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

https://israel-commentary.org

The golf course is closed

Movies closed

Walking around the block not that exciting

Eating out an unnecessary risk

The library closed

Sitting still reading a book — never an option for me

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

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

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

All between endless painful commercials

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

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

HERE IS SOME FANTASTIC TEMPORARY RELIEF.

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

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

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

Jerome S. Kaufman

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

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

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

Coronavirus and Big-Government Contagion

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

Big-Government Contagion

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wall Street Journal  March 26, 2020

pastedGraphic.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-government-contagion-11585262351?mod=MorningEditorialReport&mod=djemMER_h

https://israel-commentary.org

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

The Two-State Something

Redacted from article by John Podhoretz, Editor 

COMMENTARY MAGAZINE, MARCH 2020 

pastedGraphic.png

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

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To subscribe to Israel Commentary: https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

March 22, 2020

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

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

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

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

What can explain Gantz’s irresponsible behavior?

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking the rules to achieve one goal

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

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

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

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

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

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

To read complete article:

ttps://canadafreepress.com/article/benny-gantz-and-the-pyromaniacal-cockpit

join:    https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

Subject:ACTION ALERT: Restaurant Rescue Package

Subject:ACTION ALERT: Restaurant Rescue Package

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

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

It will provide:

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

Please take a few moments to participate in this vital grassroots mobilization effort.  We need Congress to act—and act fast. Click here to take action:https://actnow.io/1DPlCl9?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRBMU1ERXdOVGxqT1dJNSIsInQiOiJYOVhVTXQwWVdCSmlyRTBlaUVqSnNZT0ZPXC80V0xCMmlBSVBpMW12cU03WTZOYndwNnVWRm1uYlBXdjlwWERVclRpc3BFcGhcL0NVTjJDZm4zd1FMQWVnPT0ifQ%3D%3D

image004.png

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

Stop Tax Label-page-0

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)

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

Page 22  Then, the piece de resistance article:

Two politicians produce a dead-end peace plan

By Rabbi Bruce Warhal

Commentary in Italics – Jerome S. Kaufman

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

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

(Back to the Rabbi’s article)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerome S. Kaufman, Publisher/Editor

Israel Commentary

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

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

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

.

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

US Political News and Analysis  

CONGRESS AT WAR

By Fergus M. Bordewich 

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

Redacted from a more detailed excellent review of the book 

By David S. Reynolds

Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15-16, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 US Political News and Analysis  

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

The Washington Times

November 11, 2019 

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

There are lots of catalysts for the new socialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Political News and Analysis     

Pete Buttigieg and ‘Virtuous Capitalism’

I Redacted from an article by James Freeman

Wall Street Journal Feb. 12, 2020

  Mayor Pete Is the Man to Beat

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

II Redacted from an article By William McGurn

https://israel-commentary.org

pastedGraphic.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II  Mayor Pete Is the Man to Beat

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

Redacted from an article By William McGurn

Wall Street Journal Feb 11, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernie Sanders – Islam’s Favorite Candidate!

Islamist’s Bid for the Iowa Caucuses

By Daniel Greenfield, Investigative Journalist

pastedGraphic.png

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

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the Iowa caucuses really be decided in a mosque?

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

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

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

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

Summary of the Attempted Trump Impeachment

Political News and Analysis  

Lamar Alexander’s Finest Hour

By The Wall Street Editorial Board

Feb. 2, 2020 4:50 pm ET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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