The Secrets of Jewish Genius

Political News Opinion and Analysis

The New York Times 

Dec. 27, 2019

pastedGraphic.png

By Bret Stephens

Opinion Columnist

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

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

Jerome S. Kaufman    Jan. 13, 2020

www.israel-commentary.org

New York Times Editors:

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

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

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

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

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

Brett Stephens:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do these habits of mind come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Composed by Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe:  https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

Hostilities With Iran Began in ’79

Image result for Iran war image jpg free

Political News Opinion and Analysis

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

By Eric S. Edelman and Franklin C. Miller

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 9, 2020

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

www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deterrence works, but only if the threats are credible.

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

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

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

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

https://israel-commentary.org

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

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

The Jews, the Hebrew Bible and President Donald Trump

Political News and Analysis

The Jews, the Hebrew Bible and President Donald Trump

By  Jerome S. Kaufman

Last Shabbat we had the privilege of listening to renown Rabbi Shlomo Riskin discuss the Hebrew Bible and perhaps, as  a surreptitious aside, the Jews, the current State of Israel and Donald Trump.

He began by telling us the classic story of Jacob and his entire entourage finally escaping from 20 year old  captivity in the hands of his cousin Laban whose daughters, Leah and Rachel, Jacob had married.

The biblical story describes how Jacob’s sons Shimon and Levi, with cunning and deception, murdered the male members of the Chevites  in revenge for their Prince Shechem kidnapping and violating the brothers’ sister Dinah who Shechem still kept  in captivity.

The Prince’s father, Chamor,  came to Jacob to tell him that his son Prince Shechem was genuinely in love with Dinah and wanted to marry her and make peace with the Jews.

At this point, Jacob’s sons Shimon and Levi devised a scheme whereby if all the male Chevites  circumcised themselves, they could become Jews and then make peace with the Hebrews.

Jacob and Chamor  agreed to the plan. On the third day after the self-imposed circumscision the males, all in great pain presented, as planned by the brothers,  easy targets for their slaughter with the swords of Shimon and Levi.

Jacob took great exception to this dastardly deed admonishing his sons for “Making my mind troubled creating hostility between me and the inhabitants of this land and have them gather against me and my household and destroy us.” Jacob carried that criticism all the way to his death bed when he again chastised his sons for their action.

(That part of the story ends at this point.  I did notice later in Jacob’s journey, a sentence, that to my knowledge, has been neglected.

“Then the journey (of the Hebrews) continued and “The fear of G-d was upon the cities that were around them and they did not pursue the children of Yaacov (Jacob).” So, Jacob’s worries at the point, came to naught and the slaughter evidently was an effective political move.) jsk

Rabbi Riskin the took a different tact – one, by the way, that I have been preaching for over 60 years.

He went on to describe previous acts of deliberate Hebrew military action.

Much earlier in the bible,  Lot, Abraham’s nephew, settles in the evil city of Sodom and became captive to four armies in the Sodom Valley. Abraham, hearing this, quickly set out with a small band of his followers to rescue his nephew and miraculously, with Hashem’s great help, defeats all four armies.

Also, Rabbi Riskin pointed out that despite Jacob being a learned religious man favored by his mother Rebecca, Yitzhak, his father, in many ways preferred his outdoor hunter son Esau who provided him with game and perhaps protection. Yitzhak, on his death bed, expressed his desire to bless Esau and advised him he would live by the sword.

In an earlier chapter Abraham, Yitzhak’s father, exhibited great love for Ishmael his son through Sara’s maidservant Hagar. This was despite the fact that Ishmael was not a spiritual man, was the son of his second wife and lived on the land through cunning and thievery.

Rabbi Riskin then brought the threads of these facts together to show that the Hebrews in the past had used power and violence to protect their very existence. And … it was an accepted policy for the founding fathers to do so.

II  Commentary:  Jerome S. Kaufman

Now to the present: Up until the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948,  the Diaspora Jews that survived following the destruction of their biblical nation and their Holy Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD lived as vagabonds – second class, despised citizens in the cities of the Arabs and the Europeans. They lived without military strength or power under the complete domination of their host countries.

What is worse, to my mind,  is that this state of being became very comfortable. The Jews need not become military and provide for their own protection. They became content and even smug in being the People of the Book, the apparent beacons of moral authority and an example to which the nations of the world were to aspire.

But what has been the direct result of this supposed superior moral unprotected stance? Disaster!  The nations of the world have ignored or despised the Jews and their moral assumptions.

The Jews have been deliberately buffeted from European nation to nation  by the monarchs of the day in order to steal their money and the property the Jews had accumulated. The monarchs then used these assets  to pay for their own  extravagance and awful performance. Blame and use the Jews has been historically a great ploy and to this very moment.

The Jews were slaughtered in the centuries-old  pogroms of the Poles, the Russians, the Slavs, the Italians, the Balkans, the Arabs and everyone else – many times encouraged and indoctrinated by the Catholic, Protestant and Islamic churches.

This on-going slaughter culminated in the deliberate killing of 6 million Jews by the Germans and the rest of their very willing executioners in virtually all the nations of Europe.  Anti-Semitism was in full bloom.

Unfortunately, it is once again in full bloom in these same areas – easily again instigated,  for their own purposes, by Islam. What is worse is that Europeans have chosen not to recognize the obvious Islamic plan and that they are themselves next on the victim list of useful idiots.

Back to Rabbi Riskin: His message was thus that simply being a nice guy, a nice nation, a moral nation is not enough.  Simply currying favor with those dominant over you does not work. It leads to victimhood. Rabbi Riskin carefully pointed out that the Hebrew Bible made power and force an essential part of the Jew’s very existence.

Many believe that Hashem has provided this essential power in the re-establishment of the State of Israel. Unfortunately, once again most Jews remain oblivious to importance of this essential gift and do not protect it with every bone in their bodies. And, Hashem forbid, may in the immediate future, suffer the consequences.

What other amazing gift has Hashem laid upon the Jews and Israel and again, unfortunately  ignored and disparaged?

The amazing gift is President Donald Trump. Through his genuine emotional involvement and his complete understanding of the importance of establishing protection and power in our friends, he has greatly empowered our crucial ally – Israel.

He has moved Israel’s capitol to Jerusalem; recognized Israel’s domain over the Golan and recognized Israel’s right to develop communities in Judea and Samaria, Israel’s biblical homeland.

Furthermore, he has amazingly nurtured  a re-approachment between Israel and the Arab powers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman. He has thus, put on notice to the world that the US genuinely has Israel’s back.

He has in addition, in his usual outspoken manner, opined that American Jews do not love or appreciate Israel enough and its importance to their very existence.

And …. He is, of course, right.

Jerome S. Kaufman

https://israel-commentary.org Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.orgFacebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. KaufmanTwitter: 1) @israelcomment    2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Return to Ignorance. Students, Community Groups Sue Univ. of Calif. to Drop SAT, ACT Results

https://images.app.goo.gl/7VJ7nycrGknH9TgL7 

The Return to Ignorance in the State of California 

Students, Community Groups Sue University of California to Drop SAT, ACT

Redacted from an article by Melissa Korn

Wall Street Journal, Dec. 11, 2019

The law suit alleges the university discriminates against low-income students and others by relying on standardized-test scores in admissions.

https://israel-commentary.org/wp-admin/edit.php?post_status=draft&post_type=post

(What exactly are the SAT and ACT?

The SAT is defined as the Scholastic Assessment Test, now called the SAT Reasoning Test, which is a test that measures the reading, writing and math levels of high school juniors and seniors. An example of the SAT is the test many students take to get into college. The SAT was designed to be an exam for which students could not study. 

While the SAT attempted to test a student’s aptitude—that is, the students ability to learn—the ACT was much more pragmatic. The exam tested students on the information they actually learned in school. The ACT, on the other hand, was a test that rewarded good study habits. 

Today, with the release of a redesigned SAT in March of 2016, the tests are strikingly similar in that both test information that students learn in school. The separate tests are now given equal consideration.)

Students, Community Groups Sue University of California to Drop SAT, ACT

By Melissa Korn, Wall Street Journal 12/11/2019

A group of students and community organizations filed a much-anticipated lawsuit against the University of California, alleging that the university system discriminates against low-income students, racial minorities and others by requiring SAT or ACT admissions tests.

The suit was filed Tuesday in California state court on behalf of a high-school sophomore, two seniors, and a first-year student at Pasadena City College, all of whom it says would be strong candidates for more selective UC campuses except for their test scores. 

Several California college-prep and social-justice nonprofits are also plaintiffs in the suit. The Compton Unified School District is preparing to file a related suit.

They seek to bar the UC system from requiring applicants to submit SAT or ACT scores, and from using scores in admission decisions unless it can demonstrate a way of assessing the scores “in a rigorous and meaningful, transparent, nondiscriminatory, and non-stigmatizing manner,” according to the suit.

(But, that is exactly what these tests are supposed to do – Find those students of merit most likely to contribute to this society, this nation, this world. Or, should we instead legislate for ignorance and a return to the Dark Ages?) jsk

The plaintiffs are wading into a nationwide debate about meritocracy and fairness in college admissions. Concerns that certain groups get special advantages, because of wealth, race or other factors have come to a head with last year’s trial regarding admissions practices at Harvard University, as well as the more recent admissions cheating scandal that accuses families of having their teens lie about their academic credentials and cheat on the SAT and ACT.

More than 1,000 colleges and universities including the University of Chicago and Colorado College now make test scores optional. They have questioned whether standardized tests offer any more value than high-school performance in predicting college success. 

Defenders of the tests say students with high scores tend to fare well in college and beyond. The standardized tests have been considered by many as an equalizer, allowing colleges to identify talent from high schools with which they are not familiar.

A UC task force is currently assessing the value of the SAT and ACT in admissions, with recommendations expected before the end of the school year, and the university will make a decision after that, said a spokeswoman from the UC president’s office. Its determination is expected to have wide-ranging implications due to its size and clout, as UC campuses received more than 176,000 freshman applications last year.

UC campuses can consider academic performance, standardized test scores, class rank, extracurricular activities and other factors, but unlike many other selective institutions are barred from taking into account race or ethnicity in admissions.

“We are disappointed that plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit when the University of California has already devoted substantial resources to studying this complex issue,” the university spokeswoman said Tuesday.

According to College Board data from this year, 45% of white students who took the SAT in California scored at least a 1200 out of a possible 1600, and 55% of Asian students did, compared with only 9% of African-American students and 12% of Hispanic students.  (excuse me but whose fault is that) jsk

“The notion that the SAT is discriminatory is false,” said a spokesman for the College Board. “Any objective measure of student achievement will shine a light on inequalities in our education system. Our focus, with our members and partners, is combating these longstanding inequalities.”

(So, what is the direct result of all this previous social engineering “affirmative” ( a debatable adjective) action” by our educational savants, beginning way back to bussing children in elementary school?) jsk

U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries

BY DREW DESILVER

Pew Research Center

Feb. 15, 2017

How do U.S. students compare with their peers around the world? Recently released data from international math and science assessments indicate that U.S. students continue to rank around the middle of the pack, and behind many other advanced industrial nations.

One of the biggest cross-national tests is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which every three years measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries. 

The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science. (Ugh)

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

www.israel-commentary.org

https://israel-commentary.org

Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump by Alan Dershowitz

Political News and Analysis

Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes

by Alan M. Dershowitz

 

November 27, 2019 at 5:00 am

Image result for Netanyahu Trump pictures

Trump and Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. on February 15, 2017. (Image source: The White House)

 

There are striking similarities, as well as important differences, between the investigations being conducted against American President Donald J. Trump by the US Congress, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was just indicted.

 

 

The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Moreover, no legislature in any country governed by the rule of law would ever enact a general statute criminalizing such conduct.

 

 

The investigations of these two controversial leaders are based on using general laws that have never previously been deemed to apply to the conduct at issue and stretching them to target specific political figures.

 

 

Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery on the ground that he allegedly agreed to help a media company in exchange for more positive coverage and/or less negative coverage. There are disputes about the facts, but even if they are viewed in the light least favorable to Netanyahu, they do not constitute the crime of bribery.

 

 

Nor would the Knesset ever enact a statute making it a crime for a member of Knesset to cast a vote in order to get good media coverage. If such a law was ever passed, the entire Knesset would be in prison.

 

 

Politicians always seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some even negotiate good coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have press secretaries and media consultants.

 

 

Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu’s alleged conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule of law has ever made positive media coverage the “quid” or “quo” necessary for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.

 

 

Upholding a conviction based on positive media coverage would endanger both the freedom of the press and democratic processes of governance.

 

 

Prosecutors should stay out of the interactions between politicians and the media unless specifically defined crimes, as distinguished from arguable political sins, are committed, and no one should ever be prosecuted for actions that were never made criminal, and would never be made criminal, by the legislature.

 

 

President Trump is also being investigated for alleged bribery. Originally the Democrats thought they could impeach him for non-criminal conduct, such as alleged maladministration, abuse of office or immoral conduct.

 

 

I think they have now been convinced by me and others that no impeachment would be constitutional unless the President were found guilty of the crimes specified in the Constitution, namely, “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

 

So the Democratic leadership has now settled on bribery as an offence for which they can impeach President Trump. The problem with that approach — similar to the problem with the Israeli approach against Netanyahu — is that it is simply not a crime for a President to use his power over foreign policy for political, partisan or even personal advantage.

 

 

Imagine Congress trying to pass a law defining what would constitute a criminal abuse of the foreign policy power, as distinguished from a political or moral abuse.

 

 

Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain. They have given aid to foreign countries to help themselves get elected. They have appointed ambassadors based not on competence but on past and anticipated future political contributions.

 

 

None of these has ever been deemed criminal, and Congress would never dream of enacting a criminal statute that sought to cover such actions.

 

Could it carve out a specific crime based on seeking personal political advantage rather than partisan political advantage? I doubt it. But even if it could parse such a statute, it has not done so. And if it has not done so, neither Congress nor prosecutors can seek to criminalize the exercise of a President’s foreign policy power on the ground that they do not like the way he used it or even if he abused it.

 

 

The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated, prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.

 

 

Now to the differences. Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the Prime Minister can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. There is no requirement of, or need for, an impeachment mechanism.

 

 

The United States, on the other hand, is a Republic with separation of powers and checks and balances. The Framers, led by James Madison, saw the impeachment power as central to preserving our Republic and not turning it into a parliamentary democracy.

 

 

That is why they rejected a proposal that would have permitted impeachment on the ground of “maladministration.” Such an open-ended criteria, according to Madison, would have resulted in a situation in which the President served at the will of Congress.

 

 

That is why Madison insisted on the specific criteria for impeachment that the Framers ultimately accepted.

 

 

Although the differences between Israel and the United States are significant, they share in common the rule of law. Under the rule of law, properly applied, neither Netanyahu nor Trump should be deemed guilty of bribery.

 

 

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, and Guilt by Accusation, Skyhorse publishing, 2019

https://israel-commentary.org

Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

I Rising Scourge of Islamic Anti-semitism II Laura Ingraham’s response to Islamic anti-Christian theology

Dr. Andrew Bostom gave a presentation to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), July 30, 2019, entitled, “The Rising Scourge of Islamic Antisemitism”   Islamic anti-Semetic anti-Christian theology

Dr. Bostom summarized extensive, and unprecedented Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey data revealing current disproportionate 2.0 to 4.5-fold excess of extreme Anti-semitism amongst Muslims vs. all other religious groups, or those professing no religion, globally, and regionally, including within United States.

He also demonstrated what animates Muslim Antisemitism: the 1300 year-old living legacy of theological Islamic Jew-hatred, rooted in Islam’s core texts—the Koran itself, the traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, and the earliest pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad.

These texts, in turn, have begotten three inter-related canonical Islamic doctrines which continue to be espoused by Islam’s most authoritative religious teaching institutions, Sunni, and Shiite, alike: jihad war to subjugate Jews, and other non-Muslims; the application of Islamic Law,

Sharia seeks to humiliate Jews, Christians and non-Muslims who survive their conquest but refuse to convert to Islam.

Islam’s theology of virulent Jew-hatred which targets Jews, relentlessly, for their alleged intrinsic evil, manifested as stubborn, even hateful rejection of Islam, and conspiratorial efforts to undermine the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and his mission to propagate the Muslim creed, from Islam’s inception, till now.

The presentation, notably, also includes an exposure, and thorough debunking, of the popular, late modern Western Islamic studies doyen, Bernard Lewis, whose platitudinous bowdlerization of doctrinal and historical truths, continues to negate the Islam underpinning Muslim Jew-hatred, with tragic consequences.

Finally, the mea culpa-based teachings and implementation of Vatican II/Nostre Aetate, launched in 1965, which sought to expunge Christianity’s Anti-Semitic theology, were summarized as a template for challenging institutional Islam—indeed demanding—that it initiate a similar effort to eliminate Islam’s own virulent theological Jew-hatred.

II  Dr. Andrew Bostom challenges Laura Ingraham’s vacuous response to the  immediate  threat of Islamic theology to Christianity

Janet Mefferd interviewed Andrew Bostom 6/14/19 on a segment that aired  6/10/19 discussion between Fox News host of “The Ingraham Angle,” Laura Ingraham, and two so-called “reformist” Muslim women, Qanta Ahmed, and Asra Nomani given unchallenged license to: (i) dissimulate about Islam’s uniquely virulent anti-Christian theology; and (ii) ignore hard data on the resultant unparalleled extent of murderous anti-Christian persecution in Muslim societies, and now Church desecrations in Western Europe, past as prologue.

www.israel-commentary.org

Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

Democrat Candidates  Blackmail our Best Ally in Middle East – Israel

US Political News Opinion, Analysis

US Military Aid to Israel, Democrat Presidential Candidates

Meeting 10/31/’19 following slaying of Islamic State (ISIS) leader Baghdadi

Democrats Debate Military Aid to Israel as Leverage in Disputes?

Trump Administration and Republicans describe Israel as our best ally in Middle East

Redacted from an article by Sabrina Siddiqui

Wall Street Journal Oct. 31, 2019

WASHINGTON—U. S. military aid to Israel has emerged as the latest flashpoint in the Democratic presidential primary, evidence of a split in the party being driven by its resurgent progressive wing.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said this week that if he were elected president, Israel would have to “fundamentally change” its relationship to the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian enclave controlled by the militant group Hamas, to continue receiving aid.

“We cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government,” he told a raucous crowd in Washington at an annual convention hosted by J Street, a progressive Jewish advocacy group. “What is going on in Gaza right now is absolutely inhumane, it is unacceptable, it is unsustainable.”  (and it has very lttle to do with Israel – rather the complete greed of Hamas that runs it area for their own purposes. Aid not filtering down to the Gaza citizens.) jsk

Democratic presidential candidates Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, have expressed openness to using U.S. aid as leverage to persuade the Israeli government to rein in the expansion of settlements in Palestinian territory.

Others in the running were more skeptical or rejected the idea of placing conditions on military assistance.

Democrats are under pressure from progressives to tack to the left on a range of issues, from health care and taxes to the environment and guns. Many in the party are also willing to re-examine the decades-old U.S.-Israel relationship, long regarded as sacrosanct.

Many Democrats had already distanced themselves from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his discord with President Obama. Mr. Netanyahu has a close relationship with President Trump.

Most 2020 Democratic contenders have expressed support for re-entering the Iran nuclear deal, a signature Obama policy that drew intense opposition from Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Trump withdrew from the accord in 2018. The Democrats seeking the White House also have been unanimous in advocating for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..

The push has drawn opposition from pro-Israel factions in Washington.

“Given the growing and immediate threats to Israel from Iran and its proxies, we should certainly not attach conditions to protecting our ally’s security,” AIPAC  spokesman Marshall Wittmann said.

Mr. Sanders, who is vying to be the first Jewish (in name only. Sanders is the epitome of the Apostate Jew – doing all things against Jews and Israel he can to prove to the non-Jews, he is not Jewish. Sorry, Kapo Sanders, Hitler proved that tactic will not work.) jsk

Speaking at the J Street convention on Monday, Mr. Buttigieg said the U.S. should ensure that funding for Israel “does not get turned into U.S. taxpayer support for a move like annexation” of occupied territories on the West Bank. Ms. Warren, who addressed the conference in a video, echoed Mr. Buttigieg’s view, saying the U.S. must “create consequences for problematic behavior.”

Joe Biden also issued a video message to the J Street gathering, in which he said Israel “needs to stop” its settlement activity but made no mention of U.S. aid. His campaign didn’t return a request for comment.

“That wouldn’t be my first move, [though] I would not take that off the table,” said former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar avoided the question, stating: “It’s not a good idea to negotiate these things right now.” Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet rejected the idea.

pastedGraphic.pngIsrael for decades has been the leading recipient of American aid. During the Cold War, the U.S. viewed Israel, the only democracy in the region, as a bulwark against creeping Soviet influence; since then, mutual security interests and pro-Israeli public sentiment in the U.S. have strengthened the alliance.

But in recent years, U.S. attitudes toward the Israeli government have shifted generationally and along partisan lines. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April found that just 27% of Americans under the age of 30 held a favorable view toward the Israeli government. The same survey found a partisan divide, with 61% of Republicans holding a favorable view of the Israeli government compared with 26% of Democrats. A majority of the American public continues to sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, according to numerous polls.

Mr. Trump’s support for Mr. Netanyahu has also sharpened the partisan lens. A majority of American Jewish voters identify as Democrats, with 69% favoring Mr. Obama in 2012 and 71% backing Mrs. Clinton in 2016. But Mr. Trump’s overtures to Israel have resonated with the Republican base—and evangelical voters in particular. Mr. Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and he has called Democrats’ criticism of Israel anti-Semitic.

In 2015, Mr. Netanyahu coordinated with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill to address a Joint Session of Congress without notifying the Obama White House first. Mr. Netanyahu blasted the Iran deal in his remarks, which were boycotted by roughly 60 congressional Democrats

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

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman, Twitter: 1) @israelcomment    2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Hillary’s Favorite – Tulsi Gabbard?

Hillary/Gabbard Battle

Redacted from an in-depth article by Christopher W. Holton

 Hillary Clinton’s deranged allegations that she is a “Russian asset .”Tulsi Gabbard, one of the minor candidates from the 20-strong field of Democrat presidential hopefuls, has been getting a considerable amount of attention due to

While it is true that Kremlin-backed web sites have published numerous articles about Gabbard, no sober person really believes she is a “Russian asset.” In my opinion the Russians like her because of her positions on U.S. national security, which, if they ever became policy, would essentially open great opportunities for Vladimir Putin to assert Russian influence in the world at America’s expense.

www.israel-commentary.org

What warrants much more scrutiny are Gabbard’s bizarre, dangerous views on Iran. Her public statements on Iran almost amount to shilling for the Ayatollahs. She clearly admires Iran and she takes a “blame America first” position on relations between Iran and the U.S.

Her expressed knowledge of Iran-U.S. history is superficial at best.

Gabbard: The Ayatollahs’ Favorite Candidate

Her pro-Iran stance, combined with her anti-Semitic support for anti-BDS legislation directed at Israel put her far outside the mainstream of U.S. politics.

Gabbard makes her views on Iran a feature of her stance on the issues. On her campaign web site she dedicates a page to Iran.

It’s too bad that so much of what she says there just isn’t true

Another claim that Gabbard makes is that war with Iran would strengthen Al Qaeda. There is just as much evidence that going to war with Iran would weaken Al Qaeda as there is evidence that it would strengthen Iran.

After all, Iran has provided Al Qaeda with safe haven and, according to a verdict in U.S. federal court, Iran provided Al Qaeda with support for the September 11 attacks. Beyond that, Iran has a decades-long history of relations with Al Qaeda.

Gabbard supported the flawed, fraudulent Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). The JCPOA actually granted Iran a clear path to nuclear weapons, was largely unverifiable and failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program, and sponsorship of terrorism.

To this day, Gabbard calls for the U.S. to re-enter that deal which Iran has violated and which overtly clears the way for Iran to have nuclear weapons in the future.

Gabbard makes an outrageously oversimplified statement about Iran on her web site that shows, at best, a superficial understanding of our history with Iran.

Make no mistake, the 1979 Islamic Revolution was carried out to establish an Islamic state ruled by sharia. Period. From the start the Ayatollahs were hostile to the U.S. and violated international law in invading our embassy in Tehran and taking diplomatic personnel hostage.

Iran went on to become the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism. Successive Democrat and Republican administrations have agreed on this. Not only do the Iranians sponsor Hezbollah, an organization responsible for killing hundred of Americans, they sponsor HAMAS, a Sunni jihadist organization bent on replacing Israel with an Islamic state ruled by sharia. As mentioned previously, Iran has also helped Al Qaeda.

 Rather than intervening in Iran as Gabbard claims in “Blame America First” fashion, the U.S. has in fact shown incredible restraint in dealing with Iran. Consider some of the atrocities committed by Iran over the years.

Here is a partial list of what the Ayatollahs have done over the past 40 years:

So, while Tulsi Gabbard portrays the Ayatollahs as victims, the fact is they are perpetrators.

Preventing the Ayatollahs from obtaining nuclear weapons is the most urgent national security imperative today. Should the ayatollahs become armed with nuclear weapons, future generations will ask of us: “How did they ever let it happen?”

On November 4, 1979, Iranian “students” stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 hostages for 444 days until January 1981.

It is worth noting at this point that Hezbollah is essentially a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It could be regarded as an Iranian Foreign Legion.

In April 1983, Iranian-backed Hezbollah carried out an Islamikaze bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 17 Americans.

On October 23, 1983, Iranian-backed Hezbollah carried out an Islamikaze bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport. 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers were killed in that attack.

On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine illegally laid by Iran in the Persian Gulf, wounding 69 U.S. sailors.

In 1996, Iran, and its Jihadist terrorist client, Hezbollah, took part in the bombing of the U.S. Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service men and women and wounding 372 more.

In June 2004, two Iranian security guards at Iran’s U.N. mission in New York were expelled after they were caught conducting reconnaissance of sensitive sites in New York.

Back in 2010, it was revealed that two Jihadis convicted in Manhattan for terrorist conspiracy had ties to Iran. The two had plotted to bomb JFK airport.

For those who recognize the threat from Sunni jihadists, but not Iran, they best take a closer look. Iran has a long history of supporting Sunni jihad, notably HAMAS. But even beyond HAMAS, the Wikileaks documents disclosed in 2010 direct ties between Iranian leaders and Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders,

Hezbollah and Al Qaeda cooperation has been documented elsewhere for some time, as detailed by the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations.

In November 2017, the CIA released files taken from the Osama Bin Laden raid showing evidence of ties between Iran and Al Qaeda.

Also in 2010, US Army General Ray Odierno called out Iran for the violence in Iraq.

In 2011, U.S. law enforcement disrupted a plot involving the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by bombing a restaurant in Washington DC. An Iranian-American was sentenced to 25 years for his role in the plot.

In 2012, various intelligence services uncovered terrorist plots involving the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah in countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Some of the targets included American facilities.

In March 2012, the head of the New York Police Department’s Intelligence Division, revealed to a Congressional panel that Iranian personnel had been caught conducting reconnaissance of New York targets at least a half dozen times since 9/11.

In January 2016, Iran seized and held 10 U.S. Navy sailors in the Persian Gulf.

In June 2017, two Hezbollah jihadists were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan for conducting surveillance of law enforcement and military facilities in New York and the Panama Canal. The investigation revealed a previously unknown level of Hezbollah operational activity in North America.

In April 2018, a U.S. federal judge ordered Iran to pay $6 billion to the families of 9/11 victims for Iran’s “material support” for Al Qaeda.

In August 2018, two Iranian agents were arrested for conducting surveillance of Jewish targets in Chicago.

In September 2018, the U.S. closed diplomatic facilities in Iraq after repeated rocket attacks and threats from Iranian-backed militias there.

In April of this year, the Pentagon declassified a report indicating that Iran was responsible for the death of 608 U.S. GIs in Iraq during the insurgency there.

Recently, the former head of the security police in Venezuela, who defected from the Maduro regime there, disclosed that Iran’s terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, was active in Venezuela.

In June, German intelligence reported that Iran had actively sought weapons proliferation technology for its nuclear program during 2018—during a period in which Iran was supposed to be adhering to the infamous nuclear deal.

“Incidentally, Gabbard voted for Bernie Sanders for president in 2016”

And … Gabbard just got an endorsement for Democratic from former KKK leader David Duke. I doubt it was solicited but we all know politics makes strange bedfellows or not so strange?  (jsk)

 To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

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

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

President Trump eliminates another Obama sell-out to China

US Israel news and articles

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

JUDICIAL WATCH,  OCTOBER 08, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beth Baumann

Oct 14, 2019 10:45 PM

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

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

Jack Posobiec, One America News Network Host

Donald Trump Jr., son of President Donald Trump

Laura Ingraham, Fox News Host

Sean Hannity, Fox News Host

Michael McFaul, President Obama’s Ambassador to Russia

Dan Bongino, Fox News Contributor

Ryan Saavedra, Reporter at the Daily Wire

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s Personal Attorney

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

John Solomon, Executive Vice President at The Hill

Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Host

Pamela Geller, Political Commentator

Sara Carter, Investigative Reporter and Fox News Contributor

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

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

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

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution

US Israel news and articles

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

September 2019 • Volume 48, Number 9

By Myron Magnet

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

From the speech:

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

www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

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

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

When the Slave Traders were themselves African

US Israel news and articles

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

Redacted from an in-depth article By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani

The Wall Street Journal Sept. 20, 2019 

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

www.israel-commentary.org   (Israel Commentary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Israel news and articles  

www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

The Trump Rule’s Congressional Reform Act Of 2018: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder THEY’RE FIGHTING THIS TOOTH AND NAIL!

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

 

www.israel-commentary.org 

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

By JewishNewsService (JNS)

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

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

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

 

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org

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

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

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

Big Tech’s Big Secret

Redacted from earlier more pertinent than ever article 

By David Kupelian, Editor

WhistleBlower Magazine 

World Net Daily  2019

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

www.israel-commentary.org

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

How is that possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

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

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

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

Redacted from a detailed  article by Dr. Martin Sherman

Arutz Sheva  –  Israel National News.com

November 1, 2019

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

www.israel-commentary.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incentivized Arab emigration: A Zionist imperative

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

By Dr. Martin Sherman, 11/01/19

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

 

Global Warming Pseudo-religion once more exposed

A Famine of Fact at U.N. Climate Panel

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

By James Taylor

Wall Street Journal, Aug. 30, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  www.israelcommentary.org 

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

Twitter: @israelcomment and @schmice

II  Comments from Isaac  Barr:    Sep 3, 2019

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

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

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

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

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