Friday, August 17, 2018

What the conflict is about

Sar Shalom

An underlying issue in the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is what is the fundamental issue at stake. It is underlying because there is an assumption in the western intelligentsia that there is a parcel of land that two sides want and that the conflict is about how to allocate it. Following this logic, Israel maintains some degree of control over all of the land, at a minimum entry in and out, while the Palestinians do not. Therefore, by this reasoning, Israel's actions of relinquishing control or not show Israel's willingness to compromise, whereas the Palestinians, who have no such control to relinquish, are incapable of actions by which to judge them, and thus can only be judged by their words.

A frequent subject of Israeli hasbara is to emphasize Israel's adherence to the Law of War standards. However, if the Palestinian grievance is only their lack of a state and Israel could obviate the use of force, whether adhering to the Law of War in doing so or not, by just fulfilling that reasonable grievance, we will never gain international sympathy. In order to help Israel's international standing, we must attack the "just want a state" narrative. We need to convince people that the real issue underlying the conflict is that the Zionists abrogated the Pact of Umar (Pact) and that the Palestinian national movement (PNM) will accept nothing less than the removal of all Jews who refuse to abide by the Pact. Note, I am not saying that we need to just say that the issue is Palestinian rejectionism, we need to convince others that that is so, a larger task.

A start in doing so would be to pose the question of what would the PNM do if all they wanted was a state of their own and what would they do if they wanted an end to Jewish self-determination? Proponents of the just want a state doctrine would say that PNM declarations in western languages that they recognize Israel is all that is needed to show that they do not seek an end to Jewish self-determination. However, all that is needed to induce those declarations is a strategic decision to court support from those for whom ending Jewish self-determination is unacceptable. As such, declarations in western languages are compatible with both hypotheses and thus evidence for neither.

On the other hand, as Einat Wilf frequently states, peoples who just want a state, when presented with an opportunity, will say "yes." They will do so no matter how short the offer is of what they want, with the example of the Yishuv accepting the Peel Commission recommendation. As such, the PNM's refusal of the offers made so far contradicts the notion that they "just want a state." However, if the goal of ending Jewish self-determination, then they will not do anything that would undermine western support for eradicating self-determining Jews, without giving them the ability to do so without western support. The presence of any Palestinian state recognized by Israel, unless augmented by a right of return, would create exactly that situation. Lo and behold, they are conforming to that.

On a separate line of evidence, I have written before that our condition for making a deal should be a consistently reinforced declaration that:
  • The Jews are a people
  • The Jewish people are deeply connected to the land of Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular
  • There is no place for the Pact of Umar in today's world
The issue is, how would the "just want a state" and "eradicate Jewish self-determination" hypotheses affect the PNM's willingness to do so? If the PNM just wants a state, then anything that would not detract from that would not be an objection. As such, a hypothetical State of Palestine that recognizes that the Jews are a people who are deeply connected to Israel and Jerusalem would be no less a State of Palestine than one that does not. The same goes for renouncing the Pact of Umar. On the other hand, if the goal is eradication of Jewish self-determination, then one concern would be aligning that objective with "justice." In that vein, denying a people of self-determination is an injustice as is denying that people its homeland. As Einat Wilf has noted, this is not a problem if the Jews are only a religion and not a people because then ending Jewish self-determination would deny any people of self-determination. Similarly, insisting that the Jewish attachment to Jerusalem is a fiction to justify stealing Jerusalem from the Palestinians is a lie to justify inverting the injustice of denying Jews their homeland into a justice of "restoring" Jerusalem to her "rightful" Palestinian owners. In that light, "just want a state" would not explain the PNM's refusal to make the three-fold declaration, but "eradicate Jewish self-determination" does.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

This week Michael Burd and Alan Freedman begin with some comments regarding the disgraceful treatment meted out to Andrew Bolt by some of our communal organisations, and then catch up with Daniel Mandel of the Zionist Organisation of America for the inside information on events over there.

The guys speak with Juliet Moses, a leader of the Jewish community in New Zealand on events that have been happening there recently, and then hear from Toby Greene, a British-Israeli analyst who has co-authored an essay on the difficult relationship between the EU and Israel.

And of course, Isi Leibler joins the fellahs from Jerusalem with his take on the week’s events.

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

2 min Editorial: Andrew Bolt’s treatment by communal orgs

14 min Daniel Mandel, Zionist Organisation of America

51 min Juliet Moses, in New Zealand

1 hr 9       Toby Greene, BICOM analyst on EU-Israel relations

1 hr 31     Isi Leibler in Jerusalem, on Nation-State bill

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website

Contact Nothing Left at:

Saturday, August 11, 2018

On the need for American Jewish parity between Democrats and Republicans

Michael Lumish

{Also published at Jews Down Under, the Elder of Ziyon and The Jewish Press.}

One of the vital questions facing US diaspora Jewry is how to respond to the rise of American-Left antisemitic anti-Zionism.

The prominent faces of that movement include anyone who looks toward Louis Farrakhan as a positive figure in American cultural and political life. These include low hanging fruit like Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and potential California State Assemblyperson, Maria Estrada... not to mention Keith Ellison, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters.

Given how much the Jewish community worked for the Civil Rights Movement throughout the 1950s and 1960s -- up to and including sacrificing some of their children -- it is a terrible shame that so many of our political enemies come from the very communities that we embraced and sought to empower throughout the twentieth-century

Nonetheless, according to 2018 Pew polling, a mere 27 percent of Democrats sympathize with Israel while 79 percent of Republicans favor the Jewish minority in the Middle East over their Arab aggressors.

This is Alan Dershowitz's worst nightmare.

The guy devoted his life to supporting civil liberties, Israel, and the Democratic Party -- not necessarily in that order -- but now he's fast becoming a relic in the minds of very many Democrats, particularly among the younger snowflakey regressive set who very much dislike his ongoing support for his own people.

American Jews, and our friends, mainly respond in two ways to the rising disdain towards us within the Democratic Party. The prominent inclination is to work within. My response was to bow out. From Jimmy Carter to the first term of Barack Obama, I was a devoted man of the Left and a Democrat. But when I saw, ten years ago, now, that the Democratic Party was making a home of itself for antisemitic anti-Zionism I began to speak up. And, not surprisingly, when I spoke up I was also slapped down.

I have lost real-life friends over the fact that I refuse to stand with a political party or a political movement that supports the racist effort to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) the lone, sole Jewish State.

Fred Maroun, who I have discussed before in these pages, is an interesting guy and a good friend to Israel. Like many critics of Arab political tendencies, he is of Lebanese Christian descent. Fred disagrees with me entirely. He argues, not unreasonably, that left-leaning American Jews who care about Israel need to stay and fight within the Democratic Party.

Dershowitz always argued that we should maintain a bi-partisan consensus in support of Israel and who among us would disagree with that? Of course, we want the support of all of our neighbors and friends throughout the country. But the polling data clearly shows, and from a million bits of anecdotal information, we can see that the Democratic Party is abandoning our fellow Jews in the Middle East.

27 percent are in sympathy with them.

27 percent.

That is a very difficult number for me to swallow.

I find it unreasonable and counterproductive for Jewish Americans to support the Democratic Party in figures above the 70th percentile while the Democratic Party supports Jewish well-being in numbers below the 30th percentile. Thus my argument is that we should not allow ourselves to be taken for granted and should make a get-away. Through supporting the cause of Palestinian-Arab nationalism they are throwing the Jewish people to the wolves, so who needs them?

If we can get Jewish participation in the Democratic Party down to something close to parity with the Republican Party than they can no longer take us for granted.

In the meantime, I salute our friends -- Jewish and otherwise -- who are working within the Democratic Party to push against the rising antisemitic anti-Zionist tide flowing over them. I am not opposed to pro-Jewish Jews working for our interests among Democrats.

I simply do not want us taken for granted by people who obviously do not care about what happens to our brothers and sisters in Israel.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Slapping around American workers of European descent is electoral stupidity

Michael Lumish

Candace Owens
Source: Essence Magazine, 4-25-18
I keep trying to explain to my friends on the Left that the more they smack around American workers of European descent the less likely those folks are to vote for their candidates.

And, needless to say, the more they slap around non-Euro-Americans who self-identify as conservative, such as Candace Owens, the less likely those folks are to vote for their candidates.

I like Candace Owens. I think that she is brilliant and beautiful and gutsy as hell. And I do not need to agree with her on every particular aspect of her political philosophy to recognize a Black woman strong enough to stand up against progressive-left racism.

If you want to know how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, just take a gander into her little "Basket of Deplorables."

Within it you will find the missing votes, including many non-Euro votes.

Now, you might argue that we don't want "the Deplorables," anyway. And what that really means is that you believe yourself morally superior to those heinous pig-farmers who live in "Red States" and "fly-over country."

Many coastal Democrats think of themselves as more sophisticated and compassionate than those horrible people over there, on the wrong side of the tracks, with too many white children, many of whom voted for Donald Trump.

Well, I did not vote for Donald Trump, but the more screechingly high-pitched the American-Left becomes -- as they fling around charges of racism like it's confetti -- the more likely that they will further divide the United States and bring about Trump Term Two.

As always, it is the hypocrisy that kills.

"Progressives" like to think of themselves as anti-racist, but this is false.

The American-Left is up to its neck in three types of racism or bigotry. These are:

1) anti-white racism

2) antisemitic anti-Zionism


3) the pitying of "people of color" to such an extent that they feel some sort-of nineteenth-century imperial sense of "white man's burden"... Lloyd.

They have not the slightest idea that they embody racism even as they claim to oppose it.

They have not the slightest idea that they embody racism even as they dump Martin Luther King, Jr.'s admonishment not to judge people according to skin color or other immutable attributes, but according to intelligence and compassion and character.

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min  Editorial: the ECAJ and AIJAC attack on AJA

4 min  Lauren Southern clip, in Lakemba

20 min Gideon Rozner, Inst of Public Affairs

51 min Dr Tanveer Ahmed, Muslim psychiatrist

1 hr 9  Raphael Ahren, Times of Israel

1 hr 30 Isi Leibler in Jerusalem, on Nation-State bill

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website

Contact Nothing Left at:

Saturday, August 4, 2018

The Great Halvah Epiphany

Michael Lumish

This is Halvah
When I was a little boy growing up in Kingston, New York, and Trumbull, Connecticut, halvah was a mystery.

I did not understand the stuff. I did not like it. It made no sense to me. And I could not even begin to fathom my father's joy in this weird sticky semi-sweet sesame concoction whatever-it-is.

But he grew up in Brooklyn, back when there were still actual Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn beyond Crown Heights.

My mom, Rita, was from the Bronx.

They both grew up with halvah.

I was raised in the shadow of New York City in the 1970s and my father not only worked in the Empire State Building -- crunching numbers in the textile industry -- but actually came through Ellis Island in the arms of my grandmother, Sarah, in the 1920s. This was before they dragged him to Kwajalein and Anawetok and the Marshall Islands as a skinny corporal with a rifle over his shoulder. And every time that my father brought halvah home, and actually enjoyed it, I was mystified. But now I may understand why.

I was eating halvah wrong and, perhaps, if you hate the stuff, you are, too. It is an acquired taste because sesame candy is unusual to the Western palate, but what many of us fail to understand is that you should not eat halvah like its a Hershey bar. See, that is the thing. This is not like American candy. Good halvah is crystalline. It is not like a friggin' Mars bar or a Snickers.

It is very sweet and very rich and very delicious. But it requires nibbles, not chomps.

A Facebook friend of mine, Rachel Adler, gave me her husband David Hamby's recipe and it is delicious.

The only thing that I would change is the addition of pistachios and a little stirred honey.

 David's Halvah

One 12 ounce jar tahini.

2 cups sugar

1/2 cup water

lemon zest

Scraped contents of one vanilla bean or some pure vanilla extract.

Put sugar and water into a saucepan. Stir until it reaches 250. If you don't have a thermometer then let boil and wait 2 full minutes.

It must get hot enough or it won't work.

In the meantime have ready another bowl with tahini and vanilla and lemon. Mix it with mixer. When syrup in saucepan is ready, drizzle syrup from saucepan directly into bowl with mixer on low to medium.

This is key: do it little by little, but within 30 seconds or it will start to set. Use a spatula to put into 9 by 9 or rectangular glass baking pan that is very lightly buttered (just a very light film and you can use pam but wipe some off ).

Let set for 3 to 4 hours. You can put in fridge to make faster.
There was a time that I cooked for a living. I wore the toque and the checked pants and reduced veal stock to demi-glace in preparation for the sauté station in the evenings at the old Black Goose Grill in Darien, Connecticut.

But halvah definitely never came onto the menu.

It is a shame because it is really just crystalline sesame and honey.

I also added chopped pistachios because the flavor profiles work and I like a bit of crunch and it is traditional.

For me, personally, it is a nibble from the past and it reminds me of my dad.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

What Comes After Trump


Israel hating, Sharia loving Socialists.....and all that entails.

Be very afraid.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

The Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

This week Michael Burd and Alan Freedman begin with an interview with Salim Mansur, a Muslim commentator who is critical of Islam, and then hear (in two parts) from American author Edwin Black speaking about recent events in the United Nations.

Prof Aharon Klieman is a retired academic from the Tel Aviv University and an expert in political science with some very clear and articulate views on the relationship between Israel, the PA and Gaza, and Isi Leibler join the guys from Jerusalem with his assessment of President Trump to date.

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min Editorial:  Israel’s new Basic Law

9 min Alan Dershowitz  on Basic law

13 min Dr.Salim Mansur, Muslim critic of Islam

38 min Edwin Black part 1, on the UN

50 min Edwin Black part 2, on the UN

1 hr 4 Prof Aharon Klieman, on Israel and Gaza

1 hr 31 Isi Leibler in Jerusalem, on President Trump

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website

Contact Nothing Left at:

Sunday, July 29, 2018

A message to the people of Iran

Sar Shalom

Stand With Us, if you won’t, who the heck will?

Michael Lumish

{Published at Jews Down Under and the Elder of Ziyon.}

StandWithUs (SWU) is among the best pro-Israel organizations and resources available to the diaspora Jewish community.

I hope that I will be excused for my bias - given that SWU stood with me during the Reem's Cafe litigation in Oakland - but these guys tread a razor's edge with steady feet and sometimes a little acknowledgment of the obvious is necessary.

If Mort Klein's Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has gained a reputation as right-wing and the Anti-Defamation League under Jonathan Greenblatt has earned a reputation for lappiness with the Democratic Party, SWU seems to represent the steady center. It apparently has the resources and grassroots organic vision to push itself forward in the dialogue and for that I am grateful.

Michael Dickinson, SWU Executive Director of the Jerusalem office, has a blog post at the Times of Israel entitled, The 17-year-old terrorist. It is a response to the recent murderous knife-attack in Adam, Israel, killing one and sending two other men into the hospital.  He writes:
Mohammad Tareq Yousef plunged his knife into multiple victims, leaving behind a bloody trail before one of those injured managed to stop and kill him. His brutal attack left a beautiful young family fatherless. But in Palestinian society, a teenage terrorist is not something that is especially shocking. On the contrary, extremism is deliberately saturated into Palestinian Authority education, popular culture and media. 
His article hits the key points concerning the relentless nature of official Palestinian-Arab indoctrination of hatred toward Jews. The PA, as we all know, spreads violently-inclined antisemitic anti-Zionist venom throughout their systems of education, television, arts, sports, even to the extent of naming at least one hospital after a Jew Killer. This venom spreads throughout the world.

Dickinson writes:
A Palestinian can be born into this world at the “Alshaheed (Martyr) Thabet Thabet” hospital in Tulkarm named for the leader of the violent Palestinian Tanzim group. Conversely, Israeli hospitals are quick to treat Palestinian patients, including at times of conflict. Yet rather than celebrate this, official PA newspapers often cover wild accusations of Israelis who allegedly harvest organs or conduct medical experiments on Palestinians — claims aimed to dehumanize Israel and Israelis.
It just goes on and on and on and on.

And even as the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah and ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood and, you know, Turkey, defame the Jewish people through defaming the Jewish state - and thereby incite violence toward us internationally - the West screams from the bloody rafters about how the Jews in the Middle East are failing in their humanity toward the hostile Arab majority.

Dickinson reminds us that throughout the Hamas-controlled Strip, and PA-controlled areas, schools are named after Palestinian-Arab Jew Killers. The PA broadcasts television shows for toddlers that feature Mickey Mouse-like characters that yearn for Jewish blood.
Indeed, music is a key tool for spreading the PA’s anti-Israel message. In the past, the PA Ministry of Culture sponsored an art conference focusing on “Palestinian Folklore and Arts, Palestine in Musical Memory,” which glorified violence against Israelis through music. 
International sports, of course, is a tremendous venue wherein Palestinian-Arabs seek to use their influence as Uber-Victims over other Arab states and guilt-ridden Europeans to marginalize and defame our brothers and sisters in Israel.

And, ultimately, that is the point.

When Tunisia refuses to allow Liel Levitan, a 7-year old Israeli girl, to participate in a world chess championship for young people or when some pussitudinous Iranian judoka refuses to face a Jewish opponent - who probably would have kicked his ass, anyway -  they are reinforcing antisemitic anti-Zionism. They are inclining well-meaning Westerners to think that maybe they have a point and, therefore, that violence against Jews from New York City to Paris to Jerusalem might be justified.

Why should well-meaning non-Jewish Westerners stand with us when we so often refuse to stand with ourselves? Western-progressives - in their soft, middle-class, safe spaces - always want to believe that there are two sides to every story. They honestly believe - within living memory of the Holocaust and despite being outnumbered by a perpetually hostile Arab-Muslim majority throughout the Middle East - that the Jewish minority in that part of the world are the aggressors.

They are dangerously mistaken.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

It is a very special week as this show marks the 200th episode of Nothing Left. Michael Burd and Alan Freedman started in April 2014 and during that time have brought you approx 300 guests from the conservative side of politics, with a few from the other side who did agree to speak with them.

This week Nothing Left speaks with commentators Rowan Dean from the Outsiders program on Sky News, and columnist Andrew Bolt of the Herald-Sun who also presents his Bolt Report on the same network.

The fellahs chat with Hayley and David Southwick (together) on their Israel advocacy work and hear from Isi Leibler in Jerusalem, and in between they reminisce about some of the guests and highlights over the past 4yrs.

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min Editorial:  Nothing Left’s 200th episode

12 min Rowan Dean, from Outsiders on Sky News

33 min Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun and Bolt Report

1 hr 6 Hayley and David Southwick, on Israel advocacy

1 hr 23 Isi Leibler in Jerusalem, on the perils facing UK Jewry

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website

Contact Nothing Left at:

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Jews Should Walk Away

Michael Lumish 

{Also published at Jews Down Under.}

There is a small social-media movement known as #walkaway that is annoying the Washington Post.

In a piece by Abby Ohlheiser awkwardly entitled, "The #WalkAway meme is what happens when everything is viral and nothing matters," the Post laments:

"The pro-Trump Internet is really good at convincing its audience that going viral signals popular opinion, that its movement is and always will be #winning. In this case, #WalkAway is the answer to the possibility of a Blue Wave in the 2018 midterms. It doesn’t need to be true to be effective. After all, the hashtag has now become an article in The Washington Post."

{I do not know about you, but I find all these #hashtags annoying.}

In truth, the foundation of the Walk Away Movement - to the extent that you can even call it a "movement" - is the idea that decent Democrats should leave the party not out of allegiance toward Donald Trump or conservatism or the Republican Party, but because the party simply no longer represents their interests. Some people, like Ohlheiser, see it as an opportunistic ploy for the Republicans.

I see the Walk Away Movement as an expression of disgust.

The #WalkAway Facebook page describes itself as follows:
This group is for people who can no longer support the tyrannical groupthink of the "Politically Correct" Left.

It is NOT a group that supports the Right, the GOP, or Trump.

There's a difference. A rejection of the Left should not imply an embrace of the Right; that's a false binary that gets us nowhere. 
After about twenty-five years I walked away from the Democratic Party and the American-Left because I could no longer bare the hypocrisy. This is because I absolutely refuse to support any political party, or any political movement, that demands - with great self-righteous indignation - that they stand for anti-racism and anti-sexism and liberalism, when, in truth, they stand for none of those things.

One of the great friends of Israel and the Movement for Jewish Freedom (i.e., Zionism) is Fred Maroun. Maroun is a Canadian of Lebanese-Christian descent and a regular contributor to discussions within the Times of Israel and many places throughout pro-Jewish venues. He will also be contributing in panel discussions, along with Métis indigenous rights activist, Ryan Bellerose, and Professor of Philosophy, Andrew Pessin, at the 3rd Annual Israel Today Community Symposium on Sunday, August 12 at Temple Shalom in Dallas, Texas.

Fred disagrees with me concerning the Jewish aspect to the Walk Away Movement. He writes:
Those who use the #WalkAway tag should realize they're doing no favors to Israel, and they're putting their partisanship above Zionism.

Zionists who are Democrats should stay in the Democratic Party and fight tooth and nail for Israel within that party. Abandoning the party to antisemites is a terribly bad idea.

What do you think would happen? Whether anyone likes it or not, the Democrats will eventually be back power. That's just the way it works. If the party has only a weak rump of Zionists left by then, Israel will pay the price. No doubt about it.

So if you're an American Democrat Zionist, don't even think about walking away. Stay and fight for your values. If you must vote Republican sometimes, just keep it quiet. But don't abandon the party to the anti-Semitic sharks.

Do it for Israel, not for me.
Maroun's point is one that requires serious consideration, although I disagree with him.

My stance is that Jewish people and friends of Israel do not want the Democratic Party to take us for granted.

The truth is - much to my ongoing horror and disgust - the Democratic Party can kick around Jews from now until Yom Kippur and we will still pound on their doors to give them our money, our votes, and our support.

And this is why I do not believe that either Fred Maroun, or Alan Dershowitz, for that matter, have much to worry about.

Jewish Americans, including myself, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by around 80 percent.

Jewish Americans, not including myself, voted for Barack Obama in 2012 by around 70 percent. And they did so despite the fact that Obama honestly believed as President of the US that he had every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live within the very land of our ancestry.

No one needs to concern themselves with American Jews abandoning the Democratic Party. Given the malicious and childish reaction to the Trump Administration throughout both the grassroots and the mainstream media, social pressure will tamp down any meaningful defection of Jews.

American Jews are blinkered, for good historical reasons, by partisan loyalty. Look at these numbers. According to 2018 Pew Research polling only 27 percent of Democrats sympathize with Israel over their tormentors.


27 percent.

Yet they will still get our support.

What a shame.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Sacha Baron Cohen, while you're at it, could you ...

Sar Shalom

Anyone paying attention this past week knows about Sacha Baron Cohen's latest fictional character interacting with real people in Who is America? Among his exploits was convincing Congressmen and gun lobbyists to go on the record advocating for providing assault rifles to toddlers.

Without getting into the merits of Cohen's lampooning gun aficionados, there's one target I would particularly like to see hit by this antic, Linda Sarsour. The interview would start with discussion of the recent Gaza protests. It would its way up to the Palestinians having the right to march on the settlements, such as Kisufim and Nirim. It would continue with what should be done about the settlers. She should be goaded with statements about how those settlers have stolen Palestinian land leading to her agreeing that the settlers deserve to be killed. The more brutal the method she can be induced to endorse, the better.

Sacha, are you up to it?

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Linda Sarsour and the Rejection of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Algemeiner.}

On a recent MSNBC news discussion show, Democratic Party anti-Zionist activist, Linda Sarsour claimed:
"Dr. Martin Luther King warned us about people like Chuck Schumer. He said it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan and white citizen counselors who were the obstacles towards justice. It was people calling for ‘civility' and people that were telling us when to protest and at what time and how to protest."
I find it fascinating that "progressives" like Linda Sarsour have the chutzpah to evoke Martin Luther King, Jr. when the very last thing that MLK stood for is Sarsour's brand of ideological racism.

The primary admonition of Dr. King was to judge people according to their individual character rather than immutable characteristics, like ethnicity. This was the fundamental message of his "I Have a Dream" speech on the National Mall on August 28, 1963. How someone who represents the American-left could not understand this requires explanation.

Anti-racism was the essential message of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States following World War II.

Yet Sarsour insists, “If you’re in a movement and you’re not following a woman of color, you’re in the wrong movement.”

This notion contradicts the teachings of King, and of the entire movement for social justice from Abolitionism to Abbie Hoffman, because it is racist on its face. What Sarsour is saying, in no uncertain terms, is that the quality of one's character is directly determined by one's ethnicity and gender.

This is turning the ideals of the Civil Rights Movement inside-out and backwards.

Sarsour also claimed, as the Elder of Ziyon noted in a piece entitled, The amazing color-changing Linda Sarsour (September 4, 2017):
When I wasn't wearing hijab I was just an ordinary white girl from New York City. 
Wearing hijab made you know that I was a Muslim. 
Generally, when we speak of a person's "color" we are talking about ethnicity, not ideology, religious or otherwise.

As long ago as the late 1970s it was primarily backward-thinking racists and knuckleheads who considered "race" as indicative of character. This is because the United States has come a long way in an exceedingly short period of time via ethnic relations.

It is sad that so long after 1968, and the assassination of Dr. King, that many of his spiritual-political heirs cannot stand the idea that the United States is actually among the least racist, least prejudicial, countries in the world.

The great irony in Sarsour's misthinking on the subject of King's legacy is that she wholeheartedly agrees with the racist notion, as put forth by the Women's March on Washington in 2017, that they needed to "follow women of color."

The cognitive dissonance is almost too painful to cognify.

The fundamental point of King's legacy, and, indeed, of the Civil Rights Movement prior to the rise of mid-late 1960s Black Nationalism, was that we should not judge people according to their skin color or ethnicity or gender. To do so is both racist and illiberal.

Sadly, Linda Sarsour and her allies are both.

If you want to understand how it is that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the last US national election understand the significance of politically-correct overreach. Within it you will find many liberal workers of European descent who do not appreciate being castigated as racist for no other reason than being "white."

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

An opportunity, if we grab it, and then get lucky

Sar Shalom

Within the past week, the Democratic nominee for Congress in New York's 14th District, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, gave an interview in which she excoriated Israel and then admitted that she is not an expert on geopolitics. While it still would have been preferable to keep Crowley, her understated admission about her lack of knowledge about the Middle East exposes a possible opening through which to educate her. Trying to educate her may have no effect, but we know what the effect of not acting will be, and successfully educating her would create a prominent Kasim Hafeez.

The first thing to note in how to educate her is that the standard practice of talking about Israel's contributions in technology, gay rights, or international relief are not going to cut. They simply do not answer the charge that Israel is arbitrarily denying the Palestinians basic life provisions, rather they argue that other aspects of Israel's actions should outweigh that. What's needed is to directly attack the notion that Israel is that sort of oppressor. With that objective, Ocasio-Cortes should be offered a tour of COGAT where she would be able to see what provisions Israel makes to provide the Palestinians with water and relief supplies. After that, she should get a tour of the IDF's MAG headquarters to learn about the IDF's rules of engagement and the role of the MAGs in micromanaging the soldiers' targeting of Palestinian terrorists.

A final stop on her tour would be to meet Meira Ovadia, who at one point at least, if not currently, worked for Palestinian Media Watch. She could tell Ms. Ocasio-Cortes how she grew up in Egypt believing all the tales Ocasio-Cortes does about Israel's evil, because that what was how everyone indoctrinated her. However, her family was Jewish. Even though her family kept that fact so secret that she did not know until vigilantes uncovered their secret. The fact that she adopted their attitudes towards Israel and that her family was secretive about being Jewish was no protection, they could not remain in Egypt and made plans to leave for Israel three days after. After high school in Israel, she start to work at PMW where she was saturated with Palestinian news and entertainment shows. It was only through her PMW-coworkers that she learned how Israel's supposed persecution of the Palestinians for no purpose, as depicted PA TV broadcasts about a 13 year old shot by the IDF, left out the fact that this Palestinian "victim" had stabbed someone just before being shot. Through stories like this, she could show Ocasio-Cortes how the narrative of the persecuting Israeli is a pack of lies.

This full package might fail to change Ocasio-Cortes' approach. However, the lack of cost if it does not, and the potential benefit if it does, suggest it worth trying.

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

For the first hour this week, Michael Burd and Alan Freedman focus on the plight of the Jewish community in the UK as it is facing a rise in antisemitism and a hostile Labour Party – Michael is overseas and was recently in London, and he sat down with English blogger Richard Millet in London to get his views on these issues.

Then the fellahs speak with academic Denis MacEoin concerning an article written by an English bishop, and move on to discuss Jeremy Corbyn.

In the second hour we hear from Israeli commando Daniel K from the Duvdevan Unit of the IDF (the TV series Fauda was based on this unit) and then catch up with Tamar Yonah from Israel News Talk Radio who runs a program that discusses issues in a similar way to Nothing Left.

Michael and Alan also have something to say about the ABC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict and what the Australian Jewish Association did in response.

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min Editorial:  UK Labour Party antisemitism

8 min Michael speaks to Richard Millet in London on the situation facing UK Jewry

23 min Denis MacEoin part 1, on Bishop Tomlin

34 min Denis MacEoin part 2, on UK Labour

50 min Daniel K, Israeli commando from Duvdevan Unit {FAUDA}

1 hr 12 Discussion on ABC bias, David Adler on Outsiders

1 hr 20 Tamar Yonah, Israel News Talk Radio

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website

Contact Nothing Left at:

Saturday, July 14, 2018

A fight for the soul of the Democratic Party

Liz Wagner

A fight for the soul of the Democratic Party is underway, with the far left minority coalition poised to make it the party of socialists.

Jews have been tolerated in this coalition up till now, but our presence has been contingent on our cooperation in the undoing of Israel.

Had Jews fought ferociously, as we should have, against the lies that form the basis of the anti-Israel position of the far left—for example, that Israel is “white,” colonial, expansionist, apartheid and guilty by association with American imperial power—we would have been booted from the coalition long ago.

We maintained limited rights within the coalition through weak resistance to, and sadly for many the active embrace of, every one of those lies. Jews like Greenblatt remain desperate and deluded enough to think they can earn us a place at the new power table that is forming. But there is no place for Jews there.

We failed to fight, and now the Palestinians and Islamists are displacing us.

The only thing that might stop what is happening is for Jews to mount our own campaign of resistance, both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, Greenblatt reflects the state of Jewish leadership on the left.

Completely co-opted, with little if any understanding of what is happening from a Jewish point of view that isn’t diluted to meaninglessness.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Adnan Oktar and the Kittens of Peace

Michael Lumish

Turkish "televangelist" Adnan Oktar on March 31, 2010.
(CC-BY-SA-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 Harun Yahya International/Wikipedia)
In a piece written by the Associated Press and Michael Bachner, the Times of Israel tells us:
Turkish police on Wednesday detained a controversial Islamic “televangelist” who has an anti-Semitic past, and were seeking hundreds of people linked to him for alleged crimes including forming a criminal gang, fraud, blackmail and sexual abuse.

Istanbul police said warrants were issued against Adnan Oktar and 234 of his followers and that financial crime units were carrying out operations in Istanbul and four other cities to detain them.
This story is interesting to me, personally, because I briefly rubbed shoulders with this group in the not too distant past.

I was in contact with one of their executives concerning peace prospects between Palestinian-Arabs and the State of the Jews. There was even some possibility that I might fly to Istanbul to visit with them as a pro-Israel writer and blogger as part of a larger outreach program.

I found Adnan Oktar and his smart harem interesting because they seemed to be pushing against the boundaries of Islam within the increasingly Islamist country of Turkey.

In my brief discussions with them, and through my readings of some of their writers, the very last thing that I saw was antisemitism.

On the contrary, Oktar and his people seemed to be genuinely going out of their way to be fair in their stance on the Long Arab War Against the Jews of the Middle East. If anything - although I understand that his opinion has evolved over time - the organization leaned in favor of Israel and seemed to be genuinely interested in opening a reasonable dialogue with anyone interested in a peaceful solution.

Oktar reminded me a bit of a Turkish "Hugh Hefner," although more distinguished and handsome than Hugh. But like Hefner, he fancied himself a cultural critic and a man with the financial and intellectual resources to push back against the stifling, prevailing norms of his culture. Unlike Hefner, he is actually a prolific writer, although I cannot attest to the quality of his insights, some of which are said to be anti-Darwinian.

What I have wondered for a number of years, now, however, is how a guy like this can maintain a small sexually-oriented, semi-political empire and pseudo-cult that insists upon its Islamic nature under an increasingly orthodox Islamist regime like that of Erdogan's?

I guess now I have my answer.

He could not.

In any case, it seems to me that if you want to understand the ideological drift of Turkey then keeping an eye on the fate of Oktar and his people would offer a clue.

The Rabbanut and the Waqf

Sar Shalom

I'll take it as a given that the readers are all familiar with the agreement that was struck between an Israeli government committee and representatives of Reform and Conservative Judaism for a mixed prayer area at the Western Wall only for the agreement to be nixed when chareidi parties threatened to bring down the government if it went into effect. Without getting into the merits of the deal, why are the chareidim so opposed to the deal? Would the area that would have been allocated for mixed prayer have in any way have reduced the ability of those who insist on separate-gender prayer space to pray at the Wall? Obviously this is not the case. The reason is that the chareidim view prayer at the Wall in a manner contrary to halacha as a defilement of the sacred space. They did not describe those who pray in mixed gatherings as trespassing "with their filthy feet," but the non-Orthodox Jews who thought they had an agreement would have justification to read that into them.

Similar to mixed prayer being restricted at the Wall, the Waqf goes apoplectic about Jews simply setting foot on the Temple Mount, let alone praying. This raises the question about why the Waqf, and the rest of the Palestinian national movement (PNM) is so against Jews at their most sacred site. No one can seriously claim that Jews walking around the site, even in substantially larger numbers than at present, impinges on Muslims praying at the Dome of the Rock or Al Aqsa. Same with Jews praying on the mountain. So why does the PNM oppose Jews' presence on the mountain so vehemently, referring that presence as defiling the site with their "filthy feet?" The simplest explanation is that Jews ascending and praying on the mount would remove one more manner in which they lord Islam's superiority of Judaism. The thing is that the preeners who notice and excoriate that behavior in the chareidi establishment regarding non-Orthodox Judaism will circle the wagons to assert that the Waqf has a legitimate interest in doing so with all Jews.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

I am happy to see that Dr. Andrew Pessin is talking with Michael Burd and Alan Freedman over at Nothing Left.

Some of you may recall that Pessin was the Connecticut College professor that found himself in trouble for the crime of comparing Hamas to "rabid dogs," or something quite along those lines, on social media.

I compared and contrasted his story to that of Rabab Abdulhadi at San Francisco State University, who openly despises "Zionists" and who gets paid good money from the people of California to do so, in a piece entitled, A Tale of Two Professors in the Age of Obama.

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min Editorial: Communal orgs lack of recognition for AJA

9 min Bernie Finn, state Liberal MP for Western metropolitan region

39 min Dr David Adler, Aust Jewish Association

51 min Senator Fraser Anning, on his senate questions on PA funding

1 hr 34 min Prof Andrew Pessin, anti-Zionism on university campuses

1 hr 42 min Prager U clip on deliberately deceptive media in USA

Monday, July 9, 2018

Michael Lumish

I find it astonishing that almost everyone that I know seems to believe that the Jewish people are under some ethical or political obligation to recognize the "Palestinians."

This may be the first time in world history in which a people have been pressured by the international community to recognize and negotiate with an alleged ethnicity that came into existence within living memory and whose stated purpose is to wipe out the self-defense and self-determination of another people.

It is amazing and horrific.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

4 min Editorial: non-reporting of Gaza violence

11 min Matthew M Hausman, attorney and writer

33 min Benjamin Weinthal, Washington correspondent for J Post

Monday, July 2, 2018

The Happiness of the Israeli Defense Forces

Michael Lumish

It was only a few years ago that I came across the following video of what appear to be tank-men in the IDF singing the Pharrell Williams song "Happy."

I am charmed by this bit because it demonstrates a joyous indomitability of spirit that I can never know because I do not live under those circumstances. At the same time, the tune is sort-of doofy. It is fluffy, syrupy, sweetness, but very upbeat and fun and I love it and, yet, the joy of the tune seems entirely discordant with men in a tank.

The Jewish people in the Middle East are a people under siege. For thirteen hundred years, from the time of Muhammad until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the indigenous Jews lived as second and third-class non-citizens under the boot of Arab and Muslim imperial rule. And, now, upon securing their freedom - and thus, in some measure, the freedom of all Jewish people everywhere - they are set upon by constant warfare.

Decade after decade, from the early twentieth-century until the early twentieth-first.

There are three hundred to four hundred million Arabs in the Middle East and about six million Jews. The Arab leadership, both political and religious, make no secret of their delicious genocidal ambitions. They scream malice from the hillsides on a daily basis and, yet, are still funded by morally self-righteous western-progressives who do not even believe, despite three thousand years of historical evidence, that the Jewish people are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.

So, those young guys in the video above are Israeli Jews who are forced into the military by their Arab and European enemies because otherwise their entire civilization will, yet again, get knocked out. That could very easily mean the death of their own families and children.

So, my question is, how does the weird and wonderful video emerge from Israeli Jewish culture?

Furthermore, how is it possible that the Jerusalem Post can report that according to the UN annual World Happiness Report that Israel is ranked eleventh in the world in terms of "happiness"?

How is this possible?

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Korematsu II

Sar Shalom

During World War II, the US government claimed that simply being of Japanese ancestry constituted a threat to national security. In 1944, the Supreme Court the "Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of" restrictions against one specific group.

In justifying his decision yesterday, Justice Roberts engaged in a craven act of sophistry by arguing that Korematsu had “nothing to do” with the travel ban case. Roberts justified that statement by stating that internment was based “solely and explicitly on the basis of race.” The issue is, why did the Court find it legitimate to discriminate based solely and explicitly on the basis of race? The answer is that the Court accepted the government's claim that there was a national security necessity to do so.

Now that Justice Roberts describes Korematsu as being a racial decision, it must mean that he rejects the national security argument underlying it. If he rejects Roosevelt's claim of national security, what basis does he have for deferring to Trump's claim? Justice [J.] Roberts is no Justice [O.] Roberts.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Democratic Gamble: Calling People Nazis, the other N-Word

Empress Trudy

This is what's coming across to me as I'm inundated with the hate-filled, hysterical hatred oozing from today's Democrats.

Calling Republicans Nazis is not only detestable and inaccurate, but is a sure way for Democrats to NEVER regain voters lost in the last election unless they capture a new generation of self-loathing individuals who believe the way to salvation is to accept the moniker put on them by these hate mongers.

Calling Republicans Nazis is as disgusting as using the other N-word that has resulted in official actions from firing to demands for apology, yet the Nazi N-word is thrown about by Democrats with impunity. This is a double standard that hurts people and goes back to a time of human depravity and intolerance and genocide that still impacts millions around the world, especially with the resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide. Calling our President and-or his supporters the Nazi N-word is NOT OK, but Democrats do it absentmindedly, falsely and in an effort to marginalize Republicans, to make them appear valueless, worthy of hatred and any maltreatment Democrats can come up with.

Substituting idiotic and transparent euphemisms doesn't work either. For instance, sometimes Democrats switch it up and call Republicans and the President "racist" instead of a Nazi. Just as bad and just as hateful on their part, much like the current "acceptable" anti-Semitism that asserts that it's not anti-Semitism, it's anti-Zionism. Just like we know or should know racism is discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, and claiming anti-any race speech isn't racism is racist.

With all the allegations of Nazism attempting to sanitize the actual history of Nazism and simultaneously inspire hatred and anger towards Republicans, Democrats have really painted themselves into a corner. They're left having to support all things Democrat and dismiss all things Republican ignoring that Obama's presidency wasn't the greatest for millions of Americans and contributed to Hillary's failure.

Calling all dissenters the N-word is the Democrat strategy developed after the Obama Administration strategy revealed by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber relying on LACK OF TRANSPARENCY and THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER as the way to get Obamacare passed stopped working.

Except for the hopelessly ignorant, Obama's excellence was never as excellent as Obama proclaimed nor did it persuade Americans that Hillary Clinton's Obama-plus was at all desirable for our nation. Still, the Democrats are working overtime with Obama to scrub his entire record, not merely the deleted tapes that surfaced this week regarding two of his Administration's scandals the Iran deal and the IRS, but his whole record.

For those who didn't deify Obama, Obama's less than truthful strategy wasn't only evident from these missing tapes or from his knowledge and participation in the illegal servers used by Clinton. After all, in 2013, even the societal cooperation and complicity in perpetuating Obama's years of lying about the Affordable Care Act, (the law was passed in 2010 and it wasn't until 2013 after his re-election that what the law really meant for consumers came to light), got then President Obama earning the status of telling the LIE OF THE YEAR in 2013.

Benghazi, the Iran Deal, the IRS scandal, the fast and furious gun-running scandal that resulted in Eric Holder's contempt of Congress status though he faced neither fine nor jail for his lawbreaking, Iran, all underplayed and now being rewritten to glorify Obama in contrast to demonizing Trump. The slashing of unemployment and food stamps, grotesquely forgiven as we were expected to applaud Michelle Obama's vegetable garden, the return to unfriendly tax policies regarding medical expenses above 10 percent rather than 7.5 percent of income in order to have a tax deduction, the return to increased payroll taxes in grotesque comparison to public employee perks and benefits. All these were Obama, yet the scrubbing of his record continues, because in order to make Trump look worse than the N-word he is labeled, knowing that isn't enough, Democrats must also lie about Obama's performance.

Even when it came to Obama's less than meaningful support for Israel, with decision-making including one of his last official acts to throw Israel under the bus at a UN vote and the Iran deal, Obama's bias was forgiven, though it was easily traceable to his long-term anti-Semitic indoctrination by his "preacher" Jeremiah Wright. Though Obama fans were complicit in suppressing his mugging for a photo op with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan until after his tenure, few could be surprised that such a photo existed.

But when eight years of a White House that had contempt for voters and used that Democratic strategy of lack of transparency and the stupidity of the American voter wasn't working in the 2016 election for Democrats, we started hearing about Republican Nazis.

Clinton and Obama were holdouts for using the label, instead trying to devalue Trump by calling him crazy and unfit with a glaring insensitivity to slurs designed to devalue the mentally ill. But after the Democrat defeat, Obama jumped on the Nazi N-word bandwagon warning that complacency gave rise to Nazi Germany…Without specifically naming Trump, still assuming voters are stupid and didn't get it I suppose.

But ironically the Democrat hate playbook is eerily Nazi-like these days. For all self-righteous "stupid" voters, whose fuel is anger based in fallacy, whose platform is tolerance based in discrimination, whose goals are compassion based in chaos, here's a wake-up call…Your party is intolerant and racist, your party is utilizing propaganda and media to marginalize segments of your country's population of citizens, your party is scapegoating people through their language and their conduct. And you are picking up the mantle of hateful Democratic rhetoric and using it to justify barbaric policies of hatred. At least that's the message I'm getting from the Democratic Party and its followers.

Democrats should despise today's rhetoric about Nazis because it grossly distorts history and sanitizes the genocide of WWII and because it's a politically-motivated untruthful ploy that renders the Democratic Party a threat to democracy that if supported will bring its flavor of intolerance, divisiveness, prejudice, bias and hatred into government. But mostly, Democrats should dump the Nazi N-word because it has painted them into a corner where few sensible voters could vote for a Democrat.

Go look up the National Archives, the Holocaust Museum and other sources available to people who can read so you can better understand why we should fear you and your reliance on anger and hatred towards your critics, invoking the use of the N-word, Nazi.

Here's your Nazi history checklist. Nazis began with demonizing citizen Jews, a dishonest campaign of defining Jews as "them," as opposed to the German "us." Having set Jews up as the enemy, a campaign of permitting the abuse of Jews, devaluing the humanity of Jews, and blaming every societal hardship on the Jews came easily. Then, secure in their governmental office, well that's when the dehumanizing verbiage, tolerance of maltreatment of and finally the legal policy of extermination of a population became full-blown Nazi Germany. That was Nazism.

Democrats, here's why you're a worry to me. Your offensive and inaccurate language as a means of demonizing non-Democrat voters…Perpetuating the losing campaign language of Hillary Clinton and her deplorables, her six Steves, her labels of crazy and racist, we get a frustrated conglomerate of public people comfortably calling our President and his supporters the N-word, Nazis and as recently as 6/22/2018, ad-men like MSNBC's Donny Deutsch calling people who vote for Trump Nazis.

And don't discount the ad men, because if you go back to your National Archives, you'll see the important role propaganda played in garnering support for atrocities against Jews in Nazi Germany under the leadership of Goebbels. Facebook and Google's manipulations and selective weeding out of the news you read would make any propagandist proud.

Jews were scapegoated and blamed for the ills of Germany's society in Nazi times. A group of citizens singled out as the cause for economic challenges in Germany. This is where the anti-white male rhetoric that has been put forth as "acceptable" racism/genderism should create a hypocrisy attack among Democrats. To achieve tolerance we must be racist against white males is not only impossible, because that is racism and therefore is not tolerance but is injuring a segment of our population based on nothing more than skin color…In other words, you who do this are abusers and racists.

It doesn't matter why Democrats believe their racism is OK or how they seek to redefine racism in order to justify their racism, their racism is an embarrassment. Listening to Hillary Clinton joke about the "six Steves," or deplorables were jokes only haters could appreciate. Read about the Democratic National Committee's determination not to hire white males or to listen to the garbled hatred against white male from every quarter is racism. To claim it's NOT racism is the WORST kind of racism, the societally embraced and excused racism.

Just like in Nazi Germany, before the Nazis were actually entrenched in their power, it became acceptable to devalue, mistreat, take away jobs and even commit crimes against Jews, after all, they were less than, they were marginalized, they were not to be considered.

Democrats beware, you are perpetrators. The very fact that this week there was more propaganda about Melania Trump's coat than the specific and publicized plan by Peter Fonda encouraging the kidnap, imprisonment, and rape by pedophiles of the President's 12-year-old son should sicken and startle you, unless you're aware of the propaganda Goebbels playbook.

After uttering his dark vision for America, Peter Fonda's tepid apology excusing himself because what he watched on TV indicated that this is what was happening to migrants (which ironically would support separating children from the "pedophile adults" he apparently saw) was considered good enough should have produced outcry, but not surprisingly it didn't, after all he's a Democrat and no dissent is possible. Even when Pat Dussault picked up the hate mantle and threatened Donald Trump Jr.'s four year old daughter Chloe with the promise that "we're" coming for you too, Democrats barely blinked an eye.

On the Holocaust Museum website are commonly asked questions. One was: What happened in Nazi Germany if people refused to participate in atrocities? The site answers: "Germans who refused to participate in atrocities were generally not punished, but risked peer, social, and sometimes professional exclusion or disadvantage."

This is another Democrat method today. People are afraid of being shut down, ridiculed and ostracized (or worse) if they are not Democratic Party loyalists. Campuses are afraid not to bend to the wishes of groups shutting down conservative speakers even as they entertain Democratic party-liners feeding the continued stream of hatred that is the Democratic Party today.

But don't forget what finally happened in Nazi Germany after years of the propaganda, scapegoating and excusing and then encouraging crime against the sub-human enemies of the true Germans, the passage of the Nuremberg laws. This is where the Democrats are headed with their unconscionable, inaccurate and dangerous rhetoric against citizen segments of America who disagree with them and once they're in office making laws out of their hatred of today, America will face the dark, pessimistic hate-filled Democratic platform of today with the power of law behind it.

Children's Health is Jeopardized When Democrats Omit the Word "Illegal" in the Migrant Story

Empress Trudy

Every migrant story is a story of a compulsion or desire to pick yourself up from the familiar and take a chance on a new place. The choice to migrate illegally can be prompted by external or internal factors, varying circumstances for different individuals.

Grouping all illegal immigrants into a bucket of victimhood, or nobility, or any other gross generality is not only absurd and reflects a preconceived prejudicial idea about an entire group of people, but dangerously threatens the lives of children, who in this country, the country they have come to, it has long been accepted and recognized that children's separation from parents is often the result of parental conduct and government intervention.

In the United States, as of 2015, almost 700,000 children spent time in US foster care (

In the United States, as of 2016, there are FIVE MILLION children in the US with parents who are incarcerated.

In the United States, as of 2015 Child Maltreatment Report from the Children’s Bureau ( published in January 2017) an increase in child abuse referrals from 3.6 million to 4 million.

Parental circumstances, internal or external contribute to these separations between parent and child in the United States. As a society, we in the US recognize the necessity of sometimes separating parents and children when parents are ensnared in circumstances where government has stepped into their lives for law-breaking. Yet, there is no Democrat outrage to step in, step up, and object to such separations. In fact it is Democrats who are often the first to support such laws to protect US citizen children.

Yet, Democrats are spouting generalizations and advocating old-time dangerous concepts of "family" to the variety of circumstances that are bringing illegal migrants into our country, advocating that we ignore the diverse realities that bring illegal migrants in from impatience with immigration process to economic challenges to the desire to leave their country for a variety of personal reasons.

As part of this prejudice of grouping all illegal migrants in the same pot, disregarding the diversity of individuals and motivations that brought them here, Democrats are also ignoring the reason we have laws in our country that result in parent-child separation often based on the complexity of human conduct where it is deemed that children's best interests are achieved through such separation.

Instead, US Democrats are choosing to give a "pass" to all illegal migrants exposing a bias and prejudgment about the individuals making up this group of illegal migrants that can only jeopardize children.

The current backwardness of prejudicial assumptions and presumptions by Democrats upon which their alleged pro-family illegal migrant arguments follow illustrates the imaginary non-reality based thinking of all prejudice and jeopardizes children for whom they are advocating by keeping those children outside the system in our country designed to (albeit often failing at, but still allegedly motivated to) protect the best interests of the child.

It is remarkable that Democrats are prejudicially over-generalizing about a population of people who often have nothing more in common than the fact that they broke the US immigration law. Such backwards thinking jeopardizes all children and threatens to undo the generations of casualties that resulted in efforts to eradicate the vicious harm from suffered by child labor, child abuse, child neglect and sometimes does so by separating "families."

The overgeneralization that every illegal migrant is here with the pathetic experience of oppression in their own country by its government, fleeing in the night the persecution by its government is an incredible body of assumptions that not only assume every illegal immigrant the same, not only assumes that every parent who brings their child with them as they break the law is a devoted and loving parent, or even that every "parent" is a child's parent, not only assumes that every individual is facing some governmental horror, chaos or violence in their own country, but that every parent is a good actor.

This is the kind of backwards thinking, that families are automatically safe havens that fostered unspeakable harm in our country for generations as law enforcement ignored the conduct of bad family actors from assault, to rape, to neglect, that occurred in "homes" as "family affairs," giving "families" a pass and failing to enforce laws of assault and battery and rape that were already on the books for other circumstances "outside" family that might have prevented continuing harm if they'd been enforced when it came to "families."

The horrendous risk the Democrats are advocating based on prejudice and prejudgment disrespects the sacrifices and progress of this country going back to the case of Mary Ellen Wilson, in 1874, which relied on laws preventing cruelty to animals to remove the child from her abusive foster parent home, and was the beginning of governments recognizing that not all families are safe havens. Marital rape was not recognized as a crime until the mid-1970s. 911 was not a recognized resource for people until 1968.

Blanket admission of illegal immigrants and giving them a legal pass assumes that those coming in don't have divorces where children are kidnapped, assumes that the children they have with them are theirs, assumes that unlike the United States where we're told that one in five have mental illness that this is not the case in these illegal migrants' country of origin, assumes that substance abuse problems, which millions of people suffer from is not a problem in these families. Obviously ridiculous as most prejudice is.

A consideration that illegal migrants are diverse people, individuals entering the US for a variety of reasons, willing to break the law for a variety of reasons and bringing children with them for a variety reasons, is not only the best means of avoiding prejudicial generalizations about an entire population, eg illegal migrants, but is the best way to prevent giving permission to bad actors to continue their bad behavior here by enforcing the laws, beginning with the illegal entry law.

Just like it was fought for in America, enforcement of laws, creation of laws was often the beginning of saving a family from someone whose substance abuse or mental illness first brought government's attention to the "family." It is often these seemingly unrelated or lesser crimes that attract law enforcement attention that sometimes rescues a "family" suffering in the privacy of their home. Removing this protection from illegal migrants is prejudicial and dangerous.

Breaking the law is an opportunity for law enforcement to prevent the loopholes that have historically threatened children from being kidnapped by others or their parents, prevented all kinds of child neglect and abuse that come to light upon scrutiny of an individual in connection with breaking the law.

Automatically presuming good will, good motivations, rational thinking on the part of every law-breaking illegal migrant and removing law enforcement scrutiny for law-breaking is just as dangerous to children as leaving them in the old-time homes where officers saw the wreckage of family crisis and did nothing thereby exposing "families" to the ongoing risks of familial actions that jeopardized their physical and emotional health.

Realistically, there are too many illegal migrants to understand the details of any given family, but equally realistically it is dangerous for children and families to have their new government assume that all is well and take a completely hands-off approach to these families' circumstances.

What we can do is use the standards we use here in their country of choice. Here, lawbreaking puts an onus on the lawbreaker in the form of fines, paperwork, inconveniences of probation, stigma and often family separations, temporary or permanent, in order for the lawbreaker to "prove" him or herself to regain their former status.

This applies to the high-schooler experimenting with drugs and to the non-custodial parent kidnapping a child in a divorce. This is what we do and it isn't always fair, and it doesn't always work, and it places a lifetime barrier to employment, financial aid for higher education among other penalties for the lawbreaker whether he or she took a plea deal because he couldn't afford representation, whether he or she was innocent, or any other instance.

The misplaced "humanity" of placing all illegal immigrants in some idealized pot, ignoring that they broke the law, and giving a pass on not only that initial law-breaking but any subsequent law-breaking in the form of false IDs, lying to authorities about their identities, failure to pay taxes, driving without licenses, is no kindness, it creates a society of "other," at the very least isolating illegal migrants from fully participating in the society they came to and living by its laws.

Illegal entry is a crime, having it on their record might limit the illegal migrant's opportunities in this country as it does for all law-breaking citizens, but integrating illegal migrants into their new country requires that they be fully integrated into our society and that starts with the laws of this country.