“All of this happened because of the rich people”

The Sun Never Sets On The British Welfare System
By Ann Coulter
08/10/2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1274

Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.

Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the “disabled” (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.

Congratulations, Britain! You’ve barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!

With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.

I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.

In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case — only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.

The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: “Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on.”

Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles — whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.

(Is Father’s Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)

The Daily Mail (London) traced the family’s proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn’t break the British, but the modern welfare state has.

A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for — like everything else in her life — with government benefits.

(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I’m drawing a blank, too.)

While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.

Scarlett’s estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: “My name is Silas, I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really).”

It’s a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it’s not.

Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France’s crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England’s welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.

Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.

But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation’s history of racism.

None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.

Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here — perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.

MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me — someone’s trying to get my attention … WHAT?)

Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left’s agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.

Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us “all of this happened because of the rich people.”

We’re beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don’t dare condemn the animals their programs have created.

Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.

I keep reading that it’s because they don’t have jobs — which they’re obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a “kaffir.” Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee’s call in a Manchester United game.

A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.

But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for — which is fortunate since most of their cops don’t have guns.

This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the “Heil Hitler” salute and singing the “Horst Wessel Song.”

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

The Appalling Ignorance of Gov. Chris Christie

The Appalling Ignorance of Gov. Chris Christie

Why he lost my vote for Dog Catcher (jsk)

Why Chris Christie Will Never Be President of the United States

By Daniel Pipes
August 5, 2011

Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor since 2010, has qualities and achievements that appeal to mainstream conservatives, from his direct style to his impressive budget cutting. As a result, he has won impressive support to run as a Republican candidate for president of the United States. But Christie has an Achilles Heel that gives one pause.

He came under criticism from fellow conservatives for nominating Sohail Mohammed, an Islamist who aspires to apply Islamic law, the Shari’a, as a state superior court judge; for an outline of these concerns, see the Investigative Project on Terrorism, “Gov. Christie’s Strange Relationship with Radical Islam.”

In response, Christie delivered a tirade on July 26, 2011, on the topic of Shari’a:
Sharia law has nothing to do with this [i.e., the appointment of Sohail Mohammed] at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. … So, this Sharia law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background. [Excerpt from 2:43 on the video.]

Comments: (1) These are fighting words against fellow conservatives that will not soon be forgotten: “this Sharia law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

(2) Calling critics of Mohammed “crazies” who are “accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background” reveals Christie to be a headstrong ignoramus; the IPT report on Mohammed is not about religious background but political activities.

(3) Contrarily, Christie won the hearty endorsement today of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR), whose New Jersey branch issued a statement thanking him, applauding him, and urging a note of gratitude be sent him via the “Contact Us” page at the governor’s website.

(4) Not a bad idea to contact Christie: if you live in New Jersey and wish to register your displeasure, go to http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/.

(5) Although still a small issue, Shari’a has grown very fast since 9/11 as a concern to Americans and should continue to do so for many years and decades to come.

(6) Conceivably, Christie could apologize for these remarks and undo much of the damage he’s done himself. But, given his public persona, I doubt this will happen.

(7) Therefore, I predict that Christie’s unremitting Grover Norquist-like friendly attitude toward Islamists will turn conservatives against him and sink his possible candidacy of his for higher office. (August 5, 2011)

Aug. 6, 2011 update: For a substantial reply to Christie’s rant, answering him point by point, see the excellent 2,500-word analysis by Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. Excerpts from his article, “Christie’s ‘Crazies’: Sharia is not a figment of our imagination”:

sharia concerns can’t be dismissed as “crap.” They help us sort out the pro-American Muslims we want to empower from the Islamists. When we dismiss these concerns, we end up building bridges to all the wrong people, as government has done, to its repeated embarrassment, for two decades.

That is how we end up “partnering” with the likes of Abdurrahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian (both ultimately convicted, with their ties to terrorism duly exposed); Salam al-Marayati, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee leader who argued that Israel should be at the top of the 9/11 suspect list; and such Islamist organizations as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, which, though not indicted, were shown by the Justice Department to be co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case.

Governor Christie would have you believe opposition to Mr. Mohammed was sheer bigotry: “It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background,” he railed to reporters. It’s a narrative Christie fans would like to help cement. It’s not true. For the record, Sohail Mohammed is not just an attorney. He served as a board member for an Islamist organization, the American Muslim Union.

McCarthy concludes:
The questions about Governor Christie’s appointment of Sohail Mohammed and his exertions on behalf of Mohammed’s client, Mohammed Qatanani, have nothing to do with either sharia or the all-purpose smear of Islamophobia. They are about the governor’s judgment.

They are about a U.S. attorney with political ambitions pandering to a politically active constituency at the expense of national security and enforcement of the immigration laws. They are about his decision to award a state judgeship to an attorney who was an active and vocal board member of a very troubling Islamist organization — and who has a penchant for presuming that perfectly valid anti-terror prosecutions are, instead, anti-Muslim persecutions. Those questions are not answered by bluster.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/08/why-chris-christie-will-never-be-president

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Our Christian Role in the Survival of the Jewish State

BY JOSH AHRENS
By a Student from Christians United for Israel on Campus
The Torch Magazine, July 2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1098

In 1896, Reverend William Hechler unexpectedly knocked on Theodor Herzl’s front door. Herzl had never met this bearded man, who frankly announced, “Here I am…Now I am going to help you.” Herzl, the quizzical and secular Jewish journalist and Hechler, the eccentric and well-connected Christian theologian went on to form a relationship through which Herzl gained the recognition needed to promote his idea of a Jewish state.

This improbable contact is considered by many as the beginning of the Zionist relationship with Christianity, and essential in the subsequent recognition of a Jewish state. It has grown from these two men to hundreds of thousands of men and women.

When you meet with students, advisors, faculty, and when you speak up in class, you are participating in this history of unlikely individuals who felt a strong connection with the state of Israel and its citizens, and chose to act accordingly. You are a messenger with potential to impact the future of Israel in a similar way to Reverend Hechler.

I love asking fellow CUFI on Campus members how they heard about CUFI. Nearly every story is of a messenger who arrived unannounced and invited them into this growing, living relationship. To explain the importance of this relationship, consider the effects of the Goldstone Report. After Israel retaliated in 2008-09 against Hamas’ rocket attacks from Gaza, The U.N. Human Rights Council investigated the conflict and charged Israel with launching a, “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population.”

It has since been shown to be a false accusation. This charge was repeated day after day in the headlines of the most respected newspapers in the world. Justice Richard Goldstone recently wrote in the Washington Post, “We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Commission… If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

Yet for over a year in our class discussions about Israel, students accepted the Goldstone Report with a stunning lack of curiosity, and dismissed Israelis as war criminals. It fit so perfectly into their presuppositions about Israel because it was a product of the same environment—an environment virtually absent of Christians properly equipped with the knowledge and courage to counter it. No value system other than Judeo-Christian can reasonably be expected to counter such attacks.

I remember a moment in class when I asked the students to put themselves in the place of Israelis who endured Hamas’ rocket attacks on their communities. Several of them laughed in my face. Everyone else was silent, including the professor. Those who compiled the Goldstone Report could confidently (yet based only on pure, biased speculation) accuse Israelis of deliberately killing innocent Palestinian civilians because they developed their attitudes and perceptions of Israel in this environment.

They have never apologized. Palestinians and Israelis truly suffered because of this failure to distinguish between terrorism and legitimate defensive action. These laughing students will go on to teach your children, write your news, your legislation, your history, and no doubt more documents as flawed as the Goldstone Report.

How has this happened? The answer is very simple; documents like the Goldstone Report are products of this academic climate, which are then ingested by new generations of students who go out into the world and allow this attitude about Israel to color their work, which makes its way back into the classroom, insulated from moral or factual challenges.

This is all changing. There are millions of Christians who are potential Israel advocates on campus, and we in CUFI on Campus are at ground level of unlocking that potential. Anti-Semitism does not stand a chance in the American University against us, if we for once realize the urgency of the problem.

It relies on our inaction. With each event and personal conversation, we are focusing the lens through which srael is viewed for future Goldstones, members of the U.N. Human Rights Council, teachers, pastors and voters. These may be the only chances students and professors have for someone to challenge false images of Israel. With your presence, warmth, and knowledge on campus you play nothing less than a direct and essential role in the survival of a vibrant and secure Jewish state.

This is a moment in history I can’t wait to tell my future children and grandchildren about when I take them to walk the streets of Jerusalem, bicycle in the Negev, and stand on the shores of the Galilee, under the very same flag that flies in Israel today.

Josh Ahrens is a senior at Portland State University studying History and Judaic Studies and President and founding member of Portland State’s CUFI on Campus chapter. He plans to do graduate work in Biblical History and Near Eastern Culture and go on to teach courses and write books that articulate Christianity’s Jewish heritage and Its relation to Christian support for the State of Israel.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

A Beautiful Story – for a change

How a German company quietly saved their Jewish employees.

by George Gilbert

The Leica Freedom Train

published in 2009

A Beautiful Story – for a change

The Leica is the pioneer 35mm camera. It is a German product — precise, minimalist, and utterly efficient. Behind its worldwide acceptance as a creative tool was a family-owned, socially oriented firm that during the Nazi era acted with uncommon grace, generosity and modesty. E. Leitz, Inc., designer and manufacturer of Germany’s most famous photographic product, saved the company’s Jews.

And Ernst Leitz II, the steely-eyed Protestant patriarch who headed the closely held firm as the Holocaust loomed across Europe, acted in such a way as to earn the title, “The Photography Industry’s Schindler.”

As soon as Adolf Hitler was named chancellor of Germany in 1933, Ernst Leitz II began receiving frantic calls from Jewish associates, asking for his help in getting them and their families out of the country. As Christians, Leitz and his family were, of course, immune to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg laws, which restricted the movement of Jews and limited their professional activities.

To help his Jewish workers and colleagues, Leitz quietly established what has become known among historians of the Holocaust as “The Leica Freedom Train,” a covert means of allowing Jews to leave Germany in the guise of Leitz employees being assigned overseas.

Employees, retailers, family members, and friends of family members were “assigned” to Leitz sales offices in France, Britain, Hong Kong and the United States.

Leitz’s activities intensified after the Kristallnacht of November 1938, during which synagogues and Jewish shops were burned throughout Germany. Before long, German “employees” were disembarking from the ocean liner Bremen at a New York pier and making their way to the Manhattan office of Leitz, Inc., where executives quickly found them jobs in the photographic industry. Each new arrival had around his or her neck the symbol of freedom — a new Leica.

The refugees were paid a stipend until they could find work. Out of this migration came designers, repair technicians, salespeople, marketers, and writers for the photographic press.

The “Leica Freedom Train” was at its height in 1938 and early 1939, delivering groups of refugees to New York every few weeks.

Then, with the invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Germany closed its borders. By that time, hundreds of endangered Jews had escaped to America, thanks to the Leitzes’ efforts.

How did Ernst Leitz II and his staff get away with it?

Leitz’s daughter was imprisoned by the Gestapo after she was caught helping Jewish women cross into Switzerland.

Leitz Inc. was an internationally recognized brand that reflected credit on the newly resurgent Reich. The company produced range-finders and other optical systems for the German military. Also, the Nazi government desperately needed hard currency from abroad, and Leitz’s single biggest market for optical goods was the United States.

Even so, members of the Leitz family and firm suffered for their good works. A top executive, Alfred Turk, was jailed for working to help Jews, and was freed only after the payment of a large bribe.

Leitz’s daughter, Elsie Kuhn-Leitz, was imprisoned by the Gestapo after she was caught at the border, helping Jewish women cross into Switzerland. She was eventually freed, but had endured rough treatment in the course of being questioned. She also fell under suspicion when she attempted to improve the living conditions of more than 700 Ukrainian slave laborers, all of them women, who had been assigned to work in the plant during the 1940s. After the war, Kuhn-Leitz received numerous honors for her humanitarian efforts, among them the Officier d’honneur des Palms Academic from France in 1965 and the Aristide Briand Medal from the European Academy in the 1970s.

Why has no one told this story until now?

According to the late Norman Lipton, a freelance writer and editor, the Leitz family wanted no publicity for its heroic efforts. Only after the last member of the Leitz family was dead did “The Leica Freedom Train” come to light. It became the subject of a book, “The Greatest Invention of the Leitz Family: The Leica Freedom Train,” by Frank Dabba Smith.

From: www.aish.com

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Killings in Norway not a random target.

No matter, Norwegians prefer blinders and anti-Semitism. Don’t confuse them with the facts.

Killings in Norway not a random target.

Something Rotten in Norway
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
Aug 1st, 2011
FrontPageMag.com

Anders Breivik’s attack on the youth camp of the Norwegian Labour Party has its most obvious precedent in the Maalot Massacre when Palestinian Muslim gunmen attacked an Israeli elementary school, taking over a hundred children hostage, and then using automatic weapons to kill as many of them as they could.

But the link between Maalot and Utoya is more than casual. The Workers Youth League which ran the camp had a long history of supporting the same kind of terrorists who had perpetrated the Maalot Massacre.

Lars Gule, is the Secretary General of the Norwegian Humanist Association, and a defender of Muslims having the right to discriminate against women and gays. (The two are not a contradiction in Norway.) He was the leader of the Workers Youth League at the University of Bergen and a DFLP terrorist.

The DFLP were the perpetrators of the Maalot Massacre. And two years after that attack, Lars Gule was trained by the DFLP and dispatched to Israel via Norway with explosives hidden in the covers of his books. “The Suspect had made it known to his employers that he wanted to take human life…  to strengthen Palestinian fighting spirit and morale,” Norwegian police records noted.

None of this impeded Gule’s career in any way. He went on to the University of Bergen and served as the head of the Workers Youth League, the organization that was targeted in the Utoya attack. Today he is a prominent figure on the left.

How can we make sense of this? Glenn Beck compared the Workers Youth League camp to a Hitler Youth camp. He was close, but not entirely right. The roots of the Workers Youth League are actually Communist.

Norway’s Labour Party was a member of the Communist International. The Workers Youth League was formed by the merger of the Left Communist Youth League and the Socialist Youth League of Norway. We often use “Communist” as a pejorative, but in this case the Utoya camp, literally was a Communist youth camp.

The day before the massacre, Norwegian Foreign Minister Gahre-Store visited the camp and was greeted with banners calling for a boycott of Israel, and Gahre-Store responded with an Anti-Israel speech to cheers from the campers. There is something ominous about such indoctrination of hate. It is not quite on the level of the Hitler Youth, but neither is it a world apart.

In the 1930′s, Germans were encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews. In this decade, Norwegians are encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews. There are few children of workers at the Workers Youth League camp. They are for the most part the children of the party, the sons and daughters of bureaucrats and party leaders, training the next generation to perpetrate the Labour Party state.

Breivik came from that same background. The son of the left wing elite. And if his parents’ marriage had not collapsed, with the young boy allotting a share of the blame to the Labour Party, he would likely have a comfortable spot in the socialist state. Breivik may have turned against his roots, but the idea that terroristic violence is a legitimate solution is one that he could have easily picked up on the left.

Gahre-Store may have been greeted with a banner calling for the boycott of Israel, but he would never have been greeted with one calling for a boycott of terrorists. And indeed if there is an Islamist terrorist group that Gahre-Store doesn’t support, it’s hard to find. Gahre-Store had called for negotiating with Al-Shahaab in Somalia, an Al-Qaeda offshoot, he spoke with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal and called for a reconciliation with the Taliban.

Media commentators have made a great deal of Breivik’s radicalization, but despite his death toll, his radicalization seems to be an isolated event in comparison to the magnitude of radicalization at Utoya. If Breivik’s violence and bigotry is to be condemned– shouldn’t the species of violence and bigotry at Utoya be condemned as well?

The left can hold up Utoya as an example, but there are a legion of counterexamples. Nor the least of which is Lars Gule, traveling with explosives in his backpack, on a journey that took him from DFLP terrorist to Workers Youth League leader.

And behind that is the larger string of DFLP and Fatah atrocities. And that of other terrorist groups around the world. The Utoya attack cannot be viewed as an isolated event. It must be seen within the context of support for terrorism as a valid tactic. An idea that goes back to the Marxist roots of the Labour Party and which is embodied in its political support for terrorism. And its manifest hostility to the victims of terrorism.

Breivik and Lars Gule had their common origins in a country dominated by a political left which sees violence as a legitimate tool of political change, while dehumanizing its victims. Norway’s ambassador to Israel carefully distinguished between the Utoya attack and the terrorist attacks on Israelis. The latter would go away if Israel just followed Gahre-Store’s example and negotiated with Hamas.

But what Norway’s political elite failed to grasp is that the genie of terrorism cannot be kept in a lamp, to emerge only at your command. Once you legitimize terrorism as a tool of political change, you lose the ability to determine who will make use of it. Breivik followed the example of Lars Gule, that of the Marxist terrorists, whose intellectual legacy is the black tar that seeps through the painted walls of Norwegian foreign policy.

The hatred and terrorist collaboration on display at Utoya was the symptom of a larger disease. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” Marcellus proclaims in Hamlet. It’s equally rotten in Norway.

Breivik was one expression of that rottenness. But there are many others. Like Lars Gule, and his vision of a secular atheism living side by side with bigoted Islamism. Or Gahre-Store following in the footsteps of countless left wing foreign ministers by opening Norway’s doors to every Islamist terrorist group out there. Or the children being groomed to become the future leaders of Norway taught to hate as fervently as their Fatah associates.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Obama’s hollow claim of commitment to Israel’s security

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1184

By MORTON KLEIN AND DANIEL MANDEL
08/01/2011

For a year, Obama prohibited any new US sanctions to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons – a looming existential threat to both Israel and the US.

Is President Barack Obama committed to Israel’s security? Reassuring bromides to that effect in his recent speeches are nullified by specific statements that spell out dangerous Israeli concessions and disregard for Israeli vital interests. Worse, the administration’s wider Middle East policies further denude those commitments of meaning.

Thus, when Obama said Israel must have secure, recognized borders “different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” many missed the point that this means little, when the new borders are to be “based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps” and therefore be virtually indistinguishable from those lines. Indeed, with Palestinians unlikely to agree to any swaps, Obama gave the Palestinians a veto over any continued Israel presence beyond the pre-1967 lines.

Moreover, Obama’s unprecedented call for a Palestinian state to have “permanent Palestinian borders with… Jordan” would require Israel ceding the Jordan Valley, whose retention successive Israeli governments have regarded as vital–another first for a US president.

Obama has also become the first US president to suggest that issues of “territory and security” be agreed upon first, before proceeding to negotiations on all other matters, including Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants.

Upholding Israel’s basic security would also mean repudiating the repatriation of the refugees and their descendants. Bush did so in his May 2004 letter; Obama has not. On the contrary, he has supported the so-called Saudi peace plan, which demands not only a return to the 1967 lines, but also the return of all refugees and their descendants.

In May, Obama reiterated that the US “will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.” But he never has – nor does he now.

When, in August 2009, Fatah held a conference in Bethlehem, reaffirming its refusal to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, glorifying terrorists, insisting on the so-called ‘right of return,’ and rejecting an end of claims in any future peace agreement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton astonishingly claimed that the conference showed “a broad consensus supporting negotiations with Israel and the two-state solution.”

When in 2010, the PA named a Ramallah square after terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, Clinton falsely claimed that this ceremony was initiated by a “Hamas-run municipality.” Refusing to identify the PA as responsible, Obama has not penalized it.

INDEED, FAR from holding Palestinians accountable, Obama has consistently rewarded them, increasing aid to almost $1 billion per year. A Palestinian Media Watch report just presented to the US Congress documents that, in May 2011 alone, the PA paid $5,207,000 in salaries to Palestinians in Israeli jails, including blood-soaked terrorists. Last year the US provided $225 million to the general Palestinian budget from which these salaries are paid.

If Obama was genuine about holding the PA accountable, he would be demanding the disbanding of Fatah’s own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – a US- recognized terrorist group. He would demand the abrogation of the PA’s unity agreement with Hamas (which calls for a genocide of Jews) as a precondition of any future talks. He has done neither.

It is also difficult to imagine what conception of American and Israeli security interests led Obama in January to ditch Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and call for political “transition… now” when protests erupted in Cairo. Still less clear is why his administration spoke immediately of involving “non-secular actors” – a clear allusion to the Muslim Brotherhood – given its virulent hostility to the US and Israel. Now, Obama has legitimized the Brotherhood by initiating contacts with it.

THE NET result is that Egypt is on the road from lukewarm ally and peace-maker to a dependable enemy – one to which Obama has announced the sale of 125 state-of-the-art M1A1 Abrams tanks. It is also disturbing that Obama has not pressured Egypt to close its Gaza border at Rafah, whose recent opening has enabled the flow of weaponry into Hamas-run Gaza.

For a year, Obama prohibited any new US sanctions to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons – a looming existential threat to both Israel and the US. Indeed, further measures which must be taken to stop Iran is precisely what Obama left untouched in his recent speeches.

Thus Obama’s words and deeds not only fail to match his stated commitment to Israel’s security – they negate it.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director of the ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy and author of H.V. Evatt & the Establishment of Israel (London: Routledge, 2004).

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

My journalist granddaughter, Sammy, on her Birthright Israel Trip

10 Days in Israel

Written by Samantha Stratton on 07/27/201

Louisville Ky. Voice-Tribune Editor’s note:
Intern Samantha Stratton just returned from a 10-day trip to Israel with the Birthright organization, www.BirthrightIsrael.org. This is her story.

My journalist granddaughter, Sammy, on her Birthright Israel Trip

When I told my non-Jewish friends about the trip to Israel I was about to take, they were baffled. They couldn’t fathom that someone would just give me a free 10-day trip to Israel.

No, I didn’t win some kind of contest, I told them. No, you can’t just say you’re Jewish and they’ll let you go too. The questions were endless. After I explained that Birthright Israel is designed to connect Jewish young adults to the heritage and history of their religion, my friends didn’t understand why that connection would be important.
Even for some of my fellow Jews, the concept of Birthright seems a little over the top.

Why do young people actually have to go to Israel to learn about it? Books, movies and lectures could probably suffice. Birthright Israel’s mission is to help Jews ages 18 to 26 find some kind of connection to the place that is at the center of their religion by showing them the land, providing an Israeli guide to explain each area visited and letting them decide the next step for themselves. On July 10, 2011, my journey to find some kind of “connection” began …

I’ve just spent more than 10 hours on a plane, flanked by complete strangers, unable to sleep and unaware of what I’m getting myself into. My group and I gather at baggage claim to retrieve the luggage we’ll carry for the next 10 days. I’m hot and eager to get out of my airplane clothes. It’s only 7:30 a.m. in Israel, and I’m already exhausted.

Our Israeli guide tells us to quickly open our checked luggage and pack a daypack. Our next destination: Mount Arbel, which means we’ll be hiking. Then, we’ll have breakfast – after the airplane meal and lots of snacking, this will be my third “breakfast” of the day – and raft on the Jordan River. We won’t arrive at our hotel until around 6 p.m. Sounds like a sick joke, right? Well, this joke would soon become a sobering reality and possibly the best experience of my life.

During my second semester at American University, I decided on a whim to register for Birthright with two friends from my dorm. Here’s the gist of the program: If you’re Jewish and between the ages of 18 and 26, you’re eligible for a free trip to Israel. I figured, why not? I didn’t have much else going on this summer (I hadn’t yet secured my job at The Voice) and my mom had been practically begging me to sign up since I turned 18. If I had two friends joining me, it would be a lot less scary.

After I signed up and received an acceptance to the trip, I didn’t give it much thought. I saw the trip as filler for my summer boredom. I didn’t understand what Birthright was about except a free vacation with people my age. I’m now much more aware of Birthright’s mission.

Not many people actually know who started the program; all we know is that Birthright was founded by wealthy philanthropists who sought to send young Jewish people to Israel in order to bridge the gap between Israel and Jewish communities around the world. During our orientation, one of the Birthright staff members explained that this trip was a “gift” and that, in Israel, the program is called “Taglit,” which means “discovery” in Hebrew.

During that first meeting, I didn’t really connect with what this staff member was saying. However, after just a few days, I discovered more about my religion, the Middle East and myself than I could have imagined. Though referring to Birthright as a gift seemed cliché initially, I won’t hesitate to say that this trip was one of the greatest gifts I’ve ever received.

I’m so grateful for my experience that it is difficult to put into words.

In fact, as the trip progressed, I became more and more apprehensive of even writing this article. How was I supposed to explain the highlights of my experience when almost everything we did and saw was a highlight?

We visited places I’d only heard of in Sunday School as a child. We floated in the Dead Sea, rode camels in a Bedouin village, experienced Shabbat at the Western Wall, learned about Kabbalah in Tzfat, ascended Masada by way of the Roman Ramp and so much more.

Looking over our trip itinerary, I’m still blown away by how much we fit into 10 days and how much I enjoyed each aspect.

We also built relationships with eight Israeli soldiers who traveled and stayed with us for a portion of our journey. Hearing about their lifestyles gave me a huge amount of respect for them. But, at the same time, I realized that they were all just like me. We were the same age and liked the same TV shows and places to shop. Just one thing separated us: When I turned 18, I was preparing for college; when my Israeli friends turned 18, they were reporting for duty in the Israeli Defense Force.

Now, I realize I might be starting to sound a little brainwashed by Israel’s charm. But don’t be mistaken. I’ve heard plenty of arguments opposing my experience.

During the early stages of our trip, friends and I discussed some of the negative views circulating the media about Birthright. Opponents of the program criticize it for being a tool to lure young Jews into becoming ultra Zionists and encouraging them to make “Aliyah,” immigration to Israel, which many Zionists consider one of the highest forms of worship.

I’ve heard several defenses against Birthright in the past month – before, during and after my trip. Some suggest that the Israeli tour guides assigned to each group preach Zionism and don’t give the full story of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Others even suggest that Birthright specifically selects good-looking Israeli soldiers to persuade young girls and guys that everyone in Israel is beautiful.

I won’t use this article to defend Zionism, Judaism or even Birthright. My only goal is to describe my wonderful experience as best I can.

I sat down on a plane to Israel with a group of 39 other Jewish college students a few weeks ago. I knew two people going in. I feared I’d be surrounded by a bunch of – excuse the term – Jewish American Princesses. I worried that I’d hate the food. I dreaded having talks about Judaism.

A few days ago, I exited a plane at John F. Kennedy airport. I had to say goodbye to 47 new friends, eight of whom are Israeli soldiers.

Instead of ultra-Jewish young adults, I met mostly secular and reform people like me, who’d never truly felt a connection to their religion.
I stepped on American soil and found myself craving falafel (although we’d had it every single day for 10 days straight).

I got on a plane to Louisville missing Israeli accents, debates about the Israel/Palestine conflict and the sweltering desert weather.

I tried to think of the moment I really felt something emotional for Israel, the Holy Land I’ve always been told I should have a connection with.

I remembered the Western Wall. We visited on one of the hottest days of our trip. Everyone had to cover his or her knees and shoulders out of respect for the holy place, which made us all even more uncomfortable. I wrote down a simple prayer on a piece of paper – nothing too emotional or soul bearing. I approached the wall to place my written prayer in one of the cracks. For some reason, I began to cry. These weren’t just a few tears, they were almost sobs.

I rejoined my friends and realized they’d been crying too. We agreed that there was this palpable feeling of sadness at the wall – hundreds of years of pain, suffering and struggle. It was something none of us had ever felt before. It showed me that I could feel something for my religion and its history.

Birthright changed me.

I won’t say it made me a better person. I’m not a staunch Zionist. I won’t even claim to be a more religious Jew. But I am more connected to my heritage, more educated about my religion and more respectful of the conflict currently affecting my homeland.

Contact writer Samantha Stratton sstratton@voice-tribune.com.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

The Budget Crisis as in Ancient Rome

Republican Virtue

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1129

BY WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor

The Weekly Standard
AUG 1, 2011, VOL. 16, NO. 43

Tempora, mores! O Cicero, (MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO, 106 BC–43 BC) if thou couldst be with us now! The corruption of our age is approaching that of your own! Who today speaks for the ancient Roman—and modern American—virtues of civic duty and personal responsibility?

Here’s who: the House Republicans.

The federal government has a problem. It’s hitting a debt ceiling limit passed into law last year by the Democratic Congress, and signed by President Obama. It’s doing so because of appropriations passed by that same Democratic Congress, and signed by that same Democratic president. Have the president and Senate Democrats proposed any legislation to deal with this problem? No.

House Republicans, on the other hand, did pass a budget earlier this year. Unfortunately, federal spending has gotten so out of control that even if the Republican budget were to become law, the federal government would have to borrow more money for several years to come. So House Republicans last week stepped up to the plate (to use a metaphor that might be unfamiliar to Cicero).

Their constituents hate the idea of voting to raise the debt ceiling. But the House GOP did what had to be done. They passed H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. The legislation contains a debt ceiling increase and accompanies it with serious spending cuts, restraints, and the promise of a forthcoming vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by capping spending. The House Republicans (and five Democrats) did their duty, in accordance with the procedures of Congress and in the light of day, proposing and passing legislation that their fellow citizens could read, debate, and judge.

And they are the only ones who’ve done their duty. Having failed to pass a budget for two years, Senate Democrats have done nothing to deal with the debt limit. President Obama has in effect withdrawn his February budget proposal, and hasn’t submitted a new one.

So the morally bankrupt leaders of our fiscally bankrupt government meet feverishly behind closed doors, out of sight of the public they’re supposed to represent, to figure out how to paper over the mess they’ve created. Gangs of senators occasionally emerge from their hideouts to announce deals that would raise taxes and gut defense in response to a crisis caused by domestic spending and entitlements.

The gangs roam the halls of the Capitol, invading television studios in order to terrorize the citizenry with the prospect of default and mayhem. They then retreat to their lairs, while Beltway insiders shower them with praise and scorn actual legislation passed by the House in accord with the norms of democratic government.

Enough! No more gangs! No more deals! Gangster government is unworthy of a democratic republic. We elect leaders, not dealers. These elected officials are responsible for the fiscal future of the United States. They aren’t negotiating with foreign enemies, when secrecy is often necessary. They aren’t authorizing covert intelligence operations, which have to be planned behind closed doors. They are supposed to be accountable to the people—much as many of our elites may resent that fact.

And so: All honor to the House Republicans. They refuse to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare how fiscal solvency and budgetary probity can be restored.

Meanwhile, liberal elites (and some conservative ones) tremble at the prospect of an honest debate on how to restore sound and responsible government. So, on July 22 Senate Democrats voted, 51-46, to table the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. No amendments were proposed or debated. No alternatives were offered. Democrats now stand before us as the party that, when faced with a deadline and a crisis, vote to .  .  . table.

For the next year and a half, real progress on the budget will be limited by the president and the Senate majority we have. The debt limit presumably will be increased, and the best House Republicans may be able to do is to insist on some spending cuts, prevent defense from being gutted, and keep tax burdens from rising.

Still: All honor to the House Republicans, who had the coolness, foresight, and capacity to introduce and pass legislation that is a rebuke and a stumbling block to the gangs of senators and the secret dealmakers. And to lay the groundwork for victory for the forces of limited and responsible government in 2012.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Michelle Obama takes gorging at public trough to new levels of expertise

Michelle O’s $800,000 Entitlement?

By M Catharine Evans
American Thinker
June 29, 2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1087

It’s evident by now Mrs. Obama will not yield to public opinion regarding her profligate globe-hopping. Michelle’s week-long junket to South Africa cost taxpayers nearly $800,000 according to an analysis by White House Dossier. The trip ended at a five-star hotel in the middle of a game preserve where rooms exceed $10,000 dollars per night. Michelle was accompanied by her daughters, brother Craig’s kids and granny who all enjoyed the “luxurious suites” and “one of the world’s finest art collections” at the Mateya.

The cost of local transportation, Secret Service protection, food for her family and staff members, and the cost of firing up “Air Force Two” not to mention the pre-trip preparations all contributed to the final amounts.

Mrs. Obama’s “goodwill tour” was supposed to “help youth leadership, health, education and wellness” in crime-ridden South Africa. The photos of her and the ‘fam’ showed them feeling “surreal” meeting Nelson Mandela, eating “fat cakes,” dancing and going on safari. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman “made clear that the trip was partially a personal pilgrimage for the first lady.”

A visit to South Africa is important for them as a family. She’ll be visiting many Struggle-era landmarks, including the Apartheid Museum (and) the Hector Pieterson Memorial.

Obviously Michelle doesn’t give a whit that she’s fleecing average Americans. Or that draping Malia and Sasha in South African flags is downright bizarre for a first lady representing the United States. Or that eating fatty foods, but telling others to “eat your vegetables” is downright Dante-esque. She told a crowd of young people at the University of Cape Town her favorite food is French fries, “I can’t stop eating them.” Michelle just blew her credibility in her vanity campaign against obesity. 

The mainstream press won’t talk about Michelle Obama’s unnecessary expenses or duplicitous campaigns at a time when the United States is having a debt crisis. The same liberal media who tore Bush up for spending too much time at his ranch in Crawford or demonized Nancy Reagan for replacing the White House china is more than happy to keep quiet about Michelle’s extravagant WOD (wife of dictator) lifestyle.

The Obamas are living it up while more and more people go on food stamps, lose their jobs and only dream of the vacations they used to take. Nothing’s changed for Mrs. Obama since last summer when she took a “Mommy and me” trip to Spain with Sasha, one of eight jaunts in a 4-month period. She continues spending other people’s hard-earned money while carting her friends and family all over the globe.

The public is becoming increasingly disgusted with her defiant attitude of entitlement. Michelle couldn’t care less.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Obama’s “Waterloo” – Debt-Limit Talks

GOP Should Make Debt Ceiling Crisis Obama’s “Waterloo”

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1074

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Washington Times July 18, 2011

Republicans have a golden opportunity to break Barack Obama’s presidency and that the debt ceiling crisis will be Obama’s “Waterloo.” Ambition cost Napoleon his empire. For Mr. Obama, the ‘big package’ strategy is the moment of colossal overreach. He wanted too much, too soon.

Now comes the long, humiliating and fatal retreat.” Kuhner further claimed that Obama is “not serious about confronting our debt bomb; rather, he seeks to consolidate his socialist revolution, paying for the expansion of the entitlement society.”

Republicans have a golden opportunity to break Barack Obama’s presidency, ensuring he will be a one-termer. Mr. Obama has backed himself into a corner on the debt-limit talks; the GOP can smash his re-election prospects if they have the will — and intelligence — to do it.

However, [Obama] understands one fundamental reality: European-style spending eventually requires European-style taxation. His aim has been to pile up such high deficits and debt so he can force America to accept massive permanent tax increases. Mr. Obama is using primitive class-warfare rhetoric, insisting on soaking “the rich.” He is not serious about confronting our debt bomb; rather, he seeks to consolidate his socialist revolution, paying for the expansion of the entitlement society.

Mr. Boehner should insist on a small deal — lifting the debt ceiling along with corresponding spending reductions. Every debt dollar raised should be coupled with a spending dollar cut. That way, the package pays for itself. More important, it places Mr. Obama in a no-win situation.

House Republicans will pass legislation that raises the debt limit. Therefore, they cannot be blamed for any economic fallout should America default. Mr. Obama can veto it, which means he will be solely responsible for the fiscal calamity. Or he can sign it — publicly standing down from his earlier threats. Thus, he will be denuded among his liberal supporters and the larger electorate, and shown to be a weak leader whose words mean nothing.

Either way, it will be his Waterloo — the effective end of his presidency. Ambition cost Napoleon his empire. For Mr. Obama, the “big package” strategy is the moment of colossal overreach. He wanted too much, too soon. Now comes the long, humiliating and fatal retreat.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist for the Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

1. Michele Bachmann’s Moment 2. The Liberal Elite’s ‘Next Jew.’

1. Michele Bachman’s Moment
By Donald Lambro
The Washington Times
July 4, 2011

2. Michelle Bachmann: The Liberal Elite’s ‘Next Jew.’
By Robert Avrech
The Jewish Press, June 24, 2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1019

1. By Donald Lambro

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has singularly achieved what most of her colleagues only dream of doing but never will: Breaking out of the anonymity of 435 House members to become a national political figure in her own right and a candidate for the presidency.

She didn’t do it by ascending the ranks of the House Republican leadership or by championing legislative crusades. No major piece of legislation bears her name. She has piled up no political IOU’s by doing favors and playing by party rules. She chairs no committees.

Since she won her 6th District seat in 2006 – the first Republican woman elected to the House from Minnesota – she has been in a hurry to make her mark. She soon learned that she wasn’t going to become known by sitting through hours of tedious, inconsequential hearings, or listening to boring House debate or by pursuing a go-along-to-get-along career and patiently “waiting her turn.”

And she soon learned that in the Old Boys Club in the House she wasn’t going to be handed anything, either. So over these past six years, she became a fixture on virtually every cable television and broadcast network talk show in the business, denouncing President Obama’s health care law, bashing his trillion-dollar deficits and big government in general.

She embraced the Tea Party movement from its birth, organized and keynoted their rallies at the Capitol, and became the leader of Tea Party-backed lawmakers who won House seats in 2010. Her tireless efforts made her widely popular among the GOP’s conservative base, though she still was seen as an outsider and to some degree a loose cannon among many in the leadership ranks. After she audaciously made an unexpected bid in January for the House Republican Conference chairmanship, the No. 4 post in the party’s hierarchy, she withdrew her name in the face of certain defeat.

When House Speaker John Boehner picked Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the powerful Budget Committee chairman, to deliver the GOP response to Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address, she decided to deliver her own response on behalf of the Tea Party Express. She had another purpose in mind and that was to tell her party’s leaders, “Don’t ignore me.”

With Tea Party support from across the country and a growing campaign war chest (raising $1.7 million in the first three months of this year, the most of any House member behind Mr. Boehner), she set her sights on running for president. But could she match the heavy hitters in the crowded field of candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the party’s front-runner?

Her poised, self-confident performance earlier this month at the CNN presidential debate in New Hampshire knocked that question out of the park. She had polished her delivery on countless TV talk shows, and it showed in her unflinching, well-thought-out answers.

“This election will be all about economics. It will be about how will we create jobs, how will we turn the economy around, how we will have a pro-growth economy. President Obama can’t tell that story. His report card right now has a big failing grade on it,” she said.

She officially announced her candidacy in Waterloo, Iowa, where she enjoys strong support from Tea Party conservatives and is virtually tied with Mr. Romney in early polls. “The surprise is that Mrs. Bachmann, who a Fox News host suggested Sunday may be ‘a flake,’ has quickly become one of the more sure-footed candidates in the race for the Republican nomination,” the liberal Washington Post reported in a front-page story Tuesday.

“She has built on momentum generated in a widely praised debate performance and has sent a jolt of energy through a GOP electorate that has been hungry for someone to be excited about,” the Post said.
But there are huge obstacles awaiting Mrs. Bachmann, not the least of which is historical precedent. No House member has won the White House since James A. Garfield was elected in 1880.

Historically, at least in the modern era, presidents by and large have been former governors who have had executive experience in running a government, balancing budgets, overseeing an economy, including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.

It’s a huge leap to go from representing a single congressional district, where your only constitutional job is to vote, to running the United States of America. Mrs. Bachmann’s other hurdle may be putting together a heavy-hitting team of national security and economic advisers to help develop a governing agenda. Her speeches thus far have not spelled out in any detail how she would expand economic growth and create jobs or deal with the myriad foreign policy and defense-related issues that await the next administration.

She’s shown herself to be a fiercely independent woman who is running on a set of core values that have made America the most successful country in the world. She’s not going to be a pushover in the primaries to come.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

2. Michelle Bachmann: The Liberal Elite’s ‘Next Jew.’
By Robert Avrech
The Jewish Press, June 24, 2011

… Michele Bachmann, the Republican congress woman from Minnesota and newly announced presidential candidate, is the Liberal elite’s next Jew. In the GOP debate last week, Bachmann dazzled she was articulate and knowledgeable. Clearly, she was enjoying herself: A majority of Americans want their politicians to be optimistic. Obama comes across as Jimmy Carter squared: petulant, dour, angry, resigned to an America mired in a future of diminishing returns.

Like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann is beautiful and glamorous, but not so glamorous that she threatens other women. Nor is she so sexy that she intimidates men. She dresses like a lady, modest but fashionable. I have never seen her in a pants suit. And she actually knows stuff. Unlike Obama, who seems to fashion himself a philosopher king – practical knowledge scorned – Bachmann is a skilled tax attorney and an entrepreneur.

It should come as no surprise that as a pious Christian, Bachmann, like Palin, is a huge supporter of Israel. My wife and I heard Bachmann at a Republican Jewish Coalition function last year and it was like listening to Golda Meir.

But here’s the main reason you can bet your bottom dollar the liberal lynch mob will go after Bachmann with jihadist fervor: Bachmann and her husband have raised five biological children. That’s way too many. Liberals cap families at 2.0 offspring. Anything more is so quaint and, well, churchy – and crowds the planet to boot.

Bachmann and her husband also raised 23 foster children. This, to the liberal mind, is unforgivable. Why? Because Michele Bachmann lives her conservative ideology by refusing to allow government to raise unwanted children. Parents who adopt children or take in and raise foster children are society’s greatest heroes. They repair the world. And for this, become an object of hate – A Jew to the jackals of the left.

Robert J. Avrech is an Emmy Award-winning Hollywood screenwriter arid producer. Among his numerous credits are “A Stranger Among Us” and “The Devil’s Arithmetic.” His novel “The Hebrew Kid and the Apache Maiden” won the 2006 Ben Franklin Award for Best First Novel and the Association of Jewish Libraries Award for Notable Children’s Book of Jewish Content.

His website is Seraphic Secret (www.seraphicpress.com).

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

How the Nazis escaped Europe – The Myth of the Odessa File

The Despicable, $$ oriented perfidy of Simon Weisenthal! (jsk)

HOW DID SO MANY NAZIS ESCAPE JUSTICE?

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1056

An Interview with historian, Gerald Steinacher

By Elliot Resnick, Jewish Press Staff Reporter
July 13 2011

How did so many Nazis and Nazi collaborators manage to escape Europe after World War II? Who helped them flee and why? What routes did they take on their way to freedom?

These and other questions are answered in painstaking detail in a new book, Nazis on the Run: How Hitler’s Henchmen Fled Justice, by Gerald Steinacher, an assistant professor of history at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The book, originally written in German, was translated into English by Oxford University Press and hit bookstores last month. The Jewish Press recently spoke with Steinacher.

The Jewish Press: According to your book, a great many Nazis escaped Europe through Italy. Why Italy?

Steinacher: Because the Allies were in Germany and Austria but had retreated from Italy. There was no Allied government there after December 1945, so once you were in Italy, you were free. This is one reason. The other reason is that for many people from Eastern and Central Europe the ports in Italy were just the closest in terms of geography.

Who gave Nazis the travel documents they needed to escape?

The International Committee of the Red Cross. They were in charge of giving documents to [the 12 million] Volksdeutsche – ethnic Germans – who were expelled from Central and Eastern Europe after 1945. But there was one condition for obtaining these documents, and this was that the person had to be stateless.

So war criminals like Eichmann, Mengele, and many others went to Italy and, once there, stated, “I’m an ethnic German from South Tyrol, Italy and I am stateless.”

Why would someone from South Tyrol, Italy be considered stateless?

That’s a good question. South Tyrol is a border region. It’s in Italy but it’s mostly German speaking. It was annexed to Italy after the first world war (it had previously been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire for hundreds of years) and in 1939, as part of Hitler’s policy with Mussolini, the South Tyrol minority in Italy was given a choice: They could stay and become completely Italianized or they could become German citizens and move to the Reich or some newly annexed territory. Most of them became German citizens.

At the end of the war, this agreement between Hitler and Mussolini was not recognized by the Allies and these South Tyrolans were considered stateless like most ethnic Germans from Eastern and Central Europe.

But didn’t the Red Cross realize that some of these “South Tyrolans” applying for travel documents were in fact former Nazis?

They did. But you have to realize that the Red Cross had no, or at least not much, experience with issuing travel documents and they were completely overwhelmed. They told the Allies and the Italian authorities: “We don’t want to do this job anymore because we are not the police. We can’t screen the backgrounds of these people. We have to take for granted whatever these people tell us. If Adolf Eichmann tells us he is Richard Klement from South Tyrol and he’s stateless and he wants to go to South America to start a new life, we have to believe him.”

How many travel documents did the Red Cross issue?

Around 120,000-140,000 between 1945 and 1950.

How many “black sheep” were among them?

It’s extremely difficult to give exact numbers. One reason is definition. Are you only looking at Austrians and Germans who were perpetrators of the Holocaust? Then you have very small numbers. If you look at Austrians and Germans who were Nazis or in the SS, but maybe not technically or legally perpetrators of the Holocaust, then of course the numbers are much higher. And if you also include collaborators and fascists from all over Europe – from the fascist regimes in Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Belgium, Ukraine, or Vichy, for example – then you have tens of thousands of people. So it depends very much on definition.

What was the role of the Vatican in all this?

The Vatican relief commission for refugees worked in close cooperation with the Red Cross. A Nazi would come to the Red Cross with a reference letter from the Vatican commission, and say, “I’m stateless, this is my name, date of birth, location of birth” and so on, and the Red Cross officials wouldn’t ask questions because the recommendation came from the Vatican.

That’s how Franz Stangl, the commandant of the Treblinka extermination camp, escaped Europe.

Why would a Vatican official give Stangl a letter of recommendation?

In this particular case the official was a bishop by the name of Alois Hudal, who was known to be very pro-Nazi. In 1937, Hudal had written a book by the title The Foundations of National Socialism, which he sent to Hitler with a dedication.

But members of the clergy helped Nazis for various reasons. Some of them did it because they were former Nazis; others because they were pro-fascist; and others out of religious motivations. They said we want to help these people come back to the herd. They got lost; we have to bring them back into the church and forgive them. Christian mercy also played a role. In fact, there were some clergy who helped Jews hide during the war and then helped Nazis escape after it – both times acting out of mercy.

What’s your take on Pope Pius XII?

Well, I don’t think he was “Hitler’s Pope,” but it’s clear that he was very anti-communist and anti-communism played a crucial role in all of this. The fear of a communist takeover in Italy was widespread after 1945. There was a strong communist party in Italy, and the possibility that Rome – the heartland of the Catholic Church – would become communist was a horror scenario for many people inside the Vatican. So there was a strong motivation to help anti-communists even if they had a Nazi background.

In 1945 the Nazis were gone, but the communist enemy was still there and more dangerous than ever before.

You write in the book that the CIA also helped former Nazis escape Europe. Why would the CIA do that?

Again, you have to keep in mind the background of the early Cold War. These Nazis were anti-communists and the new enemy was the communists. The United States thought some of these Nazis could be useful. They didn’t have experts on the east who knew the Ukrainian, Yugoslavian, Italian and French communists, for example. But there were people who knew these communists and these were former German intelligence officers.

In your book, you discuss a popular theory – which you call a myth – that former Nazis helped each other escape Europe after the war through an organization called ODESSA. What is this ODESSA myth?

ODESSA is short for Organization of Former SS Members. The ODESSA story came up in ’45, ’46 based on some reports from the CIC, the American counter intelligence corps. This was picked up by Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi hunter, who proceeded to depict ODESSA as a worldwide organization, a kind of conspiracy of former SS members who had unlimited resources and bank accounts in Switzerland and gold and connections everywhere.

But this is a complete myth. There is no evidence of it whatsoever. Such a perfectly- and centrally-organized organization with these powerful means never existed. It’s an invention by Simon Wiesenthal and Frederick Forsyth, who wrote The ODESSA File, which was a best-selling novel – and later made into a movie – based on Wiesenthal’s reports.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Glenn Beck visits Israel and speaks to the Knesset

Glenn Beck is a friend of Israel. He is a friend of the Jewish people

Glenn Beck visits Israel and speaks to the Knesset

By Ben Shapiro
July 18, 2011 – Daily Mailer, FrontPage

Comment by Gail Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator:

One huge mistake, exaggeration, mis-perception that has been cast against Glenn Beck is that Glenn said: [paraphrased] “He is for a two-state solution. The Palestinians should have a state BUT: [this part has been deleted by the MSM Main Stream Media] BUT, A STATE NOT IN ISRAEL BUT, WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER.”

Since Glenn Beck’s dramatic rise to prominence two years ago, he has been portrayed by many members of the left as a kook. The members of the left condemning Beck most loudly, to my utter dismay, have been Jews. Jon Liebowitz, aka Jon Stewart, has dedicated his show to mocking Beck as a religious freak and a nut job; in his episode on Beck’s departure from his Fox News show, Stewart donned Beck-like glasses and then scoffed, “Glenn Beck was sent here by Jesus to take the 5:00 p.m. slot between Neil Cavuto and Shepard Smith for 27 months.”

Rob Eshman of the atrocious Los Angeles Jewish Journal said that Beck’s expose of self-hating Jew and anti-Israel fanatic George Soros was “the verbal equivalent of a Der Sturmer cartoon.” Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, which spends far less time targeting radical Muslims who want to murder Jews than commentators who love Israel, condemned that same Beck vs. Soros episode as “completely inappropriate, offensive, and over the top.” The Jewish Funds for Justice, a far-left Jewish organization, ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal taking on Beck.

Let me say this: I stand with Glenn Beck, and against these (frequently misguided and self-destructive) Jews and their organizations. Glenn Beck is a friend of Israel. He is a friend of the Jewish people. And anyone who argues otherwise is either lying or ignorant.

Beck possesses a moral clarity with regard to the Jewish State that has no equivalent in the leftist Jewish community. He recognizes that Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians is not a conflict over land or over population exchange, but over fundamental values.

This week, Beck travelled to Israel, where he spoke eloquently about the Fogel family butchered in its sleep by Palestinian terrorists earlier this year. “There’s something bigger than politics here,” he stated. “I don’t think in my lifetime I’ve seen a more clear definition of evil that has been dismissed.” In fact, Beck dedicated several segments on his Fox News show to explicating the Fogel family slaughter, exposing the American people to the true face of moral monstrosity as embodied by the Palestinians who celebrate such murders.

In his speech to the Knesset, Beck explained that he understood the conflict between Israel and anti-Semites the world over: “I got my first death threat, because I came back and said the truth – the conflict is about the destruction of Israel and the end to the Western way of life …. What’s disturbing is that if a guy gets on television or the radio and says the truth, and that’s so unusual, then Israel and the Western way of life are in great danger.”

More impressive than his speech to Knesset is the fact that Beck does tell the truth to the American people about the Israel situation. Too many on the conservative side of the aisle – Israel supporters! – will not label the conflict in pure moral terms. They grant legitimacy to President Obama’s attempts to leverage Israel into concessions, or to the mad musings of Thomas Friedman, who believes that a few bucks can buy off Palestinian radicals. They pretend that if the conditions are made just right, then peace will be achieved.

Beck, on the other hand, sees the conflict as it is, in its stark contrast between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And he stands with the forces of light in that battle. “Where you go, I will go,” he told Knesset, quoting the Book of Ruth. “Where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people are my people. Your God is my God, and where you die I shall die.”

Israel has never had friends before like Glenn Beck and the religious conservative movement in America. Jews are afraid to embrace Beck because he is so overtly religious, so utterly unafraid of mentioning God in public or with regard to Israel. That is why Jews should embrace him. The Judeo-Christian notion of God is the unifying factor between America and Israel.

Beck sees the war, even though many Jews do not. Some Jews are too cosmopolitan for Beck – Jon Stewart, for example, doesn’t bear any great love for Israel, since that would presumably be “ethnocentric” and unprogressive. Some Jews are too parochial, like Eshman, thinking that Beck represents an old-school religion that will result in pogroms, or at the least, closed country clubs.

Those Jews are dead wrong. Beck is an ally, and a very real one. He represents millions of Americans who ally with Israel and the Jews. Jewish Americans ought to roll out the welcome mat to Beck. He’s certainly rolled out the red carpet for Israel.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Israel cabinet communique from PM Benjamin Netanyahu


Israel cabinet communique from PM Benjamin Netanyahu

At the weekly Cabinet meeting JULY 10, 2011

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks:

“Yesterday, a new state was born, South Sudan. I hereby announce that Israel recognizes the Republic of South Sudan. We wish it success. This is a peace-seeking country and we would be pleased to cooperate with it in order to ensure its development and its prosperity. Greetings to South Sudan.

Last week, we stopped the defiant fly-in against the State of Israel. We acted methodically and successfully in a variety of spheres – diplomacy, intelligence, public security, migration control and others, in order to frustrate this provocation. And indeed the provocation was foiled. The agents provocateurs who tried to enter the State of Israel, a considerable portion of them were stopped at their points of origin, some were stopped at Ben-Gurion International Airport and some, a minority, entered the State of Israel and were detained here.

I would like to thank our many friends around the world who helped us in this matter. I also thank Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, whom I asked to coordinate the effort in Israel and who did so very well. I also thank Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Interior Minister Eli Yishai and his people. Thanks, of course, to Israel Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino and the police, and to the security forces and the Population Authority personnel. I would also like to thank all of the Government officials who worked successfully on this issue.

I would also like to make it clear that Israel will continue to
frustrate provocations and attempts to break through our borders, whether by land, sea or air.

Today, the Cabinet will decide on the demarcation of Israel’s exclusive economic zone in the Mediterranean Sea. This boundary will delineate the area in which the state enjoys exclusive economic rights, including the right to exploit the sea’s natural resources. The area that we are talking about borders on Lebanon and Cyprus to the north.

The outline that Lebanon submitted to the UN is significantly further south than the line Israel is proposing. It also conflicts with the line that we have agreed upon with Cyprus and, what is more significant in my eyes, it conflicts with the line that Lebanon itself agreed upon with Cyprus in 2007. Our goal is to determine Israel’s position regarding its maritime border, in keeping with the principles of international maritime law.

2. Prime Minister Netanyahu briefed the Cabinet on his visit to Romania and the Israel-Bulgaria inter-government meeting, and noted that both countries are interesting in developing their economic, security, technological and agricultural relations with Israel. He noted that the State of Israel’s relations with various states in the region, including Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria, are moving forward in a variety of areas and added
that these countries’ common interests are creating a new axis in the region.

3. Science and Technology Minister Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz briefed the Cabinet on his recent meetings in Germany with leading scientists ˆ including Nobel laureates ˆ from around the world. He also discussed the Israeli-German scientific forum, half of whose 200 members are Israeli and half German, and noted the prestige and esteem that Israel receives in the scientific field.

4. Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch briefed the Cabinet on the foiling of the fly-in this past weekend and discussed the inter-ministerial coordination and cooperation on the issue.

… Regarding the demarcation of the northern maritime boundary of the State of Israel’s coastal waters, and its exclusive economic zone, the Cabinet decided as follows:

The northern maritime boundary of the State of Israel’s coastal waters, and its exclusive economic zone, in the Mediterranean Sea is determined according to published geographic coordinates. A statement to this effect will be delivered to the UN by the accepted channels. The Foreign Minister shall have authority regarding implementation of this decision.

PM Netanyahu Meets with Greek President Karolos Papoulias
(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Tuesday), 11.7.11, met with Greek President Karolos Papoulias and thanked him for Greece’s great help during the Carmel wildfire and in stopping the flotilla. The Prime Minister noted the deep friendship between Greece and Israel and added that bilateral economic and tourism cooperation should be strengthened and enhanced.

Regarding the flotilla, Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out that growth in the Gaza Strip stood at 25% and that all food items were entering the Strip. “Whoever wants to free Gaza must work to free it from the Hamas regime, which acts cruelly and harshly toward minorities ˆ and those who seek peace ˆ in the Strip,” he said.

Regarding the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he was ready to sit down with the Palestinians tomorrow morning and begin direct negotiations and expressed his regrets that they were refusing.
——————————————–

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Obama, his appointees and George Soros conspire to pervert US Constitution to Socialism

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=990

More White House Ties to Soros-Funded Organization

By Aaron Klein
The Jewish Press, July 8 2011

Still more White House officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, “progressive” U.S. Constitution.

This column previously reported that President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, maintained extensive ties to Soros’s funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a “progressive” consensus on what the U.S. Constitution “should” provide by the year 2020.

Now, it has emerged that Lisa Brown, Obama’s staff secretary, served as executive director of the Soros-funded American Constitution Society, ACS, a progressive legal organization that was behind the Constitution scheme.

Also, Holder has been closely tied to the ACS, serving on the group’s board of directors and even keynoting its 10th anniversary national convention earlier this month. In 2008, Holder also keynoted its convention. At that event, he reportedly urged young lawyers to get involved in the liberal legal network, saying America would soon be “run by progressives.”

In April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020,” which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year. The event was sponsored by Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama’s presidential transition team. Podesta’s center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the ACS, which has received more that $2.2 million from Soros’s Open Society since 2002.

Sunstein himself has been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a “useful” job in the farms or industries of the nation. According to Sunstein’s new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return. It also is granted power to act against “unfair competition” and monopolies in business.

All this and more is contained in Sunstein’s 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. In the work, Sunstein advanced the idea that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments