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.

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 (childrensrights.org).

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.

The US-Mexico Border / Anti-Trump Hysteria Story is Largely Nonsense

Michael Lumish

{Also published at Jews Down Under.}

Here is why.

There are nine US consulates in Mexico and one US embassy.

Anyone looking to emigrate into the United States from Mexico does not need to do so by crossing the border illegally. They can, instead, apply for access, resident status, and citizenship through normal legal channels.

The US consulates in Mexico include those in Ciudad Juárez, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, Matamoros, Merida, Monterrey, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo and Tijuana. The US embassy, naturally, is in Ciudad de Mexico.

Thus anyone who lives in Mexico who wishes to move into the United States can go through normal channels of application.

I recognize, of course, that this is not necessarily easy but, in truth, it should not be easy.  The United States has not only the right, but the obligation, to do what it can do to make sure that criminals and jihadis are not given carte-blanche access to American citizens or their children. As an American Jew, I resent the glib way in which "progressives" are perfectly happy in releasing theocratically-fascistic jihadis into a country that prides itself on being a haven for Jewish people.

Furthermore, I resent the way that American concerns over illegal immigrant violence is shrugged-off.

I feel reasonably certain that the family of recently murdered Kate Steinle would agree.

I have referred to this before but will do so again.

My father came through Ellis Island in the early 1920s in the arms of my grandmother, Sarah.

They fled the pogroms and ran from my father's birthplace in the town of Medzhybizh in the western Ukraine. Despite having relatives in Brooklyn, NY, they failed to gain visas into the United States and escaped to Argentina where my grandfather died.

Shortly thereafter the visas came through and my father and grandmother arrived in New York Harbor with nothing. They had nothing. My father even stayed at the Jewish Orphans Asylum in that borough for awhile.

But they did it legally and it worked and the family thrived.

In a certain kind of way, it is a classic American story.

This is the Great Twentieth-Century Immigrant American Story, so beloved by historians. My family was a poor immigrant family. My dad, Harry, ran in the streets of New York during the Depression and he once told me that he never met any adult who had not voted for Franklyn Roosevelt until he was into his twenties. He received a year of study at St. John's College at its original Bedford–Stuyvesant location in Brooklyn before drafted by the U.S. Army and dragged off to the central Pacific.

Kwajalein The Marshall Islands. Anawetok.

{Were it not for Harry Truman, Albert Einstein, and Julius Robert Oppenheimer, there is an excellent chance that I would not be here today.}

In any case, he was twenty-years-old, 135 pounds, and a corporal with a rifle slung over his shoulder. He ducked his head in fox-holes as Japanese snipers took potshots at the Americans from trees... knowing that they would die in the response. Like many old soldiers my father never really talked about the war and as far as I know, he never killed anybody in it... but they certainly tried to kill him.

When he came back home he finished his college education through the G.I. Bill of Rights and became a nice, middle-class accountant who moved into the suburbs while raising four kids... me being the youngest.

None of this was easy, but the system worked and it can still work for pretty much anyone from anywhere who wishes to honestly become a US citizen or simply a working resident.

Look at the current experience of Far East Asians or those from the Indian subcontinent. These are people that are exceeding both professionals of European descent, as well as Jews, in terms of income in this country. They are coming into the United States through regular legal channels and often do so carrying employment skills that help themselves, their families, and their newly adopted country.

The point, however, is that there is no good reason for Mexican nationals who wish to immigrate into the United States to merely show up at the border carrying babies. I am sorry, but that is against US law. If you break the law, as everyone knows, there is an excellent chance that you will be separated from other people, including your children, when they cart you off to prison or, in these circumstances, into a border detention facility.

In recent days, the Trump Administration - unlike the Obama Administration - put forth an executive order for the purpose of stopping that practice. Whether this will work out better or worse for the children themselves is open to debate.

It is often claimed that those seeking entrance into the United States are not so much economic migrants as they are asylum seekers. In some circumstances, this may very well be the case. There are any number of people under political persecution throughout Latin America that would much prefer to live outside of their home countries. Anyone in the Western Hemisphere fleeing political persecution should, in my opinion, be allowed to seek a safe-haven in the United States.

Presumably, however, the best way to do this is not through the breaking of the legal procedures of our country. The best way to become a US resident or citizen is through ordinary legal means. That is, introducing oneself into the country through breaking the law does not give your potential fellow citizens much faith in your intentions.

And it could get you separated from your kids.

I very much recommend against.

L.E.G.A.L.

L.E.G.A.L.

Michael Lumish

It is as if they do not understand the political implications of open borders. Open borders means the elimination of the international system of nation-states. The elimination of nation-states means at least three possibilities: anarchism, communism, or corporatism.

Anarchism would suggest an international series of loosely connected cooperatives.

Communism would suggest a single worldwide government. {Oh joy.}

Corporatism, in the manner of my usage, would suggest rule by corporations.

In any case, when people break the law and are caught they are often separated from their friends, family, and children. If a person does not wish for this to happen it might be better not to commit the crime.

But my feelings on this issue have much to do with my own family history. My father was born in the Ukraine, a town called Medzybush. They fled the pogroms of the early 1920s and although they had relatives in Brooklyn, failed to gain visas into the United States.

They went to Argentina where my grandfather died.

A year or so later the visas came thru and my father passed thru Ellis Island in the arms of my grandmother Sarah.

They had nothing.

She literally mopped floors at the Jewish Orphan Asylum where my father slept.

But they did it LEGALLY.

And it worked.

Shabbat Shalom

Who is the artist?

What is this about?

When? Where? What?

An Ethical Dilemma

Michael Lumish

I live in Oakland, California.

Pretty much everyone in Oakland, rich or poor, live cheek-by-jowl.

I have a sort-of unique Craftsman-style house that I am proud of and that turned out to be a good investment.

My next-door neighbor is probably the best next-door neighbor that I have ever had.

She is a nurse and has helped me in that capacity.

It turns out, however, that she also suffers from bronchitis or something along those lines.

What that means is that when we have a fire in our fireplace it causes stress on this woman.

So this is the basis of the dilemma.

This is my house. I have every right to have a fire in my wood-burning fireplace whenever I want so long as I am not in violation of local governmental fire warnings.

And the thing is, I like this person. We've been neighbors for seven years.

I am honestly not certain how to handle this. We purchased a quarter cord of wood heading into last winter and burned maybe a third over the following months.

Now the only thing that I can think of is that every time we want to have a fire, as we read aloud C.S. Lewis - I kid you not -  is to confirm that she is not home.

In any case, we are heading into summer so it will not be an immediate problem, but I need further convincing before someone can tell me that I cannot have a fire in my own damn fireplace.

I have been scratching my head over this for the past month and still do not have an answer.

For Gary Ford (1936 - 2017)

Shabbat Shalom

Michael Lumish

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

This week the fellahs, Michael Burd and Alan Freedman, begin their discussion with Christian Zionist William F Callahan who relates his feelings about the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem, and then hear from former politician and now commentator Einat Wilf who has some views on the Gaza violence.

They catch up with Nima Gholam Ali Pour in Malmo Sweden on the situation regarding the effects of mass immigration from the MJews, and then hear some good news stories from Israel with former Kiwi Michael Kuttner.

3 min Editorial:  Limmud Oz 2018

11  min William F Callahan, Christian Zionist

25 min Einat Wilf, on Gaza violence

51 min Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Swedish ,Malmo commentator anti-antisemitism and Islamic Immigration a serious problem

1 hr 13 Michael Kuttner, former Kiwi now Israeli commentator

"The Goop and Feathers Strategy"

Michael Lumish

{Also published at The Jewish Press and Jews Down Under.}

Islamists set fire to Israel
near the Gaza border (June 2018)

Those of us who follow the never-ending Long Arab and Muslim War against the Jews of the Middle East are familiar with the arson tactics used by contemporary Palestinian-Arab Islamist racists.

Therefore it is not surprising that the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Democratic Party and, thus, the Western media, itself, generally favor Arab and Muslim aggressors over the Jewish defenders within the very land of Jewish heritage and ancestry.

This alliance also includes significant percentages of western-left Jews who either do not care or who have swallowed the Palestinian Narrative of Perpetual Victimhood.

But the essential discussion today among Jews internationally is how to respond to what might be called the Arson Intifada.

Many on the Israeli Left, and the American Left, want to see a more "moderate" response by the Jewish people in Israel. Nonetheless, it eludes me just how much more "moderate" Israel can be as theocratically-driven Arabs burn the very crops that feed Gazan children and burn animals alive in nature preserves.

One of my well-meaning commenters suggested:

Fight fire with water, not live bullets.

He is, of course, referring to the jihadis killed when they sought to crash-the-gate and murder or kidnap Jewish civilians living in nearby communities and kibbutzim. One of the things that continues to amaze me is the complacency and understanding that so many of our friends on the progressive-left have for the Arab desire to murder Jews.

It's pretty astonishing, actually.

Arabs try to kill Jews on the very land of Jewish ancestry and well-meaning western "progressives" honestly believe that they have a right to do so... as a matter of "social justice." This is what slays me most of all. Much of the progressive-left in the United States genuinely believe that Arabs have every moral right to kill Jews or, at least, they understand the impulse.

What I would like, therefore, to recommend to Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF is the Goop and Feathers Strategy.

The border between Israel and the maniacs is about 35 miles long. As a Jewish American citizen living on this terrific expanse of land, thirty-five miles does not seem like a very long distance. I understand that Jewish resources are not as extensive as what Americans can conjure, but surely Israel can patrol the Gaza border with helicopters.

So, why not humiliate the bastards?

What would CNN say about splashing goop, feathers, and Fruit Loops onto these idiots with their
Swastika Nazi Bomb Kites? This is merely a pet idea that, of course, is never going to happen... sadly.

Nonetheless, those of us who honestly care about the well-being of the Jewish people should be creative.

Water extinguishes fire better than bullets. My commenter is right about that.

And bullets deter racist-arsonists better than does water.

But Goop and Feathers will make them look like morons and that, my friends, is priceless.

{I, actually, just want to see the video.}

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

This week on Nothing Left Michael Burd and Alan Freedman have cooked up the following.

They are going forth and kicking ass.

3 min Editorial: Julie Bishop and Palestinian payments

11 min Vic Alhadeff, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies on SWF

25 min Lawrence Money and Gary Mallin, former Age journalists

51 min Daniel Luria, Ateret Cohanim on 60 Minutes segment

1 hr 13 min Simon Plosker, Honest Reporting on Gaza violence

1 hr 31 min Arnold Roth in Jerusalem on ex-IDF soldier ‘Rebecca’

Democratic Party Anti-Jewish Trends

Michael Lumish

The Democratic Party and the progressive-left is becoming increasingly hostile toward the nation-state of the Jewish people.

This has been coming for decades.

If you look at this 2018 poll from the Pew Research Center you will see that currently, about 79 percent of Republicans favor Israel, while the great majority of Democrats do not. Only 27 percent of Democrats favor the Jews in the Middle East versus their racist, misogynistic, theocratic Islamist enemies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, if not the Palestinian Authority.

And we might keep in mind that many those same people are not just hostile toward Israel - for "social justice" reasons, no less - but toward the United States, as well.



In a recent Facebook comment, I referenced the fact that "it is definitely true that Republicans are more supportive of Israel than are Democrats. It's not even close." And I used the Pew Research Center image above as significant evidence of that fact.

Someone who I take to be an intelligent person responded with this:

Do you realize how 'incendiary' this is!!

The idea [which Hadassah follows and AIPAC follows] is to be bipartisan.

And at this time in Jewish history, when there is such a division and almost a tear amongst the Jewish population, how utterly DUMB and counterproductive to dwell on it rather than mend fences. The word 'divisive' doesn't cut it. It is smug and moronic for Friedman to write this; he might as well just go whole hog up Trump's rear end. ...And by the way, I don't actually think it's true! The people who were at the Times Square 'afterparty' after the Celebrate Israel parade - they were not Republicans! Yes, they are firm believers and supporters of Israel, but they were the Tel Aviv crowd, the music lovers, the hip-hop liberal generation. If surveys were done there... wow, that would have been fantastic on who voted for Trump in that crowd. Would have been way less than u think.

This is my response:

Sandy, I believe that I understand your concerns and I agree with Dershowitz that it is preferable that pro-Jewish / pro-Israel support in the US continue to be bipartisan. But we cannot afford to avoid the truth.

And the truth is that the progressive-left and the Democratic Party has betrayed not only their Jewish constituency but their own alleged values in the process.

I am one of those who have left the Democratic Party due to its acceptance of hostility toward Israel within their ranks.

My stance is that we must not allow the Democratic Party to take us for granted... as they have Black people.

The Democrats need to understand that we Jews have political options that do not necessarily include donating to their coffers.

At the same time, I respect those of us (and our non-Jewish friends) who work within the party to stem a terrible anti-Israel / anti-Jewish trend within that party.

I wish you the very best, but Democratic Party trends are not in our favor.

White Supremacist Bullshit

Michael Lumish

Essentially, "white supremacism" in the US today is a political ghost.

What saddens me the most, I think, is the failure of the American Left - the children of Martin Luther King, Jr. - to accept their own success.

The US, today, is entirely different from when Martin Luther King stood on the Mall in Washington, DC, in 1963.

Instead of embracing ethnic equality, we seem to be agitating ethnic resentments for partisan political reasons or reasons having to do with whatever consolation that comes from personal virtue signaling.

This social-political trend is not coming from the political right-wing so much as it is coming from the racialized American Left.

I come out of the American Left, but the US Left is doing itself and the country a terrible disservice by continuing to agitate racial issues for political purposes.

It is pure poison.