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.”

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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

.

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

US Political News and Analysis  

CONGRESS AT WAR

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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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.

https://israel-commentary.org

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:   https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

https://israel-commentary.org

pastedGraphic.png

“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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

Bernie Sanders – Islam’s Favorite Candidate!

Islamist’s Bid for the Iowa Caucuses

By Daniel Greenfield, Investigative Journalist

pastedGraphic.png

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.

https://israel-commentary.org

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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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.

https://israel-commentary.org    (for membership)

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

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

Apropos of the current President Trump impeachment proceedings!

YES, I CAN

Book review by Mark Tapson  (MT)

January 20, 2020

https://israel-commentary.org

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.

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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