How Walt Disney, the German Nazis and the Arabs Exploited my Good Friend, Mickey Mouse

Walt Disney, Mickey Mouse, And The Nazis

Walter Disney (1901-66), a worldwide cultural icon, was an animator, film producer, and entrepreneur credited with pioneering the American animation industry. His films, which are beloved worldwide, include “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), “Pinocchio” (1940), “Fantasia” (1940), “Dumbo” (1941), “Bambi” (1942), “Cinderella” (1950), and “Mary Poppins” (1964). He was nominated for 59 Academy Awards, winning 29 – both enduring records.

Even half a century after his death, Walt Disney’s iconic images, stories, and characters continue to leave an indelible mark on culture, and the multimedia conglomerate he built remains a formidable giant in the entertainment industry. His amusement parks, which began with Disneyland in 1955 and now include Disney World, EPCOT, and many others overseas, draw millions of visitors each year. Disney’s TV shows – including “The Wonderful World of Color” and “The Mickey Mouse Club” – are still favorites amongst children around the world.

Considerable evidence exists to support the proposition that Walt Disney was an anti-Semite, although, as we shall see, the record is decidedly muddled and, Neal Gabler, Walt Disney’s personal biographer, vehemently denies the charge. It is sometimes difficult to isolate fact from fiction; for example, the allegation that Walt had a private meeting with Hitler and developed a relationship with him is sheer nonsense, but it is true that he went out of his way to meet Mussolini.

Even Gabler concedes that Walt “willingly, even enthusiastically, embraced [anti-Semites] and cast his fate with them,” and The Walt Disney Family Museum acknowledges, as it must, that Disney included ethnic stereotypes in some of his early cartoons.

When Walt visited Munich in 1935, Nazi newspapers warmly welcomed him as a hero who stood up to the Jews of Hollywood. (Interestingly, the Sleeping Beauty Castle that Walt later built at Disneyland closely resembles the Neuschwanstein Castle he saw in Bavaria during his trip.)

Walt never met with Hitler, but it is beyond dispute that the Fuhrer adored Disney’s work. Goebbels is said to have presented 12 Disney short films to Hitler as a Christmas present in 1937, which the latter treasured. Hitler was determined – and ordered Goebbels – to create a Nazi animation studio and production company that would rival Disney, but the result was Deutsche Zeichenfilm GmbH, which ultimately produced only a few Nazi propaganda cartoons.

In 1938, just a few weeks after Kristallnacht, Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s personal filmmaker and propagandist, came to the United States seeking an American studio to work with her. Famous – or infamous – for glorifying the Nazis, and best known for “Triumph of the Will” (1935), a revolting propaganda film that chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress at Nuremberg, she was boycotted by all Hollywood studio leaders, except one – Walt – who expressed admiration for her work and gave her a personal tour of his studio.

According to Riefenstahl, Walt ultimately turned down her offer to work with him because he was afraid that doing so would tarnish his reputation. Returning to Germany, she publicly thanked Walt for having received her, declaring that it was “gratifying” to “learn how thoroughly proper Americans distance themselves from the smear campaigns of the Jews.”

In an infamous “Three Little Pigs” cartoon (1933), part of Disney’s “Silly Symphonies” series, the Big Bad Wolf is drawn with a Der Sturmer-like exaggerated depiction of a Jewish nose, a long scraggly black beard, and a Jewish hat. Dressed like a Jewish peddler, the Wolf speaks with a thick Yiddish accent as he tries to cheat the homeowner pig. (Pigs, of course, metaphorically represent everything repulsive to Jews, although it’s unclear if the producers specifically intended viewers to make this association.)

In “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), the evil witch’s hooked nose, hunched bearing, and general demeanor of seduction are wholly evocative of the anti-Semite stereotype prevalent at the time. In “Pinocchio” (1940), the cunning puppet-master who manifests a total lack of any moral imperative and is interested only in amassing great wealth is the unambiguous incarnation of the Jewish skinflint.

In “The Opry House,” Mickey Mouse dresses up and performs a caricature of a dancing chassidic Jew, comparable to a blackface portrayal of African Americans. And, in “The Wayward Canary” (1932), Minnie Mouse, for some inexplicable reason, owns a cigarette lighter bearing a swastika.

Not surprisingly, Walt respected auto-industry tycoon Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite and union-buster who reciprocated his esteem and said he admired him for being “a successful self-made protestant in a field dominated by Jews.” Peter Bart, the editor of Variety, reported that when he once asked Walt a question, he responded, “Let me check that with my Jew.”

Walt was known to have actively supported many Jewish charities, including the Hebrew Orphan Asylum of the City of New York, Yeshiva College, the Jewish Home for the Aged, and even the American League for a Free Palestine (the “Bergson Group”). The Beverly Hills Chapter of B’nai B’rith also named him its Man of the Year in 1955.

However, this argument is weakened by reports that Walt is reputed to have claimed that he had been forced by “that Jew” – i.e., Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury – to use Mickey Mouse to support the American war effort. Other commentators note that “Der Fuehrer’s Face” may address the topic of a “Master Race” but conspicuously fails to mention Germany’s systemic anti-Semitism.

When Jewish animator Dave Swift announced that he had accepted a new position at Columbia Pictures, Walt responded in a fake Yiddish accent: “Okay, Davy Boy, go work for those Jews. It’s where you belong.” Moreover, when Disney artists tried to unionize in 1941 (they were ultimately successful after a brutal and prolonged battle), Walt tried to ruin the careers of the union organizers, most of whom were Jewish; he often insisted that the unions, which he despised, were run and controlled by “the Jews.”

Even the earliest Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as vermin and parasites. The narrator in the infamous anti-Semitic propaganda film “The Eternal Jew,” explains, “Just as the rat is the lowest of animals, the Jew is the lowest of human beings.” A German newspaper article from the 1930s establishing a link between Jewish vermin and Mickey Mouse could not be clearer.

That the Nazis viewed Mickey Mouse as Jewish is also evident in their banning of “The Barnyard Battle” (1929), a cartoon in which Mickey and his fellow mice defend their farm against German cats. The Germans considered the cartoon “offensive to national dignity” because Jewish vermin, unambiguously represented by Mickey and his fellow mice, had dared defend themselves against the German military, represented by cats wearing German military helmets.

Palestinian children also grow up watching Mickey Mouse, but on PA national television, a Mickey Mouse clone may wear an explosive belt, encourage children to become suicide bombers, and sing “Death to America and death to the Jews.” While carrying grenades and an AK-47, “Farfur” has urged children to return the Islamic community to greatness by liberating Jerusalem with the blood of Jews (who, in one episode, are shown beating Farfur to death to silence him).

Saul Jay Singer serves as senior legal ethics counsel with the District of Columbia Bar and is a collector of extraordinary original Judaica documents and letters. He welcomes comments at saul.singer@verizon.net.

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

 

 

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Newt Gingrich sums up the Mueller Report

WHO WROTE THE MUELLER REPORT?

By Newt Gingrich

The biggest conclusion I reached after watching Robert Mueller in front of Congress was that he clearly did not have a detailed knowledge of the report issued in his name.

He failed to answer nearly 200 questions.

www.israel-commentary.org

He frequently was not familiar with citations from his own report.

On several key points, he contradicted his own report and his own letters to Attorney General Barr.

When he said he never asked his team their political views I believe him.

It also signals that the most charitable conclusion you could reach was that Mueller had come of age in an era of professional responsibility and did not realize he now lived in an era of harsh, even vicious, partisanship.

My first reaction to his assertion that he did not ask the political opinions of his staff was that it was laughable that he could randomly assemble a hard line anti-Trump group of Democratic prosecutors without a single pro-Trump Republican lawyer in the room.

However, the more I watched him, the more I came to the conclusion that he had been a figure head. The tough, younger Trump-hating Democrats had networked with each other and assembled a legal team dedicated to destroying Trump and protecting the Clintons.

Seen from this perspective, it is a tribute to President Trump that despite their best efforts these deeply hostile prosecutors simply could not find any evidence of serious wrongdoing. 

They could write innuendo — and huff and puff — but in the end the Trump wall of obeying the law withstood the best these smart, tough, widely-experienced Democratic prosecutors could do.

Wednesday’s stunningly inadequate performance by a widely respected career civil servant (my own tweet on his appointment had been entirely positive and it was only while watching the team he assembled that I grew hostile to his project) raises its own new questions.

If Mueller has been as out of touch with his report over the last two years as he was yesterday, then who was driving the team and who was writing the report?

It is clear Mueller does not know the details of his own report or of the two years of investigations behind the report.

Who then does know all those details?

Who masterminded putting Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for months?

Who made the decision to not look into the Steele Dossier, the company that paid for it, or the links to the Clinton campaign?

After yesterday’s disastrous performance by the so-called leader of the Mueller investigation and report, the attorney general should ask for a thorough internal review of how that system worked, who made the decisions, and how internally hostile to the president they were.

There was no Mueller Report. There was a report signed by Mueller, but it was really someone else’s work. This was the biggest lesson from Wednesday’s hearings.

The author: Newton Leroy Gingrich is an American politician, author, and historian who served as the 50th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. A member of the Republican Party, he was the U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 6th congressional district from 1979 until his resignation in 1999.

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

https://mailchi.mp/gingrich360/who-wrote-the-mueller-report?e=cf42830463

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

US Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar — A Suggested Itinerary for Her Trip to Israel

Redacted from an article by Elaine Rosenberg Miller
Times of Israel, JUL 19, 2019

Here are some suggestions for her itinerary:

 

Perhaps she can visit a Gaza school and check out the marching five years olds with mock knives and guns. Or,  maybe not. Terrorists hide their rockets and ammunition within  schools and hospitals.

 

 

A day trip to Ramallah is a good idea. She might find out that residents there don’t actually want the Israelis to withdraw and leave them to fall under the control of despots, both domestic and foreign.

 

A tour of Islamic archaeological sites is in order.  Huh!  What archeology of what? What history?

 

And in the afternoon she can go to the 120 member  Israeli legislative body, the Knesset,  where 12 Arabs and 3 Druze are full  members representing their constituency.

 

She could visit the Israeli Supreme Court and see the Arab legislators and jurists.

 

(PS  How many Jews are found in the Legislative body and Supreme Court of the 21 Arab nations surrounding Israel? What Jews? What Legislative body? What Supreme Court? The Jews were all driven out upon the re-birth of the State of Israel in 1948,  penniless, all their wealth and possessions seized after centuries of living there as second class citizens (dhimmi). jsk 

 

Not too far away are the Israeli medical centers where medical personnel of all backgrounds work side by side treating patient of all backgrounds and she will find most of the people waiting in the queue for treatment are Arabs paid for by the Israeli government 

 

Moving on … visit:

 

Tel Aviv! New high rises, Israel as global leader of start-ups. She just missed Tel Aviv Pride Day where 250,000 participants marched down the avenues celebrating their human rights for which death is ordered by Muhammed.

 

What is a trip to the Israel if incomplete without a stop at the Western Wall, the remaining remnant of the ancient Hebrew Temple dating back 3000 years

 

She will incidentally  run into Nigerians, Koreans, Russians reverently praying at that Wall.

 

A call at an African embassy is in order. There she might learn about how Israel is the leader in smart water management including advanced water technology and desalination and how it exports the technology to developing nations, especially in Africa.

 

When she leaves Israel she will be flying near the Leviathan natural gas fields and may learn that by “conservative estimates  the fields contain enough natural gas to meet Israel’s domestic needs for 40 years”.

 

Luckily, she will not fly over war-devastated Syria or Lebanon.

 

It would be a buzz-kill.

 

(You don’t really expect her to report her trip with the facts above. Israel is, at the moment,  in a bind feeling obligated to allow an elected American Congressperson to visit, despite her declared enmity.  And… there is no question she will return to the US loaded with malicious lies and propaganda right out of the mouth of her hero, Mahmoud Abbas.)  jsk

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 

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

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

jkaufman253469@icloud.com Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

P.S. Netanyahu could block visit by anti-Israel lawmakers Omar and Tlaib

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Do you know what “dark money” is.  This article should help

By:  Adam Shaw 

FOX NEWS                                                                                        

An expansive network of “shadowy” dark money donors has grown to rival the influence of the conservative  Koch brothers — pumping millions into left-wing causes ranging from health care to climate change to abortion — aIl while flying weIl under the radar of public scrutiny,  according to an explosive new report obtained by Fox News.

www.israel-commentary.org

The report, by conservative watchdog Capital Research Center, describes a band of nonprofits operating under the banner of Washington based philanthropy company Arabella Advisors. Those pop up groups are   housed in four Arabella controlled  “sister”  nonprofits, according to the report: the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund and Windward Fund.        

“Together, these groups form an interlocking network of dark money pop-up groups and other fiscally sponsored projects “all afloat in a half-billion-dollar ocean of cash,” the report says. “The real puppeteer, though, is Arabella Advisors, which has managed to conceal largely its role in coordinating so much of the professional Left’s  infrastructure under a mask of  ‘philanthropy’.    

The report says the “hydra-like” network brought in $l.6 billion between 20l3 and 20l7 “to advance the political policies desired by wealthy left-wing interests,” as the network’s revenues grew by 392 percent. The four Arabella-Controlled  “sister”  groups brought in $582 million in 2017 alone, according to the report. If the four groups were a single entity, it would make them the 22nd largest pubIic charity in America, with higher revenues than the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU),  Planned Parenthood or the Clinton Foundation. 

Arabella’s website says the company was founded to  “provide strategic guidance for effective philanthropy”  and is “dedicated to helping clients make a difference on the issues that matter to them – from climate to women and girls, education, good food and more.” All told, the company represents clients with collective assets totaling more than $100 billion dollars.

The report claims the group runs a network of “astroturf’  activities including as many as 340 “pop up”  groups — which the report says are often little more than websites created to give the appearance of grassroots  campaigns. It cites the organization’s activities pushing  back against Republican efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare as an example of its political activism.     

At a glance, these groups — such as Save My Care  and Protect Our Care — appeared to be impassioned examples of citizen activists defending ObamaCare,” the  report says ” in reality neither ‘not-for-profit’ advocacy group appears to have paid staff, held board meetings, or  even owned so much as a pen.”

 Consequently, the report says, the groups can be used to run “short-term, high intensity media campaigns  targeting the news cycle” such as the Kavanaugh during  confirmation hearing. The report gave the example of  activists, led by Demand Justice, waving glossy “Stop  Kavanaugh” signs in protest of the conservative nominee’s  confirmation.                                                 

Demand Justice, led by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon, is very active on judicial  issues — and is more than just a website. But the report  described the organization as part of the broader network, specifically “a front for the Sixteen Thirty Fund.”         

The Sixteen Thirty Fund, according to a July 20l8 Politico report, was described as “among the most prolific  political advertisers of 20l8 and aired 6,88f broadcast TV ads between January and July while $4.6 spending millions on TV alone,”  Politico cited the group as an example of the Left embracing the “dark money” tactics it long accused the right of weaponizing. 

Politico identified 12 groups set up through the  Sixteen Thirty Fund on health care alone. By serving  as those groups’ “fiscal sponsor,” Sixteen Thirty Fund  manages the money and aggregates their financial activities in its tax filings — making it hard to work out how much money was spent by the different groups and where.

The new report says liberal mega-donor George Soros’ Democracy Alliance, for instance, used the Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund to host several projects ‘that didn’t disclose their original funders.”     

The Capital Research Center report says that Atabella’s nonprofit network allows  it to mask the “pop up” groups nature, making them seem like the work of “grassroots” activists rather than what it calls “front groups for million-dollar non-profits.”          

Democrats and left-wing activists — including   Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — have been  increasingly vocal in their calls to clamp down and  regulate “‘dark money” in U.S. political activities. But dark money has had bipartisan beneficiaries    

A January report from Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group, shows that liberal groups spent over 1/2 million of dark money in the latest election.    Conservative groups spent a third of the figure, while nonpartisan groups spent just 15 percent percent.

The CapitaI Research Center report warns: “Before left-of-center activists and politicians demand Iaws to  increase transparency in the funding of campaigns and  public policy advocacy, they may first wish to consider  voluntarily disclosing their own funding sources.”   

Please donate to the Capital Research Center Online below or call directly 1-202-483-6900

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

How does Ehud Barak, who should be in jail, have the chutzpa to aspire to be Prime Minister of Israel?

Below  is an article to which I contributed May 12, 2012

Jerome S. Kaufman   

www.israelcommentary.org

Why is Ehud Barak still Defense Minister of Israel?

Redacted from article in Israel Matzav

May 30, 2012

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=3697

Recently I received an email from Zechariah Baumol’s yeshiva announcing an event marking 30 years since his ‘disappearance’ in the battle of Sultan Yaqub. That battle was commanded by none other than the current Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who is rumored to have gone to sleep while the battle was raging. Baumol is one of five soldiers from that battle whose fate was unknown for many years. He is one of three from that battle who are still missing.

Barak – along with Shimon Peres – is a politician about whom it can be said that he has been through everything and learned nothing. It was Barak who fled a training accident at Tzehilim, leaving IDF soldiers to die as he left in his helicopter. 

It was Barak that tried unsuccessfully to reach a deal with Yasser Arafat at Camp David twelve summers ago and got a violent intifada in return for his flexibility (i.e. giving away virtually all of Judea and Samaria and at least 1/2 of Jerusalem and Arafat turned him down). 

It was Barak who left an IDF soldier to die while he sought ‘permission’ from Yasser Arafat to rescue the soldier on Rosh HaShanna twelve years ago. 

It was Barak who continued to try to give away the store to Arafat, while that intifada raged, in a bid to save his seat as Prime Minister. 

And, it was Barak who, as Defense Minister, passed on the opportunity to finish off Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

(In addition, it was Barak who unilaterally withdrew from the Lebanese Security Zone in the dead of night surrendering territory essential to Israel’s defense and abandoning our loyal Lebanese Christian allies to their fate. Some of these Lebanese were granted asylum in Israel but were, in the end, so poorly treated that they rather return to Lebanon to face dire consequences as “traitors” to the Hezbullah regime in the South. 

Now the consequences of Barak’s cowardly withdrawal are complete. There has been a complete take over of Lebanon by Hizbullah and hundreds of thousands of missiles are aimed directly at Israel from the exact area abandoned by Barak.

It is also Ehud Barak who has promoted the dubious defensive weapon, Iron Dome. At the time the program was initiated I wrote that somehow it reminded me of the shtetl Jews of Russia that had no choice but to hide in their secret cellars beneath the kitchen floor of their shabby dwellings in the hope that the Cossacks did not find them, rape their women and kill any males and children found.

So, once again, due much to Barak, Israelis are hiding in their cellars waiting for the enemy to strike and hoping somehow the thousands of missiles directed at them will all be intercepted by Barak’s magic Iron Dome weapon, which, of course, test after test have proven they will not the 100% that is essential. 

But, this time inexcusably, the Jews with a far superior military force, instead of taking the offensive against a pitifully weak enemy and wiping off the face of the earth their capabilities to hurt Jews, the Jews are once again hiding in their cellars.) 

I suppose we should not therefore, be surprised that Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “If it turns out that it is not possible to reach an agreement, (which, of course, it is dead certain it is not) we need to consider an interim arrangement or alternatively a unilateral step,” Barak said at the conference. “Israel cannot permit this to remain in deadlock.”

(Obviously Barak has not learned anything from his previous withdrawal from the Lebanese Security Zone and Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza that has simply created huge terrorist strongholds whose only goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.) 

Jerome S. Kaufman   May 12, 2012

But, here’s where it gets rich: The ‘Palestinians’ are unwilling to ‘accept’ a unilateral withdrawal. Presidential spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh already told WAFA that any Israeli unilateral measure leading to the establishment of a state with temporary borders is unacceptable. This Israeli policy leads to the continuation of the conflict; it does not lead to a solution, rather it ends the concept of the two-state solution, added Abu Rudeineh. 

He emphasized that the Palestinians are “committed to a just and comprehensive solution of a state within 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and without Jerusalem nothing will be accepted.”

In 2009, we were told that Prime Minister Netanyahu ‘needed’ Ehud Barak to show that his was not ‘just’ a rightist government. But, Barak now controls only five Knesset seats, and is the leader of a party that is unlikely to pass the threshold in the next Knesset election. And, unless he is taken into the Likud, he will not even be an MK after November 2013. 

In light of Barak’s continued argument for Leftist positions that most of the current government opposes, and in light of the presence in Netanyahu’s own party of Moshe ‘Boogie’ Yaalon, who is also a former IDF chief of staff and would be a far superior appointment, one has to wonder why Barak remains Defense Minister.

Unless, of course, Netanyahu himself is a closet Leftist.

PS –  Moshe Yaalon also turned out to be a useless Left wing dud, as unfortunately so many Israeli Generals seem to become?  jsk

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

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Hurray! Someone explained to me how Kamela Harris, by taking a desegregation bus to school, qualifies her to be President of the US!

The Bus Back to the Future

Democrats debate a discarded desegregation scheme decades later.

Redacted from a smashing article by Lance Morrow

Wall Street Journal July 8, 2019

In the second Democratic presidential debate, hosted by NBC News, Kamala Harris made judgments over the former Vice-President’s stance on busing. Biden called it a “mischaracterization of my position across the board.”

On a sunny day in May 1954 the Warren court handed down its 9-0 decision in the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. The 58-year-old Plessy doctrine of “separate but equal” was dead—though only on paper.

A lifetime later. Sixty-five years have elapsed. We are well into the never land of the 21st century. A black president has come and gone. On my flat-screen TV, I watch as a female U.S. senator of Jamaican and Indian descent stands and berates a white-haired white man—the black president’s former vice president—on the matter of his record concerning something that happened 40 or 50 years earlier. That something was busing, a policy that was designed to accomplish what the Warren court intended: to abolish racial segregation from the country’s public schools.

It seemed a little odd that Kamala Harris brought up the long-ago subject of busing during a 2019 Democratic debate. Presidential candidates usually wish to deal in new ideas. Busing is a period piece.

Ms. Harris spoke of it as having been an unambiguous good. It was not. Older Americans recall the busing days as contentious, complicated and divisive.

The idea was to try to solve the problem of de facto segregation by busing black children to public schools in white parts of town while transporting white children in the opposite direction. Almost no one was satisfied with the scheme, although it did succeed in some places, such as Charlotte, N.C.

Some blacks who rode the buses as children say now that they benefited from it. But in the worst light, it seemed a piece of brutalist social engineering that placed hard burdens on the kids (long rides twice a day to strange neighborhoods, away from friends and community). The policy offended many blacks with its implication that a black child cannot learn without sitting next to a white child.

No matter. Ms. Harris’s mind wasn’t on justice anyway. Busing was the McGuffin. She invoked it as a way of proving that she could take down the powerful white male front-runner, Joe Biden. She staged the scene in order to establish, early in the first round, that she was capable of ruthless and creative effrontery. She sucker-punched Mr. Biden. Next morning, she was the coming thing—the psychological front-runner. As she intended, people began to imagine her in the ring with President Trump, toe to toe.

One of the interesting things about Ms. Harris is her swagger—the sly and private half-smile, the dare in her eye, a hint of the reckless. On the night of the debate she showed off an instinct for the cynical uses of sentimentality. “That little girl was me,” she said, her body torqued poignantly toward Mr. Biden.

She conjured herself as a heroic but vulnerable child on her way to future glory despite the efforts of then-Sen. Biden and his Southern segregationist pals to stop her—a prequel glimpse of predestined greatness. She was Moses in the bulrushes.

Her childhood occurred, mind you, not in Mississippi or the Chicago projects but in Berkeley, Calif., where her father was a professor of economics. The Harris household was intellectual, accomplished and, at the very least, solidly middle-class.

There was so little spontaneity in her stunt that, just afterward, her campaign offered commemorative merchandise—T-shirts showing the image of “that little girl.” All this was unfair to Mr. Biden, but his complacency no doubt needed a jolt.

Besides that, the dangerous thing now is hate’s half-brother, sentimentality—and the cynicism with which it is manipulated for purposes of gaining or keeping power. Everything in the politics and policy-making of 2019 is processed (by both the woke and the Trumpists) in those idioms: raw emotions cynically manipulated, especially on social media. It is true on the issue of immigration, for example, and especially true on the related issue of race.

Sentimentality is the traditional style of American politics. At one time, it was endearing, in the antique Norman Rockwell way. But the dark side of sentimentality is shallow and thoughtless and volatile and dangerous. At its worst, it is the style of mobs and dictators.

Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

“If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.” By the brilliant retired Harvard Professor Ruth R. Wisse

From  archives of brilliant retired Harvard Professor Ruth R. Wisse

And …. more pertinent than ever

October 18, 1992

The New York Times Archives Book Review

“If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.”

By Ruth R. Wisse.  225 pp. New York: The Free Press. $22.95.

“WE fell victim to our faith in mankind, our belief that humanity had set limits to the degradation and persecution of one’s fellow men.” So wrote Alexander Donat, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Treblinka and the author of “The Holocaust Kingdom,” a book about the Jews of Europe at the time when the Nazis and their collaborators began herding them into cattle cars.

Mr. Donat’s words capture the thrust of Ruth Wisse’s new book, “If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.” It is her contention that liberalism, the very political ideology that would seem to provide shelter and promise for the Jews, was their undoing in the 1930’s and 40’s — and is in our day as well.

By liberalism, Ms. Wisse, who teaches English and Yiddish literature at McGill University in Montreal, means a belief in progress, rationality, freedom, cultural pluralism and the rule of law. “Liberals trust that all human problems are amenable to negotiated solutions, that all people are united in a spirit of brotherhood,” she writes.

“They detest the use of force, not only for the damage it causes but because in admitting the limits of reason it throws humankind back to a more primitive stage of civilization. The pure liberal spirit precludes the possibility of intractable hatred or intransigent political will.”

For this reason, she says, liberalism could not protect Jews from the Nazis. By necessity, she continues, liberals had to be unsympathetic to the fate of the Jews, “not because of any personal antipathy but because the national fate of the Jews contradicted their view of the world and called into question their deepest assumptions.” Because of the Jews’ political vulnerability, they had no allies in Europe, “not even in such opponents of anti-Semitism as the Marxists.”

In our day, Ms. Wisse writes, the Arabs, recognizing the remarkable political durability of repudiating the Jewish people and their religion, have joined the campaign. The Arab success in the world arena actually increased, she contends, when they “exchanged the language of the right for the language of the left, presenting Israel as the bloodthirsty exploiter of impoverished innocent Arab masses.”

“Since democratic society does not want to perceive itself as heartless or collaborationist,” she continues, “those who court favor with the Arabs have to deny the war against the Jewish state or else justify their betrayal of the Jews in a language of moral convenience. The tilt toward the Arabs has the code name of evenhandedness.”

According to Ms. Wisse, as long as Israel brought Jews outside Israel “the dowry of international good will,” the relationship was untroubled. But when those Jews were faced with Arab propaganda against Israel, they grew nervous, their insecurities blossomed and, as avowed liberals, they turned their backs on the Jewish homeland.

There are large holes in her argument. “In contending with so relentless an assault [ as the campaign mounted by the Arabs ] ,” she writes, “many Jews grow weary, and the very mention of anti-Semitism draws a yawn.”

This is an astonishing claim to make. The majority of Jewish institutions in America successfully continue to appeal to Jews for funds through no other issue than the threat of anti-Semitism.

Ms. Wisse also creates something of a straw man to bolster her thesis. She speaks of the nervous Jew “who feels his Jewishness to be a burden or knows very little about it, or who in marrying a non-Jewish wife and moving into higher business or banking circles gradually left his Jewishness behind, like an old skin.” 

 “It must be stressed that [ the ] split in the Israeli population is not between secular and religious Jews,” she writes, “since some of the most idealistic recruits for the defense forces come from the ranks of the modern Orthodox yeshivas.”

 “Despite the unparalleled success of anti-Semitism, few university departments of political science, sociology, history or philosophy bother to analyze the single European political ideal of the past century that nearly realized its ends.”

This book should be read not only for its potent indictment of liberalism’s failings. The work also stands as a warning to all Jews of a clear and ever-present danger.

Ruth R. Wisse is the retired Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University. She is the sister of David Roskies, professor of Yiddish and Jewish literature at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to israel_commentary@icloud.com

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org 

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

A Kosher Fourth of July

The Fourth of July, American Independence and the Jews

Two hundred forty-three years ago, a new nation was inspired by the Old Testament.

By William McGurn

Wall Street Journal  July 1, 2019 

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik explains how Jonas Phillips was a religious Jew and an American patriot, and how his life is a testament to the Jewish significance of the uniquely American tradition of religious freedom. Image: The Tikvah Fund

Since that fateful July 4 when the Second Continental Congress invoked the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to declare independence from King George III, an argument has raged over the Christian roots of the American Founding. Now a group of scholars suggest that if we are looking only to the Gospels to understand the new American nation, we may be arguing over the wrong testament.

“The American Republic,” they write, “was born to the music of the Hebrew Bible.”

The book is called “Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land: The Hebrew Bible in the United States: A Sourcebook.

The title comes from Leviticus and is inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The book comes courtesy of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, where it was pulled together by Meir Soloveichik, Matthew Holbreich, Jonathan Silver and Stuart Halpern.

These men are not arguing that America was founded as a Jewish nation. Nor is their subject Jews in America, or the role of Jews in the American Founding. Their proposition is more supple and profound: that at key moments in the national story, Americans have looked to the ancient Israelites to understand themselves, their blessings and their challenges.

The evidence, they say, is all around us.

The American landscape is dotted with town names that reflect this understanding, from the Zions, Canaans and Shilohs to the Goshens, Salems and Rehoboths. And whether it is John Winthrop invoking a “covenant” to characterize the order the Puritans established with Massachusetts Bay Colony, or Martin Luther King more than three centuries later talking about having been to the mountaintop, Americans have long looked to the biblical Israelites for the “political and cultural vocabulary” to explain the American proposition.

Though this American affinity for the Israelites pre-dates the Revolution, the war for independence intensified the parallels. In their revolt against George III, the men of the 13 colonies saw themselves as modern Israelites escaping a latter-day Pharaoh. So when the Second Continental Congress created a committee to design a seal for the new United States, also on July 4, 1776, it was only natural that two of the committee members—Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin—turned to Exodus.

Jefferson proposed the seal feature the Israelites in the wilderness, led by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night. Franklin suggested Moses extending his hand over the Red Sea, causing the waters to overwhelm Pharaoh in his chariot. These days, you could call these examples of cultural appropriation.

As the subtitle indicates, this is a sourcebook and not a sustained argument. But it is no less compelling. As the authors note, all these American allusions to the Israelites didn’t come from Jews. They came from Christians, low-church Protestants in particular.

With the possible exception of Martin Luther King, no American leader integrated the imagery and language of the Hebrew bible into his own speech as seamlessly as Abraham Lincoln, who as president-elect in 1861 spoke of his fellow Americans as the Almighty’s “almost chosen people.”

From the cadence of Psalm 90 in the opening of his Gettysburg Address (“four score and seven years ago”) to his letter telling the mayor of Philadelphia “may my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I ever prove false” to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to his invocation of Psalm 19 in his Second Inaugural (e.g., “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous forever”), when Lincoln spoke the moral language of liberty, his words echoed the Hebrew Bible.

This was a double-edged sword when it came to slavery. Abolitionism found much to embrace: “I have heard their cry” (Exodus 3:7), “Let my people go” (Exodus 5:1), “Break every yoke” (Isaiah 58:6) and so forth.

But relying on Scripture for denunciations of slavery had its problems, beginning with Noah’s curse against the Canaanites in Genesis 9.

Jews describe Passover as zeman cheiruteinu, or “the time of our freedom.” Independence Day might thus be thought of as America’s Passover. And that magnificent second stanza of “America the Beautiful” ends with a line that could have been delivered by Moses: “Thy liberty in law.”

Across the land this July 4, American homes will play host to backyard barbecues, the company of family, friends and neighbors, maybe all topped off with fireworks. You might say it is the American version of what the Hebrew prophet Micah had in mind when he wrote that “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid.”

Which also happens to have been George Washington’s favorite way to describe the blessings of liberty we celebrate this and every Independence Day.

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

Appeared in the July 2, 2019, print edition.

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Take the Palestinians’ ‘No’ for an Answer.

They’ve rejected every peace initiative. Their no-show this
week in Bahrain should be the last.
 By Eugene Kontorovich

This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states—a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world.

Sunni Arab states are lending legitimacy to the Trump administration’s plan, making it all the more notable that the Palestinian Authority itself refuses to participate.

The conference’s only agenda is improving the Palestinian economy. It isn’t tied to any diplomatic package, and the plan’s 40-page overview contains nothing at odds with the Palestinian’s purported diplomatic goals.

Some aspects are even politically uncomfortable for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Given all that, the Palestinian Authority’s unwillingness to discuss economic opportunities for its own people, even with the Arab states, shows how far it is from discussing the concessions necessary for a diplomatic settlement. Instead it seeks to deepen Palestinian misfortune and use it as a cudgel against Israel in the theater of international opinion.

This isn’t the first time the Palestinians have said no. At a summit brokered by President Clinton in 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected that offer, leading Israel to up it to 97% of the West Bank in 2001.

Again, the answer was no. An even further-reaching offer in 2008 was rejected out of hand. And when President Obama pressured Israel into a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 to renew negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table.

After so many rejections, one might conclude that the Palestinian Authority’s leaders simply aren’t interested in peace. Had they accepted any of the peace offers, they would have immediately received the rarest of all geopolitical prizes: a new country, with full international recognition.

To be sure, in each proposal they found something not quite to their liking. But the Palestinians are perhaps the only national independence movement in the modern era that has ever rejected a genuine offer of internationally recognized statehood, even if it falls short of all the territory the movement had sought.

India and Pakistan didn’t reject independence because major territorial claims were left unaddressed. Ireland accepted independence without the island’s six northern counties. Morocco didn’t refuse statehood because Spain retained land on its northern coast.

 While there have been hundreds of national independence movements in modern times, few are fortunate enough to receive an offer of fully recognized sovereign statehood. Including 1947, the Palestinians have received four. From Tibet to Kurdistan, such opportunities remain a dream.

Several lessons must be drawn from the Palestinians’ serial rejection of statehood—and this week, even of economic development. First, the status quo is not Israeli “rule” or “domination.” The Palestinians can comfortably turn down once-in-a-lifetime opportunities because almost all Palestinians already live under Palestinian government. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, they’ve enjoyed many of statehood’s trappings, particularly in foreign relations. Israel undertakes regular antiterror operations, but that’s different from overall power. For instance, the U.S. doesn’t “rule” over Afghanistan.

Second, statehood and a resolution to the conflict is not what the Palestinians truly seek. This is what economists call a “revealed preference”: To know what consumers truly want, look at what they choose. The Palestinians have repeatedly chosen the status quo over sovereignty.

Finally, throw out the assumption that when Palestinians reject an offer, it stays on the table and accrues interest. If offers will only improve with time, the Palestinians have an incentive to keep saying no.

The Palestinian Authority cannot be forced to accept a peaceful settlement, and Israel doesn’t wish to return to its pre-Oslo control over the Palestinian population. But rejectionism, culminating this week in Bahrain, must have consequences.

For more than 50 years, the future of Jewish communities in the West Bank—and the nearly half a million Jews who now live there—has been held in limbo pending a diplomatic settlement. While the authority rejects improved hospitals, port arrangements and employment centers, many of the benefits for Palestinians could still be achieved by locating them in parts of the West Bank under Israeli jurisdiction.

But to do that, the question mark over these places, which include all of the Jews living in the West Bank and a much smaller number of Palestinians, must be lifted. Washington should support Israeli initiatives to replace military rule with civil law in these areas, normalizing their status. The Palestinians’ no-show in Bahrain should end their ability to hold development and growth hostage.

Mr. Kontorovich is director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East and a law professor at George Mason University, and a scholar at the Kohelet Policy 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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

The Ugly George Soros — May His Soul Rot in Hell

Three Soros Campaigns to Further Advance the Left’s Radical Agenda

From: Verdict, A News Publication from Judicial Watch

June 2019

Three new George Soros campaigns to further advance the left’s radical agenda have been uncovered in separate news reports published this week. 

Keep in mind that the U.S. government subsidizes the Hungarian billionaire’s deeply politicized Open Society Foundations (OSF) that work to destabilize legitimate governments, erase national borders, target conservative politicians, finance civil unrest, subvert institutions of higher education and orchestrate refugee crises for political gain. 

Details of the financial and staffing nexus between OSF and the U.S. government are available in a Judicial Watch investigative report.

With the help of American taxpayer dollars, Soros bolsters a radical leftwing agenda that in the United States has included: 

_ Promoting an open border with Mexico and fighting immigration enforcement efforts; 

_Fomenting racial disharmony by funding anti-capitalist racialist organizations; 

_Financing the Black Lives Matter movement and other organizations involved in the riots in Ferguson, Missouri; 

_Weakening the integrity of our electoral systems; 

_Promoting taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand; 

_Advocating a government-run health care system; 

_Opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts; 

_Promoting dubious transnational climate change agreements that threaten American sovereignty. 

_Working to advance gun control and erode Second Amendment protections.

The list extends even further, with Soros tentacles—money—reaching previously unknown domestic and foreign causes that promote a broad leftwing agenda at various levels. 

It turns out Soros donated $408,000 to a Political Action Committee (PAC) that supported Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, whose office just dropped felony charges against the actor who fabricated a hate crime earlier this year. 

The actor, Jussie Smollett, claimed he was attacked in Chicago on his way home from a sandwich shop at 2 a.m. He said two masked men shouted racial and homophobic slurs, beat him, poured bleach on him and tied a rope around his neck. Smollett blamed the crime on white Trump supporters. 

When the hoax was uncovered, prosecutors charged him with 16 felonies but Foxx dropped all the charges. Illinois campaign records provided in the news report show that Soros personally contributed $333,000 to Foxx’s super PAC before the March 15, 2016 primary was over and an additional $75,000 after she became Cook County’s top prosecutor. 

“Soros has been intervening in local races for prosecutor, state’s attorney, and district attorney — often backing left-wing Democrats against other Democrats in doing so,” according to the article.

Another report published this week reveals that a Soros foundation gave $1 million to a nonprofit that favors choosing the president by popular vote. The group, National Popular Vote Inc., gets millions from leftist groups to push its purported agenda of ensuring that “every vote in every state” matters. 

Another group, Tides Foundation, that raises money for leftwing causes, also contributed to the popular vote nonprofit. Soros’ OSF’s have given millions of dollars to the Tides Foundation, according to records provided in the story. Based in San Francisco, the group envisions a world of shared prosperity and social justice founded on equality, human rights, healthy communities and a sustainable environment. The nonprofit strives to accelerate the pace of social change by, among other things, working with “marginalized communities.”

The last article documents what Judicial Watch has reported for years—Soros’ huge influence in the U.S. government, specifically the State Department. 

The agency pressured Ukraine officials to drop an investigation of a Soros group during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Barack Obama’s U.S. ambassador actually gave Ukraine’s prosecutor general a list of people who should not be prosecuted. 

“The U.S.-Soros collaboration was visible in Kiev,” the article states. “Several senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials and FBI agents appeared in pictures as participants or attendees at Soros-sponsored events and conferences.” The piece further reveals that internal memos from Soros’ foundations describe a concerted strategy of creating friendships inside key U.S. government agencies such as the departments of Justice and State.

The relationships go deeper than friendships and Judicial Watch has exposed the disturbing reality of American taxpayers financing Soros’ leftwing plots abroad. This includes uncovering documents showing State Department funding of Soros leftist nonprofits in Albania to attack traditional, pro-American groups and policies; U.S. government funding of Soros’ radical globalist agenda in Guatemala , Colombia, Romania and Macedonia. The cash usually flows through the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

(Absolutely unreal. When President Trump declares the whole system is corrupt, he is not exaggerating one bit. That’s why they all hate him – Democrats and Republicans. 

But, Let us pray that Joe Six-Pack will once again prevail  in 2020. Get out the vote! )  

Jerome S. Kaufman

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Katie Hopkins: “The Jews have Israel. But, where am I going to go?”

Homelands — The Silent Exodus from Europe

A Documentary by Katie Hopkins

Redacted from remarks by Katie Hopkins with additional italicized commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman

The showing of the documentary, Homelands in Israel was originally denied  —  the result of collusion between the Muslims in the UK and deluded, useful idiot, Jewish organizations in the UK and Israel, who joined with the Muslims to prevent the showing.

Despite this opposition the documentary was eventually shown in Jerusalem as a result of the direct action of Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Jerusalem’s deputy mayor. She explained: 

“I helped  Katie Hopkins because I believe in debate. People with more extreme views and more unsavory friends than her sit in the Knesset. That’s freedom of speech.

Ms. Hopkins’s documentary chronicles anti-Semitism and growing Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and examines how Israel offers protection and shelter to European Jews. 

One might assume that showing this kind of film would not be an issue, but given the current conflicted reality of British Jews, it was.

On the one hand, the community is fighting the terrible plague of anti-Semitism coming from both Islamic fundamentalism and from the liberal left, in the form of Jeremy Corbyn and his band of Jew-hating communists.”  

And, on the other hand these “conflicted” Jews trying to shut down the revealing of Muslim fanatical anti-Semitism throughout Europe have elected to return to their sick shtetl mentality,  hide in their ghetto cellars, try to disappear into the woodwork and not make any waves.

French Jews are rapidly coming to a far more realistic conclusion — one violently thrust upon them.  It is painfully obvious to them that “French pessimists at the time of Adolph Hitler ultimately escaped to swimming pools in Southern California while optimists as to Hitler’s intentions, ended up in Auschwitz.” 

At this very same moment, Non-Jewish English families, like those of Katie Hopkins, are also being forced out of their own towns by Muslim pressure and deliberate orchestrated violence. Mrs. Hopkins lamented to the audience that the Jews were fortunate in one respect, in that they had Israel to which to escape but, where were she and her family to go? Those British capable of leaving are looking at options to escape the UK by emigrating to places like Poland and Hungary where nationalism is a respected concept. (But, what un-British alternatives and surely a sign of their desperation)

 Jews aliyah to France

As usual, the always vulnerable Jews are the main target of Muslim hatred and their centuries-old desire for world domination.

Jews, with terrifying memories, are escaping before the apparently inevitable next Holocaust while the inane toothless optimistic slogan, Never Again, goes down the sewer, where it belongs.

An attack in January 2015 at a Kosher market in Paris that killed four people just days after shootings at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper seemed to confirm just how dangerous France had become for Jews.

A few days after the attacks, the Jewish Agency said it was being flooded with calls inquiring about “aliyah,” the Hebrew term for moving to Israel. The Jewish Agency, an organization created by the Israeli government to encourage aliyah, projected that as many as 15,000 French Jews could leave for Israel in 2015.

The numbers of French Jews making aliyah increased to 3,293 in 2013 and 7,200 in 2014, according to the Jewish Agency.

The number of Jewish people who left France in 2015 remained relatively flat, at 7,328, according to the Jewish Agency. More recently, the Agency reported that immigration from France to Israel was 3,424 in 2017, down down another 28% from 2016.

This relative diminishment of emigration from France reminds me of the mindless chickens quickly forgetting yesterday’s invasion by the fox of the chicken coop,  only to be quickly reminded by his return the very next day.

There continue to be hundreds of anti-semitic incidents in France each year. There were 385 incidents during the first nine months of 2018, two-thirds of which were threats and the other third were physical attacks on persons or property, a 69 percent rise compared to the same period the year before. 

While in the Detroit area where she has visited several times, Mrs Hopkins  was kind enough to comment on our own local situation. She  unequivocally  declared that Dearborn MI and Hamtramck MI are Sharia Law dominated areas, in fact, taken over by the Muslims, their mosques and their ideology.

What was a revelation from Ms. Hopkins and a very knowledgeable former Dearborn politico in the audience was that Democrat Party icon John Dingel,  now deceased, long time Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was firmly in the pocket of the Muslims of Dearborn. Upon his retirement in 2015, his wife Debbie successfully ran for election to succeed him in his Congressional district and was reported to have also taken over his place in the Muslim pocket. No wonder Dearborn, MI has come under virtual Sharia law.

The audience was, as usual, left with the elephant in the room question – What do we do about this unbelievably successful Muslim invasion?  The only answer, in a genuine democracy, is to try to make our reluctant, blindly “liberal” population, acutely aware of the problem, its immediate danger and the very clever strategy of the enemy. We must  then vigorously move against them with our  police forces, our courts, our elections and in our naive, useful idiot Left wing media.

Wake up America before you go the way of fallen continental Europe and the UK.

Available at the lecture was a straight forward educational pamphlet, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims by Dr Bill Warner, Ph.D  The pamphlet is only $5.00 plus postage and can be ordered online at:

The Center for the Study of Political Islam:   www.CSPIPUBLISHING.COM

You can also follow Dr. Bill Warner on YouTube or
politicalislam.com for his latest video blog.

Katie Olivia Hopkins is an English media person, award winning document maker, radio talk show host and best selling author.  She was a contestant in the third series of The Apprentice in 2007, and following further appearances in the media, she became a columnist for British national newspapers. 

Her Educational background:  University of Exeter, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Petroc (North Devon Campus)

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman from numerous sources including the  Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Press and the Wikileaks biography of Katie Hopkins and John and Debbie Dingell

    

    

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

For those under the misconception that the Israelis are “on Arab land”. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” 

By Eugene W. Rostow, former US Assistant Secretary of State, (1966-l969) and former Dean of the Yale Law School and primary producer of the pertinent UN Resolution 242

The True Story of the Israeli Settlements (The communities of Judea, Samaria and Gaza) 

 www.israel-commentary.org                                                                                                                                                                                             

United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, set out criteria for peace-making by the parties to the conflict.

Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in l973, makes resolution 242 legally binding.                                                   

 Resolution 242, which as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped produce, calls the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in l967 until a just and lasting peace in the Middle  East is achieved. 

When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces”from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War not from “the” territories, nor from “all” the territories, but some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert , the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip,      

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy made it perfectly clear what the  Resolution 242 means. 

Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the  Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but to “secure and recognized” boundaries agreed to by the parties  

THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION                                                                    

Israel has established its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which forbids a state from  deporting or transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” However, this allegation has no validity in law.                                 

Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As there was no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either territory prior to the l967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become “occupied territory” when control passed into the hands of Israel.                                                                        

 Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War,  against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred  during that period.

Israel has not forcibly transferred its civilians to the territories and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. 

Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the other territory of the West Bank.                                              

Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate. The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. 

As the former US Under- Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Professor Eugene Rostow, has written: ” the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the  local population to live there.” (AJlL, 1990, volume 84, p.72). 84, p.72)     

II  Addendum from The Jewish Press, May 17, 2019

Over 400 rabbis, leaders of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace (RCP) issued the following statement of principle:

“The original sin and root or all problems is the delusional theory that withdrawing from territories brings peace and security to Israel.”

We have sounded the alarm repeatedly clearly showing that previous withdrawals from Gaza, a small section of south Lebanon and parts of the Golan have been a major mistake and must never be repeated. 

These areas have only resulted in creating bases for terrorist strong-holds used to launch missile attacks against Israel. They are also used to create massive tunnels into Israel proper which are the groundwork for further direct invasion.  

(Israelis and their leaders would have to be out of their minds to give up one more inch of territory and thus contribute to the centuries-old ambition  of the Arabs to drive the Jews from their G-d given land.) jsk

Israel Commentary.  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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Questions about the House Committee Investigation of President Trump

Questions about the House Committee Investigation of President Trump

Redacted from an article by Aaron Klein

Jerusalem Bureau Chief for Breitbart News

The Jewish Press,    May 24, 2019

Now that Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia collusion investigation targeting President Trump, these suggestions, in no particular order, may be helpful in divining possible wrongdoing in the sordid Russia affair.

1. Was a false crime deliberately reported to the FBI?

pastedGraphic.pngFormer British spy Christopher Steele reportedly met on July 5, 2016 with a Rome-based special agent, where he turned over the unsubstantiated, largely-discredited anti-Trump charges listed in his infamous dossier alleging collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The controversial Fusion GPS firm hired Steele to do the anti-Trump work that resulted in the compilation of the dossier. Fusion GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie law firm.

The dossier contents were so unverified that numerous major media outlets briefed on the document refused to publish stories on the salacious material.

2. Did Steele know key dossier claims were false when he reported them to the FBI?

3.Were Obama administration officials involved in passing dossier charges of questionable political origin to the FBI or bolstering Steele’s credibility to the bureau?

David Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain, revealed in testimony that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier authored by former British spy Christopher Steele was being taken seriously.

In a deposition on Dec. 13, 2017 that was recently posted online, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier with Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry’s State Department, as well as an official from the National Security Council.

Nuland’s specific role in the dossier episode has been the subject of some controversy for her.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

Another former official from Kerry’s State Department, Jonathan M. Winer, admitted to interfacing with Steele. Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

4. Did James Comey withhold from the FISA court key information raising questions about the dossier, which was utilized as evidence in successful FISA applications to obtain successive warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a former adviser to President Trump’s 2016 campaign?

Comey signed the first of three FISA applications in late October 2016. The second and third were renewal applications since a FISA warrant must be renewed every 90 days. All three applications reportedly cited the dossier.

Comey cited the Steele dossier in the applications to monitor Page even though his own FBI determined the document was “only minimally corroborated.”

5. Who leaked a classified briefing about the dossier contents to CNN?

On January 10, CNN was first to report the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings inside classified documents presented one week earlier to then President Obama and President-elect Trump. The classified briefings were presented by Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Comey reportedly briefed Trump alone on the most salacious charges in the dossier.

CNN cited “multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” – in other words, officials leaking information about classified briefings – revealing the dossier contents were included in a two-page synopsis that served as an addendum to a larger report on Russia’s alleged attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Prior to CNN’s report leaking the Comey briefing to Trump, which was picked up by news agencies worldwide, the contents of the dossier had been circulating among news media outlets, but the sensational claims were largely considered too risky to publish.

All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey’s briefings themselves and the subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by “multiple US officials with direct knowledge,” seem to have given the news media the opening to report on the dossier’s existence as well as allude to the document’s unproven claims.

Following the CNN report, the full dossier document was published hours later by BuzzFeed.  

(With no clarification as to it having been contrived and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DEM party, its creation by a former British Spy Christopher Steele and its apparent legitimization by former FBI Director James Comey, Director of  National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers)  jsk

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Voters should ask, What exactly is the cost of “Free” under Socialism?

The GOP’s Duty: Explain the Cost of ‘Free’

Republicans can’t outbid Santa Claus, but they can make the case for honesty, liberty and aspiration.

www.israel-commentary.org

Redacted from article by Bobby Jindal

Wall Street Journal May 30, 2019

Progressives are changing the Democratic Party’s focus from building stronger safety nets for the disadvantaged to subsidizing everything for everybody. Whereas Barack Obama once appeared radical for subsidizing health-care costs for the middle class as well as the poor, Democrats now promise free college, free health care and more—for everyone. 

Republicans can’t outspend Democrats, but they can make the case for freedom and against the idea that everything is “free” without sounding like Scrooge.

The Republican ideal isn’t penny-pinching but an aspirational society. The American Dream is to get a good job and live better than one’s parents; becoming dependent on government is the American nightmare. Even Howard Schultz, the man who brought America $5 coffee, realizes promises like Medicare for All are unrealistic and too expensive.

Yet Republicans have to do more than mock the Green New Deal’s bans on air travel, targeting of flatulent cows and subsidies for those unwilling to work if they want to persuade young voters of the case for limited government and personal freedom. Many Americans remember the Great Recession but not the Reagan Revolution, and they may find the false promise of government-provided economic security tempting, not having seen a better alternative.

In reality, “free” means more government control at the expense of consumer autonomy. When progressives promise government will pay for health care and college, they are really saying government will run medicine and higher education. Medicare for All explicitly calls for the abolition of private health insurance. Whereas Mr. Obama falsely promised that Americans who liked their plans could keep them, progressives now say if you like your plans, too bad.

Progressive health, education and energy policies would result in government interference in larger parts of the economy, affecting more people’s lives in profound ways. Consumers have a hundred choices of coffee but won’t be able to choose their health plans. Government paying for college would result in even more political interference with academic freedom. Progressives admit they want government to take ownership stakes in the projects mandated by their energy plan.

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic.pngIt is one thing for Ford to tell consumers they could have any color Model T, as long as it was black, and quite another for government to tell citizens they cannot choose their health plans. Consumers and workers rightfully resent their decreasing bargaining power against large, sometimes oligopolistic companies, but the answer is not to consolidate power further in the hands of an even less responsive government bureaucracy. 

The correct response to reduced competition is more capitalism, not less. The way to resist consolidation in corporate America is to enforce existing antitrust laws and, especially, to reduce the regulatory pressures that cause consolidation in the first place.

“Free” means less efficiency, more expense and lower quality. While progressives highlight the unpopular aspects of private insurance, they won’t tell voters the private sector is more likely to promote innovation without concern for lobbyist-armed special interests and rent-seekers. Think of how long it took for the federal government, via Medicare, to pay for prescription drugs, ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services. It already takes tens of thousands of pages of regulations to administer Medicare, whereby the government sets thousands of prices in thousands of counties for millions of beneficiaries.

The top-down, one-size-fits-all Industrial Age approach is especially ill-suited to the constantly changing health care and education sectors. Hence the popular support for Medicare Advantage, charter schools, Veterans Choice and other programs that empower consumers with more control and harness the efficiency and creativity of the private economy to deliver public benefits.

“Free” means robbing from America’s children. It is one thing to take money from the present-day wealthy. It’s another to take it from future generations. Despite proposed marginal rates as high as 70% or even 90%, none of the tax plans Democrats have put forward would raise nearly enough revenue to pay for the promised spending. It is immoral for adults to force their children to sacrifice their quality of life and pay higher taxes to subsidize today’s spending. Good parents sacrifice to give their children more opportunities. This is the opposite.

Progressives aren’t willing to let America’s $22 trillion debt slow them down. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez objected to Congress’s pay-as-you-go rule, already honored more in the breach than in the observance; and progressives have conveniently discovered a monetary theory that allows them to ignore deficits and simply print whatever they want to spend.

Republicans have lost credibility on fiscal responsibility. Spending vastly increased on their watch. Even so, Medicare for All’s $32 trillion price tag makes even today’s appropriators look miserly. Republicans must remind voters—and themselves—that deficits are a drag on the economy, with interest payments crowding out private investment and government spending. It wouldn’t hurt for the GOP to act as if deficits matter when they govern, not merely when they’re in the minority.

Republicans can’t outbid Santa Claus. Americans are willing to work hard and sacrifice for a better life but need to know how pro-growth policies benefit them. Voters may be tempted by progressives’ crazy plans because they desperately want more affordable health care, reasonable tuition costs and a sustainable environment. They will embrace effective market-based solutions that promote freedom if Republicans offer them, but voters will only wait so long.

Mr. Jindal served as governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and was a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

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

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments