Pushing through that change is what presidential appointees are needed to do.

What is true in proliferation policy is also true more broadly. Example: Before Mr. Trump’s current trip to the Middle East, senior administration officials repeated the mantra that Jerusalem’s Western Wall was not “in Israel” because Jerusalem’s final status remained to be negotiated. The White House responded that the wall is “clearly in Jerusalem”—a point no one has disputed for several thousand years.

Curiously, the State Department’s incantation apparently never reached U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who cheerily opined that the wall was in Israel. Likewise, Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem remains in limbo, just like his predecessors’ pledges did.

Despite the furor over Mr. Trump’s purported Moscow connection, his administration’s policy regarding sanctions on Russia over its Ukraine adventure is essentially the same as Mr. Obama’s.

When Mr. Trump exhorted NATO allies to meet their commitments to increase defense expenditures to at least 2% of gross domestic product, critics acted as if the barbarians had breached the gates of civilized national-security discourse. But Barack Obama previously characterized many of these same allies as “free riders.”

There are exceptions to this policy continuity. Proposed increases in Washington’s defense budget are a major example. But even there critics like Sen. John McCain have rightly argued that the increases need to be significantly larger.

But by default, and perhaps by accident, the Trump White House has left Mr. Obama’s flawed and otherworldly strategic vision in place. It isn’t enough for the administration to say that a strategy is being written. The strategy must come first, with the clerical task of writing it down coming last, reflecting what is actually being done day by day. That isn’t happening.

The Trump administration has not yet passed the point of no return on these critical issues, but it is getting perilously close. Warning flags are multiplying. Ronald Reagan once said he wanted a Republican Party that stood for “bold colors, no pale pastels.” Mr. Trump should get out his paintbrush.

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: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Trump’s immigration enforcement helps slow illegal border crossings by 76%!


By Stephen Dinan and Andrea Noble

The Washington Times – May, 2017

Illegal immigration across the southwestern border is down a stunning 76 percent since President Trump was elected, with the flow of children and families dropping even faster as analysts say the administration’s commitment to enforcing the law has changed the reality along the border.

Overall apprehensions by the Border Patrol dropped to just 11,129 in April, according to numbers released Tuesday, marking the lowest monthly total for any month in decades.

The number of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children nabbed at the border dropped below 1,000 — a level not seen since before the surge that bedeviled President Obama during most of his second term.

Even before a foot of Mr. Trump’s planned border wall is built or any more agents are hired, the threat of being sent home has forced would-be migrants to rethink making the journey, officials said.

“A lot of the discussion about changes in our enforcement policy and the way we are going about doing business, we believe that has deterred people,” said Homeland Security spokesman David Lapan. “When you get here, it is likely you are going to get caught. You are going to be returned to your country.”

That approach marks a major change from the Obama administration, which struggled to handle the flow of illegal immigrants from Central America.

Under Obama-era policies, hundreds of thousands of children and families from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were caught and then released into the interior of the U.S., where they often failed to show up for their deportations and instead disappeared into the shadows.

Mr. Trump has vowed quick deportations and has called for expanding detention facilities to hold illegal immigrants in the meantime, preventing them from slipping away.

“This is messaging, backed up by actual enforcement and policy changes that people are responding to,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “The continued drop suggests this is more than just a fluke.”

Border apprehensions are considered a rough yardstick for the overall flow of illegal immigration, so a drop in arrests is believed to reflect an overall drop in the flow of people.

At its peak early in the last decade, the Tucson sector, which is just one of nine regions along the border, regularly recorded more than 70,000 apprehensions in a single month. Last month, Tucson reported fewer than 1,500 arrests.

Activity has shifted to the Rio Grande Valley sector in Texas, with nearly 4,000 apprehensions in April. Still, that’s a fraction of the 22,000 apprehensions recorded in October and fewer still than the nearly 40,000 arrests at the peak of the Central American surge in 2014.

Authorities expect a seasonal uptick in border apprehensions this month and next but are waiting to see the degree of any seasonal surge.
One indication that the change is a result of immigration enforcement rather than better border security is the flow of drugs, which remains high.

Mr. Lapan said that while seizures of marijuana are down, hard drugs including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine are up. Like migration, a rise in seizures is believed to signal an increase in the overall flow.
“We are still seeing a lot of illicit drugs come into the country,” Mr. Lapan said.

As attention at the border has increased, migrants during the later part of the Obama administration increasingly decided to show up at official border crossings, demanding entry into the U.S.

Some of them would lodge asylum claims, having been coached by family and friends of activists on “magic words” that would earn them tentative legal status in the U.S., the former Border Patrol chief testified to Congress last year.

Those numbers have also dropped dramatically, from about 15,000 a month late last year to fewer than 5,000 a month under Mr. Trump.
Haitians in particular had been abusing that system, with nearly 3,500 showing up on the doorstep of the U.S. in October. But that number fell to just 49 in April.

Immigrant rights groups argue that many of the Central Americans should be treated not as illegal immigrants but as refugees deserving of protection.
In the Tuesday report, the American Immigration Council called for the government to stop putting children and families into detention and said border agents and officers are preventing deserving migrants from lodging their claims.

“The protection needs of asylum seekers, and asylum-seeking mothers and their children in particular, must be met with robust legal services and legal assistance from the start to ensure that no one is sent back to their deaths,” the council said.

But even Obama administration officials have said using detention and quick deportations works in stemming a flow of illegal immigrants.

“If you came across after paying $6,000, which is pretty tough to come by in those countries, and you were detained and then sent home, back to your village, it sends a pretty powerful message and, frankly, has a chilling effect on people,” R. Gil Kerlikowske, the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said at a forum this week hosted by the Migration Policy Institute.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments




Jerusalem Post May 16, 2017

The days of David vs. Goliath and the image of Israel as a country threatened with imminent destruction are long gone

In the weeks of tension before the Six Day War, Israel’s struggle for survival was seen around the world as a contest between good and evil. The threats to “push the Jews into the sea,” were widely reported, as were the military preparations and sudden departure of UN peacekeepers.

Israel was still the plucky David of 1948, ominously threatened by the Arab Goliath. Although the PLO – the Palestine Liberation Organization – was created in 1964, the Palestinians received little attention. In this environment, Israel’s success was widely applauded, particularly in the West.

But gradually, the images began to change as the Arabs used their oil power and threats of terrorism to gain allies and market anti-Israel campaigns in Europe. In France, the elite’s support for Israel waned before 1967, based on a cold calculation of economic interests, and in Britain, a mix of Arabist romanticism and antisemitism gained influence.

In North America, avant garde intellectuals switched support to the newly minted Palestinian cause.

Under Yasser Arafat, PLO airplane hijackings and mass terrorism such as the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre put the “plight of the Palestinians” high on the priority list, and the Arab oil embargo that accompanied the 1973 Yom Kippur War reinforced this process.

Support for Israel became a liability, but rather than admitting that this was due to weakness and fear, political officials and diplomats blamed the post-1967 “occupation.”Israel suddenly became the dominant power, and was automatically pronounced guilty (without much of a trial) for the failure to end the conflict.

In 1980, Europe officially promoted Palestinian independence as a magic solution to the conflict, and condemned “Israeli settlements” as the “primary obstacle to the peace process,” while terrorism and incitement were hidden under the diplomatic, journalistic and academic carpets. This language and the policies behind it have not changed in 37 years.

But for Palestinian leaders, settlements and the absence of a Palestinian State next to Israel were not the main issues; Arafat told anyone who would listen that “the goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromise or mediations. We don’t want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel’s destruction and nothing else.” (Cited in The Washington Post, March 29, 1970.)

In the United Nations, which was still taken seriously at that time, the Arabs were joined by the Soviet Union, which combined Cold War competition with crude antisemitism.

Bodies such as the UN Commission on Human Rights (now a council) were turned into platforms for Israel-bashing – in part for its own sake, and also to turn attention away from the dictatorships. As one official noted, it was much easier to “support a condemnation of Israel for reprisals against Arab sabotage” than to deal with real abuses.

UNRWA | United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine …created in 1948 ostensibly to help war refugees, remains a permanent source of propaganda and hate, and in 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted the infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution.

The Division for Palestinian Rights was created and funded to orchestrate a traveling road show known as the Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to promote the mythology in Jakarta, Beijing, Brussels and elsewhere.

Into this propaganda mix powerful human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, began promoting the myths of Palestinian victimization and Israeli “violations of international law.” Mass producing condemnations of Israeli “occupation” while erasing the images of Palestinian terrorism and its victims, they rewrote the history of the conflict as well as the reality on the ground.

A generation of journalists, political officials, and other “elite opinion makers” were indoctrinated into accepting this narrative without question. In this environment, the transition to boycott campaigns and other forms of demonization was simple.

Among Israelis, the gap between our understanding of history and the way it was portrayed elsewhere was largely ignored, allowing the damage to fester and grow. When politicians finally recognized the implications of the “narrative war,” many of the responses, including the recent legislation to ban leading foreign boycott activists, were heavy-handed and counterproductive.

As the 50-year anniversary of the 1967 war approaches, the myths of Palestinian victimization and Israeli guilt will resonate widely in the UN, college campuses and media platforms.

The challenge is to expose these slogans, and restore at least some connection to reality. But whether this will actually happen depends on how we package our messaging.

The days of David vs. Goliath and the image of Israel as a country threatened with imminent destruction are long gone.

The author is a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Hate to tell you but … The “Free Health Care” of Industrialized Socialist Oriented Countries ain’t “Free.”


Hate to tell you but … The “Free Health Care” of Industrialized Socialist Oriented Countries ain’t “Free.”
Read More About: States with highest social spending have highest tax rates: France avg. real tax rate 57.5% Belgium 56.9% Germany 52.3% Sweden 47% vs. US 20.3%

Are we ready to pay for ‘free’ health care?

By Nolan Finley, Editorial Page Editor
The Detroit News

May 13, 2017

Here’s a question that puzzles many Americans whenever the debate over health insurance reform erupts: All other major industrialized nations provide universal health care to their citizens, why can’t the United States?

The answer is, of course, we can. But like everything else, it ain’t free, despite what the socialists among us would have us believe.

The real question isn’t whether we can have national health care, it’s whether Americans really want to pay for it.
National health care countries pay for the benefits through tax rates that would be considered unbearable by most Americans.
In the U.S., 90 percent of earners pay a real tax rate—income and payroll taxes combined —of below 20.3 percent, according to the Peterson Foundation. The average real tax rate in the European Union is 45 percent.

In the states with the highest social spending, tax rates are highest. France, for example, has an average real tax rate of 57.5 percent; Belgium 56.9 percent; Germany 52.3 percent; and Sweden 47 percent.
While the U.S. has pursued a policy of relieving the tax burden on lower-income workers —nearly half of wage earners pay no federal income tax — Europe’s middle class gets no such break.

In Belgium, for example, Pew Research estimates a married couple, one working at the average wage and one at two-thirds of it, with two kids bears a total tax burden of 38.3 percent.

For a similar American family, the real rate is about half that, at 19.4 percent.

So the government pays for more of your living expenses, but leaves less of your money in your pockets. Making the switch to that model would require a radical shift in our expectations.

The American dream has traditionally been defined by home ownership. We strive for our own home, on our own land.

Home ownership rates are high in Europe, but the housing stock is vastly different. Only one-third of Europeans live in a detached single family home. Forty percent of the housing in the European Union is two-family flats.

Per-capita living space in the EU is a lot less generous than in the United States, where the average person now has nearly 1,000 square feet to roam around in. In Europe, the average housing space occupied by each person is just over 400 square feet. Are we willing to get that cozy to never have another doctor’s bill arrive in the mail?

Similarly, if you’ve been to Europe or Asia, you’ve noticed the roads are filled with cute little matchbox cars. We like our big trucks and roomy SUVs here. And we can afford to drive them. That’s largely because the average fuel tax in the U.S. is 53 cents a gallon, compared to an average $2.62 cents in the other large, industrial nations.

This is America. We can have anything we want, including government-paid health care. But we can’t get it with a magic wand.

To have it, we must be willing to pay higher taxes, and perhaps live a little smaller. And forget about pretending we can stick the wealthy with the tab.

Europe has extraordinarily high tax rates on its wealthy residents, and yet still must hit the middle class with taxes that consume nearly half their earnings to pay for all those nice things us tax averse Americans envy.

(You might want to think about it before you sermonize on the subject)

Nolan Finley’s book, “Little Red Hen: A Collection of Columns from Detroit’s Conservative Voice,” is available from Amazon, iBooks, and Barnes & Noble Nook.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

For Arab Gulf States, Israel Is Emerging as an Ally


Sunni monarchies, led by Saudi Arabia, increasingly see the Jewish State as a partner in a common struggle against Shiite Iran

By Yaroslav Trofimov
The Wall Street Journal

Former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader who was deposed in a 2013 coup, had gone on TV three years earlier to brand Jews as “descendants of apes and pigs.” In 1988, the Palestinian militant group Hamas adopted a covenant that cited the notorious anti-Semitic forgery known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as proof of a global Jewish conspiracy.

But attitudes are beginning to change in some parts of the Arab world. Mohammad bin Abdul Karim al-Issa, the secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a Saudi-based global organization that has been accused of spreading extremism, recently pointed to a lesson in coexistence from Islam’s past. “The neighbor of the Prophet [Muhammad] was a Jew, and when that Jew was ill, the Prophet visited him and gave him kind words,” said Mr. al-Issa, who is also a former Saudi minister of justice. “The hard-liners don’t wish to know that.”

This new tone toward Jews—and, to a lesser degree, Israel—is becoming particularly prominent in the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia. For these wealthy Sunni monarchies, it is Shiite and Persian Iran that poses the most pressing current threat to their interests. They view the Jewish State—a foe of the regime in Tehran and its regional proxies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia—as their de facto ally.

This unlikely partnership has gathered steam with the rise of Saudi Arabia’s new deputy crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, the architect of the Yemen war, who wants a more vigorous response to Iran. And it has received new momentum since the election of Donald Trump, the preferred candidate of Israel and the Gulf states. The White House said Thursday that Mr. Trump’s first foreign trip as president will feature stops in both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

“We have the same enemy, the same threat,” Saudi Maj. Gen. Ahmed Asiri, now the kingdom’s deputy intelligence chief, said in February. “And we are both close allies of the Americans.”

Pressure from the Gulf—particularly from Hamas’s longtime backer Qatar—played a key role in the Palestinian group’s decision Monday to remove slurs against Jews from its revised charter. Israel scoffed at the changes, noting that Hamas retained its goal of “liberating” all of historic Palestine—which would mean eradicating the Jewish State.

Still, some Israeli officials have praised the Gulf monarchies’ shift on Hamas. “Most of [Hamas’s] support came from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in the past,” said Ayoob Kara, a lawmaker from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party and the only Arab minister in Israel’s cabinet. “Now the Saudi Arabian coalition understands more and more that Hamas is an extremist organization and that extremism and terror are also against them, not just against Israel.”

The Gulf states also shape opinion across the Arab world: Most of the influential TV news channels and pan-Arab newspapers are owned by Saudis, Qatari or Emiratis. “On TV, we no longer hear the usual words ‘Israeli aggression.’ Now, it’s mostly about the ‘Persian aggression,’ ” said Ahmad al-Ibrahim, a Saudi businessman and political analyst.

Sympathy for the Palestinian cause and rejection of Israel still run deep in the region, particularly in countries far from Iran that don’t view it as much of a threat. Such feelings are widespread among the people of the Gulf states too, so most of the recent cooperation with Israel—focusing on intelligence and security matters—has occurred in secret.

But some small steps have been public. An unofficial Saudi delegation, led by a retired general, visited Jerusalem last year and met with Israeli officials. The United Arab Emirates has permitted a small Israeli mission to the UN’s renewable-energy agency, based in Abu Dhabi, and Emirati officials are weighing whether to allow low-key Israeli participation in the 2020 Dubai World Expo.

Such an erosion of Arab hostility to Israel rattles many Palestinians. “I am in favor of normalizing between Israel and all Arab countries—one minute after an independent Palestinian State is established,” said Ayman Odeh, the head of the Arab bloc in Israel’s parliament. “Agreements between Israel and Arab countries before the Palestinian issue is solved will weaken the Palestinian cause.”

Many in the Gulf shrug at such complaints. “Saudi Arabia has always wanted to support the Palestinian cause. It negotiated on their behalf, it spent a lot of money on their behalf,” said Mr. Ibrahim. “But unfortunately, the Palestinian leaders do not want to get along and are not working for their own people. You cannot just say no to everything.”

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

A Warning Too Late — The End of Europe


The End of Europe

By James Kirchick

Redacted from a review by Stephen Daisley


MAY 2017

The United Kingdom 2017:

Britain has begun the process of seceding from the European Union, a bureaucratic and bossy outfit but one that has helped keep the peace on the continent. This follows a ferocious plebiscite in which, among other things, Britons were warned of a Brussels plot to flood their communities with millions of Turks.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party is led by a man several decades to the left of Bernie Sanders. Jeremy Corbyn hymns his “friends” in Hamas and Hezbollah, admits giving money to a group run by a Holocaust denier, and has invited anti-Semites to the House of Commons.

His partisans, pensioned Trotskyists and campus ideologues, have launched concerted attacks on Jewish lawmakers. One-third of Brits say that anti-Semitism has cost Labour their vote; polling forecasts the party’s worst defeat since 1935 in the next election, whenever that will be.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party, part left and part Trump, dominates every level of government. It threatens constitutional chaos if Scotland’s voters are not granted a second referendum on independence (the first failed by 55 percent to 45 percent in 2014) and warns it will eject Britain’s nuclear submarines, based near Glasgow, if it wins.

Meanwhile, after a century of partition and two decades after the end of the Troubles, talk in Northern Ireland has returned to reunification with the Irish Republic.

All of this has happened in two years’ time and is vital to understanding James Kirchick’s precise and powerful new book. For when Kirchick, a foreign correspondent and essayist, writes of “The End of Europe,” he is doing so rhetorically but not outlandishly.

Britain’s transformation from the land of the stiff upper lip to a nation in nervous breakdown is but one facet of the great European unraveling Kirchick describes. Across Europe, populism and nationalism are deluging the political mainstream, Russian aggression goes unchecked, and the sense of a world order that is coming undone hangs in the air above Parisian terraces and Viennese cafes.

As Kirchick notes: “A continent widely regarded as a ‘security exporter,’ blessed with an enviable Pax Europa, is itself becoming a zone of volatility where episodes of terrorist violence and political disorder are fast becoming regular occurrences.”

The forward march of anti-liberalism, Kirchick underscores, is not simply the latest phase in Western politics. It is an effort to eliminate the recent past, revive a golden era supposedly corrupted by liberalism, and displace left–right ideological divisions with flags and ersatz history.

Chesterton argued: “The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the conservatives is to prevent the mistakes being corrected.” We might add that the business of nationalists is to deny there are any mistakes, save the ones from which they emerge as noble victims.

Thus stands Europe, birthplace of the Enlightenment, on the cusp of a new dark age. There is a tendency among European intellectuals—more instinctual than calculated—to focus the blame for the new nationalism on Donald Trump. This snotty revisionism lacks credibility. Europe caved first; America held out longer, just.

But chronology is the least of the matter. It was the European Union’s failure to compromise with the British that gave rise to Brexit and, in turn, conferred some sense of historical momentum upon Trump.

It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mishandling of the migrant crisis that provided viral videos of heaving border crossings. It was Europe’s free-riding on U.S. defense spending that fed the grievances of America Firstism—a military subvention that has provided French commodities traders with universal health care essentially paid for by uninsured, two-job Americans.

Kirchick, a liberal conservative drawn more to the adjective than the noun of late, advocates “a renewal of the muscular liberal center.” There is cause for such a reassertion. Political alignments have been upended, and not just on the extremes.

The European center now encompasses liberals, pragmatic social democrats, and neoconservatives, unlikely allies in the trenches against corporatism, isolationism, and the depredations of liberal democracy.

Whether these interests can coalesce around a single platform, and whether that platform can win votes or change minds, is more a matter for speculation than optimism. Still, it is worth recording that an ultranationalist surge failed to materialize in the Dutch elections; polls in Germany show the center holding: and the scrubbed-up skinheads of France’s National Front will likely not see their Madame Le Pen enthroned in the Elysée Palace.

It should be obvious by this point that The End of Europe is not one of those books, the pulpy Regnery mass prints that did good business post-9/11 warning American conservatives that the continent was gripped by population decline and creeping Islamization.

The End of Europe is a serious and important piece of journalism, cool-headed and even-handed, though never in doubt of which side it is on. The reviewer is tempted by cliché to recommend that Kirchick’s volume be read in Europe’s capitals and be handed out on the steps of Capitol Hill. But few in power will want to hear what it says. James Kirchick has written a warning letter that may have arrived too late.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary: www.israel-commentary.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments