Islamists invade the United States

Wake up America. You are under siege by Islamists invading this country. Our individual inalienable rights is a standard that Muhammed’s Sharia Law cannot tolerate. You must convert or live as a persecuted minority. Is that your ambition?

CJC’s Trifold Brochures

Click on second sentence to obtain link to brochure

1. Islam in a Nutshell Peaceful or Violent

Islam In A Nutshell_r2

2. Islamic Sharia Law

Islam in a Nutshell Sharia For Dummies 3

3.The Civilization Jihad Taking Place

Islam in a Nutshell Islamic Civilization Jihad_r2

4. The Stages of Islamic Conquest

Islam in a Nutshell The 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest 2

5. Why Islam Gets No Respect

Islam in a Nutshell Why ISLAM Gets No Respect_r2

6. Should Christians Speak Out on Islam

Islam in a Nutshell Should Christians Speak Out

7. How Devout Muslims are Tearing Down America

Islam in a Nutshell Jihad Happens Here Five Ways How Devout Muslims are Tearing Down America

8. ISIS Follows the Commands of Mohammed


9. Surah 9 – This is the last chapter of the Quran which replaces previous peaceful Chapters


10. How Devout Muslims Invade and Defeat a Militarily Superior Country


11. Who is the Muslim Brotherhood

Islam in a Nutshell The Muslim Brotherhood 9.2.13

12. Muslim Student Pamphlet – a few critical thinking questions to ask on Islam


13. Muslim headscarf – What wearing the hijab really means


14. Mohammed Friends – What Mohammed actually said about taking non-Muslims as friends


15. Islam Hate – Lists verses from the Quran preaching hate towards non-Muslims

Islam in a Nutshell Islam Hate brochure_rev

16. Ask a Muslim – Some questions you can ask a Muslim


17. Growth of Islam – Shows how violence is the reason for the growth of Islam


18. Stop the Muslim Persecution of  Christians


19.  Description of the violent Islamic conquests through history

Islam in a Nutshell A Warning from History

20.  Shows the Quran sanctioned the 9-11 Attacks

Islam in a Nutshell 9-11 The Qur’an Made Them Do It_r4

21.  Are Allah and God the Same ?

Islam in a Nutshell Are Allah and God the Same_r2

22.  ISIS or ISA – A brochure to give to Muslims

Islam in a Nutshell ISIS or Isa

23. Why a Muslim can not be President of the United States

Why a Muslim can not be President of the United States

24. Why Hamas-CAIR is riddled with convicted felons

Islam in a Nutshell CAIR and Terror

25. R4BIA – A brief description of what this symbol signifies


26.  Islamic Migration is a Form of Jihad called Hijrah

Islam in a Nutshell Victims or Invaders

27. Things a Muslim will never tell a non Muslim

Islam in a Nutshell What Bearded Preachers Won’t Tell You

28. A Few Comparisons of Sharia Versus the US Constitution

Islam in a Nutshell – World Cup of Jihad 2

29. The 911 Jihad Attack Came Right from the Quran

Islam in a Nutshell 9-11 The Qur’an Made Them Do It_r3

30. Why Do Muslims Run From the Quran When Confronted With Facts

Islam in a Nutshell Dear Muslim Stop Running Away from Your Quran

31.  How Muslims Plan to Take Over non Islamic Countries

Islam in a Nutshell The Enemy’s Plan_r2c

32.  Why it is Important for our Schools to Teach the Truth

Islam in a Nutshell Why Islam Must Be Taught In Context_v2r1

33. Free Yourself from the Shackles of Islam

Islam in a Nutshell – Sharia Shackles Muslim Women_r2

34. How to Start Up a Counter Jihad Group in Your Community

Islam in a Nutshell How to Start a Counter-Jihad Campaign in Your Own Community_r1b

35.  A huge increase in Islamic Intolerance

Islam in a Nutshell Muslims to Muslims – Knock it Off

36. The Deceit of Interfaith Dialogue Groups

Islam in a Nutshell – Interfaith Dialogue Groups

37. Why Muslims Do Not Assimilate into Western Culture

Islam in a Nutshell – Muslim Assimilation

38. Describes Who Devout Muslims Profess to be The Perfect Man

Islam in a Nutshell The PERFECT Man_r3

39. Do Muslims Worship Idols

Islam in a Nutshell Idol Worship_r2

40. There are Many Forms of Islamic Violence

Islam in a Nutshell DMV Muslim Violence_r2

41. How is the Ummah going in America

Islam in a Nutshell How goes the Ummah_r2

42.  It’s Time to Stand Up to Islamic Violence

Islam in a Nutshell DMV Muslim Violence_r2

43.  Islam and Democrats Form a Toxic Mix

Islam in a Nutshell Muslims and Democrats A Toxic Mix_v2

44. Islam Peaceful or Violent – Translated into Spanish

Islam In A Nutshell Peaceful or Violent Spanish

45. Sharia A Threat To All Americans – Translated into Spanish

Islam in a Nutshell Sharia Law is Dangerous_Spanish


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Pompeo: China, coronavirus, Iran, Russia, PA & Israel’s growing sovereign role

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo deliver joint statements at the PM’s residence in Jerusalem on March 20, 2019. Photo by Hadas Parush/Flash90

(As G-d shines his light upon the Israelis on Shavuot, the very holiday celebrating his giving them the Torah) jsk

By Caroline Glick

The main foreign policy challenge facing Israel today may not be minimizing diplomatic blowback for applying its laws in Judea and Samaria, but maximizing its new global position.

Jewish News Service (JNS) May 17, 2020

Saudi journalist Abdelhameed al-Ghoban gave an interview to the BBC in Arabic. His remarks, which were translated by MEMRI, were devoid of nuance.

“Today, the public is informed. There is a deluge [of opinions] against the Palestinian cause. It is no longer just public support for normalization and building ties with Israel. [Our] public has turned against the Palestinians in general. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have lost. The Palestinians have not contributed anything. We can say that they are emotional people whose behavior is governed by their feelings.”

Al-Ghoban added, “It is in our strategic interest, and in keeping with our future economic interests, to maintain real relations with Israel. Israel is an advanced country and we can benefit from it.”

Al-Ghoban’s remarks are not a lone voice in the wilderness. During the Ramadan Muslim holy month, Saudi television networks broadcast two series that portray Jews and Israelis in a positive light.

Palestinian leaders are beside themselves at what they view as pan-Arab abandonment. In remarks to Israel Hayom this week, a senior Palestinian official bitterly referred to the mild criticisms of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan and of Israel’s plan to apply its sovereignty to its communities in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley as no more than “lip service.”

Israeli leftist groups are hanging their hopes for torpedoing Israel’s sovereignty plans on the European Union! France’s plan, supported by Luxembourg, Belgium and Ireland, to impose E.U. sanctions on Israel in the event it implements its sovereignty plan was widely reported this week.

But like the Palestinians, Israeli leftists are likely to be disappointed. E.U. rules require all decisions to be made by consensus, and there is no consensus on sanctioning Israel.

Even worse for the leftists is the fact that Israel’s plan to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria is not a unilateral move. Israel will carry it out in the framework of the U.S. peace plan. If the European Union retaliates against Israel for implementing the first stage of the Trump peace plan, it will antagonize the White House, which will rightly view the move as anti-American. 

This state of affairs will increase the number of E.U. member states that will oppose anti-Israel sanctions—or any other anti-Israel response to the sovereignty plan. Given this state of affairs, Israeli leftist groups will have to learn to live with disappointment. Europe will not be able to force the government to embrace their radical policies.

There is another reason that Israel needn’t be too concerned that applying its laws to parts of Judea and Samaria will damage it diplomatically or economically. To understand what it is, it is worth considering what was likely a key reason, if not the key reason, that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Israel this week, in the middle of the global coronavirus pandemic.

Commentators in Israel and the United States were surprised by Pompeo’s visit. Like most world leaders, Pompeo has been grounded since late February. Why was he breaking the coronavirus lockdown to fly to Israel of all places for a few hours? What was so important that he couldn’t discuss it via secure video conference?

Most media outlets claimed that the sovereignty plan is what brought him to Jerusalem. But that made little sense even before Pompeo arrived and said that he wasn’t here for that. Both in Pompeo’s interview to Israel Hayom on Tuesday, and in Ambassador David Friedman’s interview with Israel Hayom two weeks ago, they made clear that the Trump administration continues to support Israel’s plan. Friedman even made clear that he views the issue with great urgency.

Another popular explanation was that Pompeo flew to Israel to discuss Iran. This too, makes no sense. Israel and the United States are completely coordinated in their Iran policies.

There appear to be two reasons that Pompeo came to Israel this week of all times. The first and more discussed may be the less significant one. That reason is China. On both sides of the partisan divide, U.S. leaders have long been concerned about Israel’s technological ties with China and with its willingness to grant infrastructure construction contracts to Chinese firms. In an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, published on the eve of Pompeo’s arrival in Israel, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker said, “We don’t want them [Israel] to get into a problematic relationship with China.”

Schenker focused his remarks on U.S. concerns with Israeli-Chinese contracts for major infrastructure projects, like a water desalination plant and the Haifa port. “China sees a lot of value in a relationship with Israel, the high-tech, the innovations,” said Schenker.

He continued, “Israel also needs all sorts of infrastructure and it looks to China. China is a low-cost bidder and Chinese companies do all this work. But there are things that have to be taken into account. We also have interests and we want to be able to work with Israel.”

Pompeo emphasized U.S. concern with Israel-China ties both in his discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and in his remarks to the Israeli media. There is no doubt that the heightened U.S. pressure on Israel to lower the flame on its ties with China is reasonable. China, after all, disseminated the coronavirus plague worldwide and hid the dangers from the world for two months while it purchased the global supply of ventilators and personal protective equipment.

Yet at the same time, even these heightened concerns don’t explain Pompeo’s sudden decision to fly to Israel. There have been no notable new developments in Israel’s ties with China in recent months. And Israel announced last year that it would not be participating in Huawei’s 5G network. Certainly, the messages Pompeo communicated to Netanyahu could just have easily and effectively been delivered in a videoconference.

This brings us to the coronavirus itself.

On May 5, the Israel Institute for Biological Research in Nes Ziona announced a “groundbreaking scientific development” towards a potential treatment for COVID-19 based on an antibody that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease. It was the second breakthrough announced that week by institute scientists, who days earlier announced that they had isolated a key coronavirus antibody.

In its announcement of the developments, the Israeli Defense Ministry said that the institute is now pursuing a patent for its development, after which it will begin discussions with international manufacturers.

Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett, who visited the institute on May 7 with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to receive a briefing on the discovery, said at the end of the tour, “I instructed the defense establishment and the institute to move ahead at the highest speed to develop a mass cure. We will not spare money or resources. We will do everything in our power to shorten the time it takes to have a commercial medicine.”

The first report of Pompeo’s sudden decision to visit Jerusalem this week came on May 6, the day after the Institute of Biological Research’s initial announcement and the day before Bennet and Rivlin visited the institute.

In his remarks at the Prime Minister’s Office with Netanyahu on Wednesday morning, Pompeo mentioned U.S.-Israeli cooperation in fighting the pandemic. Turning to Netanyahu, he said, “Israeli technologies, Israeli medical expertise, all of the things that you and I and our teams can work on together. I know we’ll deliver good outcomes and decrease the risk for people all across the world from this global pandemic.”

The Defense Ministry’s announcement of the Institute of Biological Research’s latest breakthrough noted, “This is an important milestone, which will be followed by a series of complex tests and a process of regulatory approvals.”

That process could take several months. Experts in and out of the defense establishment note that it is too early to know the full implications of the discovery. Obviously, if Israel has developed a cure for the coronavirus, its economic and diplomatic position will be upgraded significantly.

But even if the Institute for Biological Research’s latest discovery doesn’t lead to an immediate cure for the coronavirus, it is clear that the biomedical and technological capabilities that Israel has demonstrated in its treatment and research of the coronavirus have solidified its place among the world-leading nations in these critical areas.

Arab states that are driven towards Israel due to their shared interest in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and becoming a regional hegemon will cling to Israel ever more tightly now. European governments that seek to punish Israel for asserting its sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria, will have to balance their hostility with their desire to benefit from cooperation with Israel.

It is very possible that the main foreign policy challenge facing Israel today is not how to minimize the risks of diplomatic blowback for applying its laws in Judea and Samaria. It is figuring out how to maximize Israel’s new global position in a manner that will strengthen us diplomatically, economically and strategically into the future.

Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Does G-d wear a face mask?


Rabbi Moshe Scheiner

Palm Beach Synogogue

Palm Beach Florida

To find out:

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Obama Surrogates’ plans for Israel

Middle East plans and fantasies

By Jerold S. Auerbach   

Arab (yellow) preferred map — just transient until put slim (brown) Israel into Mediterranean Sea.

Co-existence with Israel under any circumstances, even including assurance of massive American economic investment, would not be worth to them relinquishing the decades of hostility that are embedded in Palestinian identity. Their rigid reluctance to engage in negotiations with Israel long ago doomed any peace prospects.

(May 11, 2020 / JNS) In a New York Post article May 4,

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman challenged the assumptions and conclusions of President Barack Obama’s acolytes Philip Gordon and Robert Malley that recently appeared in Foreign Policy. Gordon served as Obama’s White House coordinator for the Middle East, and Malley was Obama’s special assistant for the Middle East.

Gordon and Malley, worried lest the new Israeli coalition government (with its huge Knesset majority led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) will soon annex major portions of Judea and Samaria, the biblical homeland of the Jewish people, where 400,000 Jews already live, urged former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden to speak out in opposition to the plan. They shuddered over the pronouncement by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it is “Israel’s decision to make.”

Gordon and Malley cited multiple reasons for rejecting the annexation plan. It “would jeopardize Israel’s future as a democratic, Jewish state”; “damage Israel’s relations with Jordan”; “violate international law”; ignore “the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people”; and “could be a harbinger of greater regional instability and possibly violence.” It might even lead to demands “in the United States and elsewhere” for a “single state solution” with Palestinians granted “equal civil and political rights.”

It is hardly surprising that Gordon and Malley staunchly oppose the Israeli annexation plan. Obama, whom they loyally served, was arguably Israel’s least friendly president since its Proclamation of Independence in 1948. 

Nearing the end of his term in the White House, having already opposed Israeli action against Iran’s nuclear-weapon development, Obama had refused to veto U.N. resolution 2334 that supported boycotts and sanctions against Israel, and declared settlements to be violations of international law. There is no evidence that Biden objected. With “friends” like Obama, Israel hardly needs his loyal acolyte Joe Biden in the White House.

Friedman’s response to the Gordon-Malley article was appropriately lacerating. Labeling the Obama administration’s response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “often wrong, never in doubt,” he accused it of “a barrage of falsehoods and wrongheaded ideas.” 

West Bank annexation, Friedman noted, would not, as Gordon and Malley believe, threaten Israel’s future as a Jewish state. It would only claim sovereignty over “a fraction of the West Bank” where Jewish settlements already exist. Land with significant numbers of Palestinian inhabitants would not be affected.

Nor, as Gordon and Malley claimed, would the Israeli annexation plan undermine the possibility of the two-state solution that Palestinians have repeatedly rejected. They seem oblivious to the reality that from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas (1969-2020), Palestinian leaders have not displayed the slightest inkling that a two-state solution requiring peace with Israel is desirable.

Even Friedman’s assurance that a provision for Palestinian statehood would be an integral part of the Trump administration’s Mideast peace plan is unlikely, based on history, to persuade Palestinian leaders. Coexistence with Israel under any circumstances, even including assurance of massive American economic investment, would not be worth relinquishing the decades of hostility that are embedded in Palestinian identity. Their rigid reluctance to engage in negotiations with Israel long ago doomed any peace prospects.

Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes, while long a supporter of Israel, chimed in with a New York Times op-ed (May 8) providing six reasons for “strongly” opposing Israeli annexation of any part of the West Bank. (That surely pleased editors at the Times, who have found reasons to oppose or lacerate Jewish statehood ever since Adolph Ochs purchased the newspaper in 1896.) 

Annexation, Pipes wrote, “would probably damage Israel’s relations with the Trump administration, the Democrats, European and Arab leaders, as well as destabilize the region, radicalize the Israeli left, and harm the Zionist goal of a Jewish state.”

Space does not permit extended refutation of Pipes’s litany of warnings. Suffice it to say that the Trump administration, through Friedman, has already signaled its approval of the Israeli plan; Democratic Party opposition is irrelevant; the Middle East, with bigger fish to fry, is unlikely to be destabilized; the Israeli left is too marginalized for concern; the Zionist goal of Jewish statehood would be enhanced with the Israeli embrace of Jewish communities in biblical Judea and Samaria; and, Friedman acknowledged, Palestinians would finally have their own state.

Perhaps there is an even better solution. Since Jordan was part of Palestine a century ago—and nearly half the Jordanian population may be of Palestinian origin—why not confer Jordanian citizenship on West Bank Palestinians, who will not be uprooted by Israeli annexation of Jewish settlements? 

Palestinians would remain at home in Palestine; and Israel would embrace Jewish settlements in its biblical homeland. Obama’s loyal followers surely would be disappointed, but their misguided vision deserves consignment to oblivion.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Fit to Print: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel, 1896-2016, chosen by Ruth Wisse and Martin Kramer for Mosaic as a Best Book for 2019.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Don’t Reward States’ Bad Decisions

There’s a good reason Florida doesn’t need a bailout, while Illinois and New York do.

By Rick Scott

Wall Street Journal  April 27, 2020

Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks about Covid-19 in Albany, N.Y., April 22.

Congress has taken significant action over the past two months to address the unprecedented economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

We’ve pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the health-care system, significantly boosted unemployment insurance that directly helps those who have lost their jobs, created a loan program to help small businesses, and provided funding to reimburse states and local governments for coronavirus-related expenses.

There’s more Congress can do, but one thing we absolutely shouldn’t do is shield states from the consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over the past few decades.

The debate began last week when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point plainly. “There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side,” he said, “to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations.”

Democrats predictably expressed outrage. They claim that refusing to support hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for state and local governments amounts to telling police officers, firefighters and schoolteachers to “drop dead,” as New York’s Rep. Max Rose put it on the House floor. That kind of rhetoric only distracts from Democrats’ true aim: using federal taxpayer dollars to bail out poorly run states—typically, states controlled by Democrats.

When I became Florida’s governor in 2011, we had a huge budget shortfall and had lost 832,000 jobs in four years. I had to make tough choices. We cut taxes every year—more than $10 billion over my eight years in office—and saw revenues increase every year. The state went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs over four years to adding almost 1.7 million in eight. We turned a $2.5 billion budget shortfall into a $4 billion surplus, with $3 billion a year in the rainy-day fund.

Florida’s pension system was funded at 83.9% when I left office, and for the first time in state history all three credit-rating agencies rated the state’s general-obligation bond at AAA. Compare that to states like Illinois, California and New Jersey, whose pension systems are funded at 38.4%, 68.9% and 35.8%, respectively, despite significantly higher taxes.

Florida is well-positioned to address the coming shortfall in revenue without a bailout. The state may need to make some choices, which is what grown-ups do in tough economic times. And if we need to borrow a small amount in the short term to get us through this economic crisis, that borrowing will be cheaper thanks to our AAA bond rating and the reduction in state debt.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said it was “irresponsible” and “reckless” not to bail out states like his, a state with two million fewer people than Florida and a budget almost double the size of ours. The opposite is true. It’s irresponsible and reckless to take money from America’s taxpayers and use it to save liberal politicians from the consequences of their poor choices.

American families make responsible budgetary decisions every day. Well-managed states like Florida have done it for years. It’s time for New York, Illinois and California to do the same.

Mr. Scott, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Another Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Retreat

The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun Rights

The Court majority cowers to Senate Democratic threats.

By Wall Street Journal Editorial Board,  April 27, 2020 

Richmond, Virginia USA / January, 20, 2020 : Pro Second Amendment Gun Rights Rally on the grounds of the Virginia State Capitol

Plus:  Politically incorrect comment by Jerome S. Kaufman
see below

What an enormous abdication! The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.

A large crowd gathers on a Gun Lobby Day in front of the Virginia State Capitol building in Richmond, VA, U.S. January 20, 2020. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith – RC2TJE9F3FGS

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, (In law, a per curiam decision is an opinion is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges)

The Chief joined the four liberals and a (conflicted) Justice Brett Kavanaugh (following in Roberts frightened footsteps) in declaring moot a challenge to New York City’s onerous gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York).

 At issue is a New York City rule that prevents residents with gun licenses from transporting their guns from their city homes to shooting ranges and homes outside the city. Obtaining even a “premises” license requires a $431 fee and police investigation into an applicant’s mental health, criminal history and moral character. It can take six months. (More DiBlasio Left Wing un-American, self-destructive behavior)

After the High Court accepted the case, the city revised its ban to let the plaintiffs tote their guns (locked and unloaded) “directly” between residences and other permitted destinations. The state Legislature passed a similar law. Case moot, New York politicians declared.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democrats also weighed in with an amicus brief threatening the Justices if they didn’t follow their orders to drop the case. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”

The majority buckled and ignored previous rulings to do it. As Justice Alito writes, the Court’s precedents hold that “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” 

Plaintiffs want to transport their firearms without worrying about getting arrested if they stop somewhere along the way. The city even admitted in oral arguments that it’s unclear whether this is allowed. Justice Alito says this and more make the rule’s violation of the Second Amendment “not a close call.”

On the mootness point, Justice Alito also pokes his colleagues with this hypothetical: “A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. 

After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit?” You know the answer.

Justice Kavanaugh’s role here is curious because, while he joined the majority on mootness, he wrote a concurrence agreeing with the dissent on the Second Amendment merits. This looks to us as if he is trying to protect the Chief Justice from being the fifth vote, and the sole “conservative,” providing a liberal victory while making clear he’s still a solid vote himself for gun rights. The phrase for this is too clever by half.

Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate. 

The Court hasn’t taken a Second Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of Rights, a second-class freedom.

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” Justice Alito warns. He’s right but too polite.

The Chief Justice is carving out a reputation as a highly political Justice whose views on the law can be coerced with threats to the Court’s “independence.” The danger for the Court is that, in bending to these threats, the Chief is compromising the very independence he claims to want to protect.

(The mystery is of what exactly is Justice John Roberts afraid? Are the Democrats going to take away his license, are they going to disbar him, are they going to throw him off the Supreme Court whose justices were, with brilliant prescience, given lifetime appointments by the founding fathers or is the Left, G-d forbid, going to assassinate him?

And, by the way, I have, from the bottom of my heart, believed they did exactly that to the great Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a huge thorn in the side of the power hungry Left and they shamelessly performed a masterful stroke by assassinating him. 

Unfortunately there is a long history of unexplained deaths in the political advancement of some unduly elected prominent Democrats.  And  … that Scalia death occurring while he was virtually all alone and unprotected on a ranch in the wilderness of Texas. For some reason, other than supposed family objections that cannot apply in cases of this sort, it was never investigated — no autopsy, no second medical or legal opinions, no nothing — All magically swept under the rug) 

Maybe we can get Attorney General Wm. Barr to re-open that mysterious case, too? It could be another badly needed epiphany as to real political life in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Child of Holocaust survivor demonized?

“Snitches Get Rewards”

By Elaine Rosenberg Miller

Times of Israel April 21, 2020

For the first time in my life, I have directly experienced anti-Semitism.

I am American born, grew up in safe, secure neighborhoods of Brooklyn, NY, went to public schools, college, graduate schools.

I have worked as an attorney and journalist, fully participating in the American dialogue.

And, now, because of my political opinions (Republican, pro-Trump) I have been marginalized and demonized.

I was recently accused of having views “colored by the Holocaust”.

Say what?

I was told that because I am a descendant of Jewish Holocaust survivors, I had biases and those biases prevented me from accepting my accuser’s point of view, i.e., that Trump was a racist Nazi. (I am still trying to figure out what he meant.)

The truth is, it’s not the logic or the words that are at issue (either his or mine). It’s the fact that I support President Trump. In his mind, that entitles him to insult, demean and degrade me. He seems to believe that he can achieve his goal of changing my mind “by any means necessary” and, if his criticism chills my freedom of expression, so be it. (It won’t.)

Who’s your fascist now? It’s almost mid-2020.

Nearly four years of efforts by his political opponents  (Kavanaugh, Russia, Ukraine, impeachment) have failed to oust Trump. As a result, they have ramped up their efforts and expanded their scope.

When an Oscar winning actor delivered an obscenity-laden anti-Trump rant at the Tony awards, it was seen as an oddity.

It is no longer uncommon.

Broadcasters attend Trump’s new conferences and insult and mock him to his face.

The Speaker of the House rips up his State of the Union speech as the cameras record her gesture.

Journalists and celebrities have now added personal threats against Trump supporters.

If you are pro-Trump, according to them, you are deserving of the worst invectives. and if you are a Jew, a member of one of the nation’s smallest minorities why then, there are additional grounds for attack.  

Ever since Trump’s election, Jews have been the object of his opponents’ particular wrath. Representative Illan Omar’s (D-Minn) “dual loyalty” calumny went unsanctioned by House Speaker Pelosi.  Bernie Sanders (D-VT), presidential candidate embraced BDS promotor, Linda Sansour. Representative. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wrapped herself in the Palestinian flag.

The “trickle down” tactic of attacking individuals who support Trump in writings, social media and public settings must be opposed.

Somnambulant, peaceful, Trump supporters must wake up and realize that they are the focus of an incessant efforts to dismantle our civil liberties, (“Snitches get rewards,” Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles), destabilize our economy and allow totalitarian takeover.

How do I know this?

Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day.

And yes, my views are colored by the Holocaust.

I value human life and protection of minority rights.

There is no negotiating with tyrants.

That is my parents’ legacy.


Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including JUDISCHE RUNDSCHAU, THE BANGALORE REVIEW, THE FORWARD, THE HUFFINGTON POST and THE JEWISH PRESS.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

The Great Rebellion — The World’s Deadliest Religion

Posturing as enlightened and moral, leftism actually amounts to a bizarre cult.

Redacted from article by David Kupelian

Whistleblower Magazine Feb. 2020

The Left Cult is defined as:

  • Journalists who condemn you as “racist” for referring to the Chinese or Wuhan coronavirus. 
  • Men who swear they are women. 
  • A presidential primary contest between a perpetually enraged old communist and a corrupt, excruciatingly senile politician who lies constantly. 
  • Giddy legislators high-fiving each other after legalizing abortion at 40 weeks – which is to say, legalizing infanticide. 
  • A political party obsessed with eliminating America’s borders, protecting criminals and dismantling law enforcement.

Normal decent Americans increasingly describe today’s Democratic Party – and the far-left worldview that has possessed it – using terms like “madness,” “delusion” and “derangement.”

But there’s a much deeper, more illuminating and ultimately more useful way to look at what is cryptically known as “the left.” Leftism is, in fact, a religion. That’s right. Whether one calls it “leftism,” “Marxism,” “progressivism,” “identity politics” or “wokeness,” a bizarre and dangerous religious movement has infected the Democratic Party, not to mention America’s colleges and universities and other key institutions.

Though its madness is overwhelming and corrupting much of America, the religion of leftism is almost never seriously explored in depth. However, thoughtful commentators do occasionally point out some striking parallels Other conservatives have pointed out the same thing – that the modern phenomenon of Americans killing their babies, one every 30 seconds, for Pastor Robert Jeffress, part of President Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Board, recently said of today’s Democrats: “Apparently the god they worship is the pagan god of the Old Testament, Moloch, who allowed for child sacrifice.

”This sake of having a “better life” is strikingly parallel to the ancient practice of sacrificing newborn children to pagan gods like Moloch in return for supposed blessings and prosperity.

Even Attorney General William Barr, during his November speech to the Federalist Society, said: “In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursuing a deific end.”

Highlights of “THE WORLD’S DEADLIEST RELIGION” include:

“The great rebellion: How the strange religion of leftism has made converts of millions of Americans” by David Kupelian

But those brief comments are just the tip of the iceberg. “THE WORLD’S DEADLIEST RELIGION” issue of Whistleblower reveals from every angle exactly how leftism is not only a full-fledged religion – but also the world’s most dangerous.

“‘Progressives treat politics as their religion’” by U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr, who says the left’s holy mission is “to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image”

“’Not afraid of burning in hell’: Ron Reagan atheist ad airs in Dem debate” by Joe Kovacs, in which Rush Limbaugh explains: ‘It may be one of the most perfect ad placements in the history of advertising!’

“Today’s abortion culture imitates ancient child sacrifice to Moloch” by Jerry Newcombe, who notes that God said through Moses, “Now choose life, so that you and your children may live”

“Chelsea Clinton celebrates modern-day child sacrifice” by David Kupelian, on how the ancient pagan “sacrifice of the child was to assure a blessing of prosperity for the family”

“Leftism as a secular religion” by Dennis Prager, on how the progressives’ alternative gospel serves as “a secular meaning-giver to supplant Christianity”

“‘Anti-racism’ is a false religion. Just ask the victims of Muslim rape gangs in Britain” by John Zmirak

“Absurd ‘abortion is moral’ claim makes America like godless China” by Laura Hollis, on how Planned Parenthood’s recent “lies of breathtaking scope” rival those of the world’s abortion capital

“Guess what religion inspired the ‘sexual freedom’ movement” by David Kupelian

“The rise of global green religion: How the radical environmental movement has subverted America” by Henry Lamb

“Abortion extremism: The left’s secular sacrament” by David Limbaugh, on how “pro-choice” forces are finally daring to reveal their true intentions

“The left-right divide is about reality itself” by Dennis Prager, highlighting how half of Americans cannot distinguish truth from falsehood

“Survey confirms previous research: Left-wingers more prone to mental illness” by David Kupelian

“’Christian’ agnosticism and trendy nihilism” by Hanne Nabintu Herland, on the real reason some church leaders have recently rejected their faith

“Why so many Gen Zers are atheists” by Dr. Michael Brown, who exhorts church leaders: “Don’t cheapen the message; deepen the message.”

As Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian comments: “Contrary to the Christian’s trust in God for divine help in this life and eternal joy in the next, those on the socialist left are totally obsessed with creating paradise right now, here on earth. 

But since their values and morality are so far removed from reality – in fact, they continually violate the Ten Commandments – the ‘heaven on earth’ they create always ends up looking a lot more like hell.

“Remember, leftwing idealists, who as a rule see themselves as more moral and virtuous than the rest of mankind,” says Kupelian, “were directly responsible for the deaths of well over 100 million men, women and children during the last century, the bloodiest in human history.

“This issue of Whistleblower is at:

To join Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Trump’s Guidelines to Reopen Economy Put Onus on Governors

White House Outlines Three Phases to Restart Economy

Redacted from article by Andrew Restuccia and Catherine Lucey

Wall Street Journal  April 16, 2020

WASHINGTON—President Trump outlined broad new federal guidelines for opening up the country that will put the onus on governors to decide how to restart the economies in their states amid mounting fallout from the coronavirus outbreak.

The new guidelines come as lawmakers and business leaders press the administration to expand virus testing, and days after Mr. Trump said that he—not governors—was the final arbiter on when to reopen the country.

“America wants to be open, and Americans want to be open,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday, adding later, “We must have a working economy, and we want to get it back very, very quickly.”

We are not opening all at once, but one careful step at a time,” Mr. Trump said.

The guidelines don’t suggest specific reopening dates. Instead, they encourage states to base their decisions on data. The White House’s plan says states should move to the first phase of reopening after exhibiting a downward trend of documented cases or positive tests over a two-week period. States could move onto the other stages after showing that cases aren’t surging.

Under the first phase, movie theaters, restaurants, sports venues, places of worship, gyms and other venues could open with strict social-distancing guidelines in place, though bars would stay closed. Schools and day-care centers that are closed would remain shuttered. The plan recommends that vulnerable individuals remain at home during the first phase, and prohibits visits to nursing homes and hospitals. Some people could return to work in phases, though telework is still encouraged under the plan.

In the second phase, nonessential travel could resume and bars could open with some restrictions. Schools and youth activities could reopen. Vulnerable individuals would still be told to stay home and visits to nursing homes and hospitals would still be barred. Telework would continue to be encouraged.

For phase three, there would be no restrictions on workplaces and vulnerable people could resume social interactions, but should seek to follow social distancing. Visits to hospitals and nursing homes could resume, and bars could increase their standing-room capacity.

The president said some states with few cases could proceed to the first phase as early as Friday if they meet the criteria. He declined to name any specific states, deferring to governors, but said there are as many as 29 states that could soon begin the process of opening.

But officials stressed that the virus could make a comeback in some states. “There may be some setbacks. Let’s face it,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the administration’s top infectious-disease expert, cautioned. “We may have to pull back a little, and then go forward.”

The president told governors during a videoconference earlier Thursday that they will make the final decision on opening their states.“You’re going to call your own shots,” 

Mr. Trump praised the guidelines and said he wanted to get the country running again. He told the governors that some states were in “good shape” to open quickly, even before May 1 if they want, though other states may need to take longer.

He also said the country’s testing capabilities are excellent, adding that the testing process has improved from early versions that involved sticking a swab into the nasal cavity.

Mr. Trump said the new guidelines have been approved by the administration’s public-health advisers, including Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus coordinator, and Dr. Fauci.

Some states have already extended restrictions past April 30. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said Thursday that nonessential businesses in his state would remain closed at least through May 15.

Mr. Cuomo is part of a coalition of East Coast governors consulting each other on coronavirus guidelines. A similar group exists on the West Coast, and a bipartisan group of seven Midwestern governors said Thursday it would do the same.

In a news briefing after the call with Mr. Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said a task force he created to plan for a reopening would meet for the first time on Friday, and he hopes to announce a plan within a week.

Public-health experts, including some in the Trump administration, have warned that reopening the country too soon could prompt a second wave of coronavirus cases, undercut ongoing mitigation efforts and overwhelm the health-care system. Dr. Fauci said this week that the country lacked the testing and virus-tracing capabilities needed to reopen. Some business executives raised similar concerns during a teleconference with Mr. Trump on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump held phone briefings on Thursday with House and Senate lawmakers. The White House announced a coronavirus advisory group made up of elected officials, part of a broader task force of more than 200 business executives that Mr. Trump established this week.

The bipartisan group includes all Republican members of the Senate, except Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted to convict Mr. Trump in the impeachment trial in February. Twelve Senate Democrats will serve on the committee, alongside 32 House members—22 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

Mr. Trump is eager to reopen the country as soon as possible, according to White House officials, who are closely tracking the ailing economy. Another 5.2 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, bringing the total seeking aid in a month of coronavirus-related shutdowns to 22 million.

—Michael C. Bender, Natalie Andrews and Sabrina Siddiqui contributed to this article.

To join Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Emperor Joseph’s Solution to Coronavirus

Wall Street Journal April 7, 2020

Here we are 300 years later fighting the same Muslim Invasion!

Only this time, much more perilous with the invasion also coming from within the USA as naive Americans wallow in denial)

A portrait of Joseph I (1678-1711), Holy Roman Emperor.

Before modern medicine, the Habsburg monarchy kept epidemics at bay for more than a century and a half.

As countries around the world frantically erect barriers against the spread of the novel coronavirus, it might be helpful to look at one of the most successful quarantine systems ever created. 

Redacted from an article by A. Wess Mitchell and Charles Ingrao

Wall Street Journal  April 7, 2020

In 1710 Emperor Joseph I decided to block the chronic spread of diseases from the Balkans by creating a continuous “sanitary cordon” along the Habsburg monarchy’s southern frontier with the Ottoman Empire. 

His action failed to save him; he died of smallpox in April 1711 after he huddled with his prime minister, who was unaware that his daughter had just contracted the disease. No one then knew much about “social distancing.” Nonetheless, the empire’s sanitary cordon outlived him by a century and a half.

The system Joseph created had several strengths. In an age when most international borders were defined only by overlapping feudal jurisdictions, the Habsburg-Ottoman frontier was a visibly delineated thousand-mile line of rivers, mountain peaks and border markers posted by a bilateral peace commission. 

It was already a military zone with extensive fortresses and army garrisons, which not only defended against Turkish raids but enforced customs and the processing of Christian refugees fleeing Ottoman rule.

A sense of the scale of this operation can be seen by comparing it with the American border today. Whereas we rely on 21,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents stretched tenuously across the long Mexican and Canadian frontiers, as many as 100,000 fierce, colorfully clad Serb and Croat infantrymen were available to guard a southern Habsburg border zone that was typically dozens of miles deep.

By the middle of the 18th century, 2,000 fortified watchtowers stood every half mile, punctuated by 19 border crossings with facilities that registered, housed and isolated everyone entering for at least 21 days before granting them passports to enter the empire’s territory

Until 1881 the Habsburg Military Frontier played many roles, acting as a barrier to illegal immigration, an early warning system against Ottoman raids, and a source of superb irregulars to fight Austria’s wars. 

The reasons for the cordon’s demise would be recognizable in our own time. It was assaulted by both liberals (because it impeded trade) and nationalists in Hungary and Croatia (because it gave control of the border to the government in Vienna). After the empire split into Austrian and Hungarian halves, Hungary abolished the institution.

The Habsburg experience holds insights for our time. One is the need to foresee rather than react to threats. Another is that physical space matters in fighting epidemics. Hard as it is to swallow for Western publics habituated to globalization, well-regulated, rational borders contribute substantially to the public good. 

Early critics of the Trump administration’s travel restrictions failed to appreciate the urgent medical rationale. As Anthony Fauci testified to Congress, no public-health strategy can contain a contagion already inside the country without stopping the influx of new carriers.

Another is that epidemics are not only about public health; they are also about geopolitics. For the Habsburg authorities, their management was also a security issue.. In the aftermath of this crisis, the West must strike the right balance in a trade relationship that involves less reliance on Chinese supply chains.

Mr. Mitchell served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, 2017-19, and is author of “The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire.” Mr. Ingrao is a professor emeritus of history at Purdue University and author of “The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815.”

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Outside of President Trump, Attorney General William Barr is public enemy number one for the Left.

 US Israel news and articles

During a speech at the 2020 National Religious Broadcasters Convention

Democrats and fake news media members want Barr gone.

But William Barr drew this line in the sand. One Trump enemy is running for their lives.

During a speech at the 2020 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, Attorney General William Barr took on one of the drivers for Christian persecution in America – the fake news media.

In previous speeches Attorney General Barr took on secular liberals that threatened to stamp out the values that made America great.

During Barr’s remarks before the Religious Broadcasters, Barr ripped the fake news for their single-minded bias against Christians in America.

“Today in the United States, the corporate – or ‘mainstream’ – press is massively consolidated,” Barr told the crowd. “And it has become remarkably monolithic in viewpoint, at the same time that an increasing number of journalists see themselves less as objective reporters of the facts, and more as agents of change. 

These developments have given the press an unprecedented ability to mobilize a broad segment of the public on a national scale and direct that opinion in a particular direction.”

Barr warned that one of the biggest dangers to democracy is a biased press whipping up a vengeful majority that threatened to run roughshod over their opponents.

“When the entire press ‘advances along the same track,’ as Tocqueville put it, the relationship between the press and the energized majority becomes mutually reinforcing,” the Attorney General added. “Not only does it become easier for the press to mobilize a majority, but the mobilized majority becomes more powerful and overweening with the press as its ally. 

This is not a positive cycle, and I think it is fair to say that it puts the press’ role as a breakwater for the tyranny of the majority in jeopardy. The key to restoring the press in that vital role is to cultivate a greater diversity of voices in the media.”

No group of Americans has been under greater attack in recent years than Christian believers. In 2007, Pew Research found that just eight percent of so-called “journalists” attended a religious service weekly.

This disparity explains why on major issues facing Christian Americans, the fake news media cheerleads for causes such as the homosexual agenda that come into direct conflict with religious liberty.

Liberal bureaucrats and judges in blue states that punish Christian florists, bakers, and photographers that decline to participate in homosexual marriages because of their deeply held and sincere religious beliefs were only made possible because the media designated these Christians as bigots whose beliefs did not represent a legitimate interest worthy of respect.

Evangelical Christians continually stand by Donald Trump despite whatever personal issues he may have because they know that Donald Trump and his administration are the only thing standing between them and the secular left looking to flex all of their political, cultural, legal, and financial muscles to banish Christians from exercising their religious beliefs from all aspects of American life save for one hour on Sunday.

American Patriot Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Ease pressure on Iran! I cannot believe President Trump will be that naive! Of course, he has been with North Korea. (jsk)

Iran’s known Nuclear Facilities

Zionist Org. of America  opposes Waiving or Easing Nuclear and Financial Sanctions on Iran

On ZOA web page – Jan. 13, 2015, file photo released by the Iranian President’s Office, President Hassan Rouhani visits the Bushehr nuclear power plant just outside of Bushehr, Iran. Iran announced Tuesday it would inject uranium gas into 1,044 centrifuges it previously kept empty under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. (AP Photo/Iranian Presidency Office, Mohammad Berno, File)

Redacted article from ZOA:

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein and ZOA Chairman Mark Levenson, Esq. released the following statement:

The ZOA strongly opposes the administration’s renewal on Monday, of waivers of certain nuclear sanctions on Iran.  The renewal allows Russian, European and Chinese companies to continue to work on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power station, Arak heavy water plant and Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor, for another 60 days – at a time when Iran has dramatically and perilously ramped up its nuclear activities.  

Iranian leaders’ actions demonstrate that their real goal is to obtain more funds for its nuclear program and terror activities, instead of to help ill Iranians.  Iran continues to reject U.S. and other real offers of humanitarian assistance.

The Trump administration has repeatedly stated that its humanitarian assistance offers to the Iranian people still stand, and confirmed that sanctions do not impede such assistance.  See, e.g., Sec’y Pompeo’s Nowruz message: “our offer still stands to send humanitarian and medical assistance to the people of Iran.”   

Secretary Pompeo also pointed out on Tuesday that the U.S. is providing humanitarian assistance to Iran indirectly through American taxpayers’ enormous contributions to NGOs, including over $400 million last year to the World Health Organization, and over $700 million last year to UNICEF, which is engaged in emergency actions in China and Iran and dozens of other countries. 

Iranian leaders’ actions demonstrate that their real goal is to obtain more funds for its nuclear program and terror activities, instead of to help ill Iranians.  Iran continues to reject U.S. and other real offers of humanitarian assistance.  

Iran even revoked permission for Médecins Sans Frontieres (MSF or Doctors Without Borders) to send a 50-bed treatment hospital and medical team to Iran’s hardest-hit area.  Iran absurdly claimed that MSF doctors were American and Israeli spies, and that MSF planned to examine Iranian patients to design another virus or drug targeted to only harm Iranians.

While Iranians are falling ill, the Iranian regime continues to direct substantial resources towards escalating its perilous nuclear activities.  

Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium already exceeded the allowable 202.8 kg (300 kg of UF6 – uranium hexoflouride) in July 2019.  The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) March 3, 2020 quarterly report concluded that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile skyrocketed during the past 3 months, to 1020.9 kg (1510 kg of UF6) on February 19, 2020.  That’s five times the allowable stockpile.  

The IAEA report also concluded that Iran has “manufacture[d] centrifuges . . . for activities beyond those specified in the JCPOA [Iran deal]” (¶C.3.24); that Iran’s stock of heavy water exceeds the allowable cap (¶C.1.10); and that the IAEA “has detected natural uranium particles of anthropogenic origin [man-made activity, such as enrichment or weapons activity] in Iran not declared to the Agency” (¶E.32).  

An FDD analysis indicates that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei controls businesses and assets confiscated in 1979 worth $300 billion.  These funds should be used for the Iranian people’s benefit. 

ZOA thus urges the Trump administration to ignore media outlets who have joined the Iranian regime’s ploy of using the coronavirus as a pretext for demanding funding for Iran’s terror and nuclear activities.   The New York Times editorial last week entitled “This Coronavirus Crisis Is the Time to Ease Sanctions on Iran,” which demanded immediately providing Iran with $5 billion of (fungible) IMF funding, would increase funding for Iran’s terror and nuclear operations.  

The New York Times further demanded that all assistance to Iran must be “no strings attached” – thus enabling the Iranian regime to continue to mercilessly hold innocent Americans in its prisons, attack our troops in Iraq, expand its illicit nuclear activities, and foment terror throughout the region, all with impunity.  Let’s not fall for this.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

For those, like me, stuck in the house bored to death because:

The golf course is closed

Movies closed

Walking around the block not that exciting

Eating out an unnecessary risk

The library closed

Sitting still reading a book — never an option for me

Watching old golf matches, old tennis matches, wrestling matches. soccer

Octagon fighting for men and women to determine who could kill the other before the pre-occupied referee remembered to step in. 

Watch awful TV shows like the Kardashians, old movies, situation comedies, preachers, animal movies, kids stuff

All between endless painful commercials

Getting reports on the news as to how many died from COVID-19 each hour.

And, most destructive: Inability to hurt the feelings of  the refrigerator by ignoring it over 30 minutes and already gaining 3 pounds in 2 days.


Charles Krauthammer giving an amazing address both in content and delivery forecasting exactly what is happening today, 5 years later  and how to avoid the national outhouse that I have referred to before.  It takes 45 minutes but absolutely well worth your time.

Then if you want a quick pick-up:  watch the great Johnny Carson interview an amazing, delightful 7 year old named Drew Barrymore who stole the show in about 9 minutes

Finally if you don’t like these shows and believe I cheated you, . please let me know and as my Dad would promise,  ” I will buy you  a cigar”

Jerome S. Kaufman

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Coronavirus and Big-Government Contagion

As usual, Kimberley A. Strassel calls the supposed Coronavirus appropriation for what it is – a giant pork spending bill having little to do with the virus but guaranteed to put the whole nation into the outhouse with impossible debt — just as Bernie Sanders and the DEMOCRAT/Socialist party have wanted all along. jsk

Big-Government Contagion

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wall Street Journal  March 26, 2020


Potomac Watch: Appropriators throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the virus—and at everything else.

The Senate did something good passing a bill to inject liquidity into a virus-ravaged economy. It also did something dangerous, requiring the public to be on guard.

Members of Congress are pointing out the many parts of society aided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, styled the Cares Act. Checks for American families. Some $377 billion for small business. Help for air carriers and other industries. Money for hospitals.

Missing from their list is an important category, which underlines an inescapable fact: Government mostly “Cares” for government. Bills that hand out money are written by appropriators. And appropriators never miss an opportunity to expand departments, agencies, bureaus and commissions. A rough calculation suggests the single biggest recipient of taxpayer dollars in this legislation—far in excess of $600 billion—is government itself. This legislation may prove the biggest one-day expansion of government power ever.

Some of this money is required. Washington and the states are devoting significant resources to the virus response, and the bill earmarks funds for many specific and warranted purposes. A great deal of cash is going to frontline agencies—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill sends money to the Bureau of Prisons, to help control the virus’s spread among inmates; to the IRS for an extended tax-filing season; to the Transportation Security Administration “for cleaning and sanitization at checkpoints.” Are the amounts a bit excessive? No doubt. But let’s not quibble.

More concerning is the extent to which Democrats used the bill to tighten every fiber of the social safety net. Put aside the $260 billion for unemployment benefits, potentially necessary in light of record jobless claims. The bill throws $25 billion more at food stamps and child nutrition; $12 billion at housing; $3.5 billion to states for child care; $32 billion at education; $900 million at low-income heating assistance; $50 million at legal services for the poor and so on. This is a massive expansion of the welfare state, seemingly with no regard to the actual length of this crisis.

There’s also the money appropriators threw at government for no purpose other than the throwing. Every outpost gets dollars, most for nothing more than the general command “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” NASA gets $60 million. Has the virus infected the sun’s corona? The National Archives gets $8 million. Will it put the virus on display? Many departments get cash for research, regardless of their relevance to today’s medical crisis. Perhaps the Energy Department will use its additional $99 million in “science” to gauge how the virus responds in a nuclear reactor.

Then there’s the outright pork. The Forest Service gets $3 million for “forest and rangeland research,” $27 million for “capital improvement and maintenance,” and $7 million for wildfire management. The bill shovels $75 million to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, $25 million to the Kennedy Center, an odd $78,000 “payment” to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. A water project in central Utah gets $500,000. Appropriators can sneak a lot into 880 pages.

The bill sends $150 billion to state governments, on top of the dollars for unemployment, health care and education. Some of this money will be used to backstop local governments struggling with virus response, or with the economic consequences of the shutdown. But for all the Democratic demands of oversight on the bill’s business loans, the state dollars have no real strings attached. Should a locality choose to use its dollars to create new nonsensical business regulations, so be it.

Republicans waved much of this through, viewing it as the Democratic price for urgently needed business liquidity. But they should understand the left has every intention of making these spending levels the new normal, long after this virus has passed and  long after the economy is recovering, Democrats will cry foul at any cut. Should they win the presidency or the Senate this fall, the chances of rolling any of this back fall even further.

The bill’s real failure is that it makes no distinctions between temporary and permanent expansion of government. The state has a role in short-term crises, and lawmakers have an obligation to allocate the resources to respond. But Democrats successfully exploited the crisis to expand the power of government overall—perhaps for the long term. That’s especially perverse, given it was government that imposed the restrictions that shut down the economy, necessitating this rescue bill in the first place.

The Trump administration and GOP lawmakers should have been making this distinction all along, and they’d be wise to start reassuring voters immediately of their intent to rationalize the system once the urgent moment passes. Coronavirus has done enough damage. We don’t need it to also become the excuse for a permanent government power grab.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Hurray! Even Editor John Podhoretz, resolute Trump-hater, gives the President a back-handed compliment.

The Two-State Something

Redacted from article by John Podhoretz, Editor 



The 12 Tribes of Israel over 3000 years before Muhammed even born!.

The logic of the Trump-administration plan for Israel and the Palestinians and its designers is to slice through two decades of stasis by means of a radical alteration in the role of the United States as one of the players in the so-called peace process.

Since the Oslo accords in 1993 effectively created a negotiating partner for Israel by incepting a “Palestinian Authority” led by Yasser Arafat, the American approach was to propose various trust-building and confidence-building measures. They were explicitly designed as precursors, as ways of smoothing the rocky road to a final deal that would be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

That strategy was wish-based, not fact-based. It assumed that the difficulty in settling the existential row between the two parties was based in misunderstandings and suspicions that could be calmed by mediated behavior. 

That can work when the ultimate aim of both sides is a deal. But even then, such measures are not really necessary since the two sides basically have the same goal. They didn’t. Israel demonstrated its willingness to fulfill the 1947 notion of two states living side by side—not so their interlocutors. 

The Palestinians didn’t need confidence-building. What they seemed to have confidence in was the idea that Israel’s acquiescence to international demands marked it as a paper tiger. Their long-expressed hope of pushing the Jews into the sea was within reach.

Over the decades, the Palestinians have never come to the table with a plan of their own, or any plan, only lists of grievances, jaw-dropping claims that Jews have no ancestral history in Jerusalem, and finger-wagging demands that their beloved terrorist Jew-killers be released from Israeli jails.

The Israelis offered Palestinians a state twice in 2000. The Palestinians answered those offers with terrorism, hate-filled propaganda, and war. The hope of optimistic Israelis that there could be a favorable resolution of this intractable problem exploded like a suicide vest.

In the two decades since the second intifada began, there has been only one half-serious, half-ludicrous proposal—made in 2008 in secret by the unpopular, unelected, and bribery-tarnished accidental prime minister, Ehud Olmert. The Olmert plan was rejected on spurious grounds by the Palestinian Authority’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas. When he came into office in 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu immediately offered to move to final-status negotiations with the Palestinians, only to be rebuffed—and there matters have lain dormant.

Donald Trump came into office promising the “deal of the century,” and his administration’s approach is inventive. No confidence-building. No “it’s not up to us to shape the ultimate arrangement.” It’s a full-blown plan that lays out the geography of the two states, including a mammoth tunnel connecting Gaza and the West Bank. 

It ends the weird fiction that Israel could ever surrender neighborhoods, some half a century old, because they sit on supposedly “occupied” land—land that was never under any nation’s modern sovereignty.

And, most dramatically, it basically challenges the Palestinians to take it or leave it. They have four years to come to the table, at which point the deal is dead and the Israelis are (in American eyes) free to do what they want. 

The outrage with which the plan has been received in certain quarters ignores the central question: Why not try this? Nothing else has worked. Cut the Gordian knot. Bite the bond that won’t burst. See what happens.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Gantz and Blue/White Party in Israel have only one goal- Destroy Bibi Netanyahu

Caroline Glick: How Blue and White Israeli Party undermines liberty and the rule of law

March 22, 2020

Amid a global pandemic, the threat of war with Iran and economic collapse, Israel’s Blue and White Party is dead set on bringing Netanyahu down—even if it means taking Israel down with him.

Redacted from an article By Caroline Glick, Jewish News Service (JNS)

If Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz forms a minority government with Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party and the Labor-Meretz Party, based on the outside support of the Joint Arab List, Gantz’s success will torpedo Israel’s relations with the United States.

This week, a senior official who was present during Gantz’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in late January revealed: “Gantz committed in the Oval Office that, if he became prime minister, he would form a government of people that would support the president’s peace deal.”

The Trump peace plan includes applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. Labor-Meretz and the Joint Arab List are both violently opposed to the Trump plan. A Gantz government that includes them will be a government that is hostile to the Trump plan.

The only way for Gantz to keep the promise he made to Trump is to join a coalition government led by Netanyahu with Likud and its right-religious coalition partners. And that is an option that Gantz and his partners in the Blue and White “cockpit”—fellow former Israel Defense Forces chiefs of staff Moshe Ya’alon and Gabi Ashkenazi and former media star Yair Lapid—will not support.

They are working feverishly to cobble together a radical government with the post-Zionists in Labor-Meretz and the anti-Zionists in the Joint List. All of which will be hard-pressed to work with the Trump administration.

What can explain Gantz’s irresponsible behavior?

Did he lie to Trump—and the Israeli public—because he and his colleagues are secretly radical leftists who seek power to undermine everything Israel stands for? They wouldn’t be the first leftist politicians to do so

Gantz’s willingness to effectively surrender Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria to win the parliamentary support of politicians that seek Israel’s destruction as a Jewish state—shared by his partners in the Blue and White leadership—seems to indicate that they are rabid post-Zionists.

Gantz and his colleagues present themselves as champions of the rule of law and democracy, which, they insist, Netanyahu is destroying.

But consider their actions: Presently, Blue and White is viciously attacking Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein for refusing to convene the Knesset’s Arrangements Committee, which is responsible for convening the rest of the Knesset committees. They insist that in doing so, Edelstein is colluding with Netanyahu to destroy Israeli democracy. 

But as Simcha Rothman from the Movement for Governability and Democracy explained in Israel Hayom on Thursday, it is Blue and White that is blocking the Arrangements Committee from convening.

Breaking the rules to achieve one goal

The Knesset rules provide that membership in the committee is determined by the size of each party. The parties in the Knesset receive one member in the committee for every four members in their Knesset faction. Under the prevailing rules, the blocs working with Netanyahu and Gantz would have equal representation in the committee.

Blue and White and Yisrael Beitienu have submitted bills explicitly directed towards achieving one goal: Preventing Netanyahu—and only Netanyahu—from forming a government. These bills, if passed, would overturn Israel’s rule of law twice.

Then there is Iran. As the coronavirus rages through Iran, experts warn that the risk of an Iranian strike against Israel rises with the death toll. The theology of Iran’s ruling clerics holds that the Shi’ite messiah, the Mahdi, is supposed to return at the end of days. To hasten his arrival, Iran’s ayatollahs believe that they need to start Armageddon.

Which brings us back to Washington: Three weeks ago, I traveled to Washington to speak on a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)—the largest conservative gathering in America. Most of the discussions were related to U.S. domestic issues, but Israel is so important to U.S. conservatives that organizers chose to hold a panel devoted to Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

There were no calls for the partition of Jerusalem and the expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria either on the panel or from the audience. On the contrary, the sentiment shared by the audience and the panelists alike was that Israel should assert its sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria wherever it deems necessary.

This salutary state of affairs will be turned on its head if the Democrats win the presidency in November. In that event, Israel will find itself under assault from a hostile president who heads a party hostile to Israel.

To read complete article:



Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Subject:ACTION ALERT: Restaurant Rescue Package

Subject:ACTION ALERT: Restaurant Rescue Package

Congress is looking to pass a broad economic rescue package that the Trump administration estimates will be around $1.3 trillion.  We need your help to ensure restaurant relief is properly addressed in this package.     

Economic forecasts indicate restaurants and the foodservice industry could sustain $225 billion in losses and eliminate 5-7 million jobs over the next three months. By taking action, you will tell your personalized story about how this has negatively impacted you, your employees, and your industry and call on President Trump and Congress for their support of the National Restaurant Association restaurant recovery plan.  This plan provides direct and targeted relief designed to benefit restaurant and foodservice businesses of every size in every corner of the country.  

It will provide:

  • direct relief from a new restaurant recovery fund
  • community grants for disaster relief assistance
  • guaranteed loans and business interruption insurance
  • lost revenue coverage from the government
  • expand access to efficient and affordable loans
  • special disaster unemployment assistance for workers
  • tax breaks to help your cash flow
  • a fix to the QIP tax glitch
  • and more.

Please take a few moments to participate in this vital grassroots mobilization effort.  We need Congress to act—and act fast. Click here to take action:


  Stacy RoofPresident & CEOKentucky Restaurant Associationwww.kyra.orgP 502-400-3736F 502-896-0465C 502-931-5420 

Stop Tax Label-page-0



Powered by Facebook Comments

Saying “No” to the Muslim Invasion of Europe

(And to the United States and Canada if we choose to open our eyes)

March 8, 2020

Muslim Invasion of Europe

By Janet Levy

The inundation of Europe with Muslim migrants intent on permanent settlement is unprecedented in world history.  Europe, which has accepted vast numbers of the migrants, has become an epicenter of Islamic terrorism replete with alarming levels of migrant crime, including Muslim sex slave gangs and sharia-controlled “no-go” zones.

Faced with this reality, four Central European countries — Hungary, Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia — have adamantly refused to accept Muslim refugees, earning criticism from the European community and prosecution by the European Court of Justice.

But now, with Turkey threatening to open its border and inundate Greece with thousands more Muslim refugees, the European community appears to have paused in its ongoing acceptance of migrants and pledged to protect Greece’s border.  It illustrates the threat that has existed from the beginning from the mass movement of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa.

Some view the migration as a “humanitarian crisis” and call critics “xenophobes” or “racists” who lack compassion.  Others question the motivation for the sudden refugee onslaught and ask why Europe must shoulder responsibility and absorb the mass exodus when proximate, affluent Muslim countries have not offered assistance.  

They see, instead, a planned invasion or hijra, a 1,400-year-old Islamic doctrine modeled after Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina.  It is designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for total Islamization, in this case, of all Europe.  

It began in 1990, when the U.N. high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) established a liaison with the European Union (E.U.) and its executive branch, the European Commission (E.C.), to monitor the asylum and migration process.  This led to resolutions and recommendations on refugee policies by the European Council, heads of state of E.U. member-nations that determine overall E.U. political priorities. 

In 2015, E.C. president Jean-Claude Juncker unveiled a proposal to redistribute Muslim refugees flooding Europe to all E.U. member-states.  The European Council followed with a plan that gave refugees the right to settle in E.U. member-states based on each country’s economic and demographic circumstances.  

All were required to participate, with substantial fines to be imposed against countries that rejected refugees. 

The E.C. edict was particularly problematic for the Visegrád (V4) countries — Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia, four Central European countries with a combined population of 64 million, constituting the fifth largest economy in Europe.  

Unlike the rest of Europe, they had only recently recovered their sovereignty after suffering under the Iron Curtain and resisted delegating power to a central authority.  They balked at the E.U. refugee resettlement policy, unwilling to jeopardize national security and their cultural and religious traditions.  

The V4 countries clearly identified the stark reality facing the continent.  They recognized that the asylum-seekers were infiltrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups, included refugees resistant to assimilation, and represented a drain on national resources.  The countries preferred to provide aid to migrants in or near their countries of origin.

Polish leader Dominik Tarczynski affirmatively stated that Poland would not accept a single Muslim illegal migrant.  He proudly points to his country’s record of safety — not one Islamic terrorist attack.  Tarczynski has compared Muslim immigrants to Polish immigrants, pointing out that “zero Poles” have blown themselves up in any country in the world for their religion or out of hatred.  Deflecting charges of “racism” and “nationalism,” he defends his policy that has protected his countrymen.  For this, he has been vilified by E.U. leadership.

Tarczynski acknowledges that Poland has taken in two million Christian Ukrainians, but he defends himself against charges of “Islamophobia” by plainly stating that Poland chooses to be a Christian country free of the problems facing the rest of Europe struggling with Muslim migration.  

His country is not responsible for conflicts in Syria or Iraq, he has said, and has pointed out that wealthy Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, well equipped to accept Muslim refugees, do nothing to help their co-religionists. 

Government officials from Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia have all adopted similar restrictions. 

Current V4 leader and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has maintained that the “refugee crisis” is a well funded, well organized invasion and that NGOs are serving as human-smuggling groups.  

According to Orbán, Hungarian intelligence discovered that 95% of the migrants were military-age men in military-style group movements.  Few are innocent women and children who suddenly appear when the media are present.  

Orbán has financed a “Hungary Helps Project,” which provides aid directly to churches and charities to assist migrants to remain in their own countries.  The funds are earmarked for persecuted Christians, a population typically ignored by other governments and the media.

For the past five years, the V4 have remained at the forefront of an effort to stem massive Muslim migration into Europe.  They have collectively refused to accept any compulsory long-term refugee resettlement quotas set by the E.U. and notably remain virtually unaffected in a continent rife with Islamic terrorist attacks and sharia-compliant no-go zones.

In 2017, the European Commission took Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and charged them with breaking E.U. law by refusing to accept asylum-seekers under the E.U.’s mandatory migration quotas.  

The three countries were criticized for reaping the benefits of the union while failing to meet their humanitarian and political responsibilities.  The ECJ denied that legitimate security concerns existed and cited legal obligations to follow E.U. policies.

Leaders in Hungary, Poland, and Czechia responded that their security and cultural cohesion were threatened by the E.U.’s refugee plan and denied that legal grounds existed to impose such quotas.  The ECJ will rule on the matter later this year.

So it stood until just recently, when Turkey opened its border to Greece and threatened Europe with the arrival of several million refugees.  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president, threatened the invasion following the E.U.’s lack of support for Turkey’s military incursion into northern Syria.  

Thousands of so-called asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, and several East African countries have traveled to the Turkish border in recent days.  

President Erdoğan has gone so far as to make a formal announcement about the open border and supply buses and maps to facilitate the latest crossings, despite a 2016 agreement with the E.U. to prevent refugees from illegally entering Europe.  

Greek authorities claim that Turkish soldiers have used wire-cutters to open the borders and that Turkish police have provided the “refugees” with tear gas canisters to be used against Greek police blocking their passage.  

Reports from Greece also allege that freed prisoners have been escorted to the E.U. border in Turkish police cars and that Turkey has deployed 1,000 policemen to halt any pushback of migrants. 

All this has sorely tested the E.U.’s tolerance for the migrant problem, and government officials are condemning the onslaught.  They have agreed to help Greece and mobilize a Frontex force to protect the border.  

Suddenly, the Greek border is a European border, and the E.U. is expressing solidarity with the rest of the continent and a willingness to mobilize the necessary operational support to fortify the defensive actions of the Greek authorities.

It remains to be seen if this new development represents a volte face of the E.U.’s 2015 policy on refugee resettlement or is a temporary moratorium to slow the tide of migrants into Europe.  It certainly lends credence to the Visegrád Group’s characterization of Muslim migration as an invasion and a serious threat to Europe’s way of life. 

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

No Jews on Temple Mount! Arab List makes demands in exchange for backing Gantz for Prime Minister

(Exactly what Rabbi Meir Kahane warned against 50 years ago and he was ostracized by ignorant, delusional, intimidated Israelis and Jews who have always had a problem facing the ugly truth) jsk

March 10, 2020


Joint Arab List members Ahmad Tibi (r) Ayman Odeh (c) and Mansour Abbas (l) (Flash90)

By David Isaac, World Israel News

The Arab Joint List is feeling its oats.

After a preliminary meeting on Monday with Benny Gantz, the Arab party which won 15 Knesset seats in the last election, has a list of demands in exchange for throwing its support behind the Blue and White leader for Israel’s premiership.

Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh listed some of them on Tuesday in a live Facebook event, Arutz 7 reports. They include an end to Jewish visits to the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, and no unilateral steps linked to the Trump administration’s peace plan, dubbed the ‘deal of the century.’

Odeh also said that half of Israel’s capital should be given over for the capital of a future Palestinian state. But he said the party would refrain from pushing that demand at present.

“We have a clear position on the issue of the al-Aqsa mosque. We want to see the cessation of all visits of extremist settlers to the mosque,” he said. Arutz 7 reports that by “extremist settlers” Odeh meant all Jews.

“This is something that [began] during the Netanyahu era, and we want the status quo to be restored. Al-Aqsa is a Muslim place of worship, and east Jerusalem should be the capital city of the Palestinian state. We will be focusing on the issue of al-Aqsa at the present stage [of negotiations],” Odeh said.

The Joint List chairman also demanded that in exchange for his party’s support, Gantz would not take any unilateral steps as laid out in the Trump administration’s peace plan.

According to the plan, Israel would be able to annex the Jordan Valley and some 30 percent of Judea and Samaria – this before any demands are to be made of Israel, a break from past peace proposals which put the burden for concessions on the Jewish State.

Gantz, visiting the White House during the election campaign, told President Donald Trump that he supports the plan.

Odeh also said, “We can’t just say, ‘cancel the Kaminitz law’ and let them go and bomb Gaza, or move forward on this ‘deal of the century.’”

Odeh was referring to earlier reports that the Joint List would focus its demands on domestic issues important to the Arab sector. One of them is the cancellation of the Kaminitz Law, which was passed to combat illegal construction through stronger enforcement of planning and building laws.

The Kaminitz Law particularly impacts Arab towns, which tend to ignore Israeli construction laws and zoning regulations when building.

The Joint List also reportedly was going to demand more action to curb the high rate of violence in Arab population centers. According to one report, Israel’s Arab population accounts for 80 percent of the illegal firearms in the country.

According to Arutz 7, Odeh said that the Joint List “would not agree to a piecemeal agreement with Gantz’s party, but would demand a comprehensive series of understandings.”

Meir Kahane American rabbi


Meir David HaKohen Kahane was an Israeli-American ordained Orthodox rabbi, writer, and ultra-nationalist politician who served one term in Israel’s Knesset. His legacy continues to influence militant and far-right political groups active today in Israel.

In 1988, after polls showed Kahane gaining popularity, the Israeli government banned Kahane for being “racist” and “anti-democratic” under the terms of a law that it had just passed. Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel by an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen in November 1990.

Dec 31, 2000 – His son, Binyamin Zeev Kahane, 34, and his wife, Talia, 31, of Kfar Tapuah were killed when Palestinian snipers opened fire while they were driving home from Jerusalem.

Ephesians 6:11 – Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Bernie Sanders hosts Palestinian Arab War Dance in Dearborn, MI” / Twitter

Enough said!

Opening Jihadi act at Bernie Sanders’ Dearborn, Michigan rally Dance troop performed in Palestinian war scarfs, keffiyeh, the new Swastikas Communists like Sanders have formed a dangerous alliance w/ Jihadists to destroy America from within – this is known as the Red/Green Axis



Powered by Facebook Comments

Bernie Sanders as a ‘Jewish’ President?

Not so! Please don’t blame us.


(Sanders is Jewish by birth only. He has become an apostate Jew – one who deliberately discards his own heritage and instead attacks it in every way possible, attempting to prove he is, in fact, not Jewish) jsk

Redacted from an article by Jerold S. Auerbach

The Jewish News Service (JNS), February 26, 2020

Bernie Sanders may become the first Jewish president of the United States. But what does being a Jew mean to him?

Sanders’s youthful Jewish credentials are impeccable. Born to Jewish immigrants from Poland, he grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he saw people with numbers tattooed on their arms. Members of his father’s family were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. He developed a strong emotional feeling that “we have got to do everything we can to end this kind of horrific racism and anti-Semitism.”

After college graduation Sanders spent several months on kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim in northern Israel. There he “saw and experienced … many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded.” In turn, he urged “progressives to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of displacement and persecution.” He subsequently described himself as “proudly Jewish.”

Relocating to Vermont and entering the political arena in a state with a tiny Jewish population, his once enthusiastic embrace of Israel evaporated over time, replaced by unrelenting criticism. 

As early as 1988 he expressed his belief that “it is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel.” In a Haaretz interview, he stated his wish that the United States would exert more pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestinian conflict.

A decade later, he was the only Jewish member of the U.S. House of Representatives to dissent from a resolution holding Palestinians responsible for suicide bombings and extreme violence during the five years of the Second Intifada (2000-05), when nearly 1,000 Israelis were murdered. 

He subsequently voted against a resolution supporting Israel’s security barrier, built after waves of Palestinian terrorist attacks. He was one of 21 senators who declined to endorse a resolution of support for Israel during the Gaza war in 2014. In a newspaper interview two years later, he asserted that Israel had killed “more than 10,000 innocent people” during “Operation Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip—a number five times higher than even Hamas claimed.

Sanders’s vitriol towards Israel began to boil over once Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister. At first merely accusing him of “reactionary policies,” the senator eventually descended into depths of loathing. He would not support the “right-wing, racist government” in Israel, he declared in April 2019. 

At the J Street Conference last October, he claimed: “It is not anti-Semitism to say that the Netanyahu government has been racist; it is a fact.” At a Democratic debate in December, he reiterated: “We must understand that right now in Israel we have leadership under Netanyahu … who, in my view, is a racist.”

Sanders supports the establishment of a Palestinian state in pre-1967 borders, removing biblical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) from Israeli control. Jewish settlements, now home to more than 400,000 Israelis, would vanish because, Sanders claims, they are illegal according to “international law and multiple United Nations resolutions.”

That is flagrantly incorrect. International law dating back a century to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine guaranteed to Jews the right of “close settlement” throughout “Palestine,” defined as comprising land east and west of the Jordan River. British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill gifted the land east of the River to King Abdullah; there was no restriction on the right of Jewish settlement west of the River.

All of this raises the question whether American Jews should anticipate with elation or foreboding the prospect of Bernie Sanders as their first Jewish president. For assimilated Jews of a liberal persuasion who are as critical of Israel as Sanders, his election doubtlessly would be cause for celebration. 

But for American Jews who embrace and defend Israel, a Sanders presidency is likely to elicit sour memories of former President Barack Obama, whose disdain for the Jewish state remains a conspicuous legacy of his White House tenure. Based on his own statements, Sanders is likely to compete with his Democratic predecessor for recognition as Israel’s most unrelenting presidential critic since the birth of the Jewish state.

The American presidents who have been most generous in their support for Israel have been Harry S. Truman, the first world leader to recognize the birth of Israel, and Donald Trump, who has announced Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, relocated the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and indicated his intention to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria—the biblical homeland of the Jewish people stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

If elected, Bernie Sanders surely would not follow in their footsteps.

Sanders could likely surpass Obama as the U.S. president who would be most remembered by Jews for his hostility to the State of Israel.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of “Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896-2016,” which was recently selected for Mosaic by Ruth Wisse and Martin Kramer as a “Best Book” for 2019.

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

The Jew/Israel Hatred re-configuration of the West

US Political News and Analysis 

Redacted from an article by the brilliant, prescient Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan (2006)

The real cause of the descent into anti-Zionism and hatred of Jews is secular liberalism, and the cultural fissure that has opened up along fault lines going back to the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Jewish News Service (JNS) February 27, 2020 

The annual parade in Aalst, Belgium, last Sunday turned into a carnival of monstrous Jew-hatred. Participants portrayed Jews as insects topped with fur shtreimel (tall ethnic hats) and peyot (side hair locks). Others were dressed in Nazi uniforms, among other vicious Jewish caricatures, libels and insults.

The mayor of Aalst defended the carnival on the basis that it mocked Christians and Asians, too. He thus showed no understanding of the difference between vulgar mockery and the murderously dehumanizing, historical phenomenon of anti-Semitism.

On Monday, the European Jewish Association revealed the results of a survey of 16,000 Europeans from 16 countries. One-fifth of them believed that a secret network of Jews influences global political and economic affairs. The same number agreed that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own needs,” and one-quarter agreed that Israel’s policies make them understand why some people hate Jews.

In the United States, more than 50 Jewish community centers in 23 states have received emailed bomb threats within the past week.

There have been repeated attacks on ultra-Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn. There have been synagogue murders in Pittsburgh and Poway, and widespread bullying of Jewish students on college campuses. Members of “the Squad” of freshman congresswomen have made venomously anti-Israel or anti-Jewish statements.

Bernie Sanders (along with many other far Left Democrats) who is currently the frontrunner to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, purposely did not attend the AIPAC conference because he claims it provides a platform for leaders expressing “bigotry” and opposition to “basic Palestinian rights.”

In Britain, anti-Semitic incidents rose last year to an unprecedented high, marking the fourth successive year of record-breaking figures. In France, 12 Jews have been murdered since 2003 just because they were Jews, while anti-Semitic attacks soared by more than 75 percent last year and the year before. In Germany, anti-Semitic incidents are similarly rising with a murderous attack last Yom Kippur on the synagogue in Halle.

While anti-Jewish attacks are coming from the far-right, the left and the Muslim community, the greatest threat comes from the “progressive” (It is always amazing to me the way the Left has found a way to distort word definitions) side of politics.

This is because its worldview overwhelmingly dominates Western cultural and political institutions; it harbors profound anti-Jewish views within its own ranks; and its cultural reach means that its own anti-Jewish incitement legitimizes and encourages far-right anti-Semitic attitudes that were once treated as beyond the pale.

And this is all inextricably tied up with hatred of Israel, and the entirely false but widespread belief that the Jews have displaced the indigenous people of the land and behave illegally and with wanton cruelty towards the Palestinian remnant.

From these lies and libels flows the surreal irrationality of the anti-Israel discourse that has so shockingly become the signature cause of the Western progressive.

The obvious reasons for this include the takeover of progressivism by Marxism, the collapse of education into anti-Western propaganda, and the rise of identity politics and intersectionality. This has created an ignorant and brainwashed cohort of young people who have provided the groundswell for Sanders or Britain’s (now defeated) Jeremy Corbyn.

This week, the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs published a book of essays called Israelophobia and the West: the Hijacking of Civil Discourse on Israel and How to Rescue It. The book provides a thoughtful analysis of the nexus between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, where legitimate criticism of Israel stops and demonization starts, and the fundamental challenge to Israel from the left.

It assumes that the lies can and should be countered by a better application of reason. This, though, misses the critical point: that both anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism constitute an irrational belief, akin to a cult, and are therefore impervious to facts and argument.

This is understood by French sociology professor Shmuel Trigano. In the most astute essay in the JCPA’s book, he correctly says we are “entering a new age of Jew-hatred,” which cannot be argued with but must instead be fought.

The onslaught against Israel and Zionism, French sociology professor Shmuel Trigano points out, is part of the left’s broader reconfiguration of the West. Anti-Zionism, he says, is the creature of post-modernism and its satellite orthodoxies: post-colonialism, multiculturalism and gender doctrine, all of which are involved in “deconstructing” Western society.

As he writes, criminalizing the identity of the Jews as a people in the State of Israel is part of the European postmodernists’ war against their own cultures and nation-states. But even that still doesn’t explain this eruption of obsessive, primitive Jew-hatred.

For it’s not just that anti-Zionism is the contemporary mutation of anti-Semitism. The old, un-mutated anti-Semitism is still there: the open hatred of Jews as Jews. The question is why this has been allowed to roar once again into a cultural conflagration.

Populism is not in itself an extremist movement (although some bits undoubtedly are). It is rather a response to the extremism that has overtaken the entire progressive movement, and which represents the idea of the West as intrinsically evil and sinful.

Bernie Sanders and Brit Corbyn, who are both undoubtedly extreme, are not the cause of the phenomenon, but the product of a broad cultural shift. When Bernie Sanders called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a reactionary racist” in Tuesday’s Democratic presidential candidates’ debate, the audience broke into applause.

The real cause of the descent into anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist hatred is secular liberalism, and the cultural fissure that has opened up along fault lines stretching back to the 18th-century Enlightenment.

This proclaimed the death of God and the enthronement instead of the autonomous individual freed from biblical moral codes. This led to the destruction of hierarchies of values without which there can be no morality, the replacement of duty by man-made and highly contingent human rights, and the collapse of truth and reason.

Better advocacy for Israel, necessary as that is, will not address this anti-Jewish derangement syndrome, That’s because what is driving it is the repudiation of the Jewish precepts of morality and justice that are at the heart of the Christian West.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for “The Times of London,” her personal and political memoir, “Guardian Angel,” has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, “The Legacy,” in 2018. Her work can be found at:

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

No wonder most Jews don’t vote for Trump. They receive double Fake News.

I had the misfortune of running across a copy of the Jewish Journal which advertises itself as the “Largest Jewish Newspaper in the Nation.”

By Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor Israel Commentary

Briefly, Here is what I found in the Feb 19, 2020. This edition is distributed to Palm Beach Central.

page 4 – AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Comm. apologizes for two Facebook ads calling some DEMS “radicals” pushing ‘anti-Semitic’ anti-Israel policies.  And, of course, that is exactly what Democrats Reps. Rashida Tlaib of MI, Ilhan Omar of MN and Betty McCollum of MN do. 

AIPAC was forced to apologize for this obvious truth by pressure within the Left wing Democrat Jewish community, acting, as usual, against their own self-interests.

Page 7  Jewish Groups brings lawsuit against President Trump’s Executive order imposing a freeze on immigration from certain countries until such time as better screening for possible terrorists is in place. Nine of the countries were Arab nations from which the majority of Islamic terrorism incidents occurred in the United States and throughout the world.

Page 9 – Article praising the work of the ADL (Anti Defamation League) against White Supremacists, which is all well and good but ADL, with a large budget, does no work against Islamic Terrorism. Many American political analysts feel calculated Islamic invasion of this country is a far greater threat to our way of life.

Page 22  Then, the piece de resistance article:

Two politicians produce a dead-end peace plan

By Rabbi Bruce Warhal

Commentary in Italics – Jerome S. Kaufman

(At this point, reading the Jewish Journal, I got really excited. I thought ‘Oh good the rabbi is going to write about the peace plan of Mahmoud Abbas (whose PhD thesis was based upon Holocaust denial and former PM Ehud Olmert, whose chief accomplishment was being the disgraced ex-Israeli prime minister released July 2, 2017 from prison after serving 16 months of a 27-month sentence for fraud and bribery.)

No such luck! The rabbi was writing totally negative things about the PM Netanyahu and President Trump, two huge friends of Jews and Israel, Peace plan. Incidentally, the  vast majority of Israelis consider President Trump the best US president they have ever had! President Trump’s Israel approval rating is 71%.) jsk

(Back to the Rabbi’s article)

Trump’s (or Jared’s) Israeli-Palestinian peace plan arrived one month before elections in Israel and during Trump’s impeachment trial. It’s obviously a political ploy for both Netanyahu and Trump. In Thomas Friedman’s pithy words, it’s a “diversion for two dirty leaders.”

(Somehow, this Rabbi considers Tom Friedman, a notoriously anti-Israel writer, a legitimate political commentator)

Witness the ceremony at the White House: According to Reuters, “The atmosphere felt more like a celebratory Mar-a-Lago gathering, bringing together really good friends, rather than the usual somber, staid event one might have otherwise expected at a Middle East peace plan rollout.” 

(It was indeed a “celebration” of Israel’s genuine friends, not enemies, celebrating the fact that President Trump had made Israel an exponentially safer place to live and eliminated any possibility of a, guaranteed to be, terrorist state in its very back yard)

The Palestinians were not invited. Netanyahu was in attendance as well as Trump’s buddies: Sheldon Adelson, who contributed $20 million to Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, who made a fool of himself at Trump’s impeachment trial. (the Rabbi’s bizarre tainted opinion) Everyone present applauded Trump.

Let’s look at the actual plan. You can read the 181 pages on the Internet, but the first 40 pages really describe the whole plan. The following 12 bullets provide an overview:

•All Israeli settlements remain in the West Bank.  (Great!)

•There will be no new settlements during the next four years so that the Palestinians have time to respond to Trump’s plan. But this is a distortion. Read the wording on page 38: no new settlements in the land apportioned to the Palestinians, but in the portion annexed to Israel, new settlements will continue to pour hundreds of thousands of Jews into the West Bank. Great!

Based on security considerations, Israel will annex the Jordan Valley contiguous to the Hashemite Kingdom. Contrary to Israeli conventional wisdom, this is not needed. Modern early warning systems can detect military buildups as far as 50 miles away. Land acquisitions are not necessary for security, unless you want to isolate a Palestinian state.

(That is a total lie. There is  no such thing as a true warning system that would be effective with your sworn enemy a block away. Land acquisitions are absolutely necessary for security and growth. That is exactly why Syria, Iran, Iraq, China, the Kurds, the Russians, the UK are vying and dying for every small piece of territory they can gain or retain)

•The plan envisions a Palestinian “state” fully surrounded by Israel, with no access to any other country. Israel would have complete control of its borders. That’s a South African Bantustan, not a real country.  Great!

•No Hamas member or its surrogates can be part of the Palestinian negotiating team, which must be a “body acceptable to Israel.” No negotiations until Hamas is wiped out of Gaza. (page 10). Serious leaders know that you must deal with enemies to achieve peace, and you can’t pick who your enemies are. Hamas is here and they’re not going away. This provision alone kills the whole “peace plan.”  (Great!)

•Palestinians want the right of return of their refugees to Israel, which they know they won’t get, but at least they would want the right to repatriate their refugees to their new state. But page 33 gives Israel the right to determine how many Palestinians can return to their country – an outrageous provision.  

(The Palestine “Right of Return” is a farce consisting of 3 or more generations of Arabs that have never seen Israel and were deliberately kept in “refugee” camps for over 60 years as an ultimate source of terrorists against Israel. All this occurred while Israel re-settled over one million Jewish refugees from Arab states where they had lived as dhimmis, second class citizens, since the Roman Conquest of 70 AD and the Spanish Inquisition of 1492 plus plenty of pogroms in between) jsk

•The maps attached to the plan indicate that the Palestinian state would be a group of non-contiguous pieces of land connected by bridges and tunnels. This is a country?  (I hope not)

•“Security challenges make the building of a port in Gaza problematical in the foreseeable future” (page 27). If such a port would be built, it “will be used only for cargo ships.” This means that Israel would continue to determine who enters or leaves the Palestinian state. Palestinian territorial waters would also be under Israeli sovereignty. (page 13) (Perfect)

•Only after five years following the signing of the peace agreement, could the Palestinians build an airport limited to small aircrafts. (page 29) This further freezes contact with the outside world.  (Great)

•The biggest human rights sin: At the suggestion of Netanyahu, the plan provides that the Israeli Arab cities and villages in “The Triangle” (a part of Israel that would be on the border of the new Palestinian state) would be transferred out of Israel into Palestine. This means that more than 200,000 Arab Israeli citizens would be thrown out of their own country.   

(Much more charitable than the 600,000 Jews that were thrown out of Arab countries in which they had lived as second class citizens for hundreds if not thousands of years) jsk

•Jerusalem remains totally in Israel. The plan denies the Muslim world symbolic sovereignty over the Temple Mount, where the holy Al Aqsa mosque is located. 

(The Al Aqsa Mosque was deliberately built by the Arabs over the ancient Hebrew Temple and the Arabs have been trying unsuccessfully to destroy all signs that the Biblilcal Hebrew Temple built over 2000 years before so-called Palestinian Arabs ever existed.  Unfortunately, The outer Western Wall of the biblical Temple is all that is left at which Jews pray but new archeological evidence of Hebrew domination is found every day.

•Israel would have the right to determine the contents of the Palestinian constitution, their school texts, and the structures of their financial institutions. (page 34). 

(Nor true but a good idea. The Palestinians have been teaching Israeli and Jew hatred to their children from birth with their first diapers fashioned as suicide vests and their school yards training grounds for future terrorists)

Obviously, it is not a serious or doable peace plan. It remains to be seen whether it will help Netanyahu on March 2 in the Israeli elections. For Trump, it was his pitch to American Jewry to entice Jewish votes next November.

It also remains to be seen whether the Jewish establishment in this country is wise enough to repudiate this fraudulent peace plan. 

Au Contraire: It remains to be seen if American Jewry will finally wake up, vote in American and Jewish and Israeli self interests and help in far greater numbers to re-elect President Donald Trump)

Rabbi Bruce Warshal’s article also appeared in the Florida Sun Sentinel, a like-minded Fake News paper that matches up nicely with NY Times. Wash. Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of anti-Trump Fake Media

Jerome S. Kaufman, Publisher/Editor

Israel Commentary

To join:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)




Powered by Facebook Comments

Black Americans have forgotten it was the Republican Party with Abe Lincoln that took them out of slavery.

US Political News and Analysis  


By Fergus M. Bordewich 

Abraham Lincoln did not act alone, and very often did not act as boldly as his strongest Republican supporters would have liked.

Redacted from a more detailed excellent review of the book 

By David S. Reynolds

Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15-16, 2020

In the beginning, Republicans stood far to the left of Democrats on most issues. Founded in 1854 as an antislavery political organization, the Republican Party made a strong bid for the presidency just two years later, when John C. Frémont ran against proslavery Democrat James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore of the soon-to-expire Whig party. 

In 1860 the Republicans gained victory with the election of Abraham Lincoln, which prompted the secession of 11 Democratic-controlled slave states. Lincoln’s election was accompanied by a Republican sweep of both houses of Congress, thanks in part to Southern Democrats defecting to the Confederacy.

During the subsequent four years of civil war, Lincoln was urged on by radical Republicans in Congress, ardently antislavery politicians who opened the way for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship to African-Americans and gave voting rights to black males. 

So-called revisionist historians of that period looked back on the early radical Republicans as fanatical agitators who had allegedly caused a needless war (over abolishing slavery) followed by a nightmarish racial reversal during Reconstruction. 

In his splendid “Congress at War,” the seasoned historian Fergus Bordewich demonstrates that congressional Republican Radicals succeeded not only in forcefully challenging slavery but also in strengthening federal support for infrastructure, public education and financial stability. 

Lincoln had the opportunity to work with a Congress controlled by his own party. But the outbreak of civil war in April 1861 created an unprecedented emergency that demanded the president’s unilateral action. Faced with a fractured nation, Lincoln increased the size of the regular armed forces, twice called up militia volunteers, imposed a naval blockade on Southern ports and suspended habeas corpus in certain regions—all without Congress’s approval.

Congress followed up with legislation supporting Lincoln’s goal of winning the war through vigorous government action. But early battlefield losses—at Bull Run, Ball’s Bluff and elsewhere—shattered the Union’s expectations of a short, easy war. Appalled by the lackluster showing of Union generals, congressional Republicans formed the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War to serve as a watchdog of the Union military.

… In no area was the Republican Congress more active than in dealing with slavery. Mr. Bordewich skillfully describes the continuing congressional effort to abolish the institution. He places particular emphasis on the leadership of two Republican senators, Benjamin Wade of Ohio and William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, and the Pennsylvania representative Thaddeus Stevens. 

These and other forward-thinking Republicans directed the political antislavery movement. Mr. Bordewich traces the congressional strategizing behind the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, which awarded freedom to blacks who fled behind Union lines. He registers the drumbeat of emancipation, from the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia through its termination under the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln’s approach to the politics of slavery was nuanced. He loathed slavery, and he believed that the Founders had envisaged its ultimate extinction. But, in conducting the war, he had to keep in mind five slave states that had remained in the Union instead of joining the Confederacy—Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and what is now known as West Virginia. 

Had Lincoln insisted on the immediate abolition of slavery, he might well have driven away one or more of these states, thereby weakening the North’s chances in the war. “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game,” he wrote in 1861. “Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland.”

As it turned out, uprooting slavery required a cataclysmic war, the deaths of 750,000 Americans and the cliffhanger passage of the 13th Amendment. 

Many individuals were involved in the antislavery battle—radical Republicans, socially minded vigilantes, slave rescuers, Union officers and their troops and, behind all, the firm-principled Lincoln. These and other Americans, as Mr. Bordewich and Ms. Keith remind us, only by working in tandem finally succeeded in defeating slavery—the greatest moral victory the nation has yet achieved.

—Mr. Reynolds, who teaches at the CUNY Graduate Center, is the author of “John Brown, Abolitionist,” “Walt Whitman’s America” and other books. His next book, “Abe: Abraham Lincoln in His Times,” will appear in October.

To join Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

History has Shown That Socialism Isn’t the Cure (rather the disease)

 US Political News and Analysis  

Long overdue redacted wake-up call from the brilliant Victor Davis Hanson

The Washington Times

November 11, 2019 

(I started to make bold certain paragraphs of this article but I soon realized that the whole article should be in bold. 

Dr. Hanson is speaking directly to all of us – regardless of your socio-economic status.  So, read it as if your own butt is on the line – because it is) Jerome S. Kaufman

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail. Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal Communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Venezuela are unfree, poor, and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the post-war Middle East.

The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.

In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.

So why, then, are virtually all the Democratic presidential contenders —  either overtly or implicitly – running on socialist agendas in one form or another. 

Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), and Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?

Why do polls show that a majority of American Millennials have a favorable view of socialism?

There are lots of catalysts for the new socialism.

Massive immigration is changing the demography of the United States. The number of foreign-born U.S. residents and their children has been estimated at almost 60 million, or about 1 in 5 U.S. residents. Some 27 percent of California residents were born outside of America.

Many of these immigrants flee from poor areas of Latin America, Mexico, Africa, and Asia that were wrecked by statism and socialism. Often, they arrive in the U.S. unaware of economic and political alternatives to state socialism.

When they reach the U.S. — often without marketable skills and unable to speak English — many assume that America will simply offer a far better version of the statism from which they fled. Consequently, many take for granted that government will provide them an array of social services, and they become supportive of progressive socialism.

Another culprit for the new socialist craze is the strange leftward drift of the very wealthy in Silicon Valley, in corporate America, and on Wall Street. Some of the new progressive rich feel guilty about their unprecedented wealth. So they champion redistribution as the sort of medieval penance that alleviates guilt.

Yet the influential and monied classes usually are so well off that higher taxes hardly affect them. Instead, redistributionist taxation hurts the struggling middle classes.

In California, it became hip for wealthy leftists to promote socialism from their Malibu, Menlo Park, or Mill Valley enclaves — while still living as privileged capitalists. Meanwhile, it proved nearly impossible for the middle classes of Stockton and Bakersfield to cope with the reality of crushing taxes and terrible social services.

From 2008 to 2017, the now-multimillionaire Barack Obama, first as candidate and then as president, used all sorts of cool socialist slogans, from “spread the wealth around” and “now is not the time to profit” to “you didn’t build that” and “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Universities bear much of the blame. Their manipulation of the federal government to guarantee student loans empowered them to jack up college costs without any accountability. Liberal college administrators and faculty did not care much when graduates left campus poorly educated and unable to market their expensive degrees.

More than 45 million borrowers now struggle with nearly $1.6 trillion in collective student debt, with climbing interest. That indebtedness has delayed — or ended — the traditional forces that encourage conservatism and traditionalism, such as getting married, having children and buying a home.

Instead, a generation of single, childless, and mostly urban youth feels cheated that their high-priced degrees did not earn them competitive salaries. Millions of embittered college graduates will never be able to pay off what they owe — and want some entity to pay off their debts.

In paradoxical fashion, teenagers were considered savvy adults who were mature enough to take on gargantuan loans. But they were also treated like fragile preteens who were warned that the world outside their campus sanctuaries was downright mean, sexist, racist, homophobic, and unfair.

Finally, doctrinaire Republicans for decades mouthed orthodoxies of free rather than fair trade. They embraced the idea of creative destruction of industries, but without worrying about the real-life consequences for the unemployed in the hollowed out red-state interior.

Add up a lost generation of woke and broke college graduates, waves of impoverished immigrants without much knowledge of American economic traditions, wealthy advocates of boutique socialism, and asleep-at-the-wheel Republicans, and it becomes clear why historically destructive socialism is suddenly seen as cool.

Regrettably, sometimes the naïve and disaffected must relearn that their pie-in-the sky socialist medicine is far worse than the perceived malady of inequality.

And unfortunately, when socialists gain power, they don’t destroy just themselves. They usually take everyone else down with them as well.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and the author, most recently, of The Case for Trump. @vdhanson

 To join Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Buttigieg wants to be President of the US but can’t even run South Bend, Indiana!

US Political News and Analysis     

Pete Buttigieg and ‘Virtuous Capitalism’

I Redacted from an article by James Freeman

Wall Street Journal Feb. 12, 2020

  Mayor Pete Is the Man to Beat

So why don’t his rivals press him on the specifics of his record in South Bend?

II Redacted from an article By William McGurn


“Even as Pete Buttigieg savors a second-place finish just shy of a win in New Hampshire’s presidential primary, the road ahead looks much more challenging,” reports the Journal’s John McCormick. Voters may be wondering if the former mayor’s economic policy would be even more challenging for America than it’s been for South Bend, Indiana

Rounding out the eight-year Buttigieg era of mediocrity, the South Bend area posted a higher unemployment rate in December than other Indiana locales including Elkhart, Evansville, Fort Wayne and Indianapolis.

Mr. Buttigieg’s presidential agenda could be even less conducive to job growth than the policies he pursued as mayor. 

…Twenty years ago, the young Peter Buttigieg won a prize for an essay lauding America’s most famous Marxist. Wrote Mr. Buttigieg:

Americans who treasure their lives and their liberty can only hope that communism will remain a dirty word. Freedom-loving voters have noticed that even as a relative moderate in the current Democratic field, Mr. Buttigieg is backing multi-trillion-dollar tax increases, the creation of a new government-run health plan, the end of the Electoral College and a restructuring of the Supreme Court among other “progressive” changes.

But perhaps he’s not willing to go full Bernie. Those hoping that Mr. Buttigieg no longer admires unapologetic declarations of socialism may be comforted by a 2005 piece he co-authored for the center-left Truman National Security Project. The future Mayor Buttigieg co-wrote a call for a regulated economy, not an open economy. But at least he acknowledged that some sort of market should exist:

We believe that a free and fair market is the best system for creating and distributing wealth—and that our economy functions best when its members create wealth virtuously and conscientiously. Profits and principles are not mutually exclusive. And prosperity does not require exploiting workers, deceiving the public, or eroding resources. 

 Democrats understand that injustice will undermine growth, and think our society works best when opportunity can be actualized and resentment is dissolved in hope. Thus, we support discrete policies such as labor rights and workers’ protections out of our belief in the value of mutual responsibility to our fellow Americans.

II  Mayor Pete Is the Man to Beat

So why don’t his rivals press him on the specifics of his record in South Bend?

Redacted from an article By William McGurn

Wall Street Journal Feb 11, 2020

Opinion: Mayor Pete’s South Bend Record Catches Up With Him

As Pete Buttigieg’s popularity has increased in the Democratic primaries, so too have the number of attacks on his record as mayor of South Bend.

After Pete Buttigieg’s surprise win in Iowa, you’d think his rivals would be searching for his weak spot. The irony is that it’s right out in the open where it’s always been: his record as mayor of South Bend, Ind.

Mr. Buttigieg faced few hard questions about it until Friday night. That’s when ABC correspondent and Democratic debate moderator Linsey Davis refused to let him wiggle out of answering why, under his mayorship, “a black resident in South Bend was four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white resident.”

Mr. Buttigieg first tried to evade the question by saying the “overall rate” of marijuana arrests for South Bend was lower than the national rate. But Ms. Davis’s point was the racial disparity, and she stuck to it. In the end, the Buttigieg campaign issued a “fact sheet” that didn’t deny the disparity but cited other numbers to say marijuana and drug possession arrest rates were lower in South Bend than the average for Indiana.

The telling thing about the encounter was not the particular statistic. The telling thing was the deer-in-the-headlights look on Mr. Buttigieg’s face provoked by a simple factual question about what happened while he was mayor.

It seems to be a pattern, with Mr. Buttigieg, that he’s unable to give clear answers to specific questions, especially those regarding South Bend’s black community. For example:

  • “I couldn’t get it done.” This was Mr. Buttigieg’s response when asked why the percentage of African-Americans on the police force fell to 6% from 11% during his mayorship. The population of South Bend is 26% black.
  • “I was slow to realize” that schools in South Bend were segregated, he told an audience in North Carolina in December. A former Rhodes Scholar who lectures America about “structural racism” was shocked, shocked to find that schools in his own city were not happily integrated.
  • Earlier that Saturday, Joe Biden took his own swing at Mr. Buttigieg. The former vice president’s campaign released an ad comparing Mr. Biden’s record of accomplishment with Mayor Pete’s.

Plainly the idea was to lay out a Biden record of big achievements (or appropriate the Obama one) against a Buttigieg list of small ones. Thus the Affordable Care Act was paired against river lighting for South Bend’s bridges, the Iran Nuclear Deal against municipal regulations making it easier to use computer chips to track pets, the rescue of the U.S. auto industry against the upgrading of South Bend’s downtown sidewalks.

One Democrat in a position to launch an effective attack on Mayor Pete’s record is Michael Bloomberg. When Mr. Bloomberg was sworn in as mayor in 2002, New York was reeling from the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history. During his 12 years in office, he proved one of New York’s most consequential mayors, taking on the failing educational bureaucracy, turning a $4.7 billion deficit into a $2.4 billion surplus, bringing crime to lows once thought impossible, returning his city to prosperity.

A Bloomberg vs. Buttigieg matchup over mayoral leadership would be illuminating. Unfortunately, by apologizing for the NYPD’s use of stop, question and frisk, which helped drive violent crime to record lows, Mr. Bloomberg has probably neutered himself on the argument. If so, Mr. Bloomberg has effectively given his rival Mr. Buttigieg a pass on his greatest vulnerability: the surge in violent crime in his city.

Going into Tuesday, Bernie Sanders remains the favorite to win New Hampshire. But Pete Buttigieg’s post-Iowa mojo makes him the man to beat. So where’s the Democrat who will put the obvious to Mr. Buttigieg: “Are you really telling us the model for America is South Bend?” (Huh?)

To join Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Bernie Sanders – Islam’s Favorite Candidate!

Islamist’s Bid for the Iowa Caucuses

By Daniel Greenfield, Investigative Journalist


When the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) held its annual convention, only one  of the presidential candidates who is campaigning in Iowa attended the event alongside an un-indicted World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator and supporter of killing gay people  Senator Bernie Sanders.

Bernie’s appearance at ISNA’s presidential forum was moderated by an Islamist who had described Hezbollah’s terrorism against Israel as “legitimate resistance”. This wasn’t unusual. Bernie’s campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, had been a member of an Islamist organization in college where he had been accused of helping raise money for a Hamas front group.

And CAIR’s presidential poll demonstrates that Bernie’s Islamist outreach is paying off. CAIR’s poll of Muslim voters claims that 39% support Bernie Sanders, while only 27% back Joe Biden.

In Iowa, 5 mosques hosted caucuses as “satellite sites” meant as “safe spaces” for Muslims. Muslims in Iowa don’t need a safe space. No one is going to be assaulting them at Democrat caucuses. But holding these satellite caucuses in mosques gives Islamic organizations spaces under their control.

Iowa Democrats had decided to aggressively erode the boundaries of mosque and state and the caucuses went forward with voters having to remove their shoes if they wanted to caucus. Of the ten satellite caucus facilities in Des Moines, only one is a church and four are mosques.

The first site of the Iowa satellite caucus was the Muslim Community Organization, also known as Masjid An-Noor, where there was widespread support for Bernie Sanders. Imam Jaaphar Abdul Hamed of the mosque endorsed Bernie Sanders and welcomed Rep. Ilhan Omar, an Islamist and anti-Semitic Sanders backer. And 99% of the mosque caucus, caucused for Bernie Sanders. That gave Bernie 9 delegates.

These were the kinds of tribal results you tend to see in elections in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now in Iowa.

“When the Prophet built his mosque, he didn’t build it just for salah,” Imam Hamed told Middle East Eye, an Islamist site linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. “The mosque is a place for everything that concerns Muslims.” And Mohammed’s theocratic elimination of the separation of mosque and state is in play in Iowa.

Abshir Omar, a Somali refugee and former CAIR-Iowa director, hired by Bernie Sanders as his Iowa political coordinator, described this as his mosque. Counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo has said that Omar told him that Islam calls for the murder of gay people.

At the second mosque, the Al Najah Islamic Center, a majority came out for Bernie Sanders. The actual caucus address is for the Tawba Islamic Center. This appears to be a largely Somali mosque. Pictures from the actual caucus show Bernie signs on the wall and a non-Somali Muslim crowd.

There is no explanation given for the discrepancy. But it’s a pattern with the Muslim satellite caucus sites having either the wrong names or the wrong addresses listed, either in error or deliberately. Mosques are routinely listed as cultural centers. This raises questions about the credibility of the Iowa caucuses which the botched results only reinforce.

A majority at the Bosnian Islamic Center Zem Zem backed Bernie.

The name of the Islamic location is wrongly listed as “Zen Zen”. Islamic organizations are not very “Zen”. Despite its name, it is a mosque built by Muslim refugees.

The Islamic and Education Center Ezan was the fourth mosque. This is another Bosnian mosque decorated with the declaration, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet”. Not exactly the cradle of democracy.

While the Ezan mosque initially split between Bernie and Biden, Biden eventually won 6 delegates to 3 of Bernie’s because of his support for the Muslim side in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

The fifth was the Islamic and Cultural Center Bosniak in Granger. This is the mega-mosque built by the Center in Des Moines over in Granger because its Muslim attendees were too crowded in Des Moines. An imam from the mosque had previously been arrested for sexually assaulting a mother and daughter. This caucus appears to have been won by Biden.

The satellite mosque caucus locations provide Islamists in Iowa with disproportionate influence. And that influence was used to benefit Bernie Sanders who has emerged as the Islamist candidate. While Biden tended to perform better in the Bosnian mosques, Sanders was the Islamist winner. This is not a wholly new development.

Bernie had also pandered to Islamist groups in 2016 and won 60% of the vote in Dearbornistan. (Dearborn, MI).  The Arab American News had claimed that “Arab Americans voted 2 to 1 for Sanders in almost every east Dearborn precinct.” But in the 2020 race, he has effectively outsourced his campaign to Islamists.

Sanders had also received the endorsement of Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, the only Muslim elected official in the Iowa House. Samad had chaired the American Muslim Alliance. The AMA has a history of co-sponsoring anti-Semitic events, including one which called Jews “pigs and monkeys” and another which had cheered the murder of Jews. “Muslims, we will make a difference in this race; we will make a difference across this country,” Samad had vowed, while standing next to Rep. Ilhan Omar.

In Iowa, pandering to Islamists appears to have paid off. While Muslims only make up a small percentage of Iowa’s population, the caucus system can allow small groups to exercise a disproportionate impact if they are willing to get involved. And in Iowa, mosques not only got involved, but were able to host 5 satellite caucuses. That’s not enough to shift the balance. But enough to have an impact. And that is what is truly worrisome. While the Democrats worried about Russian hackers, the real hacking in Iowa caucuses was being carried out by Islamists who were operating on the inside.

“The mosque should be involved because even during the prophet’s time, all the decisions were made in the mosque,” a mosque worshiper commented at a caucus that went almost entirely for Bernie Sanders.

Should the Iowa caucuses really be decided in a mosque?

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

To join Israel Commentary:

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Summary of the Attempted Trump Impeachment

Political News and Analysis  

Lamar Alexander’s Finest Hour

By The Wall Street Editorial Board

Feb. 2, 2020 4:50 pm ET

Senate Republicans are taking even more media abuse than usual after voting to bar witnesses from the impeachment trial of President Trump. “Cringing abdication” and “a dishonorable Senate” are two examples of the sputtering progressive rage. On the contrary, we think it was Lamar Alexander’s finest hour.

The Tennessee Republican, who isn’t running for re-election this year, was a decisive vote in the narrowly divided Senate on calling witnesses. He listened to the evidence and arguments from both sides, and then he offered his sensible judgment: Even if Mr. Trump did what House managers charge, it still isn’t enough to remove a President from office.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Mr. Alexander said in a statement Thursday night. “But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”

The House managers had proved their case to his satisfaction even without new witnesses, Mr. Alexander added, but “they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.” Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told reporters “let me be clear: Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.”

This isn’t an abdication. It’s a wise judgment based on what Mr. Trump did and the rushed, partisan nature of the House impeachment. Mr. Trump was wrong to ask Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, and wrong to use U.S. aid as leverage. His call with Ukraine’s President was far from “perfect.” It was reckless and self-destructive, as Mr. Trump often is.

Nearly all of his advisers and several Senators opposed his actions, Senators like Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson lobbied Mr. Trump hard against the aid delay, and in the end the aid was delivered within the fiscal year and Ukraine did not begin an investigation. Even the House managers did not allege specific crimes in their impeachment articles. For those who want the best overall account of what happened, we again recommend the Nov. 18 letter that Mr. Johnson wrote to House Republicans.

Mr. Alexander’s statement made two other crucial points. The first concerns the damage that partisan removal of Mr. Trump would do to the country. “The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. 

Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles,” Mr. Alexander noted. “If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.”

Does anyone who isn’t a Resistance partisan doubt this? Democrats and the press talk as if removing Mr. Trump is a matter of constitutional routine that would restore American politics to some pre-2016 normalcy. That’s a dangerous illusion.

Democrats and their allies in the media have spent three years trying to nullify the election their candidate lost in 2016. They have hawked false Russian conspiracy theories, ignored abuse by the FBI, floated fantasies about triggering the 25th Amendment, and tried to turn bad presidential judgment toward Ukraine into an impeachable offense. Yet Mr. Trump’s job approval rating has increased during the impeachment hearings and trial.

Our friendly advice to Democrats and the impeachment press is to accept that you lost fair and square in 2016 and focus on nominating a better Democratic candidate this year. On the recent polling evidence, that task is urgent. In the meantime, thank you, Lamar Alexander.    (for membership)

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

Apropos of the current President Trump impeachment proceedings!


Book review by Mark Tapson  (MT)

January 20, 2020

Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who rose to president of an NAACP chapter by pretending to be black. 

Jussie Smollett, the black actor who blamed a fake hate crime on MAGA hat-wearing white rednecks. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who parlayed a false claim of Native American heritage into acceptance at Harvard Law School.  

These are just a few of the most controversial recent examples of Democrats attempting to dupe the public in order to further their careers and/or their radical agendas.

That’s the theme of the new book, Yes I Con: United Fakes of America by FrontPage Mag contributor Lloyd Billingsley, author of Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940sBill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield, and more. 

In Yes I Con, Billingsley presents several exhibits of evidence of the left’s habitual fraudulence and self-deception, including Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Hussein Obama, Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and stolen valor perpetrator Sen. Richard Blumenthal, purported gay rights icon Harvey Milk and the aforementioned Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, and more. He also indicts the left-leaning media’s complicity in covering up or turning a blind eye to these duplicities.

I asked Billingsley some questions about his new short book for FrontPage Mag.

Mark Tapson: Lloyd, you open with a quote from Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire about the conscience going silent in the “middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud.” Do you think the leftist deception you recount in the book stems more from self-delusion, outright fraud, or a combination? In other words, have leftists simply normalized and justified their deceit in their own minds?

Lloyd Billingsley: It’s a combination and a process. Self-delusion can remain a personal problem until the person deploys it to deceive others. That requires the deluded party to silence the conscience in the progression to outright fraud. 

For example, no harm if Elizabeth Warren fancies herself a Cherokee, but it takes some doing to make that claim the basis of a career, more so to maintain it after the fraud has been exposed beyond any doubt. That’s what Gibbon was on about.

MT: The foreword to your book is titled, “The Syndrome Beyond Satire.” What is the syndrome beyond satire?

LB: It’s all about subjunctive mood, which used to give me trouble until a French professor nailed it as the sense of irréalité. Under today’s dictatorship of the subjunctive mood, unreality prevails. 

Examples: The world will end in twelve years, Green New Dealers warn. Hillary Clinton proclaims Army veteran Tulsi Gabbard a “Russian asset.” MAGA-hatted rednecks attempt to lynch Jussie Smollett in Chicago. And so on. It’s all “unreal,” as we used to say in the sixties.

LB: Milk was something of a ne’re-do-well who managed to get elected in San Francisco. He’s billed as the first “openly gay” candidate but never outed as the pederast (A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.) he definitely was. 

MT: One of your chapters addresses murdered – some would say “martyred” – San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, who has been lionized by the left and immortalized on film as a gay rights champion. What’s the truth about Milk?

Milk was not, as he claimed, kicked out of the Navy for being gay. His murder was all about [fellow SF supervisor] Dan White trying to get his job back, as Dianne Feinstein said at the time, and had nothing to do with homosexuality. To say the least, his martyr status is much in doubt.

MT: One of the lesser-known figures you cover is San Diego congressional candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar, whose Palestinian grandfather was one of the terrorists who killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Can you elaborate a little on what he might be concealing?

LB: After the Israelis took out his grandfather, Ammar’s father was on the run across the Middle East, so Ammar could be concealing any role his father played with the Black September terrorists. 

Campa-Najjar claims his father wanted to come to the United States and that the USA “wanted him” as an immigrant. It remains uncertain if Ammar’s father ever came to the United States, but he is an official with the Palestinian Authority, and boastful of his father’s role in the Munich massacre. If Ammar has any documentation for these moves he might be hiding it.

Ammar says he moved from San Diego back to Gaza, then back to San Diego again. Ammar compares the 9/11 attacks with the vandalization of his Islamic school in San Diego. 

In 2012 he gets a job with the Obama administration!, then in 2018 he runs against a vulnerable Republican. All very convenient, and mysterious.

MT: Much of the book focuses on Barack Obama. Why do you describe his purported autobiography, Dreams From My Father, as “historical fiction”?  

LB: I’m quoting the ex-president’s official biographer, David Garrow, the Pulitzer Prize-winner who in the 2017 book Rising Star: The Making of Barack 

Obama proclaimed the Dreams book a novel and the author a “composite character.” In Yes I Con, I cite reasons why even the casual reader back in 1995 would see it that way. 

The fictions jump right off the page and Garrow cites reporters who say the composite character’s story is “not entirely true” and something he and [former Obama advisor] David Axelrod cooked up. 

As we know, the composite character became president of the United States! — a development of some importance.

MT: What is the left-leaning news media’s role and responsibility in all this “self-illusion and voluntary fraud,” from Franklin Delano Roosevelt all the way through Elizabeth Warren?

LB: FDR demanded that reporters take no photographs of him in a wheelchair and the reporters obeyed. The White House laid down the rules and reporters essentially protected the president. 

It took nearly half a century for the “splendid deception” story to emerge in any detail. This is a case of what Julien Benda called la trahison de clercs, or as Roger Kimball puts it, the treason of the intellectuals.

In similar style, the establishment media, “presidential historians” and such accepted Dreams From My Father as authentic autobiography and attacked skeptics as “birthers,” racists and so forth. 

This continues after David Garrow proclaimed the Dreams book a novel, the author a composite character. As Saul Bellow said, a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

The establishment media failed to challenge Campa-Najjar’s unbelievable story but did better exposing Warren’s false claims and Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s fakery about serving in Vietnam. 

On the other hand, neither resigned from the Senate and Warren seeks the presidency of the United States. The dictatorship of subjunctive mood is bad news for those committed to facts, truth and reality. The cons, fakes and frauds never have to say they’re sorry.

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

President Trump announces Israeli/Palestinian Peace Plan of Jan. 28, 2020

A heart-warming ceremony with team Trump and team Netanyahu

(See video below)

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Condensed Summation of Plan

President Trump, unlike all previous US Presidents, fully recognized Israel’s need to have secure borders. His peace plan reflects that.

In the past he has moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Under the new peace plan, Jerusalem is formally declared the undivided capital of Israel.

The Palestinians will be given a capitol of their own in East Jerusalem

President Trump previously recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He now recognizes Israel’s  sovereignty over all the small and large Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

He also recognizes Israel right to control the Jordan Valley.

The plan does not allow the removal of any people, Israeli or Arab, from their established homes.

The status of the Temple Mount shall remain the same with Jordan having control of the area but all peoples given the right to visit the holy sites.

President made a major commitment to securing Israel’s security with his abrogation of the Obama Nuclear Deal with Iran followed by additional economic sanctions on Iran to bring it to the peace table and stop its military nuclear ambitions.

President Trump announced his plan to set aside land for the Palestinians to have a state of their own promising intense economic development to create one million jobs, reduce the great poverty level and develop self-sufficiency where huge donations from other nations would no longer  be necessary. 

The US and Arab nations of the area are to contribute 50 billion dollars to this development, if the Palestinians agree to the peace plan.

There is to be a four year grace period wherein no further territorial changes are made thus giving the Palestinians time to demonstrate their desire to allow the development of the peace plan.

In the meantime, the Palestinians are to take action against the terrorist warfare of Hamas on the Gaza border and Islamic Jihad throughout the area.  

There is to be no Palestinian compensation to Islamic terrorists within Israeli jails or anywhere else.

President Trump announced the acceptance by many Arab nations for the plan. Present at the ceremony were representatives from Oman and Bahrain. It is also believed that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are supportive of the peace plan.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke after President Trump and called him the best US President the Israelis had ever had. Yes, there had been many previous presidential gestures of support but most often ended as empty verbal rhetoric. 

In President Trump  Israel had a genuine friend who took direct action to guarantee Israel’s security. He specifically thanked him for ending US participation in the Obama Iran nuclear plan that PM Netanyahu had vehemently warned against while addressing the US Congress, March 3, 2015.

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments

And Congress Shall Be King — According to Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff

Political News and Analysis 

The House claims it, and only it, can define executive privilege.

By The Editorial Board – Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2020

Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler on Thursday summed up the case for ousting President Trump this way: “Simply stated, impeachment is the Constitution’s final answer to a President who mistakes himself for a king.” 

Which brings us to the case Democrats made Friday for their second article of impeachment charging “obstruction of Congress.” This would make Congress a king. He cited executive privilege to direct nine “vital” Administration officials not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.

“President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives,” the House declares in its impeachment resolution.

Shorter version: The House has the unilateral power to define executive privilege, and a President has no constitutional authority to resist. If he does resist, the House can throw him out of office.

This is contrary to the design and intention of the Constitution’s separation of powers, which establishes three co-equal branches. It is contrary to any previous understanding of Congressional subpoena power and the ability of a President to protect his power to deliberate with advisers. And it is contrary to Supreme Court precedents on the tension between Congress and the executive.

Start with U.S. v. Nixon, which Democrats like to cite as their main justification for impeaching this President. In that case the Supreme Court rejected President Nixon’s sweeping claims of privilege and ordered that the White House tapes be delivered to Congress. Nixon then resigned.

But the Court also said explicitly in that case that a narrower claim of privilege might well be justified. The unanimous opinion said that a “President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications.”

As a letter from 21 GOP state attorneys general to the Senate this week adds, the Nixon Court also noted that communications involving “military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets” might be entitled to even more protection from Congressional or public exposure.

The communications Mr. Trump is trying to protect relate to Ukraine, which is precisely in this more protected category of military aid, diplomacy and national security.

The proper path for the House would have been to seek documents, and the testimony of individuals, by challenging Mr. Trump’s privilege claims in court. That’s what the House did in the Nixon case, and it won. That’s also what independent counsel Ken Starr did in the Bill Clinton case, and he won.

The House might well have won some of its claims in this case too, especially for lower-level aides who might not have interacted closely with Mr. Trump. If Mr. Trump had then resisted a court order—something he hasn’t done as President—the House would have had adequate grounds to impeach.

On the other hand, the House probably would have lost an attempt to call John Bolton, the former national security adviser, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. That may be why the House never formally sought their testimony, and why it withdrew its subpoena to call Mr. Bolton’s deputy. None of those names appear on the list of nine officials in the House’s second impeachment article.

Instead, the House asserted that it alone can determine what is privileged and what isn’t. And now Democrats are demanding that the Senate call Mr. Bolton as a trial witness when the House refused to do it. But Mr. Trump’s privilege claims don’t vanish simply because the House has impeached him.

We recount all this because impeachments set precedents even when they result in Senate acquittal, as this one likely will. If the Democratic House prevails in its claim of unilateral power to define executive privilege, then that privilege is essentially dead. Any President who invokes it will risk impeachment, especially Presidents who are down in the polls or loathed by the opposition party.

The President becomes a vassal of king Congress. This is another reason for the Senate to repudiate this House impeachment as its own abuse of power.

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)



Powered by Facebook Comments