Scientists Making War on Traditional Masculity by Ben Shapiro

The American Psychological Association proved once again that it is a political body rather than a scientific one.

This isn’t the first time a major mental health organization has favored politics over science—in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association famously reclassified “gender identity disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, calling it “gender dysphoria” and then explaining that living with the delusion that you are a member of the opposite sex is not actually a mental disorder at all.

That ruling was based on zero scientific evidence—much like the original DSM-5 classification of pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” before it was renamed “pedophilic disorder” under public pressure.

The latest example of the American Psychological Association’s political hackery concerns the topic of “traditional masculinity.”

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

In the American Psychological Association journal, it announced that it had released new guidelines to “help psychologists work with men and boys.” Those guidelines suggest that “40 years of research” show that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

The American Psychological Association explains that “traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors.”

Never mind that traditional masculinity—a masculinity geared toward channeling masculine instincts of building and protecting, rather than tearing down—built Western civilization and protected it from the brutalities of other civilizational forces. Never mind that traditional masculinity protected femininity and elevated women to equal status in public policy.

Traditional masculinity is actually just men sitting around and eating burgers while grunting at one another about football, all the while crying on the inside because they have been prohibited by society from showing their feelings.

And it’s worse than that.

According to the American Psychological Association, traditional masculinity bumps up “against issues of race, class, and sexuality,” maximizing both interior and exterior conflict.

Dr. Ryon McDermott, a psychologist from the University of South Alabama who helped draft the new American Psychological Association guidelines, suggested that gender is “no longer just this male-female binary.” Rather, gender is a mere social construct that can be destroyed without consequence.

Here’s the American Psychological Association making the extraordinarily dishonest statement that gender differences aren’t biological at all, in contravention of all known social science research: “Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectations, there isn’t much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women.”

Destroy masculinity in order to destroy discrimination and depression. Feminize men, and indoctrinate boys.

In order to reach this conclusion, the American Psychological Association has to define traditional masculinity in the narrowest, most negative terms possible—and then other those who disagree as part of the patriarchy. But as a political body, the American Psychological Association has little problem doing this.

All of this is not only nonsense; it’s wildly counterproductive nonsense.

Buried beneath the reams of nonsense in the American Psychological Association report is this rather telling gem: “It’s also important to encourage pro-social aspects of masculinity. … In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial.”

But we must never suggest that such traits ought to be included as part of a “traditional masculinity,” because that would make some people feel excluded.

Here’s the truth: Men are looking for meaning in a world that tells them they are perpetuators of discrimination and rape culture; that they are beneficiaries of an overarching, nasty patriarchy; that they are, at best, disposable partners to women, rather than protectors of them. Giving men purpose requires us to give them purpose as men, not merely as genderless beings.

There’s a lot to be said for the idea that our culture has ignored the necessity for men to become gentlemen. But that’s a result of a left-wing culture that denigrates men, not a traditional masculinity built on the idea that men were born to defend, protect, and build.

One thing is certainly true, though: The American Psychological Association has destroyed itself on the shoals of politics. And there’s no reason for honest-thinking people to take its anti-scientific pronouncements seriously simply because it masquerades as scientists while ignoring facts in favor of political correctness.


Poland cancels Israeli delegation’s visit to discuss Holocaust reparations

Poland cancelled the visit of an Israeli delegation scheduled to arrive to discuss the return of Jewish property stolen during the Holocaust.

By David Isaac, World Israel News,  May 13, 2019

Poland’s Foreign Ministry announced on Monday that it was cancelling the visit of a senior Israeli delegation to Warsaw to discuss Holocaust reparations.

The ministry said that it had made the decision after “Israel made last-minute changes in the composition of the delegation, indicating that the talks will focus mainly on issues related to the return of Jewish property during the Holocaust.

The issue of returning property to Jews who suffered during the Holocaust has become a bone of contention between Israel and Poland recently. The issue has led to a wave of protests in Poland.

On Saturday, thousands of Polish nationalists marched to the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, protesting that the U.S. is putting pressure on Poland to compensate Jews whose families lost property during the Holocaust.

“Why should we have to pay money today when nobody gives us anything?” said 22-year-old protester Kamil Wencwel. “Americans only think about Jewish and not Polish interests.”

Poland views itself as a victim of the Holocaust and not a perpetrator. In 2012, then President Barack Obama caused a diplomatic incident when he referred to a Nazi death camp as a “Polish death camp,” bringing a blistering rebuke from Poland’s prime minister at the time, Donald Tu

“When someone says ‘Polish death camps,’ it’s as if there were no Nazis, no German responsibility, as if there was no Hitler,” Mr. Tusk said at the time. “That is why our Polish sensitivity in these situations is so much more than just simply a feeling of national pride.”

Yesterday, Israel’s Ministry for Social Equality announced the coming departure of the delegation, which would be led by the ministry’s director-general, Avi Cohen Scali.

The announcement read, “The government of Israel views the restoration of the Jewish property and the promotion of Holocaust survivors’ rights as a moral imperative of the Jewish state. No factor, political or anti-Semitic, will stop us from carrying out this important order … The hourglass is running out, and we must act more vigorously before it is too late.”

According to the Walla! news site, Labor Knesset Member Itzik Shmuli took the opportunity to blame the Netanyahu administration. MK Shmuli, who chairs the Pensioners and Holocaust Survivors Caucus, said following the news of Poland’s cancellation, “Anyone willing to negotiate with the Poles about the very memory of the Holocaust should not be surprised that in the end we will be humiliated by the Poles.”

“The entire responsibility is on the government, which instead of fighting in the first place, has put the historical Jewish narrative up for sale,” he said.

Blue-and-White Party co-leader Yair Lapid, tweeted, “Once again the Polish government embarrasses the government of Israel regarding the memory of the Holocaust. It started with the Holocaust-denial law, and has now reached the issue of property restitution (about which one could say ‘you murdered and inherited’).”

The Holocaust-Denial law to which MK Lapid referred was passed by the Polish parliament last year and criminalized any accusation that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. The law was later amended to make any offenses civil, and not criminal, offenses.

In June, 2018, the Netanyahu administration came under criticism for a joint statement with Poland about the Holocaust. Yad Vashem, the official memorial to the Holocaust in Israel, issued a statement in its wake, saying “A thorough review by Yad Vashem historians shows that the historical assertions, presented as unchallenged facts, in the joint statement contain grave errors and deception”

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

William Barr confirms expanded Justice Department probe of Russia-Clinton links

– The Washington Times – May 1, 2019

Huma Abedin, who has been at Hillary Rodham Clinton's side as her personal assistant or "body woman" since the 2008 presidential race, faced criticism for standing by her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, after sexting scandals that damaged his political career. (Associated Press) ** FILE **
Huma Abedin, who has been at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s side as her personal assistant or “body woman” since the 2008 presidential race, faced criticism for standing by her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, after sexting scandals that damaged his political career.

Hillary Clinton, The Steele Document Fiasco and Finally Facing the Music

Hillary Clinton Projection Syndrome

By Victor Davis Hanson

By May 2, 2019 6:30 AM

© 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Her political power is waning, and her attempts to suggest indictment of Trump show her personal fears.

Hillary Clinton recently editorialized about the second volume of special counsel Robert Mueller’s massive report. She concluded of the report’s assorted testimonies and inside White House gossip concerning President Trump’s words and actions that “any other person engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted.”

Psychologists might call her claims “projection.” That is the well-known psychological malady of attributing bad behavior to others as a means of exonerating one’s own similar, if not often even worse, sins.

After 22 months of investigation and $34 million spent, the Mueller report concluded that there was no Trump–Russia collusion — the main focus of the investigation — even though that unfounded allegation dominated print and televised media’s speculative headlines for the last two years.

While Mueller’s report addressed various allegations of Trump’s other roguery, the special counsel did not recommend that the president be indicted for obstruction of justice in what Mueller had just concluded was not a crime of collusion.

What Mueller strangely did do — and what most federal prosecutors do not do — was cite all the allegedly questionable behavior of a target who has just been de facto exonerated by not being indicted.

What Mueller did not do was explain that much of the evidence he found useful was clearly a product of unethical and illegal behavior. In the case of the false charge of “collusion,” the irony was rich.

Russians likely fed salacious but untrue allegations about Trump to ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who was being paid in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to find dirt on Trump.

The Russians rightly assumed that Steele would lap up their fantasies, seed them among Trump-hating officials in the Barack Obama administration and thereby cause hysteria during the election, the transition, and, eventually, the Trump presidency.

Russia succeeded in sowing such chaos, thanks ultimately to Clinton, who likely had broken federal laws by using a British national and, by extension, Russian sources to warp an election. Without the fallacious Steele dossier, the entire Russian collusion hoax never would have taken off.

Without Steele’s skullduggery, there probably would have been no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court–approved surveillance of Trump aide Carter Page. There might have been no FBI plants inserted into the Trump campaign. There might have been no subsequent leaking to the press of classified documents to prompt a Trump collusion investigation.

Given the Steele travesty and other past scandals, it is inexplicable that Clinton has not been indicted.

Her lawlessness first made headlines 25 years ago, when she admitted that her cattle-futures broker had defied odds of one in 31 trillion by investing $1,000 from her trading account and returning a profit of nearly $100,000. Clinton failed to report about $6,500 in profits to the IRS. She initially lied about her investment windfall by claiming she made the wagers herself. She even fantastically alleged that she mastered cattle-futures trading by reading financial newspapers.

To paraphrase Clinton herself, anyone else would have been indicted for far less.

The reason that foreign oligarchs are no longer donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and that Bill Clinton is not being offered $500,000 for speaking appearances in Moscow, is simply that Hillary Clinton is not secretary of state. She is no longer in a public position to hector her colleagues into approving pro-Russian commercial deals, such as the one that gave Russian interests access to North American uranium.

As secretary of state, Clinton also sidestepped the law by setting up a home-brewed email server. She transmitted classified documents over this insecure route and lied about it. And she destroyed some 30,000 emails that were in effect under subpoena. Anyone else would have been indicted for far less.

In truth, Clinton was at the heart of the entire Russian-collusion hoax. Even after the election, she kept fueling it in order to blame Trump–Russia conspiracies for her stunning defeat in 2016. Unable to acknowledge her own culpability as a weak and uninspiring candidate, Clinton formally joined the post-election “resistance” and began whining about collusion. That excuse seemed preferable to explaining why she had blown a huge lead and lost despite favorable media coverage and superior funding.

For much of her professional life, Hillary Clinton had acted above and beyond the law on the assumption that as the wife of a governor, as first lady of the United States, as a senator from New York, as secretary of state, and as a two-time candidate for the presidency, she could ignore the law without worrying over the consequences.

For Clinton now to project that the president should be indicted suggests she is worried about her own potential indictment. And she is rightly concerned that for the first time in 40 years, neither she nor her husband is serving in government or running for some office, and therefore she could be held accountable.

NRO contributor VICTOR DAVIS HANSON is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Case for Trump. @vdhanson

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  

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

The Democrat Party Is Dead — Unfortunately

The Democrat Party Is Dead

Will Alexander,

The Democrat Party is so unrecognizable today because it’s gone.  The name is still there.  Some of the old faces are there.  But the party of John Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Barbara Jordan and Zell Miller is dead.

Today’s Democrat Party is hollowed out by a chronic addiction to hyper-partisan controversies that mimic the feeling of being alive. Controversy gives Dems a constant drip of political dopamine they could never find in solving real problems. And they’re hooked now.

So, we’re witnessing a case of shared psychotic disorder that’s driving the party to self-medicate. Drug of choice? Donald Trump. Democrats are so impaired by their craving to “get Trump” that they imbibe day-in and day-out despite the deadly consequences to their party and to the country.

But while they trip out on Trump – seeing and hearing things that aren’t there – a mess of political misfits are filling the party void.  The new soul of the party is made up of a hodgepodge of misfits who team with rabid, left-leaning media and dark operators to push a pre-capitalist, post Judeo-Christian, anti-American revolution under a Democrat veneer.

Democrats are becoming America’s first “Manchurian” party.

At the slightest whiff of the old left-of-center odor, a Gestapo of tyrants is dispatched to keep fossilized Democrats like Biden and Feinstein whipped into submission.

But rather than killing the cancer in their party, the old Democrats let it go untreated.  Fearing retribution, traditional Dems’ mince their public words into such milquetoast, poll-tested blah-blah that they are unintelligible. Would-be presidents are falling over each other to out-socialist the socialists without calling it socialism.  They want murderers and illegals to vote, free college, free medical, a guaranteed income, reparations, no guns, sanctuary cities, legalized prostitution, a federal law to legalize pot, and they want a duly elected president to be impeached.

Given Biden’s sad Anita Hill apology and his revisionist history on the origins of the “rule of thumb,” he lacks the political magic to raise the party from the dead. To placate the Gestapo, Biden even launched his campaign on an outright lie.  He said Trump dignified white supremacy after Charlottesville.  He didn’t.  But it doesn’t matter that he didn’t.  Charlottesville is political cocaine – a potent white powder that perpetuates the delusion of white power.

Trump’s election didn’t cause the party’s demise, it exposed it.  Democrat derangement has been a problem for years.

Sen. Zell Miller, (D-Ga.) was so alarmed at his party’s scorched-Earth partisanship in 2004 that he openly criticized Sen. John Kerry, spoke at the Republican National Convention that year, and endorsed George W. Bush.  Back then, Democrats had Bush Derangement Syndrome, a condition discovered and diagnosed by Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

“Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?” Miller asked an enthused Republican crowd. “Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

“Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.  And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

“Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier …  It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

“No one should dare to even think about being Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.  But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem not the solution.”

That warped thinking is even worse, today – especially on illegal immigration. Until Tom Friedman’s halting admission of America’s need for a strong border, no liberal of consequence has talked about what’s happening in plain sight with illegal immigration.

But for Texas Democrat Barbara Jordan, there was a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. President Clinton appointed her to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (created in 1990) and asked her team to come up with recommendations that could be implemented into policy by 1997. Her recommendations on legal immigration were guided strictly by the national interest.  Recommendations on illegal immigration were guided strictly by the rule of law.

“The issue of immigration is not a partisan issue,” she said at the United We Stand America National Convention in 1995.  “Immigration is not a right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone anywhere in the world who thinks they want to come to the United States.  Immigration is a privilege.  It is a privilege granted by the people of the United States to those we choose to admit.

“We must control illegal immigration before it erodes legal immigration. … The commission defines credibility in immigration policy by a simple yardstick: Those who should get in, get in.  Those who should be kept out, are kept out.  And those who should not be here, are required to leave.

“As a commission we denounce hostility toward immigrants. … But we are a country of laws.  For our immigration policy to make sense it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law and those who violate it.  Therefore, we disagree with those who would label any effort to control immigration as somehow anti-immigrant.  Unlawful immigration is not acceptable.”

These were true Democrats; people who had ideological differences but had the knowledge and experience to articulate why they respectfully disagreed on policy without resorting to constant ad hominem attacks, hateful innuendo and outright lies.   When they felt members of their party were dead wrong on big issues, they had the political courage to unapologetically follow what they saw was in the best interest of the country.

Today, that party is gone.

In its place is a party who has declared war against the opposition party and has hijacked the apparatus of the old Democrat Party to fundamentally change America.  It’s their way, or the highway. It is apologetically capitalist, apologetically American and religiously secular.

 Raising the old party from the dead will take more than a candidate; it will take a miracle.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to, Web Page:  “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Yom HaShoah (Day of Rememberance of the Holocaust) for my Parents and Grandparents in Europe

 Yom HaShoah     (Just re-live this story 6 million times)

By Elaine Rosenberg Miller

The Times of Israel, APR 26, 2019

My father was born in Ulanow, Poland and my mother, in Ruscova, Romania.

The war started for him on September 1, 1939 when the Luftwaffe bombed their small town. A missile landed landed on their house, demolishing it.

Six weeks later, a Yiddish speaking Russian soldier knocked on the door of his maternal grandparents’ house where they had taken refuge and said “We’re leaving in the morning. If you know what’s good for you, you’ll come with us.”

The family, together with an aunt and her family, fled east to the U.S.S.R. with the retreating Soviet troops.

They lived in Lemberg for a few months and then were transported by cattle cars to Siberia where they were left to fend for themselves.

They lived in uninsulated wooden barracks, starving and lice ridden. After two years the Soviet authorities told them they could relocate to designated cities.

They had a family meeting. Someone said “We’ve been freezing for years.  Let’s go someplace warm.”

They chose Tajikistan.

They traveled by rail to the Urals, then on to Tajikistan.

They found themselves living among ethnic Russians, Tajiks and Bukharan Jews.

My father, a mechanic, was chosen from the motor pool to be a chauffeur and bodyguard for the First Secretary of Tajikistan, Dmitri Protopovov. He and his family relocated to an apartment in Stalinabad. He carried a firearm.

Protopovov would have him drive to the collective farms where he often told my father to fill up the trunk of the car with food for his family. In May, 1945 an announcement was broadcast on the outdoor loudspeakers.

The war was over.

Protopovov told my father, 25, “We like you very much and want you to stay in the Soviet Union.”

My father said “I have learned so much about the glories of communism, I want to go back and teach it to the Polish people.”

He let him go.

He and his family traveled west to Stettin, Poland.

After a few days, they moved on to the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

My father threw the Order of Stalin medal given to him by the First Secretary in a river.

My mother was 19  when the Germans invaded her bucolic northern Romanian village.

She had completed her apprenticeship in “schneideriai” (tailoring) and had purchased a sewing machine.

On the first night of Passover, 1944, a young Wehrmacht soldier knocked on the door of their stone house. Her father invited invited him in and explained the Passover settings. The soldier left.

Within days my mother, her parents and older sister were forced to relocate to Viseul des Sus. On Shavuoth they were transported to Auschwitz.  Her parents were gassed upon arrival.

Three months later, my mother and her sister were transported to Wustegiersdorf, a munitions factory in southeast Poland.

She was liberated on May 8, 1945 by the Soviets.

Next month (Iyar) is their yahrzeits. (Commemorative Day of their deaths)

They both died at 92, four years and four days apart.

My father died first.

We never told my mother.

She had memory loss by then.

Once or twice she asked “Where’s your father?”

“He’s not here”  I said slowly.

She said nothing further.


Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including JUDISCHE RUNDSCHAU, THE BANGALORE REVIEW, THE FORWARD, THE HUFFINGTON POST and THE JEWISH PRESS. Her book. FISHING IN THE INTERCOASTAL AND OTHER SHORT STORIES will be published by Adelaide Books in 2019.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Why is Ilhan Omar’s Islamophobia dodge working?

Why is Ilhan Omar’s Islamophobia dodge working?

Her anti-Semite victimhood claim is based on a myth about a post 9/11 Muslim backlash that never happened.

By Jonathan S. Tobin

(April 12, 2019 / JNS – Jewish News Syndicate) 

Imagine if there was a member of Congress who openly supported an anti-Semitic movement, issued multiple statements promoting traditional themes of Jew-hatred and then gave a speech at a fundraiser for an organization founded as a front group for terrorists in which the 9/11 attacks were described as merely as “some people did something.”

And then imagine if the person who did all these things was embraced as a heroine and, more importantly, a victim of hate.

That’s the enviable position that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) finds herself in after doing all of the above in the space of just the three months since she was sworn in as a new member of Congress in January.

Her latest surge of publicity involved a speech she gave for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the pushback about her 9/11 comments, whereby many Democrats embraced her as the victim of a hate crime because The New York Post published a cover reminding her about the horror that “something” entailed.

Omar has received death threats in recent months, and there is no excuse for that. No one should be threatened with hate or death for expressing their views, even when they are hateful as some of Omar’s have been. But what demands our attention here is not the contents of her CAIR speech or even the Post cover with its depiction of the iconic photograph of the World Trade Center towers in flames, but rather a curious process by which a person who has made a name for herself largely on the strength of anti-Semitic incitement has been transformed into a victim.

In doing so, those who have rallied to her defense have resurrected the myth of a post-9/11 backlash against Muslims. That has shifted the narrative of that trauma from one of an Islamist terror war against the West into one that focused on the victimization of Muslims.

But the ability of Omar and her defenders to use it to effectively deflect charges of anti-Semitism and to essentially legitimize her as a public figure is something that out to alarm everyone, no matter what your politics or religious beliefs.

Omar, like her fellow controversial members of the Democrats’ freshman class, Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have gotten far more publicity than they probably deserve for their meager accomplishments so far. Still, the trio of radicals have not only mesmerized the media, but also proven to have considerably more influence over their party than most political observers would have thought.

Nothing demonstrated their unexpected power more than the way that Omar’s allies—led by the ubiquitous AOC—were able to prevent the House of Representatives from condemning her after she slandered supporters of Israel and Jews by claiming that they were buying Congress (“It’s all about the Benjamins baby”) and exhibiting “dual loyalty.”

Omar refused to back down and found herself the object of much public sympathy for what supporters claimed was an attempt to single her out solely because she was black, Muslim and an immigrant. Omar emerged triumphant from that fiasco. If there was any doubt about that, it was removed by the way Democrats instinctively moved to protect her from criticisms of her 9/11 remarks, and instead condemned the Post and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) as racists for calling her out.

In one sense, the kerfuffle is a typical inside-the-Beltway absurdity, with AOC asking Crenshaw—a decorated former Navy SEAL who lost an eye fighting in Afghanistan—what he has ever done to fight terrorism. But this is more than just the usual political tit-for-tat on Twitter.

In her speech to CAIR, Omar claimed that the group had been founded after 9/11 in order to defend Muslims against a backlash after the attacks. This is patently false. CAIR was founded in 1994 as a political front for the Holy Land Foundation, a group that raised funds for the Hamas terror group that was eventually shut down by the Treasury Department. Her support for CAIR is consistent with her backing for the anti-Semitic BDS movement.

The debate about this mythical backlash has been going on for a decade, especially during the controversy over an abortive attempt to build an Islamic center within the shadow of the fallen World Trade Center towers. At that time, I wrote in Commentary magazine about the way false fears were being used to make Muslims appear to be the true victims of the slaughter. The mainstream media had accepted as truth the claims that Muslims had been the subjects of a wave of discrimination after 9/11, even though there was no objective proof to back up that assertion.

To the contrary, the U.S. government, the mass media and American popular culture had bent over backwards to avoid stigmatizing Muslims. As FBI hate-crime statistics in the years after 2001 showed, there had been no  discernable evidence of a backlash of hate. During those years and the following decade since the World Trade Center mosque debate, statistics consistently showed that Jews remained the prime focus of religious hate in this country with anti-Semitic attacks or incidents of any kind far outnumbering those against Muslims.

Decent persons—Jewish and non-Jewish, Republican or Democrat—cannot allow this big lie to stand unopposed.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

As to the Mueller Report and Environs

Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wall Street Journal

April 19, 2019, print edition.

By the fall of 2017, it was clear that special counsel Robert Mueller, as a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was too conflicted to take a detached look at a Russia-collusion story that had become more about FBI malfeasance than about Donald Trump. The evidence of that bias now stares at us through 448 pages of his report.

President Trump has every right to feel liberated. What the report shows is that he endured a special-counsel probe that was relentlessly, at times farcically, obsessed with taking him out. What stands out is just how diligently and creatively the special counsel’s legal minds worked to implicate someone in Trump World on something Russia- or obstruction-of-justice-related. And how—even with all its overweening power and aggressive tactics—it still struck out.

Volume I of the Mueller report, which deals with collusion, spends tens of thousands of words describing trivial interactions between Trump officials and various Russians. While it doubtless wasn’t Mr. Mueller’s intention, the sheer quantity and banality of details highlights the degree to which these contacts were random, haphazard and peripheral. By the end of Volume I, the notion that the Trump campaign engaged in some grand plot with Russia is a joke.

Yet jump to the section where the Mueller team lists its “prosecution and declination” decisions with regards the Russia question. And try not to picture Mueller “pit bull” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann collapsed under mountains of federal statutes after his two-year hunt to find one that applied.

Mr. Mueller’s team mulled bringing charges “for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language,” or “under the general conspiracy statute.” It debated going after them for the “defraud clause,” which “criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government.” It considered the crime of acting as an “agent of a foreign government”—helpfully noting that this crime does not require “willfulness.”

Up to now, the assumption was that Mr. Mueller had resurrected long-ago violations of the rarely enforced Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 purely to apply pressure on folks like Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn. Now we find out that it was resurrected in hopes of applying it to campaign-period actions of minor figures such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

Mueller’s team even considered charging Trump associates who participated with campaign-finance violations for the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. 

Was that meeting “a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban”? Was it “the solicitation of an illegal foreign source contribution”? Was it the receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign source] contribution”? The team considered that the law didn’t apply only to money—it could apply to a “thing of value.” 

Until investigators realized it might be hard to prove the “promised documents” exceeded the “$2,000 threshold for a criminal violation.” The Mueller team even credited Democrats’ talking point that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had committed perjury during his confirmation hearings—and devoted a section in the report to it.

As for obstruction—Volume II—Attorney General Bill Barr noted Thursday that he disagreed with “some of the special counsel’s legal theories.” Maybe he had in mind Mr. Mueller’s proposition that he was entitled to pursue obstruction questions, even though that was not part of his initial mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. 

Or maybe it was Mr. Mueller’s long description of what a prosecution of the sitting president might look like—even though he acknowledged its legal impossibility. Or it could be Mr. Mueller’s theory that while “fairness” dictates that someone accused of crimes get a “speedy and public trial” to “clear his name,” Mr. Trump deserves no such courtesy with regard to the 200 pages of accusations Mr. Mueller lodges against him.

That was Mr. Mueller’s James Comey moment. Remember the July 2016 press conference in which the FBI director berated Hillary Clinton even as he didn’t bring charges? It was a firing offense. Here’s Mr. Mueller engaging in the same practice—only on a more inappropriate scale. At least this time the attorney general tried to clean up the mess by declaring he would not bring obstruction charges. Mr. Barr noted Thursday that we do not engage in grand-jury proceedings and probes with the purpose of generating innuendo.

Mr. Mueller may not care. His report suggests the actual goal of the obstruction volume is impeachment: “We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority.”

pastedGraphic.pngNote as well what isn’t in the report. It makes only passing, bland references to the genesis of so many of the accusations Mr. Mueller probed: the infamous dossier produced by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. How do you exonerate Mr. Page without delving into the scandalous Moscow deeds of which he was falsely accused? How do you narrate an entire section on the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting without noting that Ms. Veselnitskaya was working alongside Fusion? How do you detail every aspect of the Papadopoulos accusations while avoiding any detail of the curious and suspect ways that those accusations came back to the FBI via Australia’s Alexander Downer?

The report instead mostly reads as a lengthy defense of the FBI—of its shaky claims about how its investigation began, of its far-fetched theories, of its procedures, even of its leadership. 

One of the more telling sections concerns Mr. Comey’s firing. Mr. Mueller’s team finds it generally beyond the realm of possibility that the FBI director was canned for incompetence or insubordination. It treats everything the FBI or Mr. Comey did as legitimate, even as it treats everything the president did as suspect.

Mr. Mueller is an institutionalist, and many on his team were the same Justice Department attorneys who first fanned the partisan collusion claims. He was the wrong man to provide an honest assessment of the 2016 collusion dirty trick. And we’ve got a report to prove it.

Write to

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

America, the Jews and Passover 2019

Israel Commentary

Neglected information and opinion relative to Israel, the Middle East and the immediate world.

The American Founding Fathers memorialized Moses, Passover and the Jewish Exodus from Egypt

Redacted from an article By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger in Israel Commentary, April 1, 2015

April 18, 2019

Passover, and especially the legacy of Moses and the Exodus, has been part of the American story since the seventeenth century, inspiring the American pursuit of liberty, justice and morality.

The special role played by Passover – and the Bible in shaping the American state of mind constitutes the foundation of the unique relations between the American People and the Jewish State. As important as are the current mutual threats and interests between the US and Israel, the bedrock of the unbreakable US-Israel alliance are permanent values, principles and legacies, such as Passover.

In 1620 and 1630, William Bradford and John Winthrop delivered sermons on the “Mayflower” and “Arbella,” referring to the deliverance from “modern day Egypt and Pharaoh,” to “the crossing of the modern day Red Sea” and to New Zion/Canaan as the destination of the Pilgrims on board.

In 1776, Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense (which cemented public support for the revolution), referred to King George as the “hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh.”

Upon declaration of independence, Benjamin Franklin, the most secular Founding Father, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the second third American Presidents, proposed a Passover theme for the official US seal: the Pillar of Fire leading Moses and the Israelites through the Red Sea, while Pharaoh’s chariots drown in the Sea.

The inscription on the seal was supposed to be: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” framing the rebellion against the British monarchy as principle-driven. The lessons of the Jewish deliverance from Egyptian bondage reverberated thunderously among the Rebels, who considered the thirteen colonies to be “the modern day Twelve Tribes.”

The 19th century Abolitionists, and the Civil Rights movement from the 1940s to the 1970s, were inspired by the ethos of the Exodus and by the Bible’s opposition to slavery.

In the 1830s, the Liberty Bell, an icon of American independence, was adopted by the Abolitionists, due to its Exodus-inspired inscription: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10).

Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852), and her husband, Calvin Ellis Stowe (“The Little Rabbi”) were scholars of the Bible and the Exodus.

Harriet Tubman, who escaped slavery in 1849 and freed Black slaves on the Underground Railroad, earned the name “Moses.” The 1879/80 Black slaves who ran away to Kansas were called “the Exodusters.” The most famous spiritual, “Go Down, Moses” was considered the National Anthem of Black slaves.

In 1865, following the murder of President Lincoln, most eulogies compared him to Moses. Just like Moses, Lincoln liberated slaves, but was stopped short of the Promised Land. France paid tribute to the martyred Lincoln by erecting the Statue of Liberty, featuring rays of sun and a tablet, just like the glaring Moses descending from Mount Sinai with the Two Tablets of the Ten Commandments.

In 1954, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. compared the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to desegregate public schools to the parting of the Red Sea. In 1964, upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King proclaimed: “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself. The Bible tells the thrilling story of how Moses stood in Pharaoh’s court centuries ago and cried, ‘Let my people go.’”

President Reagan mentioned (Reagan at Westminster, 2010) Exodus as the first incident in a long line of Western resistance to tyranny: “Since the exodus from Egypt, historians have written of those who sacrificed and struggled for freedom – the stand at Thermopylae, the revolt of Spartacus, the storming of the Bastille, the Warsaw uprising in World War II.”

In July, 2003, President Bush stated, in Senegal, “In America, enslaved Africans learned the story of the exodus from Egypt, and set their own hearts on a promised land of freedom.”

In March, 2007, President Obama said in Selma, Alabama that the civil rights pioneers were the “Moses generation” and he was part of the “Joshua generation” that would “find our way across the river.”

(What Chutzpa! Obama as Joshua! More confirmation of Obama’s classic narcissism and grandiose posturing as just described in the previous Israel Commentary article) jsk

In 2012, the statue of Moses stares at the Speaker of the House, another statue of Moses towers above the seats of the Supreme Court Justices, a Ten Commandment monument sits on the ground of the Texas State Capitol and a similar monument will be shortly erected on the ground of the Oklahoma State Capitol.

In 2019, the leader of the Free World and its primary ally in the Mid-East, Israel, are facing the most lethal threat to liberty since 1945 – conventional and non-conventional Islamic terrorism.

Adherence to the legacy of Passover, marshaling the conviction-driven leadership of Moses, and demonstrating the Joshua and Caleb courage and defiance of odds, will once again facilitate the victory of liberty over tyranny.

Addendum of Reader  Comments:

On Apr 1, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Cody Flecker wrote:

Actually Uriah P Levy was the first Commodore in the US Navy serving in the war of 1812. His nephew was Jefferson Monroe Levy, and it was he who bought the run down home and estate of Thomas Jefferson (Monticello) at an auction. Jefferson Monroe Levy while not a religious Jew was at best an observant Jew. He was one of the founders of the American Jewish Congress, after the pogroms started in Russia in the latter part of the 19th century. The Admiral that you are referring to was Admiral Rickover who was the father of the modern nuclear fleet.

Judah P Benjamin was the highest elected Jew in the Confederacy 100 years before those honors were again bestowed upon a Jew (Henry Kissinger)

Thanks and … How about Benjamin Cardoza, Supreme Court Justice (Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870 – July 9, 1938) was a well-known American lawyer and associate Supreme Court Justice and actually the first Hispanic on the Court well ahead of the present Far Left Justice Sonia Sotomayer that erroneously declared for that honor.  jsk

Haym Solomon was the guy that financed George Washington through the American Revolution.

Admiral Hyman Rickover, Father of US Nuclear Navy  developed nuclear powered submarine, died 1986

(So, be very proud and have a sweet Passover.  jsk)



Twitter: @israelcomment


Obama in Berlin – What for and Who is he really?

By Elaine R. Miller

The Times of Israel, April 8 2019

Former US President Barack Obama was in Berlin the other day on behalf of The Obama Foundation. He had a meeting with Angela Merkel, the embattled Prime Minister of Germany now in her last term in office.

Why is a former President and leader of a political party currently trying to unseat the sitting President meeting with a head of state? The visuals appear to say he is trying to undermine Trump in Europe.

It is difficult to forget Obama’s 2012 whispered conversation to then President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, picked up on an open mike in which he was heard promising  “This is my last election. After my election I will have more flexibility.”

Was Obama’s confab with Merkel a repeat of the same? Was he telling her that when Trump is defeated in his re-election effort, the Democratic party would have more flexibility?

And why was Obama fundraising for the Obama Foundation in a foreign country?

History has shown that former presidents soliciting money abroad is a BAD thing.  (See: CLINTON CASH by Peter Schweizer (and the Clinton Foundation which is the cornerstone of the family’s extraordinary wealth. Chelsea really does not have to worry about being fired from her job – jsk)

On April 6 Obama addressed a Town Hall meeting organized by the Obama Foundation in Berlin. He was quoted as saying:

“We have to be careful in balancing big dreams and bold ideas with also recognizing that typically change happens in stages.”  He went on to warn against a “circular firing squad” over “ideological purity in politics.” (his usual aimless double talk)

Obama’s resurfacing in Berlin is an effort to paint himself as “reasonable and just” while simultaneously attacking his own party’s leaders. Obama apparently doesn’t seem to care about which Democratic candidate wins the nomination (unless it is him!), the Democratic party or America’s welfare.

He made his comments in public setting. He could have contacted each  potential candidate privately if he really wanted them to modify their behavior. He is now on a speeding money making train. His autobiography (his third) will reportedly be published this year. His goal is to burnish his own image as a prophetic leader

(He and Michelle just signed a 60 million dollar book deal! I guess it pays to be an ex-president, regardless of quality of performance)

Yet examination of his record shows the Obama Administration to have been one of “Big hat, no cows”. He made promises based on grandiose visions but accomplished little. He disabled American foreign policy, ensured the rise of despotic Iran. He lied about the effects of ObamaCare. Every prohibitively expensive policy he put in place, failed. If those weren’t the “big dreams and bold ideas” he warned against in Berlin, then nothing is.

Obama posted the following statement on his Twitter account on January 17, 2017. “I’m still asking you to believe – not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours. I believe in change because I believe in you.”

There is something vaguely Jim ish (the man who induced over 900 people to ingest a cyanide laced drink and commit suicide in Guyana in 1978) about the comment.

II   Who is Obama really?

Many Americans thought Obama was a secret Muslim.

They were wrong.

He worships himself.

Obama was the first president to use a selfie stick.

He has a big grin filled with large white teeth, close cropped hair. He stays slim and trim.

He walks like a ballet dancer.

He would grab the microphone when famous musical groups performed at the White House.

He put his feet up on the White House desk.

It was his desk now, wasn’t it?

He gave a speech the other day in which he referred to himself …(gasp) 467 times.

He will forever be remember as telling his Berlin audience ““There’s only one of me!”

For a man who did all he could to diminish the West and its contribution to Modern Civilization he is most attracted to the Greek god, Narcissus.

It could be worse.

He could be enamored of Echo.


Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including judische rundschau, the bangalore review, the forward, the huffington post and the jewish press. her book. fishing in the intercoastal and other short stories will be published by Adelaide Books in 2019.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to 

Web Page: Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Mort Klein of the Zionist Org. of American addresses US Congress: 49% of Muslims worldwide hate Jews — including 34% of American Muslims

At an April 9, 2019 Congressional hearing on hate crimes and white nationalism chaired by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) eloquently illustrated how Jews the world over face a major threat which both

American and Jewish leadership have not truly addressed: Islamic anti-Semitism. While anti-Jewish bigotry from some beyond traditional neo-Nazi sources has occasionally been addressed in the media, the anti-Semitic opinions and actions of Muslims receive almost no attention. This stands in stark and disturbing contrast to the facts, such as, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 49% of Muslims interviewed in 100 countries exhibited anti-Jewish hatred, including 34% of American Muslims. Governmental and Jewish community leaders will not be truly serving their duty to protect American Jews until this painful fact is addressed honestly.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

President Trump’s speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition

For those misguided desperate “Liberals/Progressives” who dare challenge President’s loyalty to the Jewish people or the State of Israel as great friends and major contributors to the well-being of the United States of America:

Link to President Trumps speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Please watch.

Jerome S. Kaufman

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Kimberley Strassel: The Mueller bitter enders


Wall Street Journal  March 29, 2019

The Department of Justice will release the Mueller report within weeks. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo predicts Trump’s critics will double down on their fishing expedition for evidence of Russia collusion.

Democrats are struggling over the direction of their party, and this week things got more complicated. In addition to the splits over the Green Leap Forward, Medicare for All and constitutional rewrites, Robert Mueller’s report has opened a new divide. It’s Team Reality vs. Team Bitter Enders.

Granted, the end of the special counsel’s probe is a shattering blow to Trump haters. So long as Mueller continued his investigation, the left and its media mates were free to spin collusion claims and nurse hopes of a toppled Trump presidency. Anyone who pushed back was told to sit down, shut up and wait until Mueller ruled. He now has. The party is over.

Realists understand the risks of continuing to dwell on collusion and obstruction of justice. Americans are weary of Mueller headlines. In a CNN poll this month, respondents listed the economy, immigration and health care as their most important issues for 2020. No one listed the special-counsel probe.

The Democrats who are actually charged with electing more Democrats understand this. In a leadership meeting Monday night, Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, laid out the alarming reality: Voters have little idea what the Democratic policy agenda is; the party urgently needs to move beyond 2016.

The realists also understand the Mueller probe has gained the party little up to now, beyond gratifying its base.

While the resistance wallowed in collusion hysteria, Donald Trump presided over tax reform, massive deregulation and a remake of significant parts of the judiciary. He’s an incumbent presiding over a growing economy, with a campaign awash in money.

A Politico story recently warned the left not to put much stock in approval ratings: “If the election were held today,” the reporters wrote, Trump would “likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.”

Kimberley Strassel is a Fox News contributor and writes the Potomac Watch column for the Wall Street Journal where she is a member of the editorial board. Her latest book is “The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech” (Twelve, 2016).  Follow her on Twitter @KimStrassel.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar Speaks but … What does she say?

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar Speaks

By Elaine R. Miller

The Times of Israel , Mar 31, 2019

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) appeared on the national scene as a delicate-faced Somali refugee. Upon her election, America welcomed her as a symbol of “diversity.” They should have looked a little closer.

Omar is a coiled barbed wire ball of rage against the country that rescued her, its interests and Israel. She is a headliner for Hamas.

She was born in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1996. At age 14, together with her family, she immigrated to the United States. She graduated from North Dakota State University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and international studies and began to get involved in politics. She was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 and was sworn in 2017.

She was elected to the U.S. Congress in 2018.

Upon taking her seat one of the first things Omar did was to heatedly express her support of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel, attack AIPAC and U.S legislators and Jews who support Israel. She most recently attacked House Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi for opposing BDS.

Where does this hatred come from? One can assume that her education and culture are partly to blame. She was raised in a community steeped in the suppression of the human rights of minority ethnic and religious groups and most particularly, of women.

Statistics show that 98% of Somalian women have undergone female genital mutilation, a life-changing procedure that can lead to incontinence, fistulas, difficulty childbearing. It is estimated that 80% of Somalian females between 5 and 14 have undergone FGM.

In 2016, the World Health Organization produced a study on the psychological effects of female gentle genital mutilization. The devastating effects are traumatic and permanent. (

There are women who have emerged from the same culture as Omar who have become spokespersons for women’s rights, especially condemning FGM. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, also born in Mogadishu, Somalia underwent a FGM at age 5. She has written two autobiographies and has traveled the world to alert people to the problem..

What has been Omar’s political response to FGM? During the period that Omar was a member of the Minnesota House, member Mary Franson introduced a bill that would provide criminal penalties for parents or guardians who cause girls to undergo FGM

“The bill faced some questions from Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-Minneapolis), who believes prosecutors should have looked to existing laws to charge the parents. Omar also voiced her concern that Franson’s bill was introduced to gain media exposure. Rep. Ilhan Omar on genital mutilation bill: “What I don’t want us to do is to create laws because we want to get in the media.” “What I would like to have been done is to have (the parents) charged with laws that already exist,”

The bill passed the House and Omar, perhaps recognizing the inevitably of its passage (124-4) voted in favor of it.( went to the Minnesota Senate but it was not voted on prior to the end of the session.

The next year, 2018, Omar was elected to the Congress.

When one thinks of Omar one thinks of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” except that in place of a silent, wordless fury there is fist-pumping and agitated rhetoric directed at her “enemies”. She jumped onto the Democratic Party “Victim Gravy Train” (gender, color, religion, country of origin) and exploited it for all it was worth.

Omar could have been a champion for the Somali community. Her story sounds good on paper. “Immigrant from war torn Mogadishu, rescued by America, gets elected to Congress”. But watch her at a recent CAIR fundraiser.

With the audio on, Omar sounds like Brooklyn/Palestinian, Linda Sansour, With the mute on, she looks like Michelle Obama (Michelle never looked that good! jsk) former Vice President for Community and External Affairs (Read: Diversity Officer) at the University of Chicago Medical Center (at $300,000 per year payola money! jsk)  and First Lady.

The result of Omar’s politics are that instead of leading her Somali-American constituents towards greater participation in the American dream, she made them suspect.


Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including JUDISCHE RUNDSCHAU, THE BANGALORE REVIEW, THE FORWARD, THE HUFFINGTON POST and THE JEWISH PRESS. Her book. FISHING IN THE INTERCOASTAL AND OTHER SHORT STORIES will be published by Adelaide Books in 2019.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Mueller Conclusion: NO Russian Collusion. Now, Let’s Probe the Real Scandal — Hillary, the FBI and the DEMS Cover-Up

Americans deserve a full accounting of

the missteps of Comey and the FBI.

A copy of Attorney General William Barr’s letter advising Congress of the Mueller report’s conclusions, March 24.
A copy of Attorney General William Barr’s letter advising Congress of the Mueller report’s conclusions, March 24. PHOTO: JON

Attorney General William Barr has reported to Congress that special counsel Robert Mueller has cleared President Trump and his campaign team of claims of conspiring with Russia during the 2016 election. This is more than an exoneration. It’s a searing indictment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as a reminder of the need to know the story behind the bureau’s corrosive investigation.

Mr. Mueller’s report likely doesn’t put it that way, but it’s the logical conclusion of his no-collusion finding. The FBI unleashed its powers on a candidate for the office of the U.S. presidency, an astonishing first. It did so on the incredible grounds that the campaign had conspired to aid a foreign government. And it used the most aggressive tools in its arsenal—surveillance of U.S. citizens, secret subpoenas of phone records and documents, even human informants.

The wreckage is everywhere. The nation has been engulfed in conspiracy theories for years. A presidency was hemmed in by the threat of a special counsel. Citizens have gone to jail not for conspiracy, but for after-the-fact interactions with Mr. Mueller’s team. Dozens more have spent enormous amounts of money and time defending their reputations.

None of this should ever have happened absent highly compelling evidence—from the start—of wrongdoing.  Yet from what we know, the FBI operated on the basis of an overheard conversation of third-tier campaign aide George Papadopoulos, as well as a wild “dossier” financed by the rival presidential campaign. Mr. Mueller’s no-collusion finding amounts to a judgment that there never was any evidence. The Papadopoulos claim was thin, the dossier a fabrication.

Which is all the more reason Americans now deserve a full accounting of the missteps of former FBI Director James Comey and his team—in part so that this never happens again. That includes the following: What “evidence” did the FBI have in totality? What efforts did the bureau take to verify it? Did it corroborate anything before launching its probe? What role did political players play? How aware was the FBI that it was being gulled into a dirty-trick operation, and if so, how did it justify proceeding? How intrusive were the FBI methods? And who was harmed?

If Mr. Mueller has done his job properly, his report will address some of this. His team would have had to look into the sources of the allegations as part of determining the documents’ (lack of) veracity. A Mueller report that doesn’t mention the dossier and its political provenance, or questionable news stories used to justify surveillance warrants, for instance, is a report that is playing politics.

The fuller accounting will come only through total disclosure of FBI and Justice Department probe documents. Mr. Trump promised that disclosure in September but has yet to follow through. That transparency is now a necessity. The Mueller report is only half the story. With the special-counsel probe at an end, it’s time to go back the beginning—to the documents that explain its origin. Only then will Americans have the full story of the Russia-collusion narrative.

Ms. Strassel writes the Journal’s Potomac Watch column.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman