Elizabeth Warren Medicare for All Plan

 

 

Financing and savings ideas for Elizabeth Warren Medicare- for- All plan bear no relation to reality!

www.israel-commentary.org 

By Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

Nov. 3, 2019

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-has-a-fantasy-plan-1157282296

Now we know why Elizabeth Warren took so long to release the financing details of her Medicare-for-All plan. The 20 pages of explanation she released Friday reveal that she is counting on ideas for cost-savings and new revenue that are a fiscal and health-care fantasy.

You certainly can’t criticize the new Iowa Democratic caucus front-runner for lack of ambition. Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, she is sticking to her plan for a government takeover of American health care, including the elimination of private insurance that 170 million or so Americans now have. She continues to claim that this will cost “not one penny in middle-class tax increases.” She walks on water too.

Start with the overall fiscal math, which by itself is staggering. She concedes that her plan will cost only “slightly” less than the $52 trillion that the U.S. is expected to spend on health care in the next 10 years. She deducts from that what the feds now spend on Medicare and Medicaid, plus $6 trillion that the states contribute to Medicaid, the state-federal children’s health program and government worker benefits.

That leaves $30 trillion to finance, but Senator Warren waves her wand and says the bill will really be $20.5 trillion. She makes the rest vanish by positing magical savings from things like “comprehensive payment reform.” One of her ideas is the hardy perennial known as “bundled payments,” which have failed to reduce costs as promised by Obama Care.

She says hospitals, under Medicare-for-all,  would be reimbursed at an average of 110% of current Medicare rates, which is supposed to address the criticism that Medicare currently under-compensates patient care. But hospitals now rely on private insurance payments to stay in business, and 110% of what Medicare now pays will hardly be enough to compensate for the loss of that private money.

Amusingly, she also proposes savings from “restoring health care competition.” Because everyone will have good insurance, she says, “providers will have to compete on better care and reduced wait times in order to attract more patients.” But if government is controlling all prices and reimbursements, what incentive is there to compete at all?

There’s a reason every government-run health system in the world rations care. Ms. Warren won’t admit this explicitly about her brave new health world, but she comes close. If U.S. health-care spending exceeds GDP growth, she says, “I will use available policy tools, which include global budgets, population-based budgets, and automatic rate reductions, to bring it back into line.”

In a word, rationing. And that’s no surprise, since she credits the advice for developing much of her plan to Donald Berwick. He was an advocate for ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board—known uncharitably as the death panel—that Congress repealed last year in a bipartisan vote.

Ms. Warren would also impose foreign price controls on U.S. drug makers, which is why patients in France and the U.K. have access to only about half of new medicines that are available in the U.S. Manufacturers that don’t agree to Ms. Warren’s price negotiation would get whacked with a hefty excise tax on their profits. She also threatens to confiscate their patents.

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngThe details of how she’d pay for the other $20.5 trillion are even more fantastical. Start with her “Employer Medicare Contribution.” Instead of paying employee health-care premiums, businesses would cut a check to Uncle Sam to the tune of $8.8 trillion over 10 years based on what they pay now.

She says per-employee health costs for every employer would remain about the same, but payroll costs of this sort are essentially middle-class taxes on employees. Fixing per-employee business costs at some future date would also be an incentive for companies to reduce their coverage now to reduce future costs. 

So employees would get worse coverage than they have now. If this “employer contribution” raises less money than projected, her fall-back is to whack “big companies with extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.”

Meantime, she’d also raise the corporate tax rate back to 35% from 21% and extend it to income earned worldwide with no deferrals for foreign taxes. She claims this would generate $1.75 trillion over 10 years, which is fanciful since it would be an immediate incentive for companies to relocate overseas.

She also doubles down on her plans to soak the rich, assuming there are any left after her other tax proposals. She wants a new annual tax on unrealized capital gains of the wealthiest 1% of households (raising $2 trillion over 10 years), which would mean you owe a tax even if you haven’t sold the asset. She graciously says taxpayers could offset the gains with losses in bad years, but that would lead to extreme revenue fluctuations from year to year.

Ms. Warren has already proposed a 2% wealth tax on assets of more than $50 million, which is supposed to pay for her education, child-care and college-debt forgiveness plans. She now wants to add a 6% annual tax on Americans with more than $1 billion in assets that she says would raise $3 trillion. Most economists, including Democrat Larry Summers, believe a wealth tax would raise far less due to tax avoidance, which is why so many European countries have repealed their wealth taxes.

But, no worries, Ms. Warren would hire a new army of tax collectors to close what she calls the 15% “tax gap” between what people owe and what they pay. The Senator says this will be worth $2.3 trillion in additional revenue. This is another old Congressional standby that never yields what is predicted.

Oh, and she’d save $800 billion by cutting defense spending for Overseas Contingency Operations. Senator Warren calls this a “slush fund,” but it’s really the account to finance current overseas operations as well as readiness. This would return to the Obama years of slashing defense even as global threats from regional powers and new technology are increasing. This is a hyper-fantasy.

The political vulnerability of all this isn’t lost on Ms. Warren’s Democratic competitors. A spokeswoman for Joe Biden said Saturday that Ms. Warren is “lowballing the cost of her plan by well over $10 trillion” and isn’t telling the truth about her taxes “that would come out of workers’ pockets.” The likeliest outcome, if her plan ever became law, would be a value-added consumption tax on the middle class.

Ms. Warren is trying to sell an illusion and make it sound like political courage. Donald Trump’s boast that Mexico would pay for the wall was more believable.

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.

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

Redacted from an in-depth SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And her message extends far beyond Novi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A SERIES OF DECEPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle Ready to Defend America!

Thomas More Law Center <thomasmore@thomasmore.org>

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

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

Ecumenical Islamism

by Josh Eibelman
American Spectator
July 26, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZOA: American Israel Public Affairs Comm. (AIPAC’s) Demand that Antisemitic Israel-Haters Omar/Tlaib be Allowed to Enter Israel is Wrong

SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein and Chairman Mark Levenson, Esq. released the following statement:

The ZOA respectfully urges AIPAC to retract its mistaken criticism of Israel’s just and proper decision to refuse to admit Jew-haters Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar for their planned visit to incite hatred and boycotts against Israel, designed to destroy the Jewish state.

AIPAC’s unwarranted criticism of Israel did tremendous harm to Israel and to AIPAC’s repeated declaration that they support the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel, and whose mission is supporting the U.S.-Israel relationship and the security of Israel and the United States.

AIPAC’s mistaken criticism of Israel was widely quoted by the media, including major American networks and cable stations (including FoxCNNNBC and others); was retweeted over 6,200 times (far more than a typical AIPAC tweet); encouraged and gave a free pass to politicians to join in AIPAC’s criticism of Israel; and gave grist and succor to hostile-to-Israel groups, including J Street, to unfairly condemn Israel and Israeli officials.

AIPAC’s criticism moreover misstated the object and goals of the planned Tlaib/Omar trip. AIPAC’s July 15, 2019 tweet that “every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand,” ignored the facts that (i) Tlaib and Omar refused to participate with their Congressional colleagues in the large Congressional mission that actually did experience Israel firsthand, and (ii) Tlaib’s and Omar’s itinerary had absolutely nothing to do with “experiencing our democratic ally Israel firsthand.”

The Tlaib/Omar itinerary included no meetings with Israeli officials, no meetings with ordinary Israelis, and no visits to Israeli sites. Tlaib and Omar didn’t even call their trip a visit to “Israel.” Instead, their itinerary touted a trip to non-existent “Palestine.” The Tlaib/Omar visit was arranged by a terror-supporting group, Miftah. Miftah has accused Jews of the antisemitic blood libel and has praised suicide bombers for murdering Jews. The itinerary was designed to defame and incite against Israel.

AIPAC’s tweet moreover ignored the necessity for Israel to follow its anti-BDS laws; the fact that Congresspersons are not above the law, and the fact that self-respecting nations do not need to admit avowed enemies that wish to destroy their people. ZOA provided examples of government officials from foreign nations and territories – including Austria’s president – whom the U.S. properly barred from admission to the U.S, and even a member of Israel’s Knesset, as well as a member of the Palestinian Parliament Hanan Ashrawi.

If there was a Congressmember who demanded that France or Italy or any other country must be boycotted and destroyed, no self-respecting lobby would condemn France or Italy for refusing admission to that member of Congress.

Moreover, while AIPAC merely tweeted its approval of Israel’s offer to Tlaib of a humanitarian visit to her grandmother the next day (on August 16), AIPAC failed to criticize or even mention the fact that Tlaib then turned around and rejected Israel’s approval of her request for a humanitarian visit. Tlaib’s rejection of the humanitarian visit, that Tlaib herself had requested, demonstrated Tlaib’s true nefarious intentions, and the wisdom of Israel’s initial refusal of admission.

Additional Potential Harmful Effects of AIPAC’s Tweet: Further, although we do not believe that this was AIPAC’s intent, AIPAC’s mistaken tweet is being viewed by many as overall support for Omar and Tlaib, is being used by hostile-to-Israel groups to malign Israel, and may have emboldened Tlaib and Omar to become even more outrageous in their hatefulness.

Tlaib is now calling for boycotts against Bill Maher, because Maher expressed opposition to anti-Israel boycotts. (See Tlaib Urges Boycott of Bill Maher After He Slams BDS Movement,” by Yaron Steinbuch, New York Post, Aug. 18, 2019.) Tlaib and Omar also just publicized a vicious antisemitic cartoon on their social media. And they’ve hurled their typical absurd false racism and Islamophobia accusations against Israel’s leaders – which AIPAC failed to respond to. (See Of Course: Ilhan Omar Plays the Victim After Israel Ban, Gaslights and Cries Racism,” by Katie Pavlich, Town Hall, Aug 15, 2019.)

Additional Reasons Why Israel Was Correct to Deny Tlaib and Omar Admission:  ZOA and others in the pro-Israel community and honest journalists have independently pointed out numerous reasons (in addition to those discussed above) why Israel was correct to not admit Tlaib and Omar for a visit designed to promote hatred and boycotts against the Jewish state, and Israel’s destruction.

See, e.g., “Omar and Tlaib Rightly Blocked From Visiting ‘Non-Existent’ Country Palestine”, by Michael Goodwin, New York Post, Aug. 17, 2019; “Israel’s Ban of Tlaib, Omar was a Tough Call — But Entirely Justifiable,” Post Editorial Board, Aug. 16, 2019; “ZOA Applauds Israel for Refusing Entry of Israelophobic Jew-Haters Tlaib and Omar,” Aug. 15, 2019; “Zionist Organization of America Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Tlaib and Omar from Visiting Israel,” Breitbart, Aug. 15, 2019; Tweet by philanthropist Adam Milstein; “RJC Supports Israel’s Decision to Bar Entry to Reps. Tlaib and Omar,” Aug. 15, 2019; “Nothing Good Can Come From Omar and Tlaib Visit to Israel,” Interview with Mark Zell, Land of Israel Network, July 23, 2019; “No Entry to Israel for Tlaib-Omar,” Americans for a Safe Israel, Aug. 15, 2019; “Brooke Goldstein: Israel Smart About Omar, Tlaib – They Are Enemies of the Jewish State,”Fox News, Aug. 16, 2019.

Further, the director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs’ Program to Counter Political Warfare and BDS, Dan Diker, explained that Tlaib and Omar’s planned trip was nothing short of an “act of political warfare.” Former Israeli Ambassador Alan Baker noted that the blame lies with Omar and Tlaib and pre-existing hostile-to-Israel actors, and that: “Israel, like every other country, has the sovereign prerogative to deny entry to any person.” (“Why Israeli Ban on Two US Congresswomen’s Visit Won’t Drive a Wedge Between the Countries,” Aug. 18, 2019.)

AIPAC should retract or correct its demand that Israel allow Israelophobes Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) to come to Israel. 

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

By the personal haters National Security Advisor John Bolton attracts, he must be one super military advisor for our side!

John Bolton’s Wars

By William McGurn

The Wall Street Journal  Aug. 6, 2019

What do the Iranian regime, the New York Times and Sen. Rand Paul have in common?

www.israel-commentary.org

(By the haters National Security Advisor John Bolton has attracted – Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, the New York Times and Senator Rand Paul– John Bolton must be one super military advisor for our side!)

“I believe Mr. Trump does not seek war. But Mr. Bolton and Netanyahu have always sought war.” Thus spoke Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, at a Monday press conference in Tehran. 

It’s not the first time Mr. Zarif has tried to drive a wedge between President Trump and his national security adviser, John Bolton—or between the president and his most steadfast international ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  But for Mr. Bolton, Mr. Zarif implies, we could have peace in the Middle East tomorrow.

Iran’s foreign minister has plenty of support for his argument. Scarcely a week goes by without some article warning the president that Mr. Bolton is leading him to war. The same folks who pound the president for being soft on the world’s worst thugs then oddly side with the thugs against the White House official who takes them on.

There can be no doubting Mr. Bolton’s unpopularity in Dictatorsville. The North Koreans blame Mr. Bolton (along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) for the “atmosphere of hostility and mistrust” that fouled the Hanoi summit in February. 

In Moscow last year, Vladimir Putin asked Mr. Bolton whether he’d removed the olive branches on the American seal.

Venezuela’s besieged dictator, Nicolás Maduro, charges Mr. Bolton with trying to have him assassinated. Cuba’s foreign minister calls Mr. Bolton a “pathological liar” for accusing the Communist island of fomenting revolution in South America. 

China denounces him for slander for saying Beijing’s behavior toward its Southeast Asian neighbors threatens peace. Along with the New York Times and the Rand Paul/Pat Buchanan axis of the Republican Party, the dictators would all love to see Mr. Bolton run out of the West Wing.

But if war isn’t what’s guiding Mr. Bolton, what is? At bottom it’s the conviction that diplomacy and multilateral organizations are fine—as long as they serve American interests. In the Bolton version, America First means the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over the U.N. Charter.

For all the talk about Mr. Bolton’s wish to go to war with Iran, the actual policy has been more limited: pulling out of a bad nuclear deal, applying economic sanctions, isolating Tehran diplomatically, designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and, more recently, building a coalition to protect oil tankers in the Persian Gulf from Iranian aggression. 

One way of interpreting Mr. Zarif’s increasing complaints is as an admission that Iran’s regime is feeling the pinch—and that it longs for the days when it was dealing with the malleable (read – “stupid” ) John Kerry.

Ditto for North Korea. Before joining the administration, Mr. Bolton wrote a piece on these pages called “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First,” so naturally his critics assume that’s the game plan. But again the actual policy has been maximum pressure short of war, along with summits. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Trump’s skepticism about using massive military force, moreover, surely he would side with Mr. Bolton over Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced a no-first-use nuclear policy during the last Democratic debate. In practice this would entail a willingness to sacrifice Los Angeles or Chicago to a nuclear strike before responding in kind.

It’s true that the Trump-Bolton relationship has its bumps. A recent Axios profile relayed an anecdote from the Irish prime minister’s St. Patrick’s Day visit to the Oval Office. “John,” Mr. Trump asked his national security adviser, “is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”

But the article didn’t report Mr. Bolton’s rejoinder, which suggests a healthy give and take: “It’s still early in the day, Mr. President.”

Plainly Mr. Bolton is aware that he’s more hawkish than his president. But plainly, too, Mr. Trump finds his national security chief useful. One reason might be that—unlike so many others, even within the Trump administration—Mr. Bolton knows who makes the decisions and doesn’t regard the president as stupid.

In making his case to his boss, Mr. Bolton emphasizes both U.S. interests and Mr. Trump’s instincts. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

pastedGraphic.pngBut the idea that a warmonger is leading an unsuspecting president around by the nose is ridiculous. Mr. Trump was elected on a platform that rejected both what he called the “endless wars” of the George W. Bush era and the pusillanimity of the Obama years. Could it be the president appreciates having around him a national security adviser who puts the fear of God into America’s enemies?

Meanwhile the critics carp, from the right as well as left. “I fear that he’s a malignancy, a malignant influence on the administration,” said Sen. Rand Paul, speaking for the right-wing claque of those who regard Mr. Bolton as a warmonger. While over on the left the New York Times publishes pieces such as “Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.”

Which is pretty much the same complaint from the autocrats in Caracas, Moscow and Tehran (and all of the above).

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:

jkaufman253469@icloud.com  

Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org 

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

The Exemplary Life of Muhammad, the Prophet

Affirming the article present below:

II  Courageous Brigette Gabriel presents 1400 years of Islam,  Religion of Peace, in 15 minutes – A fearless wake-up call to those who prefer denial

Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Born in Mecca (now within current Saudi Arabia) in 570 CE.  Most of his early life was spent as a merchant. At age 40, he began to have revelations from Allah that became the basis for the Koran and the foundation of Islam.

(He was originally not accepted as a prophet by the Arabs of Mecca and elected therefore to move to Medina which was populated by Jews and hopefully gain acceptance by them of his revelations. They did not accept him as a prophet. He then created a Treaty of Hudaybijjah with the Jews that was to have lasted 10 years. After only 2 years, Muhammad felt strong enough to defeat the Jews, abrogated the Treaty and slaughtered the Jews of Medina. 

You may remember the famous photo-op handshake on the White House lawn, Sep 13, 1993 between Yasir Arafat and Yitschak Rabin with Bill Clinton as witness. This was supposed to have been the beginning of a mutually acceptable peace process. Within hours, Yasir Arafat secretly advised his followers not to be concerned and told them, remember the Treaty of Hudaybijjah, mentioned above, wherein Muhammed killed all the Jews after two years.

This slaughter was quickly followed by Muhammed’s return in triumph to Mecca and the beginning if his reign of terror and conquest  that continued until his death in 632.  By 630 he had unified most of Arabia under a single religion – his. He died in 632 CE

His followers were amazingly successful in their ongoing conquests that continue in one form or another to this very day. As of 2015, there are over 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who profess, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”  “Allah Akbar” remains  the universal battle cry the Islamic terrorists declare right before killing themselves and as many non-believers as possible. The Arab leaders seem to by-pass this particular part of the ceremonies.) jsk

A few examples of the peaceful nature of Muhammed’s conquests include the following:

Tortured & killed unbelievers – beginning in 628 AD

1. To find the treasure hidden by the Jewish Banu an- Nadir tribe, Muhammad personally ordered the torture of three Jews: Saʼyah ibn-ʻAmr (The Origins of the Islamic State, p. 43), Kinanah bin al-Rabi (The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 515), and Ibn Abi l- Huqayq (The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al- Maghazi, p. 331). Muhammad then personally ordered the killing Ibn Abi. 

2. After a raid on the settlement of Wadi al- Qura about 100 miles from Medina in 628, Zaid (Muhammadʼs adoptive son) by Muhammadʼs authority ordered that a “very old woman” Umm Qirfa be tied by her legs between two camels and ripped in two. (The Life of Muhammad, page 665) 

When Muhammad raided the Jewish town of Khaybar in 629, their treasure had been hidden. To extract its location, Muhammad ordered that a fire be kindled on the chest of the leader, Kinana bin al-Rabi. When he was nearly dead, Muhammad delivered the man to a fellow-raider who beheaded him. (The Life of Muhammad, page 515). 

What is Islam? 

Islam is defined by the holy texts of its religion – not by the beliefs, actions or virtues of a Muslim. 

Muhammad is Islam – Islam is Muhammad The importance of Muhammadʼs example in Islam cannot be over-stated. The Quran establishes in Surah 33:21, “There is a good example in Allahʼs apostle [Muhammad] for those of you who look to Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah always.” Sharia Law insists that the moral scale of good and evil is NOT what reason considers good or bad, but rather what Muhammad indicated by what he did or what he forbade or permitted. (Reliance of the Traveler, paragraph a1.4)

This is further emphasized by a reliable Hadith, Bukhari Book 9, Number 391, “If I [Muhammad] forbid you to do something keep away from it. And if I order you to do something, then do it as much as you can. 

Muhammad, at about age 50, married Aisha in 620, when she was six years old, and he consummated their marriage in 623, when she was nine.  She remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). 

There are numerous authoritative reports in which Muhammad was personally involved in possessing, buying, selling, or giving away slaves: 

As we saw in the section dealing with slavery, Muhammad engaged in the slave trade and possessed slaves of his own. And after a Muslim victory, Muhammad was involved in distributing the captured non-Muslim women among his Muslim warriors, and taking some for himself. Islamic Doctrine is based on the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad. What did this Doctrine allow to happen to these non-Muslim women? 

Captured non-Muslim women then, and still today, fall under the category of those “whom your right hands possess.” Such a woman becomes a slave to her Muslim captor, has all previous marriages annulled (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13) and it then becomes “legal” for him to have intercourse with her. This is authorized by 4:24 of the Koran, which begins by stating: 

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you… 

Who is a Muslim? 

A Muslim is one who is obedient to the commands of Allah and examples of Muhammad. 

Beheaded 600 Jews in one day 

For twenty-five nights in March 627, the Muslims besieged a Jewish enclave within Medina until they surrendered. Some within the enclave had been accused of aiding Muhammadʼs enemies. In an act of collective punishment, Muhammad ordered all of the men – some 600 to 900 in total – beheaded and the women and children sold off as slaves. The entire clan was disseminated.  As it was later described: 

The Messenger of God [Muhammad] breakfasted at the market and gave instructions for a furrow to be dug there [in which to bury those to be killed]…The Messenger of God sat with the distinguished among his companions. He called for the men of the Banu Qurayza, and they came out at a leisurely pace, and their heads were cut off. 

It is generally accepted that Muhammad consummated marriages with eleven women during his life. During the time of his first marriage, he had only one wife, Khadija. During the last three years of his life, he had nine wives at one time. Here are a few of  his eleven wives: 

Khadija bint Khuwaylid b. Asad – Married to Muhammad in 595. Died in 619. 

Sawdah bint Zam’ah b. Qays – Married to Muhammad in 619 after Khadija’s death. 

Aisha bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq – Married to Muhammad in 620, when she was only six years old, and he consummated the marriage in 623, when she was nine. 

Hafsa bint ‘Umar b. al-Khattab – Married to Muhammad in March 625. 

And, this is only the beginning of the lurid tale of this “Perfect Man of Peace.”

From:  Jarvis Williams   * For a complete list of references 

http://perfectmantruth.com    The Perfect Man

CounterJihadCoalition.org

Article written in part and compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

www.israel-commentary.org

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