President Trump eliminates another Obama sell-out to China

US Israel news and articles

President Trump Rids Major U.S. Container Port of Chinese Communist Control

JUDICIAL WATCH,  OCTOBER 08, 2019

Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. 

In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line—OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.

It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. 

One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.

 The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually. 

It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers, 62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than 8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.

Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. 

The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.” The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.”

Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/01/13/associate-hillary-clinton-uranium-one-russian-bribery-case-indicted

II  Judicial Watch Believes The State Dept. Spied On Conservative Journalists And Trump Allies

Beth Baumann

Oct 14, 2019 10:45 PM

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch last week filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department. The group believes prominent conservative journalists, public figures and those with ties to President Donald Trump were being monitored by the State Department in Ukraine under the direction of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was appointed to her post by President Barack Obama. 

Specifically, Judicial Watch believes the following people were being monitored:

Jack Posobiec, One America News Network Host

Donald Trump Jr., son of President Donald Trump

Laura Ingraham, Fox News Host

Sean Hannity, Fox News Host

Michael McFaul, President Obama’s Ambassador to Russia

Dan Bongino, Fox News Contributor

Ryan Saavedra, Reporter at the Daily Wire

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s Personal Attorney

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Former Strategist for President Trump and host of Salem’s “America First” Radio Program

John Solomon, Executive Vice President at The Hill

Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Host

Pamela Geller, Political Commentator

Sara Carter, Investigative Reporter and Fox News Contributor

One America News Network’s Jack Posobiec served in the intelligence community and knows very well that, if true, this surveillance is a direct violation of people’s Constitutional rights – First and Fourth Amendments”

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

President Trump did not betray the Kurds

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

Trump did not betray the Kurds

The US has neither major influence in Syria nor an interest in confronting Turkey to protect the Kurds. Trump avoided war with Turkey this week and began extracting America from an open-ended commitment to the Kurds it never made.

The near-consensus view of US President Donald Trump’s decision to remove American special forces from the Syrian border with Turkey is that Trump is enabling a Turkish invasion and double-crossing the Syrian Kurds who have fought with the Americans for five years against the Islamic State group. Trump’s move, the thinking goes, harms US credibility and undermines US power in the region and throughout the world.

There are several problems with this narrative. The first is that it assumes that until this week, the US had power and influence in Syria when in fact, by design, the US went to great lengths to limit its ability to influence events there.

www.israel-commentary.org

The war in Syria broke out in 2011 as a popular insurrection by Syrian Sunnis against the Iranian-sponsored regime of President Bashar Assad. The Obama administration responded by declaring US support for Assad’s overthrow. But the declaration was empty. The administration sat on its thumbs as the regime’s atrocities mounted. It supported a feckless Turkish effort to raise a resistance army dominated by jihadist elements aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

President Barack Obama infamously issued his “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons against civilians by Assad, which he repudiated the moment it was crossed.

As ISIS forces gathered in Iraq and Syria, Obama shrugged them off as a “JV squad.” When the JVs in ISIS took over a third of Iraqi and Syrian territory, Obama did nothing.

As Lee Smith recalled in January in The New York Post, Obama only decided to do something about ISIS in late 2014 after the group beheaded a number of American journalists and posted their decapitations on social media.

The timing was problematic for Obama.

In 2014 Obama was negotiating his nuclear deal with Iran. The deal, falsely presented as a nonproliferation pact, actually enabled Iran – the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism – to develop both nuclear weapons and the missile systems required to deliver them. The true purpose of the deal was not to block Iran’s nuclear aspirations but to realign US Middle East policy away from the Sunnis and Israel and toward Iran.

Given its goal of embracing Iran, the Obama administration had no interest in harming Assad, Iran’s Syrian factotum. It had no interest in blocking Iran’s ally Russia from using the war in Syria as a means to reassert Moscow’s power in the Middle East.

Obama deployed around a thousand forces to Syria. Their limited numbers and radically constrained mandate made it impossible for the Americans to have a major effect on events in the country. They weren’t allowed to act against Assad or Iran. They were tasked solely with fighting ISIS. Obama instituted draconian rules of engagement that made achieving even that limited goal all but impossible.

During his tenure as Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton hoped to revise the US mandate to enable US forces to be used against Iran in Syria. Bolton’s plan was strategically sound. Trump rejected it largely because it was a recipe for widening US involvement in Syria far beyond what the American public – and Trump himself – were willing to countenance.

In other words, the claim that the US has major influence in Syria is wrong. It does not have such influence and is unwilling to pay the price of developing such influence.

This brings us to the second flaw in the narrative about Trump’s removal of US forces from the Syrian border with Turkey.

The underlying assumption of the criticism is that America has an interest in confronting Turkey to protect the Kurds.

This misconception, like the misconception regarding US power and influence in Syria, is borne of a misunderstanding of Obama’s Middle East policies. Aside from ISIS’s direct victims, the major casualty of Obama’s deliberately feckless anti-ISIS campaign was the US alliance with Turkey. Whereas the US chose to work with the Kurds because they were supportive of Assad and Iran, the Turks view the Syrian Kurdish YPG as a sister militia to the Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

The Marxist PKK has been fighting a guerilla war against Turkey for decades. The State Department designates the PKK as a terrorist organization responsible for the death of thousands of Turkish nationals. Not surprisingly then, the Turks viewed the US-Kurdish collaboration against ISIS as an anti-Turkish campaign.

Throughout the years of US-Kurdish cooperation, many have made the case that the Kurds are a better ally to the US than Turkey. The case is compelling not merely because the Kurds have fought well.

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has stood against the US and its interests far more often than it has stood with it. Across a spectrum of issues, from Israel to human rights, Hamas and ISIS to Turkish aggression against Cyprus, Greece, and Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean, to upholding US economic sanctions against Iran and beyond, for nearly 20 years, Erdoğan’s Turkey has distinguished itself as a strategic threat to America’s core interests and policies and those of its closest allies in the Middle East.

Despite the compelling, ever-growing body of evidence that the time has come to reassess US-Turkish ties, the Pentagon refuses to engage the issue. The Pentagon has rejected the suggestion that the US remove its nuclear weapons from Incirlik airbase in Turkey or diminish Incirlik’s centrality to US air operations in Central Asia and the Middle East. The same is true of US dependence on Turkish naval bases.

Given the Pentagon’s position, there is no chance that the US would consider entering an armed conflict with Turkey on behalf of the Kurds.

The Kurds are a tragic people. The Kurds, who live as persecuted minorities in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, have been denied the right of self-determination for the past hundred years. But then, the Kurds have squandered every opportunity they have had to assert independence. The closest they came to achieving self-determination was in Iraq in 2017. In Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds have governed themselves effectively since 1992.

In 2017, they overwhelmingly passed a referendum calling for Iraqi Kurdistan to secede from Iraq and form an independent state. Instead of joining forces to achieve their long-held dream, the Kurdish leaders in Iraq worked against one another. One faction, in alliance with Iran, blocked implementation of the referendum and then did nothing as Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk was overrun by Iraqi government forces.

The Kurds in Iraq are far more capable of defending themselves than the Kurds of Syria. Taking on the defense of Syria’s Kurds would commit the US to an open-ended presence in Syria and justify Turkish antagonism. America’s interests would not be advanced. They would be harmed, particularly in light of the YPG’s selling trait for Obama – its warm ties to Assad and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

But Trump also made clear that the US did not support the Turkish move. In subsequent statements, Trump repeatedly pledged to destroy the Turkish economy if Turkey commits atrocities against the Kurds.

Here it is critical to note that Trump did not remove US forces from Syria. They are still deployed along the border crossing between Jordan, Iraq, and Syria to block Iran from moving forces and materiel to Syria and Lebanon. They are still blocking Russian and Syrian forces from taking over the oil fields along the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

Aside from defeating ISIS, these missions are the principle strategic achievements of the US forces in Syria. For now, they are being maintained. Will Turkey’s invasion enable ISIS to reassert itself in Syria and beyond?

Perhaps. But here too, as Trump made clear this week, it is not America’s job to serve as the permanent jailor of ISIS. European forces are just as capable of serving as guards as Americans are. America’s role is not to stay in Syria forever. It is to beat down threats to US and world security as they emerge and then let others – Turks, Kurds, Europeans, Russians, UN peacekeepers – maintain the new, safer status quo.

The final assumption of the narrative regarding Trump’s moves in Syria is that by moving its forces away from the border ahead of the Turkish invasion, Trump harmed regional stability and America’s reputation as a trustworthy ally.

On the latter issue, Trump has spent the better part of his term in office rebuilding America’s credibility as an ally after Obama effectively abandoned the Sunnis and Israel in favor of Iran. To the extent that Trump has harmed US credibility, he didn’t do it in Syria this week by rejecting war with Turkey. He did it last month by failing to retaliate militarily against Iran’s brazen military attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil installations. Whereas the US has no commitment to protect the Kurds, the US’s central commitment in the Middle East for the past 70 years has been the protection of Saudi oil installations and maintaining the safety of maritime routes in and around the Persian Gulf.

The best move Trump can make now in light of the fake narrative of his treachery toward the Kurds is to finally retaliate against Iran. A well-conceived and limited US strike against Iranian missile and drone installations would restore America’s posture as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf and prevent the further destabilization of the Saudi regime and the backsliding of the UAE toward Iran.

As for Syria, it is impossible to know what the future holds for the Kurds, the Turks, the Iranians, Assad, or anyone else. But what is clear enough is that Trump avoided war with Turkey this week. And he began extracting America from an open-ended commitment to the Kurds it never made and never intended to fulfill.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution

US Israel news and articles

From: Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College,  Hillsdale,Michigan

September 2019 • Volume 48, Number 9

By Myron Magnet

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 17, 2019, by Myron Magnet at Hillsdale College’s Constitution Day Celebration in Washington, D.C.  The speech presents passages from Mr. Magnet’s outstanding book on Justice Clarence Thomas

From the speech:

Clarence Thomas is our era’s most consequential jurist, as radical as he is brave. During his almost three decades on the bench, he has been laying out a blueprint for remaking Supreme Court jurisprudence.

www.israel-commentary.org

His template is the Constitution as the Framers wrote it during that hot summer in Philadelphia 232 years ago, when they aimed to design “good government from reflection and choice,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in the first Federalist, rather than settle for a regime formed, as are most in history, by “accident and force.”

What the Framers envisioned was a self-governing republic. Citizens would no longer be ruled. Under laws made by their elected representatives, they would be free to work out their own happiness in their own way, in their families and local communities.

But since those elected representatives are born with the same selfish impulses as everyone else—the same all-too-human nature that makes government necessary in the first place—the Framers took care to limit their powers and to hedge them with checks and balances, to prevent the servants of the sovereign people from becoming their masters.

The Framers strove to avoid at all costs what they called an “elective despotism,” understanding that elections alone don’t ensure liberty.

Did they achieve their goal perfectly, even with the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights? No—and they recognized that. It took the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments—following a fearsome war—to end the evil of slavery that marred the Framers’ creation, but that they couldn’t abolish summarily if they wanted to get the document adopted.

Thereafter, it took the Nineteenth Amendment to give women the vote, a measure that followed inexorably from the principles of the American Revolution.

During the ratification debates, one gloomy critic prophesied that if citizens ratified the Constitution, “the forms of republican government” would soon exist “in appearance only” in America, as had occurred in ancient Rome.

American republicanism would indeed eventually decline, but the decline took a century to begin and unfolded with much less malice than it did at the end of the Roman Republic. Nor was it due to some defect in the Constitution, but rather to repeated undermining by the Supreme Court, the president, and the Congress.

The result today is a crisis of legitimacy, fueling the anger with which Americans now glare at one another. Half of us believe we live under the old Constitution, with its guarantee of liberty and its expectation of self-reliance.

The other half believe in a “living constitution”—a regime that empowers the Supreme Court to sit as a permanent constitutional convention, issuing decrees that keep our government evolving with modernity’s changing conditions.

The living constitution also permits countless supposedly expert administrative agencies, like the SEC and the EPA, to make rules like a legislature, administer them like an executive, and adjudicate and punish infractions of them like a judiciary.

To the Old Constitutionalists, this government of decrees issued by bureaucrats and judges is not democratic self-government but something more like tyranny—hard or soft, depending on whether or not you are caught in the unelected rulers’ clutches.

To the Living Constitutionalists, on the other hand, government by agency experts and Ivy League-trained judges—making rules for a progressive society (to use their language) and guided by enlightened principles of social justice that favor the “disadvantaged” and other victim groups—constitutes real democracy.

So today we have the Freedom Party versus the Fairness Party, with unelected bureaucrats and judges saying what fairness is.

This is the constitutional deformation that Justice Thomas, an Old Constitutionalist in capital letters, has striven to repair. If the Framers had wanted a constitution that evolved by judicial ruling, Thomas says, they could have stuck with the unwritten British constitution that governed the American colonists in just that way for 150 years before the Revolution.

But Americans chose a written constitution, whose meaning, as the Framers and the state ratifying conventions understood it, does not change—and whose purpose remains, as the Preamble states, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Similarly, if later developments fell away from that ideal, it is still perfectible, and Thomas takes it as his job—his calling, he says—to perfect it. And that can mean that where earlier Supreme Court decisions have deviated from what the document and its amendments say, it is the duty of today’s justices to overrule them.

To contemporary lawyers and law professors, this idea of annulling so-called settled law is shockingly radical. It explains why most of Thomas’s opinions are either dissents from the Court’s ruling or concurrences in the Court’s ruling but not its reasoning, often because Thomas rejects the precedent on which the majority relies.

Myron Magnet is editor-at-large of City Journal, where he served as editor from 1994 to 2007. He earned an M.A. from Cambridge University and a Ph.D. from Columbia University, where he also taught for several years. A 2008 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, he has written for numerous publications, including Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times. He is the author of several books, including The Founders at Home: The Building of America, 1735-1817 and, most recently, Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/clarence-thomas-lost-constitution/

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

Pakistan Gives Pass to China’s Oppression of Muslims

US Israel news and articles

Prime Minister Imran Khan denounces Western ‘Islamophobia’ but shrugs at the Uighur plight within China

Redacted from an in-depth article by Sadanand Dhume

Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2019

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s foreign-policy agenda carries a contradiction at its heart. Mr. Khan seeks to project himself as a global defender of Islam, but he won’t utter a peep about one of the most egregious persecutions of Muslims: China’s repression of Xinjiang’s Uighur and its project to Sinicize Islam.

In New York last week, Mr. Khan laid out his vision in a rambling 50-minute address to the United Nations General Assembly. He defended the right of Muslim women in the West to don the hijab. “A woman can take off her clothes in [some] countries, but she can’t put on more clothes,” he said. He declared that “there is no such thing as radical Islam,” only “one Islam and that is the Islam we follow of Prophet Muhammad.”

The prime minister blamed the rise of “Islamophobia” on some “people in the West who deliberately provoked this,” in part by writing novels such as Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.” He warned that “marginalizing Muslim communities” in Europe “leads to radicalization.” He asked the West to treat the prophet “with sensitivity” akin to how it approaches the Holocaust.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Khan devoted much of his address to attacking India for its decision in August to revoke autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim-majority state. He accused Indian troops of locking in Kashmiris like “animals” and warned of an impending bloodbath that could spiral into a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan.

The prime minister will back his fervor with action. After a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Mr. Khan tweeted that the three Muslim-majority countries would set up a “BBC type English-language” television channel to highlight “Muslim issues” and “fight Islamophobia.” Through this channel, the “issue of blasphemy would be properly contextualized” and “Muslims would be given a dedicated media presence.”

Not everything that Mr. Khan says is unreasonable. You can question his florid rhetoric on Kashmir while acknowledging that India’s heavy-handed actions there have caused needless suffering. And if Pakistan and its friends wish to stand up the world’s most boring TV channel, who are we to complain?

Nevertheless, Mr. Khan’s lecture to the West on how to treat its Muslim minorities is, to put it mildly, deeply hypocritical. He appears to expect Western nations to accommodate orthodox Muslim concerns by curtailing free speech and women’s rights. But China’s wholesale assault on Islam itself elicits only silence.

In Xinjiang province, China has diluted the Muslim majority by shipping in millions of Han Chinese migrants. Authorities have banned names they deem overly religious, including Muhammad, as well as “abnormal” beards and veils in public for women. Uighur Muslims face punishment for fasting during Ramadan. According to detainee reports, the friendly methods employed at Chinese re-education camps for Uighur include forcing religious believers to consume pork and alcohol.

At the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last month,  Imran Khan said his nation’s “special relationship” with China stops him from speaking about the Uighur in public!

What explains this silence? First the obvious answer: Pakistan depends on China for diplomatic, military and economic support. In addition, “there’s a kind of protest reflex in some parts of the Muslim world that focuses on the West,” says Afshin Molavi, an expert on Middle East-Asia ties at Johns Hopkins University. “This reflex doesn’t exist with China.”

Unfortunately for Pakistan—and luckily for the rest of us—pan-Islamism appears to be fading. Hardly any Muslim country wants to risk angering China’s touchy rulers by criticizing their policies. On Kashmir, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose support Pakistan could once count on, now place economic ties with New Delhi above solidarity with Islamabad.

This doesn’t mean that Mr. Khan should stop speaking up on behalf of his coreligionists. But if he wants to be taken seriously, he ought to focus more on China’s war on Islam and less on imaginary problems facing Muslims in the West. 

(Unfortunately, the Muslim attack on the West is not “imaginary” but very real and one that the West must immediately address as an existential threat) jsk   

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook at  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Join on Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

When the Slave Traders were themselves African

US Israel news and articles

Those whose ancestors sold slaves to Europeans (via Arab ships)now struggle to come to terms with a painful legacy

Redacted from an in-depth article By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani

The Wall Street Journal Sept. 20, 2019 

This August marked 400 years since the first documented enslaved Africans arrived in the U.S. In 1619, a ship reached the Jamestown settlement in the colony of Virginia, carrying “some 20 and odd Negroes” who were kidnapped from their villages in present-day Angola.

www.israel-commentary.org   (Israel Commentary)

The anniversary coincides with a controversial debate in the U.S. about whether the country owes reparations to the descendants of slaves as compensation for centuries of injustice and inequality. It is a moment for posing questions of historic guilt and responsibility.

But the American side of the story is not the only one. Africans are now also reckoning with their own complicated legacy in the slave trade, and the infamous “Middle Passage” often looks different from across the Atlantic.

Records from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, directed by historian David Eltis at Emory University, show that the majority of captives brought to the U.S. came from Senegal, Gambia, Congo and eastern Nigeria. Europeans oversaw this brutal traffic in human cargo, but they had many local collaborators.

“The organization of the slave trade was structured to have the Europeans stay along the coast lines, relying on African middlemen and merchants to bring the slaves to them,” said Toyin Falola, a Nigerian professor of African studies at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Europeans couldn’t have gone into the interior to get the slaves themselves.”

The anguished debate over slavery in the U.S. is often silent on the role that Africans played. That silence is echoed in many African countries, where there is hardly any national discussion or acknowledgment of the issue. 

Some families have chosen to hide similar histories. “We speak of it in whispers,” said Yunus Mohammed Rafiq, a 44-year-old professor of anthropology from Tanzania who now teaches at New York University’s center in Shanghai. In the 19th century, Mr. Rafiq’s great-great-great-grandfather, Mwarukere, from the Segeju ethnic group, raided villages in Tanzania’s hinterland, sold the majority of his captives to the Arab merchants who supplied Europeans and kept the rest as laborers on his own coconut plantations.

Some families feel no qualms about publicizing their own history. “I’m not ashamed of it because I personally wasn’t directly involved,” said 58-year-old Donald Duke, a lawyer who ran for president in Nigeria’s 2019 elections. He is from the port town of Calabar, home to the Efik ethnic group of Nigeria’s Cross River state.

In the 18th century, some 1.2 million slaves were sold through Calabar, according to the Tulane University historian Randy J. Sparks. The Efik were mostly stevedores and middlemen. They negotiated prices between the white traders and their African partners from the hinterlands, then collected royalties. “Families like mine benefited from that process,” Mr. Duke told me.

The Zambian pastor Saidi Francis Chishimba also feels the need to go public with his family’s history. “In Zambia, in a sense, it is a forgotten history,” said the 45-year-old. “But it is a reality to which history still holds us accountable.” Mr. Chishimba’s grandfather, Ali Saidi Muluwe Wansimba, was from a tribe of slave traders of the Bemba kingdom, who moved from Zanzibar to establish slave markets in Zambia. He grew up hearing this history narrated with great pride by his relatives.

Mr. Chishimba decided that this gruesome history should be openly acknowledged and has since become popular in Zambia for his sermons, radio talks and articles on the impact of the slave trade. He uses them as an opportunity to “demonstrate the grace of God” even in so wicked a practice. He believes, for example, that mixing the races was always in God’s plan and the slave trade was an effective device for dispersing black people from Africa to other parts of the world. “What the devil meant for evil, God used it for good,” he said.

Still, my father does not believe that the descendants of those who took part in the slave trade should now pay for those wrongs. As he points out, buying and selling human beings had been part of many African cultures, as a form of serfdom, long before the first white people landed on our shores. 

“If anyone asks me for reparations,” he said sarcastically, “I will tell them to follow me to my backyard so that I can pluck some money from the tree there and give it to them.”

As for Mr. Rafiq, he agrees that Africans owe something to the descendants of slaves in America—a forthright acknowledgment of their own complicity in the trans-Atlantic trade. “Educated Africans need to rewrite their history, especially postcolonial history, which was a kind of restorative history that tended to marginalize issues like slavery,” he said. “Part of the compensation is telling the story of our part in what is happening to African-Americans today.”

Ms. Nwaubani is a Nigerian writer and journalist. Her debut novel, “I Do Not Come to You by Chance,” won the 2010 Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for best first book.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. KaufmanTwitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

Justice Department Inspector Gen. Michael Horowitz details gross FBI misconduct

US Israel news and articles

Former FBI Director James Comey and former acting Director Andrew McCaben finally under intense Justice Dept. investigation

By Kimberley A. Strassel  

Wall Street Journal

Sept. 19, 2019

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz details gross misconduct by officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who first spun the long debunked “collusion” and “obstruction” narrative that liberal and media partisans refuse to quit.

www.israel-commentary.org

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler held another spectacle hearing Tuesday as part of his impeachment dramaturgy. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski testified to a thronged hearing room and was grilled on Russia interactions and Oval Office discussions. The day produced no new information, yet cable stations broadcast it live and newspapers ran breathless coverage.

A House Oversight subcommittee held its own hearing Wednesday. The room was almost empty; all but a few Democratic members didn’t even bother showing up. Apart from Fox News and a few conservative publications, news organizations ignored it. The featured—and substantive—witness: Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

This is today’s Washington: theater upstaging truth. The headlines go to a long debunked “collusion” and “obstruction” narrative that liberal and media partisans refuse to quit. A press blackout is meanwhile imposed on those investigators—including Mr. Horowitz—who have rooted out gross misconduct by the officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who first spun that narrative.

In contrast to the Lewandowski moment, Mr. Horowitz’s testimony was informative and significant. And in contrast to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s vague testimony, the inspector general demonstrated a whip-sharp command of facts. He was officially there to talk about a standards-and-training panel, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, of which he is chairman. 

The real merit of the hearing was to bring home the magnitude of the leaking and lying offenses by former FBI Director James Comey (as detailed in an August 2019 inspector-general report) and former acting Director Andrew McCabe (as detailed in a February 2018 inspector-general report). It was momentous to hear Mr. Horowitz acknowledge that his office found enough wrongdoing to require criminal referrals to the Justice Department for two successive heads of the FBI.

“Our concern,” Mr. Horowitz said, “was empowering the FBI director, or frankly any FBI employee or other law-enforcement official, with the authority to decide that they’re not going to follow established norms and procedures because in their view they’ve made a judgment that the individuals they are dealing with can’t be trusted.”

Ohio’s Rep. Jim Jordan asked: So this “wasn’t just information going one way; they were trying to get information from the president as well—is that right?” Mr. Horowitz: “That’s what we’ve reported.

You might think an inspector-general report that excoriates the former head of a powerful agency might be worthy of bipartisan attention. Think again. Democrats avoided Comey questions Wednesday, and Mr. Horowitz told Mr. Jordan that neither the Oversight nor the Judiciary committee has asked him to testify on the August report. Mr. Horowitz was also unaware of any request for testimony on his upcoming report on FBI surveillance.

Democrats talk a lot about their dedication to “oversight” and “truth.” And the media keep promising not to let democracy die in darkness. This week’s tale of two hearings proves otherwise.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

Kelly Kraft – New US Ambassador to the UN – Addresses US/Israel relationship

US Israel news and articles  

www.israel-commentary.org

President Trump wants the members of Congress to be treated just like the rest of American citizens that they exploit daily.

So, many members of Congress are retiring in hopes of “locking-in” their future retirement payments. Currently, their monthly retirement checks are equal to their monthly salaries. They hope to freeze their retirement as it stands. I’m with Trump on this one. Trump is asking everyone to forward this Email to a minimum of 20 people and to ask each one of them to do likewise.

This makes too much sense not to be passed on. In 3 days, most people in the United States will have the message.
This is why the idea should be passed around, regardless of Political Party.

The Trump Rule’s Congressional Reform Act Of 2018: 

1– No Tenure / No Pension.  A Congressman / Woman, collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office.  No more perks go with them.

2– Congressman / Woman (past, present & future) participate in Social Security.  All funds in the Congressional Retirement Fund move to the Social Security System immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security System, and Congress participates with the American People.  It may not be used for any other purposes.

3– Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4– Congress will no longer vote themselves pay increases. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%

5– Congress’s current Healthcare System is terminated, and they participate in the same Healthcare System as the American people.

6– Congress must abide by all the laws they impose on the American people.

7– All contracts with past and present Congressman / Woman are void. The American people did not make these contracts with Congressmen / Women.

The Congress made all these contracts for themselves.  Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators serving their terms, then going home and back to work, and not get all kinds of freebies!

No wonder THEY’RE FIGHTING THIS TOOTH AND NAIL!

If each person contacts a minimum of 20 people,  It will only take 3 days for most people in the United States to receive this message. It’s time for us to take action now!

 

www.israel-commentary.org 

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon welcomed his new American counterpart, Kelly Craft.

By JewishNewsService (JNS)

At a regularly scheduled monthly debate in the United Nations Security Council, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon extended warm greetings to Kelly Craft, the new U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

In his remarks before the body, Danon said, “We welcome your presence here and look forward to your voice being heard on behalf of the American people.”

In her remarks, Craft, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in July and sworn in this month, used the opportunity to express her support for Israel: “The United States has always supported Israel in the past. The United States supports Israel today. The United States will always support Israel moving forward. Israel will have no better friend than Kelly Craft.”

 

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

Iran’s Return “Handshake” to President Trump

An attack on Saudi oil production shows John Bolton was right.

By The Editorial Board  Wall Street Journal

Sept. 15, 2019

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated on Twitter that Iran ‘launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply’ after attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities on September 14, 2019. I

Since President Trump withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Islamic Republic has tested U.S. resolve with military escalation across the Middle East. Likely Iranian involvement in attacks on Saudi oil production over the weekend marks a new phase in this destabilizing campaign, and it’s no coincidence this happened as Mr. Trump is considering a softer approach to Tehran.

www.israel-commentary.org

This is more than a local dispute between two regional powers. The attacks have caused a roughly 5% reduction in global daily oil production. The Saudis have promised to dip into reserves to offset the losses, but oil prices could rise and harm an already fragile global economy if the Kingdom isn’t able to restore production fast enough.

American shale oil production can take up some of the slack but that would take time. Long-term damage to oil supplies would increase the pressure on the U.S. to ease sanctions on Iranian oil exports, which Mr. Trump has been considering.

The attack continues what is already a hot proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, an important U.S. ally. The extent of the damage raises doubts about how well the Saudis can defend against future drone assaults. Saudi intelligence and air defenses don’t seem up to the job. Saudi revenues would be hurt by a reduction in oil output, and uncertainty will complicate an initial public offering of the country’s national oil company, Aramco.

Even if the Houthis didn’t carry out this attack, Iran is backing their war against an Arab coalition in Yemen. The Houthis have become increasingly aggressive in attacking sites in Saudi Arabia and oil tankers in the Red Sea. If the Saudis cede Yemen to the Houthis, Iran will have won another proxy war, this one on the Arabian peninsula. 

The Saudis are far from ideal allies, but U.S. Senators who want to end U.S. support for Riyadh should consider the alternative of Iranian regional dominance. The White House says Mr. Trump spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and pledged U.S. support. But the White House should be contemplating more than words.

The Iranians are probing Mr. Trump as much as the Saudis. They are testing his resolve to carry out his “maximum pressure” campaign, and they sense weakness. Iran shot down an American drone this summer, and Mr. Trump rejected advice for a military response. Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s overseas Quds Force, has historically interpreted such restraint as a signal that he’s winning and can safely escalate.

Mr. Trump is also eager for direct talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Mr. Pompeo floated a handshake meeting between the two at the coming United Nations General Assembly. Mr. Trump has even contemplated support for French President Emmanuel Macron ’s idea of paying the mullahs a $15 billion bribe for better behavior. The weekend attack is Iran’s return handshake.

U.S. sanctions have hurt Iran’s crude oil exports, but Tehran still earns hundreds of millions of dollars a month from other petroleum products. Senator Lindsey Graham says direct attacks on Iranian oil production should be considered, and the Islamic Republic needs to know that is not off the table.

pastedGraphic.pngThe Saudi coalition also needs more help interdicting Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis. Americans are understandably wary of deeper involvement in Yemen, but a victory for Iran and the rise of a Hezbollah-like regime in Sana’a will harm U.S. security interests. Think another Syria and Lebanon.

Mr. Trump might also apologize to John Bolton, who warned repeatedly that Iran would take advantage of perceived weakness in the White House. Mr. Bolton resigned last week over policy differences, notably on Iran. The weekend’s events proved the former adviser right. The Trump Administration’s pressure campaign has been working, and abandoning it now would encourage Tehran to take more military risks.

Big Tech’s Big Secret (perpetrated upon American public)

Big Tech’s Big Secret

Redacted from earlier more pertinent than ever article 

By David Kupelian, Editor

WhistleBlower Magazine 

World Net Daily  2019

Democratic presidential primary debates highlight one of the great paradoxes of our time: The Democratic Party has gone completely mad, embracing wildly radical policies from mass gun confiscation to socialism to late-term abortion to allowing convicted, incarcerated terrorists to vote. Yet the party could see its candidate elected president in 2020.

www.israel-commentary.org

Lords of the internet mean to defeat Trump – then reshape America and the world

How is that possible?

Consider, after all, the degree of lunacy now championed by Democrat presidential candidates: America is being negatively transformed by a full-scale, never-ending invasion across its southern border, but all the Democrat candidates love, enable and encourage it. Their “Green New Deal” schemes would cost untold trillions of taxpayer dollars while destroying America’s fossil fuel industries, thereby putting millions out of work. 

They celebrate full-term abortion (aka infanticide) and cheer the epidemic of delusional men invading women’s locker rooms and showers and dominating the world of women’s sports. One Democrat candidate, Julian Castro, announced from the debate stage that he even wants taxpayer-funded abortions for men who get pregnant.

Add to this insanity never-ending calls to impeach President Donald Trump, part of a rolling coup attempt that has severely traumatized America with most outrageous political hoax in U.S. history – the allegation, utterly without evidence, that the president of the US is secretly a traitorous Russian double agent.

Of course, the fake news media serve as the grand enablers of all this, modern alchemists magically transmuting leftwing insanity into fools’ gold, forever portraying Democrats as moral and caring, and Republicans as selfish and evil.

And therein lies the answer to our question of how a wildly unhinged political party like the Democrats of 2019 could actually retake the White House – and Congress – and therefore the courts – in 2020.

Imagine some unseen yet immensely powerful entity existed, one capable of influencing the minds of hundreds of millions of people, shaping their perceptions in such a profound way to steer them toward voting for a certain party or candidate. 

Suppose, further, that this influence was virtually undetectable, that the entity was one we had come to admire, consulting it on a daily basis, tapping freely into its vast, almost god-like reservoir of universal knowledge and understanding.

Suppose further that, though imperceptible to us, this great and all-knowing something had a secret plan for our lives and our society, an overriding will to guide and shape us and our world in its benevolent image.

This, in essence, is what America – indeed the whole world – is dealing with in the Age of Big Tech.

As the June issue of Whistleblower magazine documents, citing hard evidence including multiple peer-reviewed studies, Google is already determining the results of elections around the world. And, contends Google researcher Robert Epstein, Ph.D., former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today (and a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), Google likely swung as many as 3 million votes toward Hillary in the 2016 presidential contest. It just turned out not to be quite enough.

“I’m guessing that these companies held back in 2016, because they were overconfident,” Epstein said later. Recently, Epstein predicted, based on his half-decade of peer-reviewed research, that Big Tech could swing 15 million votes toward the Democrat presidential candidate in 2020, without leaving any paper trail and without those so influenced realizing it.

In widely read Wired article headlined, “Is Big Tech Merging with Big Brother” journalist David Samuels writes,  “the threat of government surveillance systems being integrated with the existing corporate surveillance capacities of big-data companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon into one gigantic all-seeing eye appears to trouble very few people.”

Indeed, with the growing presence of Big Tech in Washington, D.C. – from Google’s huge corporate lobbying expenditures, to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ purchase of the Washington Post, to major high-tech contracts being awarded by the CIA, Pentagon and other federal agencies to companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Google – the merger of Big Tech and Big Government appears to be happening.

Let’s say it straight: Big Tech – overwhelmingly far-leftist progressive in worldview and therefore, by definition totalitarian – is attempting to transform the world in its image.

Big Tech – first and foremost Google, which accounts for 90 percent of all search inquiries worldwide – has become almost like a god to billions of people. But that god is attempting to reshape errant and wayward humanity in its image.

Its most urgent task right now? Defeat Trump in the 2020 election. Big Tech is still kicking itself for having failed in 2016. It doesn’t intend to make the same mistake again.

*****

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

18 YEARS AFTER 9/11 THE THREAT OF TERROR ATTACKS CONTINUES

18 YEARS AFTER 9/11 THE THREAT OF TERROR ATTACKS CONTINUES

By Michael Cutler 

Frontpage Magazine

My article today was predicated on the the fact that here we are, 18 years after the horrific terror attacks of September 11, 2001 which killed many more than the often stated “3,000 victims” considering that tens of thousands of people were sickened by their exposure to the toxins released as a direct consequence of the the terror attacks.  Thousands of additional victims have already died while more are terribly ill and are dying.

The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony was convened to determine what went wrong so that we could protect America and Americans from future barbaric terror attacks.  While the 9/11 Commission made it crystal clear that the terror attacks of 9/11 and others that preceded that attack were only possible because of multiple failures of the immigration system.

Subsequent terror attacks have occurred throughout the United States since 9/11 that were also perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated by aliens who easily gamed the immigration system.

Yet neither political party have the integrity to properly fund immigration law enforcement, construct a wall to secure our porous borders.

The Democrats have, beyond all comprehension, created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” that harbor and shield illegal aliens including transnational criminals, international terrorists and foreign fugitives from detection by DHS.

After the attacks of 9/11 a virtual mantra was created when a slew of politicians elbowed their way to podiums, preferably with television cameras capturing their statements, and demanded to know “Why did no one connect the dots?”

Today you will undoubtedly be shocked to know that those dots were well-connected years before 9/11, but then utterly ignored (As a result of constant, incessant, Arab and Muslim propaganda using the ploy of political correctness and blurring the language of Islamic Terrorism with vague euphemisms like Jihad, moral equivalency, and a compliant, supportive media) jsk

Being “Pro-Enforcement” is not “Anti-Immigrant.”  Indeed, advocates for immigration anarchy are actually taking an “Anti-Immigrant” position by obfuscating the line that separates lawful immigrants from illegal aliens.  

To provide a bit of clarity, while we are indeed a “Nation of immigrants” America is not a nation of trespassers.  The difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Americans must be willing to stand their ground and not be intimidated by the false accusations. Many people have come to complain that we have become too “Politically Correct” to speak the truth about important issues.  My view is that the artful use of language that has been described as examples of political correctness are in fact, examples of Orwellian “Newspeak.” 

Discussions about immigration almost invariably focus on the lack of integrity to the border that is supposed to separate the United States from America.  Clearly that border lacks integrity and represents little more than a speed bump to smugglers who transport illegal aliens and contraband including record quantities of dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine into the United States.

However, there are many more components to the immigration system including systems by which aliens are granted visas to enter the United States and various immigration benefits such as conferring employment authorization to aliens in the United States and also include the adjudications process by which aliens are granted lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.

All of these systems of the immigration system lack integrity.  Aliens who have gone on to commit crimes and even participate in terrorist attacks have often been dissevered to have successfully gamed the immigration benefits program in order to embed themselves in communities around the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.

Immigration is not a single issue but a singular issue that impacts nearly every challenge and threat confronting the United States today!  Simply stated, the immigration laws were enacted to save lives and protect the jobs of American workers.  In point of fact, our borders and our immigration laws are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.

Our armed forces are charged with securing America’s borders externally while the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is supposed to secure those same borders from within.  The failures of the DHS to live up to its half of the equation are undermining the efforts, valor and incredible sacrifices of Americas men and women who serve in our military!

If our government’s failures to protect American jobs by securing our nation’s borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws concerns you or especially if it angers you, I ask you to call your Senators and Congressional “Representative. This is not only your right- it is your obligation! 

We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance.

USA Talk Radio Online Radio | BlogTalkRadio

https://www.blogtalkradio.com › usatalkradio

The Michael Cutler Hour. Happy Friday! There is much to consider this evening as we prepare to remember the 18th anniversary of the barbaric, horrific terror ..

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

A Realistic Solution to the Never-ending Israeli/Arab Conflict

Redacted from a detailed  article by Dr. Martin Sherman

Arutz Sheva  –  Israel National News.com

November 1, 2019

Last week, Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, and Justice Minister, Ayalet Shaked, dropped a political bombshell when they announced that they were breaking away from their current party, “Jewish Home”—and were setting up a new party, with the (somewhat bland) name of the “New Right”.

www.israel-commentary.org

If the “New Right” is to advance “Right wing” causes, it must abandon schemes that lead to the creation of a never ending political strife with inevitable Lebanonizztion or Balkanization of Israeli society. They must  work towards legitimizing the idea of incentivized emigration of the Arab population of Judea-Samaria

According to this line of reasoning, they needed a new political vehicle, with a fresh image, unfettered with trappings of “excess” religiosity and political rejectionism. So the birth of “New Right” was announced, amid considerable drama in the media—and commensurate acrimony from the Jewish Home, who, understandably, felt betrayed by the unexpected, unilateral split.

It is, of course, still far too early to judge whether the abrupt break-away will yield positive results. However, two things can already be determined. The first is that by their decisive action, Bennett and Shaked have demonstrated that they have the necessary nerve and ruthlessness for taking high risk decisions—an indispensable requisite for the positions of leadership they seek. The second is that they have identified, at least partially, an important gap in Israel’s political landscape, which, almost inexplicably, has been left unfilled for decades and which, if suitably addressed, has the potential for considerable political rewards.

By explicitly opening the party ranks to religious and secular sectors of the electorate, while adopting a hardline (“Right” of Likud) approach to foreign policy and security affairs, they correctly challenge a widespread misconception. This is that when it comes to the Palestinian issue, rejection of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal is largely limited to the more observant portions of the population.

There is a sound secular rationale, backed by historical precedent, underscoring the folly of concessions to despotic adversaries. Moreover, historically, among the most hawkish opponents of territorial withdrawal was the hard-Left (i.e. socialist) Ahdut HaAvoda faction of the Labor Party, led by Yitzhak Tabenkin, one of the leading figures of the Kibbutz movement, who vehemently opposed any territorial withdrawal after the 1967 Six-Day Way.

Significantly, the Movement for Greater Israel, formed almost immediately after the Six-Day War to oppose any withdrawal from territory taken by the IDF, was founded mainly by prominent individuals with roots in the Labor Party, along with a few “Right-wing” revisionists.

Accordingly, it could well be that Bennett and Shaked have shrewdly diagnosed an inherent lacuna in Israel’s body politic and have identified a significant, yet untapped constituency of secular hawks.

This is the constituency comprised of those who recognize the folly and futility of persisting with a policy of ceaseless concessions to the Palestinian-Arabs, but find the Likud too equivocating on security and overly accommodative of the haredi demands for religious legislation.

Of course, it is still an open question whether the formula devised by Bennett and Shaked—of parity between secular and religious elements—is the right one to win over this constituency. For while I foresee little difficulty on some issues—such as reducing the tyranny of the judiciary, bolstering the Jewish settlement of Judea-Samaria and enhancing the emphasis on Zionist values and Jewish identity in the education system, other thorny and divisive issues may well arise.

But with all due respect to these domestic issues, the real litmus test of the New Right’s strategic value will be in the manner it impacts the discourse on the “Palestinian” problem.

Both Bennett and Glick have done an admirable job in pointing out the disastrous defects of the two-state formula. Regrettably however, they have advanced poorly thought-through alternatives to replace it—alternatives, which are no less detrimental to the ability of Israel to endure as the nation-state of the Jewish people! Perhaps even more so!

Thus, Bennett’s blueprint for annexing 60% of the area would, in all probability, involve the same “political pain” as annexing 100%. Moreover, it is unlikely to solve any of Israel’s prevailing security and diplomatic problems.

Quite the opposite, it is highly likely to exacerbate them. So, in the final analysis, it is an almost certain recipe for the Balkanization of Israel – i.e. dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.

It would take considerable—and unsubstantiated—faith to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of almost 40% – as the societal havoc, that far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe, indicate. Indeed, this is a clear recipe for the Lebanonization of Israeli society with all the inter-ethnic strife that tore Israel’s unfortunate northern neighbor apart.

Incentivized Arab emigration: A Zionist imperative

Accordingly, the only policy proposal that can address both these imperatives, without the use of considerable “kinetic” force, is to induce large-scale Arab emigration by means of a comprehensive system of material incentives to leave, and disincentives to stay. The details of how this policy is to be implemented are unimportant at this stage. What is important is to grasp is its underlying principle and the unavoidable necessity for it to be adopted.

By Dr. Martin Sherman, 11/01/19

The writer served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government and lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science and international relations, was the first academic director of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org). Born in South Africa, he has lived in Israel since 1971.

 

Global Warming Pseudo-religion once more exposed

A Famine of Fact at U.N. Climate Panel

The IPCC sounds an alarm about food production, but another U.N. agency’s data show it’s a false one.

By James Taylor

Wall Street Journal, Aug. 30, 2019

Global crop production sets new records virtually every year. That didn’t stop the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from publishing an alarmist report Aug. 8 that suggests global warming has devastated crop production and threatens food shortages.

“Climate change . . . has adversely impacted food security and terrestrial ecosystems as well as contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions,” the report asserts. “Warming compounded by drying has caused yield declines in parts of Southern Europe. Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in drylands, particularly those in Africa, and high mountain regions of Asia and South America.”

At the same time, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that new records were set for global corn, wheat and rice production five years running through 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. How is that possible?

The IPCC report parses words and engages in semantic tricks to give readers a false impression of declining global crop production. Note the reference to declining yields in “parts” of Southern Europe. The report doesn’t mention that yields are increasing in Southern Europe as a whole. 

What sense does it make to blame declining yields in a small portion of the world on global warming without crediting global warming for global gains?

The IPCC claims that “indigenous and local knowledge”—as distinct from objectively quantifiable data—supports its claim of declining food production in “drylands” of Africa, Asia and South America. Yet data show crop yields are increasing throughout all three continents and in almost all the nations characterized by drylands.

Environmental activist groups, bureaucrats, socialists looking to transform Western society, and biased journalists continue to make climate claims that have no basis in fact. They hope a constant drumbeat of authoritative-sounding falsehoods will convince you we’re in a crisis only they can solve.

Mr. Taylor is director of the Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

II  Comments from Isaac  Barr:    Sep 3, 2019

From EG   Climate changes is the biggest lie in human history because there is no transparency and raw data was refused to be shown in court. Climategate refers to the then hacked emails of the leading “climate researchers” that showed how the IPCC’s most influential “scientists” voted with each other on what “statistical adjustments”, what specially trimmed computer models and what other tricks the Data should be manipulated to get to the desired results. THINK Isaac Barr MD

https://www.epochtimes.de/umwelt/klima/climategate-rueckschlag-fuer-anhaenger-des-von-menschen-gemachten-klimawandels-nach-gerichtsurteil-in-kanada-a2988976.html?print=1

ClimateGate: Setback for the followers of man-made climate change after court ruling in Canada

He may well be familiar to insiders and savvy climate activists: US climate researcher Michael Mann, who launched the famous “hockey chart” on which the supporters of the theory of man-made climate change and the World Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based.

This support should start after the judgment of a Canadian court now to crumble. Because after it became known that in the “hockey diagram” unempiric and result-related and thus not scientifically worked to get the desired results, the supporters of the theory of the wind is taken out of the sails. For Michael Mann it could mean a deep fall.

Thomas More Law Center Uncovers Taxpayer-funded Islamic Propaganda Forced on Teachers

Redacted from an in-depth SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has uncovered evidence of a well-orchestrated Islamic propaganda campaign aimed at teachers in school systems throughout Michigan and several other states.

Concerned about a two-day mandatory teacher-training seminar on Islam conducted by a Muslim consultant hired by Michigan’s Novi Community Schools District, TMLC filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the workshop.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, commented on the results of their investigation, “We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed—all funded by Novi taxpayers.”

Moreover, during the past five years the school district has presented no teacher-training seminars focusing on Christianity, Judaism or any other religion – only Islam.

The hired Muslim consultant was Huda Essa, a resident of the Dearborn area and of Arab descent. She appeared before the Novi teachers in a hijab, the Muslim headscarf, billing herself as an expert in “cultural competency” and “culturally responsive teaching.”

Most disappointing was the fact that of the more than 400 teachers attending the workshop, not one teacher challenged Essa’s denigration of Christianity or attacks on America.

TMLC inspected dozens of internal school documents, including audio recordings of Essa’s presentation.

The information on Islam she provided to Novi teachers was riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive.

Essa provided no truthful information on Sharia law and jihad, two of the most important aspects of Islam. All references to terrorism were dismissed as having nothing to do with Islam. White Christian males, she suggested, are more dangerous than Islamic radicals.

Essa is the face behind Culture Links LLC, a Michigan-based consultancy. She describes herself on the Culture Links website as an advocate of social justice who encourages children to “take pride in their many identities.”

But, as TMLC discovered from the Novi documents, the one identity Essa does not celebrate is that of patriotic Americans who believe in our nation’s exceptionalism.

And her message extends far beyond Novi.

Essa’s client list reveals she has been spreading her “trash America first” philosophy to colleges, universities, schools and professional educator associations throughout Michigan, California, Georgia, Texas, Florida and beyond. In Michigan alone her website lists nine school districts as clients – Oakland County Schools, Ann Arbor Schools, L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, Roseville Community Schools, Farmington Public Schools, Dearborn Public Schools, Birmingham Public Schools and Melvindale Public Schools.

Under the banner of promoting diversity, inclusion and a multicultural approach to education, Essa sets about comparing Islam to Christianity, calling them “mostly similar.” The one big difference, she claims, is that Islam is the world’s “only purely monotheistic religion.”

Islam’s holy book, the Koran, came straight from Allah to the prophet Muhammad and, unlike the Jewish and Christian scriptures, has never been altered or changed, she told the Novi teachers. Significantly, the Koran commands Muslims to “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Koran 9:5)

Her message was clear: The Koran is superior to the Bible. But she did not address the fact that it calls for the extermination of Christian and Jews.

While quick to indict America as guilty of “cultural genocide,” Essa was silent on the 1400 years of actual genocides, also known as jihads, in which Muslims wiped out Jewish tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, and slaughtered millions of Christians throughout the Middle East, North Africa and the European Continent. Referring to Islam, Winston Churchill wrote, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Novi’s Islamic teacher-training is just the latest example of professional Islamic indoctrinators infiltrating U.S. public schools even as Christianity has been forced out of the classroom.

“This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems,” Thompson said. “No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”

Only action by patriotic American parents will put a stop to the indoctrination of teachers and students. They must attend school board meetings and call their board’s attention to the existence of unconstitutional Islamic propaganda whenever they find evidence of it in their children’s schools. And when their board is unresponsive, they must be willing to take legal action to stop it whenever the law permits.

TMLC has several active cases involving public schools bending over backwards to promote Islam while trashing Christianity.

In New Jersey, seventh-grade students at Chatham Middle School were taught “Islam is the true faith,” required to learn the Shahada, or Muslim creed, and forced to watch videos that sought to convert them.

TMLC is representing another student at La Plata High School in Maryland, where pupils in world-history classes were taught that “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian” and “Islam at heart is a peaceful religion.”

Jihad, meanwhile, was introduced to La Plata students as a “personal” spiritual struggle, having nothing to do with using violence to spread the faith. And, like in New Jersey, the Maryland students were forced to learn the Five Pillars of Islam and memorize the Shahada.

A SERIES OF DECEPTIONS

Essa spent a great deal of time in her Novi presentation talking about Muslim women, whom she described as victims of Islamophobia on the part of bigoted Americans.

She said her own mother’s decision to wear the hijab was met with “rage” from random Americans. Other hijab-wearing Muslim women have been spat upon, had hot liquids poured on them, been beaten and even killed because they wear the hijab, Essa said, without giving details of when or where these atrocities supposedly occurred.

Essa presented no statistics on hate crimes to back up her claims. FBI crime stats show that anti-Muslim attacks are relatively rare in America and actually fell by 17 percent in 2017. Anti-Jewish hate crimes that year out-numbered anti-Muslim offenses by nearly four to one.

Globally, Christians are the most persecuted of all religious groups, according to the watchdog Open Doors. Of the top-ten most dangerous countries to be a Christian, all but two of them are Muslim-majority nations, according to Open Doors’ 2019 World Watch List.

But Essa’s attempts to con Novi teachers into accepting her anti-American, pro-Islamic worldview didn’t stop with the idea that Muslims are the most persecuted and victimized people.

She said any poor treatment of women in Islamic countries should be attributed to “cultural” differences, not the religion of Islam.

She failed to mention that Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, is reported to have said that the majority of hell would be populated by women (Hadith by Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1:28, 301, Vol. 2:161, Vol. 7:124-126). Also absent from her presentation was the Koranic instruction for husbands to beat a disobedient wife (Sura 4:34).

Exercising the art of deception, Essa said Muslims love Jesus and refer to him as “messiah.”

But the word “messiah” has a different meaning for Muslims than for Christians. When Christians speak of Jesus their Messiah, they are referring to God’s “anointed One,” who has the power to forgive sin and grant salvation.

Muslims confer no such divine authority to their Jesus. Under Islam Jesus was only a man, a lower prophet under Muhammad, not the Son of God, and he did not die on a cross or rise from the dead as documented in the gospels.

Essa hammered Novi teachers with the Islamic teaching that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are not to be trusted. Although once pure, they were gradually “corrupted” by unscrupulous men. Only the Koran contains the final, “pure” words of God, she said.

Essa also schooled teachers in the proper use of the phrase “Allahu Akbar!” or “Allah is greatest!” While this is widely known as battle-cry of Muslim terrorists, Essa said it’s really just a refrain that Muslims use to convey feelings of happiness, sadness, anger, or thankfulness while praising Allah.

Essa said the word “Islam” is an offshoot of the Arabic term “Salaam,” which means peace. This is a common ploy used by Muslim apologists to deceive uninformed Westerners.

“Islam” is more accurately translated as “submission” and good Muslims know they must submit to Allah and his Sharia (Islamic law), above all other systems of law.

Essa noted Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion without mentioning that Muslims are forbidden from leaving the faith. Considered apostates, those leaving the faith are subject to severe punishment, up to and including death. And forced conversions have been a well-documented fact of history.

The Middle East and North Africa, once overwhelmingly Christian, were Islamized by a series of jihads starting with Muhammad, his successor caliphs and later by the Ottoman Turks.

She completely ignored the jihadi terrorist attacks conducted on U.S. soil: The 9/11 attack that murdered nearly 3,000 people, the Fort Hood massacre of 12 U.S. soldiers, the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 Americans in Orlando, the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 at a Christmas party, the Chattanooga shooting that killed five at a Navy recruitment and reserve center, the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and left hundreds wounded, and the Chelsea, New York, pipe-bombing that injured 30 innocent Americans. Not to mention the countless terror attacks that have been foiled by the FBI.

Here are some other facts uncovered by TMLC’s Freedom of Information Act requests:

•     Novi school district has no guidelines for the selection of presenters for teacher-training events.

•    The school district did not fully vet Huda Essa before selecting her as a presenter and providing her with data about the school district and its students.

•     Essa was given access to data from student and teacher surveys.

•    The school district said it had no records that would indicate it ever conducted a factual analysis of Essa’s presentation.

•     The school district signed a contract on August 2, 2017, agreeing to pay Essa $5,000 for her two-day seminar on August 28 and 29, 2017.

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be

Battle Ready to Defend America!

Thomas More Law Center <thomasmore@thomasmore.org>

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Lest the Nations of the World forget …..

From this weeks Torah portion                                                                        

Fifth Book of Moses, D’VARIM (DEUTERONOMY) Parsha EIKEV  18-25

… 18 Therefore impress these, My words upon                                                            

your very heart: bind them as a sign on your                                                            

hand and let them serve as a symbol on your 

forehead, 

19  and teach them to your.children reciting them 

when you stay at home and when you are away,

when you lie down and when you get up; 

20 and inscribe them on the doorposts                                                           

of your house and on your gates  

21 to the end that you and your children may endure, 

in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to assign

to them, as Iong as there is a heaven over the earth     

22  If, then, you faithfully keep all this Instruction 

that I command you, loving the Lord your                                                               

God, walking in all His ways, and holding fast to Him 

23 the Lord will dislodge before you these nations. 

you will dispossess nations greater and more numerous than you. 

24  Every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours;                                                        

your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon

and from the River, the Euphrates, to the Western Sea. 

25 No man shall stand up to you: the Lord your God will put                                                            

the dread and the fear of you over the whole land in which 

you set foot, as He promised.

Additional Notes:

The original British Mandate that the League of Nations designated as the future Jewish homeland followed G0d’s exact description of the land as described above – from the Mediterranean Sea all the way to the Euphrates River in current Iraq.  And, north to south from the Lebanon to the wilderness of Arabia.

The British and French, with their overwhelming political ambitions following their defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after WWI made short order of this map, dividing it up to suit themselves. And the world, including the Arabs, have suffered the consequences ever since. (Jerome S. Kaufman   www.israel-commentary.org) 

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Islam (CAIR) speaks in one breath to the West and quite the other to Muslims

Ecumenical Islamism

by Josh Eibelman
American Spectator
July 26, 2019

https://www.meforum.org/islamist-watch/59023/ecumenical-islamism

On May 29, 2019, the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Association for Spiritual Renewal co-hosted a “Know Your Rights” seminar on “civil rights at the border, at home, and when stopped by the police.”

Despite the ostensibly progressive causes championed by the seminar, one of the main speakers was Usama Abdulghani – head of the Association for Spiritual Renewal. A closer look at past lectures given by Abdulghani raises, once again, questions about CAIR’s ties to fundamentalists, and its commitment to women and minorities’ rights.

According to his website, Abdulghani, a Shia cleric in Dearborn, Michigan, was born in Washington DC but moved to Qom, Iran at 20, where he studied Islamic law. Abdulghani’s website contains numerous videos of his speeches, lectures, and sermons — many of which promote the Iranian regime and its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, as well as Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. His videos also espouse vicious misogyny, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, often echoing Iranian regime calls for Israel’s annihilation.

In one video, titled “Accepting Husbands Leadership,” Abdulghani explains that women must be subservient to their husbands and submit to their sexual desires: “She’s not supposed to leave the house without his permission…. If he says ‘stay in the house’, no. You’re not supposed to go…. The other one is willing sexual surrender in the bedroom…. That she submits to him and presents herself for his desires…. The last area of accepting the husband’s leadership and respecting him and obeying him will be listening to him and following his instructions.”

In numerous other videos, Abdulghani accuses the United States and Israel – which he refers to as “enemies of Islam” – of creating ISIS. In a video called “ISIS United the Believers,” images of U.S. president Barack Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are shown while Abdulghani narrates: “One of the things that the enemies were trying to do was they were trying to create a group called ISIS. And this savage, unthinking group would come in and they would cause Shias and Sunnis to fight one another. One of the things we need right now is to save Israel’s behind, right? We need to save Israel. How can we save Israel? Have Muslims go over and kill one another.”

In yet another video called “World Powers VS Imam Mahdi,” Abdulghani repeats the claim that the West supports ISIS. He then says, “If the people knew, the masses knew, the beauty of our words they would follow us. Does that mean the tyrants are going to be happy? When you say Quds Day, that’s the wrong expectation.”

The video then cuts to a clip of Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress: “Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed. Listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He said: ‘if all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.”

Abdulghani then continues: “When they hear that our prophet said the best type of jihad [is] telling the truth to a tyrant, in the face of a tyrant, not being afraid, explaining what Islam is.” The video then cuts to Ayatollah Khamenei, with translated subtitles quoting him saying: “If they [Israel] do a damn thing, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”

Many more of Abdulghani’s videos promote the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guard, as well as Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S, E.U, Canada, Australia, the Arab League, among others. In a dramatic video called “Don’t Mess with Us, We’re Muslims,” Abdulghani narrates while clips of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Ayatollahs Khamenei and Khomeini are shown along with Iranian warplanes and missiles attacking targets. The video ends with words on the screen: “Israel is more fragile than a spider’s web. #Death_To_Israel.”

Although it is not clear whether Abdulghani has official ties with the Iranian government, his videos have been published by the Iranian news agency Rasa (which is “dedicated to promoting the discourse of the Islamic Revolution”) and Mehr News (which is controlled by the regime’s Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization).

Abdulghani’s appearance at the CAIR Michigan event shows that for all of  This is despite the fact that CAIR was founded by members of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2007, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an enormous terror finance trial. And in 2008, the FBI decided to cut ties with CAIR, citing concerns about its involvement with terror finance organizations.

So why would an organization such as CAIR, which is so closely connected to Sunni Islamism, invite a Shia cleric who so openly supports the hardline regime in Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah?

Part of the reason may lie in the complicated politics of the Middle East. Over the past few years, despite its institutional Wahabbi ideology, Qatar has increasingly served as a meeting point for both the Shia Iranian regime and Sunni Islamist networks. CAIR itself has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the Qatar government, which has enjoyed an increasingly friendly relationship with Iran.

More simply, however, extremists seek each other’s company. And in an effort to make fundamentalist Islam mainstream, Islamist groups such as CAIR work hard to convince others they are the spokespeople for all Muslim Americans, both Sunni and Shia.

By inviting hardline anti-American, anti-Semitic clerics and activists such as Abdulghani, CAIR aims to consolidate the varied strains of Islamism under its purview while also publicly positioning itself as the most representative forum for American Muslims.

Josh Eibelman is a writer for Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: jkaufman253469@icloud.com  Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org  “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman