The Secret Revolution

By David Kupelian

Whistleblower Magazine – September 2017

Why Marxism in America, though ubiquitous and destructive, goes largely unrecognized

While President Trump was being demonized for acknowledging the obvious – that in Charlottesville there were two evil sides, the violent neo-Nazis and the violent communists – most journalists and politicians, including prominent Republicans, tried to outdo each other in condemning the violent neo-Nazis while excusing or actually praising the violent communists.

It wasn’t until two weeks later, when the same communist “antifa” group viciously attacked peaceful protesters at a “No to Marxism in America” rally in Berkeley – beating those they deemed “white supremacists” and “Nazis” with sticks and shields ironically emblazoned with the phrase “No Hate” – that a few politicians finally dared to condemn the wildly violent masked group.

Why the glaring double standard? Why does it come so easy to most Americans to condemn hateful and violent neo-Nazis, but not equally hateful and violent communists, whose malevolent ideology is responsible for far more deaths? In fact, why is it that, with a virulent and totalitarian form of Marxism spreading not just in America’s universities, but throughout the country as a whole – scarcely a word is breathed about it by the media?

The answers to these and many other critical questions are found in the electrifying September issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled “THE REVOLUTION: Why Marxism in America, though ubiquitous and destructive, goes largely unrecognized.”
While Whistleblower chronicles the new and exotic forms of Marxism in America and shows their rotten communist roots, some glaring examples from America’s recent history demonstrate that the elite establishment couldn’t care less about communism.

For instance: Even though Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong killed a staggering 45 million peasants during his famed “Great Leap Forward,” making him hands-down the biggest mass murderer in world history, President Barack Obama’s White House communications director, Anita Dunn, publicly bragged that Mao was one of her “favorite political philosophers.” How could that be?

Likewise, Obama’s friend and colleague, William Ayers, who helped Obama launch his political career and guided him in writing his famed autobiography “Dreams From My Father,” is a self-described “small-c communist” who founded the Weather Underground communist domestic terror group.

During the ’60s and ’70s, Ayers’ organization declared war on the U.S. government, caused wanton death and destruction, and bombed banks and U.S. government buildings, including the U.S. Capitol, State Department and Pentagon. Notorious for saying “Kill all the rich people. … Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents,” Ayers reaffirmed his enduring hatred for America as recently as 2001, when he said: “What a country. It makes me want to puke.”

Yet today, Ayers exerts a huge influence on America’s education system, having trained hundreds of teachers. In March 2008, he was elected vice president for curriculum studies at the American Educational Research Association, giving him tremendous clout over what is taught in America’s teacher-training colleges as well as to Americans’ children in public schools.

Ayers is not alone. Legions of self-proclaimed communist radicals who once labored to subvert America’s Constitution, overturn her government and establish a totalitarian system – including Ayers’ wife, Weather Underground co-founder Bernardine Dohrn, who once graced the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List – are now glorified as tenured professors and thus exert enormous influence on the minds and souls of America’s next generation.

How is this possible?
The website of the Communist Party USA,, which came into existence as a Moscow-directed-and-funded U.S.-based Communist Party, is today almost indistinguishable from the Democratic Party in its concerns, sensibilities and solutions to America’s societal and economic problems.

But nobody seems to notice or care. Why?

“THE REVOLUTION” goes to the beating heart of the problem. It reveals what has really been happening to America, and where the solution lies.
As a very special feature, the article by Dr. Paul Kengor, titled “The Marxist roots of the ‘safe spaces’ movement,” documents journalistically for the very first time the overwhelming communist/Marxist origins of the “safe spaces” movement now sweeping America’s college campuses.

And it provides a fascinating guided tour of the shockingly perverse thinkers, authors, teachers and “experts” who birthed what can fairly be called the madness that dominates American higher education – and increasingly, our entire society.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Send your email address to
Facebook: Jerome S. Kaufman
Twitter: @israelcomment
Fan Club:

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

Trump Returns U.S. to Realpolitik in World Affairs (ala Kissinger)

By Gerald F. Seib

The Wall Street Journal
Sept. 20, 2017

President’s United Nations address marks return of U.S. foreign policy to practical considerations rather than moral calculations

President Donald Trump told the United Nations General Assembly that Iran has become an “economically depleted rogue state” whose chief export is violence and chaos in the Middle East. He also called the Iran nuclear deal an “embarrassment.”

Early in his maiden speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump offered fellow world leaders the best, most concise summary he’s ever provided of his approach to world affairs: “We are guided by outcomes, not ideology,” he declared.

Having signaled that his listeners should be prepared for some blunt, hard-nosed pragmatism, Mr. Trump proceeded to deliver just that. In many ways, in fact, Mr. Trump’s address marked the return of American foreign policy to realpolitik: a set of principles and precepts based on practical considerations rather than philosophical or moral calculations.

And while his predecessors might have cloaked their threats and grievances in a rhetorical velvet glove while at the U.N., Mr. Trump took off that glove while delivering the most important and most revealing speech of his young presidency.

He declared that if the U.S. is forced to defend against North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, “we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” In the president’s terminology, Kim Jong Un wasn’t the leader of North Korea, but rather the “Rocket Man…on a suicide mission.”

Iran, a country his predecessor spent years seeking to engage, was in Mr. Trump’s description a nation engaged in the “pursuit of death and destruction.” As for the nuclear deal with Iran that President Barack Obama’s team labored for years to negotiate, Mr. Trump branded it “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into” and “an embarrassment.”

President Donald Trump threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” if the U.S. is forced to defend itself or its allies against Pyongyang’s aggression, Mr. Trump also warned that the U.S. is prepared to take further, undefined steps to change the course of Venezuela’s socialist regime. And, while he offered words of thanks to China and Russia for help on other matters, he indirectly called them out for their aggressive behavior in their neighborhoods:

“We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.”

Both the stark nature of Mr. Trump’s messages and his willingness to deliver them from the U.N. podium were unprecedented for an American president. The U.N. audience got Trumpism in its pure, unvarnished form.

In one of the most intriguing sections of the speech, Mr. Trump attempted to define what his “America First” approach to the presidency really means, in terms specifically designed to appeal to fellow world leaders nervous about the concept:

“As president of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first. All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.”

That final line represented a dig at the notion that a global economy, instantaneous world-wide communications and the free flow of goods and people are making traditional national identities obsolete. The Trump message is the opposite: Nations and borders matter no less in the era of globalization.

Afterward, some said they found the president’s bluntness refreshing, others alarming. But all who listened came away understanding that the Trump Doctrine is the doctrine of transactions: I am not disengaging from the world, he seemed to be saying, but rather engaging with it on my terms, and purely in pursuit of American interests.
The address had some broader strokes as well. In fact, it was almost two speeches back-to-back.

The first segment offered some of the more traditional odes to American ideals and leadership: “In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch,” Mr. Trump declared. “In America the people govern, the people rule and the people are sovereign.”

From there, he moved into the second section, marked by direct messages to American foes. His barbed warnings to North Korea will get the most attention, and raise the question of whether such threats are more likely to scare North Korea away from nuclear weapons or deepen its belief they are needed for protection.

Yet the most dramatic departure from the approach of the Obama administration actually came elsewhere, in his discussion of Iran. Mr. Obama saw Iran as a country to be engaged and slowly pulled away from its revolutionary moorings and into the international mainstream.

Mr. Trump suggested no patience for such a course. Instead, he virtually called for Iranians to effect a regime change:
“Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the people will face a choice: Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed and terror, or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture and wealth, where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?”


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Send your email address to
Facebook: Jerome S. Kaufman
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

President Trump et al, under H.R. McMaster tutelage, whitewash Islamic Terrorism responsibility for 9/11/2001 World Trade Center Twin Tower destruction murdering 2996 innocent American citizens.

(Evidently it was not 15 Muslim fanatics. of whom 11 were Saudi Arabs but perhaps “Norwegians?” As Trump and his advisors woefully retreat from identifying our mortal enemy – a huge mistake. Is the fate of the European Union and Sharia law next for this once great country?) jsk

Phantom Enemy: Islamic Terrorists Missing From 9/11 Speeches

By Aaron Klein

The Jewish Press, Sept. 15, 2017

(The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11)[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.)

On the sixteenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorist attacks, President Donald Trump did not once mention the terms “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” during a commemoration ceremony at the Pentagon. (Why?)

Instead of naming the enemy, Trump seemingly went out of his way to use other descriptors in his speech, including “terrorists who attacked us,” “barbaric forces of evil and destruction,” “horrible, horrible enemies,” “enemies of all civilized people,” and “enemies like we’ve never seen before.”

Similarly, Pence, speaking at the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, referred to the scourge as “evil terrorists” and “global terrorism.”

Mattis, addressing the same Pentagon memorial as Trump, outwardly minimized the Islamic motivations of the terrorists by calling them “maniacs disguised in false religious garb.” He referred to “attackers perpetrating murder” on that fateful day, not even using the words “terrorist” or “terrorism.”

Sessions perhaps came closest to prescribing a religious ideology, calling out “extremists” who “seek to impose their speech codes, their religion, their theocracy.”
“For these extremists, it’s more than religion; it’s ideology,” he stated. “We have no choice but to defend against it.”

But Sessions did not mention a specific religion and did not expound upon which ideology the terrorists maintain.

When speaking of common threads among terrorists, Sessions also failed to mention the one major thread of Islam when he stated: “While the threats we face are diverse and evolving, terrorist ideologies have one thing in common: their disregard for the dignity of human life and they share an obsession with forcing everyone into their twisted ideology. And the terrorists know they can’t persuade people using reason, so they use coercion and intimidation. They seek acquiescence and inaction.”

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke released a brief statement that referred to the 9/11 radical Islamic jihadist perpetrators as “terrorists.”

Trump’s reluctance to name the actual enemy contrasts with speeches he gave in the past, including during the 2016 presidential campaign, when he repeatedly utilized the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”

The uniform lack of mention of radical Islamic terrorism from the administration Monday comes after previous reports that H.R. McMaster, Trump’s embattled national security adviser, has petitioned against using the phrase. This reporter previously exposed numerous instances of McMaster’s minimizing the Islamic motivations of radical Muslim terrorists.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


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



Powered by Facebook Comments

Hitler had no problem killing 6 Million Jews. The Church had done all the spade work the previous 700 years and longer.

From: A Feud For The Ages: A History Of The Jews And The Church

(Part IV: Inquisition And Insurgency)

By Libi Astaire – 7 Elul 5777
The Jewish Press, Olami Section, August 25, 2017

Life was always precarious for Europe’s Jews during the Middle Ages. But the thirteenth century saw the rise of an exceedingly dangerous foe – mendicant orders such as the Dominicans and Franciscans, whose zeal for hunting down heresy led to the establishment of the Inquisition, as well as the death and destruction of many Jewish communities.

When Pope Gregory IX approved the creation of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders in the 1230s to combat heresy within the Catholic Church, few could foresee the havoc they would wreak on Europe’s Jews.

The friars were supposed to take care of their own. Western Europe was becoming increasingly urban, with more people leaving the countryside for the city. As often happens, instead of finding riches, many found only poverty and sickness. The job of the friars, who had been granted papal permission to travel wherever they were needed without having to report to the local bishop, was to minister to the poor masses, reinforce their faith, and correct doctrinal errors.
The friars themselves were something of an anomaly. On the one hand, they were highly educated. Not only did they study at universities, members of their orders held the theological chairs. But many of the friars were the sons of craftsmen or peasants. Therefore, thanks to their humble beginnings, they were able to cloak their theological arguments in language the common people could relate to and understand.

Preaching in open-air markets and similar places, a good orator could attract thousands of a city’s residents. Indeed, it’s said that tens of thousands of people came to hear Dominican Girolamo Savonarola preach in Florence.

Very soon the friars set their sights on a different audience – the Jews, whom they hoped to convert. The friars began to learn Hebrew and study Jewish texts, looking for ammunition they could use to refute Judaism and prove the correctness of their own religion.

Their attack plan included disputations, such as the one that took place between Ramban and the Dominican Pablo Christiani in Barcelona, and forcing Jews to gather in churches and listen to their sermons. The friars, having found the Talmud and other seforim to be filled with “heresy,” also advocated for the burning of the troublesome books or, at the very least, their censorship.

When the Jews proved resistant to their eloquence, the friars took their anger and frustration to the marketplace, where they found an audience ready to listen – and act. While the start of the horrific massacres of 1391 which destroyed most of Spain’s kehillos (Jewish communities) can be attributed to the rabble-rousing sermons of Ferrand Martinez, who was an archdeacon and not a member of a mendicant order, the mob violence between 1411 and 1413 resulted from the virulent rhetoric of Dominican Vincent Ferrer, who had influence over Castile’s king and threatened Castile’s Jews with expulsion if they didn’t convert. It’s estimated that Ferrer oversaw the forced baptism of 20,000 of Castilian Jews by using these strong-arm tactics.

Ferrer was also the instigator behind the Laws of Valladolid, which severely curtailed the rights of the Jews. After the laws were enacted in 1412, all Jews were forced to live within the gates of an enclosed Jewish quarter, were prohibited from working in most professions, including medicine or handicrafts of any kind, and were forbidden to leave the country. The purpose of the laws was to humiliate and impoverish the Jews, again with the goal of convincing them to convert.

It’s estimated that the total number of Spain’s Jews who succumbed to the pressure to convert was between 200,000 and 250,000 souls. Those who remained true to the Torah were expelled in 1492. But those who had converted learned that not even conversion could save them from the friars’ fiery wrath.

The Rise of the Inquisition

Before there was a Spanish Inquisition, there was a Medieval Inquisition, which was established in 1184 by Pope Lucius III to determine if certain Christian sects were, indeed, guilty of heresy. In theory, the Inquisition was a non-violent way for those who had strayed to repent, do penance, and be restored to the Church. But because torture was used to extract confessions and unrepentant heretics were turned over to the secular authorities, who administered the death penalty, the Inquisition quickly became associated with violence and death.

The Dominicans, in particular, were given the mission of rooting out heresy. Thus, it was Dominican friar Alonso de Ojeda who first alerted Queen Isabella that some conversos were secretly practicing Judaism. Another Dominican, Thomas de Torquemada, was placed at the head of the Spanish Inquisition when it was established in 1478.

In the early years of the Inquisition, Old Christians, who were jealous of the success and wealth of the conversos, used the Inquisition to settle scores. By 1482, the accusations and arrests had become so numerous that Pope Sixtus IV tried to intervene, commenting that the Inquisition was “causing disgust to many.”

But when Sixtus ordered the local bishops to take a role in the proceedings, King Ferdinand accused the pope of taking bribes from the conversos. The king also warned the pope not to try to interfere again or he would withdraw military support, and Sixtus, who was worried about a Turkish assault on Rome, heeded the warning.

It’s hard to estimate how many people were arrested or burned at the stake during the nearly 350 years that the Spanish Inquisition was in existence because much of the post-1560 documentary evidence has been destroyed or lost. The historical record has also been muddied by the “Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition.”

While today we know that the vast majority of those hunted down and sentenced to death were the formerly Jewish conversos, during the mid-1500s the Church found yet another target to investigate – Protestants.

Only a few hundred Protestants were arrested – there weren’t that many living in Spain – but because of political tensions between Catholic Spain and Protestant England and other Protestant lands, the Protestants used the excesses of the Inquisition to paint an even blacker picture of what went on in Inquisition prisons and courtrooms than actually occurred.

Therefore “Black Legend” estimates that perhaps hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people, were arrested and killed are today considered much too high. On the other hand, the Catholic Church’s recent estimate of only about 1,250 people being sentenced to death is almost certainly too low.

The British historian Cecil Roth, citing research done by Jose Amador de los Rios about the first 50 years of the Spanish Inquisition, put the number at 28,540 souls burned alive and another 16,520 burned in effigy, with more than 300,000 people punished in other ways.

But even if the number of people killed is “just” in the thousands or tens of thousands, the total number of people effected – the number of people arrested, the number of people tortured, the number who had their property confiscated by the state, as well as all those who lived in terror of being arrested – is certainly much, much higher.

The Inquisition wasn’t limited to Spain. It was set up in many Catholic-ruled countries, including Portugal, Mexico and other parts of South America, and Goa in Portuguese controlled-India. Although some popes protested the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, in the mid-1500s they established an Inquisition of their own, which was called the Roman Inquisition.

The Roman Inquisition was established in response to changes in the Western world that were threatening the Church’s dominance over Europe. The Church had always had critics within its ranks, those who claimed that the Church’s vast power and wealth had made it corrupt. The early mendicant orders, which required a vow of poverty to join, were formed partly in response to this complaint. But by the 1400s even the friars were selling indulgences – the Church’s remedy for reducing punishment for sins.

One friar disgusted by the Church’s corruption was Martin Luther, who was a member of the Augustine Order. In 1517 he nailed to the door of Wittenberg’s All Saints Church his now-famous Ninety-five Theses, in which he accused the Church of corrupting the people’s faith through the cynical sale of indulgences. Aided by a new invention – the printing press – copies of the Ninety-five Theses swept through Germany in two weeks and reached the rest of Europe within two months.

Luther had started a revolution, which is today called the Protestant Reformation. With much of Northern Europe turning Protestant while Southern Europe remained Catholic, the whole of Europe would become a battleground between Catholicism and Protestantism for the next two centuries.

In the beginning, Luther spoke favorably about the Jews, portraying them as models of common sense. “If I had been a Jew and seen such oafs and numbskulls governing and teaching the Christian faith,” he wrote in 1523, “I would have rather become a sow than a Christian.” But like other Christians before him, his goal was to persuade the Jews to convert, which he thought he could do by gentle persuasion. Surely, he reasoned, it was only the corruption the Jews had objected to; now that Christianity had been purified, the obstacles had been removed.

When the Jews continued to remain true to the Torah, Luther turned against them. Indeed, by the end of his career his hostility exceeded that of the Church. He advocated destroying synagogues and Jewish homes, confiscating Jewish writings, prohibiting the rabbis from teaching, prohibiting Jews from making loans and charging interest, banning Jews from the roads and marketplaces, forcing Jews to do hard labor and, when all else failed, expelling them.

The short-term effects of the Reformation were an increase in Jewish persecution in German lands. Conditions also worsened for the Jews living in the Papal States and northern Italy, who were forced to live in ghettos for the first time. But the Reformation also brought with it some positive changes. The split of Christianity into Catholic and Protestant sects ended the Church’s dream of creating and controlling a homogeneous society. New ideas about how religious authority should – and should not – be exercised would eventually lead to the development of the principle of separation between church and state.

Another change was the role of the Bible in Christian life. Until the Reformation, study of the Bible was reserved for clergymen, who mainly used the Latin Vulgate translation. Luther insisted that the Torah be translated into the language that people spoke so that anyone could read it.

Once the translations were made, people did read it, avidly. In many places, groups were formed to study the laws and values of ancient Jewish society, seeking a model for their own. While admiration for the Torah didn’t usually result in love for individual Jews, there was at least a grudging respect for the people who had wisely clung to the Torah, despite so many centuries of persecution.

But all that lay in the future. In Part V of this series we will take a look behind the Ghetto’s doors to see how a new century of Church decrees affected Jewish life and culture.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

Israel Rescue Team responds immediately to Houston Texas Mayor Request for Help

Israeli Volunteers Help Evacuees In Texas

By Jewish Press Staff – 16 Elul 5777 – September 6, 2017 0

On Friday, Sept. 1, United Hatzalah and Israel Rescue Coalition’s (IRC) Houston relief team headed to Beaumont at the request of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. After distributing aid to evacuated residents of the area, the team set up a booth at Jack Brooks Regional Airport, located between Beaumont and Port Arthur, two of the hardest hit areas by Hurricane Harvey.

IRC and United Hatzalah team member Dr. Sharon Slater with a young evacuee.

Evacuees were brought on buses to the airport for care and to receive supplies before being sent by plane to a long-term evacuation center.

Relief team member Avi Tennenbaum, a psychotherapist and addictions expert, spoke about the team’s experience. “We treated many people who had just been evacuated and were en route to their next long term location as well as many first responders, members of the National Guard, and EMS crews.”

Tennenbaum is a registered EMT with United Hatzalah and one of the more senior volunteers with the organization’s Psychotrauma and Crisis Response Unit. He is a also a board-certified addiction professional and directs JNARS, a nonprofit organization for advancing the professional treatment of addiction disorders.

“We arrived in Port Arthur and met dozens of brokenhearted people who were evacuated with nothing but the shirts on their backs,” Tennenbaum said.

“We were able to bring some light into their dark experience and help them move forward to the next leg of their journey. We also offered critical emotional support to exhausted EMS personnel who were working around the clock to rescue those surrounded by floodwaters.

“The military, National Guard, EMS crews, and good Samaritans who were volunteering to help their fellow Texans were extremely grateful for our presence. We kept receiving hugs, blessings, and photo requests. But most incredible were the stories people shared with us.

“Part of the job here is to listen. We heard some unbelievable stories from people and we allowed them to cry and share their stories of how they evacuated babies on floating air mattresses and saw human organs floating in the floodwaters. Other stories included people going for three days with no water or food, or facing dangerous snakes that entered homes via the floodwaters. People kept telling us how they simply woke up to water surrounding their bed in the morning.

“The stories were simply endless and our job is to listen and provide psychological and emotional support and that is what we did.”

Among the volunteers assisting in the evacuations were pilots and EMS teams, many of whom had been working non-stop.

“We need to listen to their stories and the stories of other volunteers and first response personnel just as much as we need to listen to the experiences of the civilians,” said Tennenbaum.

“And the first responders need to talk and offload the stress of their experiences. Over the course of the weekend we were able to treat several pilots and EMS crews, all of whom couldn’t stop thanking us.”

“Shabbat was a bit of challenge for us,” said team leader Miriam Ballin, “as we were not able to leave the area to get back to Houston due to the high waters on the roads. So we stayed in the airport and continued helping people. One flight paramedic eagerly invited herself to our Shabbat meal and shared with us some incredible stories.”

“It’s been a memorable few days and we merited doing great things here. We hope to continue our efforts,” said Tennenbaum.

By Sunday afternoon, some 2,500 evacuees had made their way to the mega-shelter set up for them at the Dallas Convention Center. At the center, all the services evacuees would need for their long-term stay until they return home were being provided. Police, fire and rescue services, social services, EMS, hospital teams, and even day care services were on hand, as were three volunteers from the Israel Rescue Coalition and United Hatzalah’s Psychotrauma and Crisis Response Unit.

“Our team is working together with the Red Cross, the psychological department of the hospital team that is here, and with the children’s department,” explained Einat Kauffman, a psychotherapist and Ph.D. candidate who specializes in treating grief and loss.

“Today we focused primarily on working with the children,” said Kauffman. “What really moved me was to see how fast the children understood what was happening around them. Whenever we asked them where they lived, they responded by pointing at a bed nearby and saying ‘This is my bed, and over there is my parents’ bed.’ It was quite sad on the one hand, but also simply remarkable to see how quickly they adjusted.”

Team members attempted to get the children to release some of their frustration and anxiety via play aimed at helping them internalize their new situation. “We worked with children from ages two to eleven and had them recreate for us how their homes looked by using Play-Doh and by drawing on the floor with chalk,” said Kauffman.

“This helped them express their feelings of loss and we were able to work from there. Some children spoke about their pets that were lost, others talked about being separated from other family members. Our goal was to get them to open up about what they were feeling in a non-threatening and positive manner in order to be able to begin processing their feelings.”

Team leader Ballin noted the team was instrumental on both ends of the trip.

“We had people at Jack Brooks assisting with the process of preparing evacuees for departure to Dallas. Then our team in Dallas had people ready to welcome and help the evacuees at the other side. It was a highly effective process and we were able to help many people.”

Kauffman said the teams were notified that thousands of additional evacuees were expected at the mega-shelter over the next few days – many of whom will be suffering the same shock and disillusionment those already present at the shelter were experiencing – and that IRC and United Hatzalah’s Psychotrauma and Crisis Response Unit will be on hand, working with them one person at a time and in small groups.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:


Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

Past time Pres. Trump replaced Obama’s man, Nat’l Security Chief Gen’l H.R. McMaster — dedicated to Obama anti-US policies

(McMaster’s long list of people wrongly fired and wrongly appointed who are  detrimental to the best interests of the United States.)

By Morton A. Klein, Elizabeth Berney and Daniel Mandel

Jewish & Israel News,

August 27, 2017

The Zionist Organization of America’s August 2017 report detailed US National Security Chief General H.R. McMaster’s troubling record regarding Iran, Israel and radical Islamist terrorism. McMaster’s statements and actions appear to be diametrically opposed to President Donald Trump’s support for Israel, opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and determination to name and combat radical Islamist terrorism.

Critics of ZOA’s report have failed to show that ZOA’s report was wrong in any substantive respect. The criticisms have amounted to name-calling against ZOA, and McMaster’s friends vouching for his character — which is irrelevant to the vital policy issues addressed in ZOA’s report.

McMaster reportedly wrongly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947 — when no Palestinian state ever existed, and maligns Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power.” In fact, Israel’s re-establishment in 1948 and her self-defensive capture of Judea/Samaria (West Bank) in 1967 were both legal under binding international law, and deprived no country of its sovereign territory.

McMaster wrongly claimed that President Trump would recognize “Palestinian self determination” during his visit to Israel; reportedly opposed President Trump’s visit to Jerusalem’s Western Wall, refused to state that the Western Wall is in Israel, and insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not accompany President Trump to the Western Wall.

And alarmingly, when Israel installed metal detectors at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount after Palestinian terrorists smuggled in firearms and murdered two Israeli policemen, McMaster, according to a senior defense official, described this as “just another excuse by the Israelis to repress the Arabs.”

In his short tenure at the National Security Council (NSC), General McMaster has fired or removed from the NSC six staunchly pro-Israel/anti-Iran officials: Steve Bannon; K.T. McFarland; Adam Lovinger; Rich Higgins, Derek Harvey and Ezra Cohen-Watnick.

McMaster quickly removed Bannon, architect of much of President Trump’s pro-Israel, anti-Islamist terrorism agenda, from the Principals Committee of the NSC. McMaster also promptly removed K.T. McFarland, a key member of the team of Iran deal opponents originally assembled by President Trump, and a veteran pro-Israel national security professional in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations.  She was shunted off to be ambassador to Singapore. Lovinger, a pro-Israel national security strategist from the Pentagon, was returned to the Pentagon with his security clearance revoked.

McMaster also sacked Iran “hawk” Rich Higgins, the NSC’s director of strategic planning, after Higgins wrote a memo about personnel opposed to President Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

McMaster removed Derek Harvey, senior director for the Middle East, who has been described by former Army Vice Chief of Staff General Jack Keane as “hands down the very best intelligence analyst that the United States government has on Iraq,” after Harvey prepared a list of NSC Obama-era holdovers.

McMaster should have removed the personnel on Harvey’s list — but instead fired Harvey. And McMaster also fired Cohen-Watnick, a staunch opponent of the Iran deal, who sought to intensify efforts to counter Iran in in the Middle East and rein in officials opposed to the president’s policies.

McMaster’s replacements and appointees are on the wrong side of the issues of concern. McMaster appointed Colonel Kris Bauman, who has blamed Israel for Palestinian terror and urged Israel to negotiate with Hamas, to work on the Israel-Palestinian desk. Bauman is working to revive General Jim Allen’s defective and dangerous Obama-era plan for Palestinian statehood.

McMaster also replaced K.T. McFarland with Dina Habib-Powell — a defender of Huma Abedin and friend of pro-Iran-deal Obama era figures such as Valerie Jarett.

As PJ Media New York editor David Steinberg wrote: “One is hard-pressed to identify a member of the NSC brought in by McMaster with a history of aligning with President Trump on Iran or with his Mideast policy in general.”

A White House official estimated that well over fifty percent of the NSC staff are Obama holdovers.

McMaster has also promoted certifying that Iran is in compliance with the Iran deal — even though Iran: banned International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from its Parchin nuclear facility; refused to allow IAEA investigators to interview Iran’s nuclear scientists; and has repeatedly tested intercontinental ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions; and despite German intelligence reports that Iran is cheating on the deal.

And when pressed about Iran’s violations, McMaster inaccurately and misleadingly stated that Iran is merely violating the Iran deal’s “spirit.” This flies the face of President Trump’s promise to tear up or rigorously enforce the Iran deal and punish violations.

Mirroring the Obama administration’s practices, McMaster opposes using the term “radical Islamic terrorism” or other indicia of terrorists’ jihadist ideology.

It’s notable that those who have castigated ZOA’s detailed critique of McMaster have failed to refute a single ZOA concern. They merely condemned ZOA as wrong and scurrilous. The most that any of ZOA’s critics could offer was the “opinion” of anonymous Israeli officials that McMaster is a “friend” and that there is “no need to agree with every position McMaster has taken.”
Another issue that’s been ignored is why has a bevy of anti-Trump, anti-Israel activists and groups — including CNN’s Van Jones, Media Matters, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — leapt to Trump appointee McMaster’s defense.

Yet they never leapt to defend the pro-Israel David Friedman’s appointment as ambassador to Israel when he was criticized. Meanwhile, many strong supporters of Israel have supported ZOA’s critique of McMaster’s actions.

All of ZOA’s critics have two things in common. They use ugly, nonsensical, vacuous name-calling to defend McMaster and they fail to refute a single issue of concern ZOA raised. The critics’ inability to address ZOA’s numerous concerns only strengthens ZOA’s case about McMaster’s hostility to Israel and failure to take strong action against Iran and radical Islami st terrorism.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

Cutting Young Girls, (Female Genital Mutilation), Isn’t Religious Freedom

Redacted from an article by Kristina Arriaga

Wall Street Journal
Aug. 25, 2017

Earlier this year, a 7-year-old girl from Minnesota entered an examination room at a clinic just outside of Detroit. Thinking this was a regular visit, she allowed the doctor to remove her pants and underwear and place her on the examination table. Suddenly, while two women in the clinic held her hands, the physician spread her legs and cut her clitoris. Two months later she told investigators the pain ran down to her ankles and she could barely walk.

In April Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who allegedly performed the procedure, was charged with conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation. Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, the owner of the since-closed clinic, was also charged.

Investigators suspect Ms. Nagarwala may be involved in 100 other cases, and the trial starts in October. This marks the first time a female genital mutilation case is going to federal court. The lawyers for the Michigan physician will argue the girl “underwent a benign religious procedure.” This is a dangerous hypocrisy with far-reaching consequences.

Female genital mutilation has been illegal in the U.S. since 1996. Yet a 2012 study in the journal Public Health Reports estimates that more than 500,000 girls in the U.S. have undergone the procedure or are at risk.

These girls live all over the country, with larger Muslim concentrations in California, New York and Minnesota. Most go through this process in secret, and only 25 states have laws that criminalize the procedure. In Maine, the American Civil Liberties Union has opposed a bill to do so on the ground that “the risk of mutilation isn’t worth expanding Maine’s criminal code.”

Female genital mutilation, most often performed on girls under 13, has serious medical and psychological repercussions. The cutting ranges from a clitoridectomy, partial to total removal of the clitoris, to infibulation, removal of all the external genitalia. The latter is so severe that “healing” often involves binding the girl from ankle to waist until the scar tissue closes. This kind of cutting leaves an opening the width of a pencil for urination, menstruation, sex and childbirth.

In 2015 a U.N. official estimated that 20% of parents take their daughters to physicians but the rest use improvised sharp objects.

This spring, an Ethiopian man in Georgia was deported for performing female genital mutilation with a pair of scissors on his 2-year-old daughter. Parents fearing prosecution sometimes take their girls out of the country for “vacation cutting.”

A report from Unicef suggests at least 200 million girls and women alive today, in 30 countries, have undergone some form of it. (The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which I am vice chairwoman, does not take an official position on female genital mutilation.)

Whether this practice is religious or cultural is debatable. In the Michigan case, the victims belong to an Indian Shiite Muslim sect called the Dawoodi Bohra, whose members refer to the clitoris as a sinful lump of flesh.

The cutting, khatna, is considered a religious observance to prevent girls from becoming promiscuous. Yet female genital mutilation predates Christianity and Islam. No religious text requires it. Many imams have issued fatwas against the practice and Christian leaders like Pope Francis have denounced it.

The physician’s lawyers announced they will craft a religious-freedom defense. And they may be astute enough to get away with it. The all-star team includes constitutional law scholar and O.J. Simpson lawyer Alan Dershowitz, along with Mayer Morganroth, (Shame on them. I don’t think they will find this procedure within their own Hebrew bible – Not that that matters to them jsk ) who represented assisted-suicide champion Dr. Jack Kevorkian for more than 15 years. They are funded by an international Muslim organization called Dawat-e-Hadiyah.

The lawyers must know they are entering dangerous territory, at least in terms of public relations. After coming under criticism for defending female genital mutilation, Mr. Dershowitz suggested during a June interview that pricking the girls’ clitoris would be a better way to fulfill a “religious legal obligation.” This is absurd. There is no such obligation.

The physician’s lawyers have not only put these girls at even greater risk, they have tainted the religious freedom of all Americans with their specious arguments.

Religious freedom is a bedrock right that ensures all can live according to their convictions. It also allows for the existence of charities providing Americans with an equivalent of $1.2 trillion annually in food, shelter, medical care and more. It is not a tool to protect harmful practices like female genital mutilation.

These girls are among the most vulnerable in society. For their sake, Americans must raise their voices against this detestable practice. Doing what is right may also yield an important social good: the restoration of religious freedom to its proper place in American culture and jurisprudence.
Ms. Arriaga is a contributor at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

Hezbollah has taken over Lebanon dominating UN supposed monitors for years. II Latest President Trump “peace” mission to Israel

I  Redacted from an article by Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon

II Commentary – Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor

Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2017

Ambassador Danon: The Security Council must expand the force’s mandate—and make sure they do their jobs.

Over the past year, I have given dozens of United Nations ambassadors tours of Israel’s border with Lebanon. During a recent visit with my American counterpart, Nikki Haley, Israel Defense Forces officers identified Hezbollah positions along our northern border.

Our guests appropriately asked where the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon was, and why nothing was being done to stop Hezbollah terrorists from blatantly violating numerous Security Council resolutions.

Our answer was simple. The UNIFIL force is there, but they are not effectively fulfilling their mandate. The good news is that when UNIFIL mandate comes before the Security Council later this month, there are practical steps that can be taken to ensure that this important U.N. force succeeds and another conflict with Hezbollah is avoided.

UNIFIL was established in 1978 with the goal of restoring “international peace and security” and assisting the Lebanese government in extending its authority over southern Lebanon. The force was altered in 1982 after the First Lebanon War and again in 2000 when Israel completed its withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

In August 2006, following the Second Lebanon War and the subsequent Security Council Resolution 1701, UNIFIL’S mandate expanded to include monitoring the cease-fire. Most importantly, UNIFIL was charged with ensuring that the territory south of the Litani River remained free of weapons and fighters other than the Lebanese army.

Unfortunately, these efforts have failed. Over the past year alone, we have shared with the Security Council new information detailing how border towns have become Hezbollah strongholds. One out of three buildings in the village of Shaqra is now being used to store arms or launch attacks on Israel.

We also shared with the council intelligence revealing how the Iranians use civilian airlines to smuggle dangerous arms into southern Lebanon. When the Second Lebanon War ended, Hezbollah had around 7,000 rockets. Today, they have more than 100,000.

Hezbollah is lately stepping up its efforts to destabilize the region. In April its fighters posed for pictures with rocket-propelled-grenade launchers during a media “tour” of their positions along Israel’s border. UNIFIL forces did nothing to halt this live, televised violation of Security Council resolutions.

In June, Israel reported to the U.N. that Hezbollah has established a series of border outposts under the guise of an agricultural organization called Green Without Borders. Our intelligence services have determined that these positions are used regularly for reconnaissance operations against Israel. In this instance too, UNIFIL insisted on turning a blind eye, claiming that it lacked authority to investigate.

To rectify this situation, and avoid a new conflict, the Security Council must make real changes to UNIFIL’s mandate. In addition to generally improving UNIFIL performance, the council should insist on three vital steps.

First, UNIFIL must increase its presence in the territory. This includes meticulously inspecting the towns and villages of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah strongholds, like the one in Shaqra, must be dismantled, and other villages must be kept free of rockets and weapons aimed at Israeli population centers.

Second, UNIFIL must report all violations of Resolution 1701. The Security Council should not hear about them from us, and definitely not from the media. It is vital that UNIFIL report on these violations in real time to ensure that the members of the council can take appropriate measures.

Third, the UNIFIL UNIFIL forces must insist on unlimited access to all suspicious installations under their mandate. As a report by the U.N. secretary-general recently noted, UNIFIL is regularly obstructed in southern Lebanon. Excuses regarding the activities of nongovernmental organizations or other Hezbollah front groups should not be tolerated.

Israel has been, and always will be, ready to defend its citizens. At the same time, no one wants UNIFIL to succeed more than Israel does. With Hamas rearming in Gaza and Islamic State increasing its strength along our frontier with Syria, we seek calm and stability on our northern border.

To achieve this, the Security Council must step up its efforts to ensure that UNIFIL’s renewed mandate fulfills the goals outlined above. Failing to do so will call into question the efficacy of this U.N. peacekeeping force and endanger the lives of innocent Israelis and Lebanese.
Mr. Danon is Israel’s ambassador to the U.N.

II Commentary – Jerome S. Kaufman

(Only one problem, Ambassador Danon — The UN and especially the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon ((UNIFIL) does not give a damn about Israel. In fact, they openly side with Hezbollah and in the past have allowed Hezbollah missile launchers to fire right alongside or within UNIFIL posts. When Israel finally retaliates and takes out those launch pads, the UN goes ballistic against Israel, as usual, labeling it the aggressor.

The only answer is and always has been for Israel to maintain complete military dominance over Southern Lebanon and launch as many pre-emptive strikes as necessary to keep the area clear of any striking force into Israeli communities. And let the Russians, the Iranians, the Lebanese and the American State Dept. be so advised.

Israel must be dependent only upon the Israel Defense Forces and quickly wreck havoc upon any forces lined up against the Jewish Homeland.

The world only understands power, Mr. Ambassador. It is way past time Israel and Jews world-wide understand that. Any other concept is delusional and will unnecessarily cost Israeli lives and we cannot afford the loss of any more Jewish lives. Six million the last time and Peres, victims for “peace” since, is more than enough.

Yes, Mr. Ambassador, let the rest of the world labor under their own delusions. Israel cannot afford that luxury 

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor
Israel Commentary,

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments


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

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

It’s not that unusual for an Islamic society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


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



Powered by Facebook Comments

On Radical Islam, Trump Has Lost His Focus

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

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Wall Street Journal

Aug. 10, 2017



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


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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

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


By Moshe Feiglin



12 Av 5777 – August 4, 2017

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

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


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


July 25, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tillerson’s Ties to Qatar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tillerson’s Ties to Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

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

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

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

By Daniel Pipes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

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

Redacted from article by Steve Milloy

Wall Street Journal
July 17, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments

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

By Jonathan S. Tobin

The Jewish Press
July 14, 2017

By Jonathan S. Tobin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

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



Powered by Facebook Comments