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.  

https://israel-commentary.org

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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

pastedGraphic.png

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

pastedGraphic_2.png

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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

Bernie Sanders hosts Palestinian Arab War Dance in Dearborn, MI

https://t.co/ZKb7qkUDm4” / 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

Bernie Sanders as a ‘Jewish’ President?

Not so! Please don’t blame us.

pastedGraphic.png

(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?

https://israel-commentary.org

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:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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: www.melaniephillips.com.

To join:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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:    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)

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)

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)

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.

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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.

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

“This is CNN”

Hysterical, obsessive, self-important and biased.

Redacted from a informative detailed article by Charles C.W.  Cooke 

National Review, December 31, 2019

As a child, I was aware of CNN in part because its introductory bumper featured the sinister voice of Darth Vader, and in part because it was both the prototype and the stereotype of the 24-hour news channel. CNN showed up in movies, either as itself or in parodies that imitated its role. It was on in the airports and the hospitals and the hotel lobbies, and in the waiting room at the dentist’s office. When something bad or exciting was happening, you would tell your friends, “Turn on CNN.” 

CNN was careful and self-consciously nonpartisan—or, at least, it was keen for viewers to believe that it was. 

Its slogans were “This is CNN”—well, yes—and “The most trusted name in news,” and it cultivated its position within the firmament in much the same way as does Wikipedia today. It could be sensationalist and intrusive at times, but it was sensationalist and intrusive in the way that the paparazzo is rather than in the way that protesters who bang drums in your face and insist that you give up gasoline. 

It is difficult to convey in words just what the candidacy and then presidency of Donald Trump have done to CNN, but one can organization that has largely maintained its sanity: the New York Times. 

In short, it was what it said it was: a news network. It is no longer that. These days, CNN is a peculiar and unlovely hybrid of progressive propaganda outlet, oleaginous media  apologist, sexless cultural scold, and frenzied Donald Trump  stalker blog. When news breaks, it is no longer useful or appropriate to tell someone, “Turn on CNN,” because if he did, he  would be as likely. to be presented with a wall of advocacy and obsession as with the headlines of the hour.

The first column of CNN’s homepage, by contrast, featured—in order: “77 lies and falsehoods Mueller called out”; “What’s in the try to defend the indefensible”; “Barr gave his version of the report. Then we read it”; “Democrats ramp up Trump financial probe, make new hire”; “Prosecutors seek to block Stone from seeing un-redacted portions of Mueller’s report”

To find some actual news—that there had been an uprising in Venezuela—one had to go all the way over to the third column. April 30 was twelve days after the release of the Mueller report. This has been typical of the network’s monomania. 

On August 14, the New York Times ran with the news that protesters had taken over Hong Kong’s airport; that Nicolas Maduro was torturing his foes in the Venezuelan military___sometimes to death; and that the White House was delaying its proposed tariffs on China. 

With the possible exception of the hallucinatory MSNBC, no other institution in American life spent more time and effort indulging the false idea that President Trump was quite obviously guilty of treason, collusion, and bribery, and insisting that the impending Mueller report would not only reveal this guilt, but would prompt Trump’s removal from office and, possibly, his arrest. 

Subscribe:     https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

The Secrets of Jewish Genius

Political News Opinion and Analysis

The New York Times 

Dec. 27, 2019

pastedGraphic.png

By Bret Stephens

Opinion Columnist

(First:  The New York Times Apology over having published Brett Stephens politically incorrect but unvarnished truth praising the amazing history of intellectual achievement by the Jewish people.  

Below is the  New York Times explanation of the part they left out, evidently for fear of alienating the Jew-haters and the scared shtetl Jew apologists of the world who prefer to hide in the woodwork for fear of increasing the century’s-old Jew-hatred, based on envy, that permeates their every environment.)

Jerome S. Kaufman    Jan. 13, 2020

www.israel-commentary.org

New York Times Editors:

An earlier version of this Bret Stephens column quoted statistics from a 2005 paper that advanced a genetic hypothesis for the basis of intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews.

After publication Mr. Stephens and his editors learned that one of the paper’s authors, who died in 2016, promoted racist views. Mr. Stephens was not endorsing the study or its authors’ views, but it was a mistake to cite it uncritically.

The effect was to leave an impression with many readers that Mr. Stephens was arguing that Jews are genetically superior. That was not his intent. He went on instead to argue that culture and history are crucial factors in Jewish achievements and that, as he put it, “At its best, the West can honor the principle of racial, religious and ethnic pluralism not as a grudging accommodation to strangers but as an affirmation of its own diverse identity. In that sense, what makes Jews special is that they aren’t. They are representational.” We have removed reference to the study from the column. 

(The New York Times thus used the usual cop-out to eliminate anything they did not want to hear or read. They called it “racist views” because it did not conform to bizarre globalist concepts which have never met the requirements of hard evidence and is, in itself, counter to our own best interests.) jsk

(Back to the courageous, politically incorrect Brett Stephens article)

Brett Stephens:

An eminent Lithuanian rabbi is annoyed that his yeshiva students devote their lunch breaks to playing soccer instead of discussing Torah. The students, intent on convincing their rav (rabbi) of the game’s beauty, invite him to watch a professional match. At halftime, they ask what he thinks.

“I have solved your problem,” the rabbi says. “How?” 

“Give one ball to each side, and they will have nothing to fight over.”

I have this (apocryphal) anecdote from Norman Lebrecht’s new book, “Genius & Anxiety,” an erudite and delightful study of the intellectual achievements and nerve-wracked lives of Jewish thinkers, artists, and entrepreneurs between 1847 and 1947.  Sarah Bernhardt and Franz Kafka; Albert Einstein and Rosalind Franklin; Benjamin Disraeli and (sigh) Karl Marx, etc, etc, etc

How is it that a people who never amounted even to one-third of 1 percent of the world’s population contributed so seminally to so many of its most pathbreaking ideas and innovations?

The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be smart. But the “Jews are smart” explanation obscures more than it illuminates. Aside from perennial nature-or-nurture questions, there is the more difficult question of why that intelligence was so often matched by such bracing originality and high-minded purpose. 

One can apply a prodigious intellect in the service of prosaic things — formulating a war plan, for instance, or constructing a ship. One can also apply brilliance in the service of a mistake or a crime, like managing a planned economy or robbing a bank.

But as the story of the Lithuanian rabbi suggests, Jewish genius operates differently. It is prone to question the premise and rethink the concept; to ask why (or why not?) as often as how; to see the absurd in the mundane and the sublime in the absurd. Where Jews’ advantage more often lies is in thinking different.

Where do these habits of mind come from?

There is a religious tradition that, unlike some others, asks the believer not only to observe and obey but also to discuss and disagree. There is the never-quite-comfortable status of Jews in places where they are the minority — intimately familiar with the customs of the country while maintaining a critical distance from them. 

There is a moral belief, “incarnate in the Jewish people” according to Einstein, that “the life of the individual only has value [insofar] as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful.”

And there is the understanding, born of repeated exile, that everything that seems solid and valuable is ultimately perishable, while everything that is intangible — knowledge most of all — is potentially everlasting.

“We had been well off, but that (having been) was all we got out,” the late financier Felix Rohatyn recalled of his narrow escape, with a few hidden gold coins, from the Nazis as a child in World War II. “Ever since, I’ve had the feeling that the only permanent wealth is what you carry around in your head.” If the greatest Jewish minds seem to have no walls, it may be because, for Jews, the walls have so often come tumbling down.

These explanations for Jewish brilliance aren’t necessarily definitive. Nor are they exclusive to the Jews.

At its best, the American university can still be a place of relentless intellectual challenge rather than ideological conformity and social groupthink

At its best, the United States can still be the country that respects, and sometimes rewards, all manner of heresies that outrage polite society and contradict established belief. 

At its best, the West can honor the principle of racial, religious and ethnic pluralism not as a grudging accommodation to strangers but as an affirmation of its own diverse identity. In that sense, what makes Jews special is that they aren’t. They are representational.

The West, however, is not at its best. It’s no surprise that Jew hatred has made a comeback, albeit under new guises. Anti-Zionism has taken the place of anti-Semitism as a political program directed against Jews. 

Globalists have taken the place of rootless cosmopolitans as the shadowy agents of economic iniquity. Jews have been murdered by white nationalists and black “Hebrews.” Hate crimes against Orthodox Jews have become an almost daily fact of life in New York City.

Jews of the late 19th century would have been familiar with the hatreds. Jews of the early 21st century should recognize where they could lead. What’s not secret about Jewish genius is that it’s a terribly fragile flower.

Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post.

Composed by Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe:  https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

Hostilities With Iran Began in ’79

Image result for Iran war image jpg free

Political News Opinion and Analysis

By establishing a credible deterrent, the killing of Soleimani should restrain Tehran’s aggression.

By Eric S. Edelman and Franklin C. Miller

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 9, 2020

The American media and political class worry that the U.S. is on the verge of war with Iran. It isn’t. The war has been under way for 40 years. 

www.israel-commentary.org

Largely using surrogates or proxy forces, Iran has killed hundreds of Americans by shooting down civilian planes, bombing U.S. embassies and military barracks, and supplying munitions for attacks on American soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere. 

With the exception of a brief naval engagement in April 1988, the U.S. responded to Iranian aggression by attacking surrogates rather than dealing with the source of the problem.

Now, with the killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, Washington has sent Tehran an unambiguous message that it can no longer attack Americans with impunity. For the first time since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the U.S. has taken important initial steps to establish a credible deterrent.

Deterrence is effective when an enemy is convinced that the cost of an action will outweigh the gains.

Until now the Iranian leadership has suffered no losses to its own valued assets as a result of killing Americans. Soleimani’s habit of taunting U.S. officials during his travels around the region was testimony to his belief that he could act against the U.S. without consequences. The ayatollahs had evidently concluded they had a free hand to harass American troops.

Soleimani’s death is the first time the regime has lost something it valued in its conflict with the U.S. The Trump administration was right to make clear that America will impose significant costs on the regime until its state-sponsored hostage-taking, murder and other forms of terrorism cease. 

There’s no need to threaten a ground war, or to respond rashly to Iran’s Tuesday attacks on U.S. military facilities in Iraq, which did minimal damage. The U.S. has the military capacity to inflict severe damage on Iran without an invasion.

Some say that attacks like the Soleimani strike will encourage Iran to hit soft targets in the American homeland. But that risk already exists. And if Tehran still believed Washington would respond to a deadly terrorist attack on American soil only with strikes against peripheral targets, then the risk of such an attack would probably increase.

The sole previous direct American response against Iranian state assets—the 1988 naval rout, in which the U.S. sank two Iranian ships and destroyed a Persian Gulf oil platform being used to harass Western shipping—caused Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to agree to a cessation of hostilities. 

Deterrence works, but only if the threats are credible.

Soleimani was a state actor, carrying out a national policy of terrorism to murder Americans. U.S. recognition that it has been and remains engaged in a war with Iran and its proxies is long overdue.

The Trump administration’s goal should be to make sure the regime and its surrogates understand that nothing good can come from attacking Americans, American facilities or our allies.

Mr. Edelman was undersecretary of defense for policy, 2005-09, and is counselor at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. 

Mr. Miller served as special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and arms control on the National Security Council staff, 2001-05, and is a principal of the Scowcroft Group.

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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