A Little Clarity on Some Big Questions

Robert Royal: Many of our social problems – notoriously including easy abortion – stem from the breakdown of the family, which became supercharged with the advent of the sexual revolution.

The Pew Research Center, a reliable source on American attitudes about religion, found in 2019 that 43 percent of American Catholics were “unaware” of Church teaching about Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. Twenty-two percent said they knew, but didn’t believe it. Only 28 percent both knew and believed the teaching. And this, as we’re often hearing these days, about what Vatican II called the “source and summit” of Christian life. (Lumen Gentium 11) No wonder that on many other matters, Catholics – even educated and publicly visible Catholics – also display a stunning casualness and ignorance about the Faith.

Take abortion. A senator from my own state of Virginia, Tim Kaine, wrote recently:

a decision by U.S. bishops to elevate issues of human sexuality, however important, above all others seems contrary to the Gospel. No reading of the life of Jesus would suggest these issues as his primary, or even secondary, concern. His towering message is about love of neighbor as oneself with a special focus on the poor, sick, hungry, marginalized.

Kaine spent time in Honduras as a young man with a Jesuit mission, so he can’t be entirely faulted (as many other Catholic politicians can be) for thinking that Jesus’ concern for others only means voting for ever-larger government spending on social “programs.” But Kaine can be tasked – again like many others – for not knowing what he’s talking about.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW CHART: U.S. Catholics 2019 – The Real Presence

The bishops have for decades been in virtual lockstep with Democrats on immigration, poverty, climate, etc. They are preparing their document on “Eucharistic Coherence” not because of general concern over sexual issues (about which more below) but because figures like President Biden and Speaker Pelosi have shifted from “personally opposed” to outright promotion, funding, and facilitating of abortion. That public scandal cannot go unchecked.

But Jesus never spoke about abortion, you say. Well, that’s because it was unthinkable among Jews of his day. Early Christians did speak explicitly against the practice. Further, the problem with abortion is not that it’s “sexual”; it’s that it’s murderous. In opposing abortion, the Church is affirming Catholic teaching. But it’s also reminding a society that has become coarse about sex that it’s committing violence on an immense scale against the innocent, which even human reason sees is an abomination.

Trying to group abortion with sexual questions is simple misdirection.

I often hear from readers that people like me are engaging in partisan politics, that we hammer away at Democrats about abortion, but don’t criticize Republicans like former Attorney General William Barr for supporting the death penalty.

The cases are simply not equivalent. The Church has long recognized the death penalty as a licit punishment that, after fair legal procedures, may be imposed on offenders. That such systems sometimes make mistakes on capital cases and others does not invalidate the general point. If you need evidence, Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette have produced the definitive work: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment.

It’s true that recent popes have questioned the wisdom of using the death penalty. Pope Francis has even altered the Catechism to read that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” (CCC 2267)

But this is his personal view. In the Old Testament, God Himself prescribes death for certain crimes. And a long series of the pope’s predecessors would have argued the opposite: holding people responsible for grave acts is, in a way, an affirmation of their human dignity as moral actors.

And there’s also the practical question: Affluent societies may be able to afford, say, life sentences for murderers. Poorer societies, in circumstances of instability and disorder, may not.

Calling the death penalty “inadmissible,” rather than unambiguously immoral, is a tacit sign that even the pope knows he’s on thin moral ice and wants enough ambiguity that he can’t be accused of changing the teaching of past popes.

To indict someone likely William Barr on such flimsy grounds and to equate the few executions that occur in America with the massive offense against human life that is abortion in America today is, for me and many others, quite a stretch.

As to the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the marginalized, which is often the plea of pro-abortion politicians today – implying that their spending on social programs (that often have unintended bad consequences) is what Jesus was focused on in the Gospels – let’s try instead to think like Catholics.

Catholic social teaching begins from the very useful understanding that the family, not the isolated individual, is the basis of society. (Catechism 1605) Many of our social problems stem from the breakdown of the family, which became supercharged with the advent of the sexual revolution.

Brad Wilcox, a professor at the University of Virginia, has studied how fathers – especially black fathers – make a difference to children and society at large. In a recent article, he presented this:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: Figure 3. College and Prison Black Men & Women, By Family Structure

The numbers are not the only thing of importance in such matters, to be sure. But they show that family structure plays a large role – in several respects much larger than alleged “racism” – in rates of criminality, incarcerations, and economic inequalities. Though intact families help whites as well, of course, some studies even show a greater positive benefit for blacks living in two-parent households than for whites.

It’s no good to claim that the breakdown of the black family is the result of racism. In 1940 (when Jim Crow was riding high), about 18 percent of black children were born out of wedlock; today it’s over 70 percent. Racism has been weakening in American society even as family breakdown has been increasing for all races.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: Nonmarital Birth Rates in the United States, 1940-2014

Look at the chart above. Pace Tim Kaine et al., the bishops aren’t putting our political class on the spot over sex, or for ignoring and often excusing self-destructive behavior. But as the bishops try to defend the most vulnerable among us, maybe they should.


Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., and currently serves as the St. John Henry Newman Visiting Chair in Catholic Studies at Thomas More College. His most recent books are Columbus and the Crisis of the West and A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century.

The Re-Settlement By The Indigenous Jews of Israel

Archaeology and recorded history, including the Torah, evidence Jewish indigenous status. You cannot settle your own land or occupy your own land, and those who use those words do so to deny all history and law in the service of antisemitism.

Islamists and their Leftist allies in the West, have a hard time understanding and accepting that Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. They cannot understand or they do not want to, that, according to international law, the Jews have full rights to all of the land of Israel. They cannot deny that the modern misleading notion of the “Palestinian people” was born after 1967 in reaction to the Jews getting back all of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (aka ‘West Bank’). When Jordan occupied that territory there was no talk of Palestine.

In 1922, the League of Nations recognized the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. The Romans re-named it Palestine in the year 136 C.E. and the name was changed to Israel upon independence from British control in 1948. The League enacted the ‘Mandate for Palestine’, which designated all of Palestine, (including that part of historical Judea and Samaria, known to some as the ‘West Bank’), to be reconstituted as the Jewish Homeland.

This fact has never changed and is established in international law. Even though Israel has many times tried to divide part of this historical Jewish land to give a portion to the Arabs, the Arabs never accepted any offer because they are unwilling to recognize any portion as a Jewish homeland.

Despite the West’s naive wish for there to be a “two-state” solution, there has never been any indication from the Arabs that they have departed from their position that they want a Palestinian Arab state in place of Israel not alongside of Israel. The Jews are neither occupiers nor colonialists, but owners, historically and legally to the land of Israel

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, appointed by Britain in 1921, will never be accused of loving Jews. In fact, during the Second World War, over 70 years ago the Mufti, who was Yasser Arafat’s uncle, met with Adolph Hitler in Berlin to discuss the ‘final solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’.

According to https://middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com/2014/12/ , in 1937, the Mufti testified before the Peel Commission, which was looking into the causes of unrest between Jews and Arabs in what was then known as ‘Palestine.’ The Mufti made a stunning admission: Most of the land that belonged to the Jews, which we are constantly accused of ‘stealing,’ had actually been purchased by the Jews from the Arabs. And the Arabs were what we lawyers call willing sellers.

The said website shows that the Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).

Accordingly the Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater and friend of Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

That website also notes: “The Mufti also testified that the land was not bought by ‘forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition of land’”. That kind of ruling behavior was the action of the Ottoman rulers and not the Jews. Also the Mufti admitted that any evictions done were by absentee landlords who chose to sell ‘land over the heads of their tenants, who then were forcibly evicted’, and that the majority of these tenants were not Palestinians but Lebanese.”

As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.”

“The Mufti’ is said to have ensured he would have no opposition by systematically having killed Palestinians from rival clans who were discussing cooperation with the Jews.

As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin al-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.”

In 1948, after Jordan occupied Jerusalem, King Abdullah I of Jordan officially removed al-Husseini from the post, banning him from entering Jerusalem

It is a fact that Jordan occupied the ‘West Bank’ (Judea and Samaria) and east Jerusalem after the Arab attempt in 1948 to crush the nascent Jewish state of Israel. Nothing much was done with it and then in 1967 the Arabs attacked Israel with the idea of “driving the Jews into the sea” – but in fact, the Jews successfully drove the Arabs back and ended up with the land that Jordan had been occupying since 1948.

Upon its capture by the Arab Legion, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City was destroyed and its residents expelled. Fifty-eight synagogues–some hundreds of years old–were destroyed, their contents looted and desecrated. The Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews had been burying their dead for over 2500 years, was ransacked; graves were desecrated; thousands of tombstones were smashed and used as building material, paving stones or for latrines in Arab Legion army camps. The Intercontinental Hotel was built on top of the cemetery and graves were demolished to make way for a highway to the hotel. The Western Wall became a slum area.

In 1950, Jordan illegally annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the ‘West Bank’. Jordan declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain…”

Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it. Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the ‘West Bank’, not Jerusalem.

In direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements, Jordan did not permit Jews access to their holy sites or to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

The Jews who moved to Judea and Samaria after the return of that area to Israeli sovereignty after the 1967 War, are often called “settlers” but how can you “settle” an area that was historically yours already? They were not “settling” so much as “re-settling” but the latter term would be too truthful for the enemies of Israel.

We cannot too often state the obvious: Jews are the indigenous people of the land the Romans called Palestine.

The term “occupier” seems to me to be a term for those who have no legal rights of ownership. It seems that people seek by force (or terrorism) to get something politically that they cannot get by law. The Arabs have tried, in several wars, to eject the Jews from their land; they now try by terrorism and alliances with leftists to get what they could not get by war. The most important legal point is this: The San Remo declaration is the legal foundation that negates the idea that the Jews were illegal occupiers or settlers.

The Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 and the U.N. vote on the Partition Plan on November 29, 1947 are the two main international political events that led to Israel’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948.

Dan Adler points out that there is:

“a misconception that the Balfour Declaration was just a letter of intent, and not a binding legal document. The reason for this misconception … is that most people are not aware of the San Remo Conference which took place on April 19, 1920, lasted for seven days and published its resolutions on April 25, 1920. These seven days laid the political foundation for the creation of the 22 Arab League States and the one and only Jewish State of Israel.

The full text of the Balfour Declaration became an integral part of the San Remo resolution and the British Mandate for Palestine, thereby transforming it from a letter of intent into a legally-binding foundational document under international law.

Did the Arabs oppose the creation of a Jewish State at San Remo? The answer is a resounding NO!”

Why You Should Know San Remo

Adler states that the Arabs at that time were focused on the creation of independent Arab states and had no objection to the establishment of a tiny Jewish state in Palestine. This was formalized in the Weizmann-Feisal agreement which led to the League of Nations recognizing the Land of Israel (then Palestine) as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Before the San Remo conference there did not exist a single Arab independent nation state. Almost all of the 22 Arab states that exist today became nation states either as a direct result of the San Remo conference, or much later. Therefore, the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state is exactly equal or greater to the legitimacy of any of such Arab nation states as Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon..

Indeed, World-War I is considered the dawn of most modern nation-states.

After the war, parts of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires were divided up into nation-states at the same time as both the Jews and the Arabs sought the legitimacy of self-determination and independence to the League of Nations. stepped forward and presented their claims for independence to the League of Nations.

In those days of the decline of the empires mentioned above, the Jewish Legion fought alongside the Arabs and British to capture the east bank of the Jordan river from the Ottomans in 1918.

The Arabs in Palestine at the time saw themselves apan-Arabists who were part of Syria. There was no notion of an independent “Palestinian people” and no separate identity beyond pan-Arabism.

Emir Faisal, who was seen as the representative of the entire Arab people in 1918, fully supported the claim of the Jewish people to their historic homeland, while he had his eyes on something bigger: Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt (none of which were independent before WW I). In fact, very few of today’s Arab nation-states existed before World-War I.

The Arabs of Palestine in the post World War 1 period, viewed themselves as Syrian and as pan-Arabs. They had no interest in independence. They were not focused on a conflict of Jews against Palestinian Arabs within that small territory, but rather what it originally was: returning a small patch of Ottoman empire land to its rightful owners, the Jewish people, while dividing 99% of the land among the Arabs.

The results of the Paris(1918) and San Remo (1920) conferences of the League of Nations was the Mandate for Palestine, granted to the British government for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel:

Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

Dore Gold has noted that there are two key legal points in the above statement which establish the Jewish people as the indigenous people of Palestine, and shatter the “Zionists are Colonialists” fallacy.

  1. It recognizes that the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” is a pre-existing right (“grounds for“), not a newly-granted right.
  2. It calls for “reconstituting” their national home, not building a new national home from scratch.

It is essential that we protect the truth that formal recognition of Israel as the Jewish national home became binding international law not in 1947 or 1948, but in 1920, when the resolutions of the San Remo conference were included as part of the Treaty of Sèvres(August 1920), and were adopted and signed unanimously by all 51 countries of the League Of Nations.

It is also essential to note that the Jewish people were given what was then known as Palestine to “reconstitute” their national home in that country. Palestine is not the national home of any other people. The Jews have throughout history offered to share that national home with Arabs, but the Arabs, supported by antisemites have always declined to share, as offered to them by Barak and Olmert and others – and seek only the destruction of Israel to make it free of all Jews. In this respect Islamist hatred of Jews has won out over the more secular Pan-Arabist approach of a hundred years ago accepting the one Jewish state in the Middle East.

Salomon Benzimra, P.Eng., Founder of Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights, states In “SAN REMO: THE FORGOTTEN MILESTONE TO THE LIBERATION AND CREATION OF ISRAEL” (my emphasis):

“When the notion of ‘occupation’ took root, it soon turned into ‘illegal occupation’, then ‘brutal oppression’ and, finally, ‘apartheid’ which is a crime against humanity in international law. Once corrupted language describes a distorted reality and the distortion spreads, thought becomes corrupt and any resulting action is bound to fail.”

“Since international law more than a hundred years ago gave recognition to ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine’ and to ‘the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country’, the continued use of the words, ‘settlers’ and ‘occupiers’ are contrary to law.”

The mischief of the oxymoron words used to criticize Israel can be seen in American media, the majority of which tilts leftist and is tolerant of Islamists. CNN and CNBC and other television networks are mostly anti-Israel.

The New York Times is an example of this. Recently New York Times reporter Patrick Kingsley wrote an article with the headline, “A House Divided in East Jerusalem”. In this article about disputed ownership of a house illegally built by Arabs in East Jerusalem on the site of a house recognized by the Israeli Courts to have belonged to a Jewish Land Trust, negating the ownership of Arabs who did not comply with the legal requirement to get a building permit in accordance with the usual planning laws. The reporter frames his narrative thus: “The case is part of an effort by Jewish settlers to cement Jewish control of East Jerusalem, a process many Palestinians see as ethnic cleansing.” He doesn’t report on how the Jews see it.

The article acknowledges that “a court said a Jewish trust “has the right to the entire building because the land belonged to it before the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948, To my mind, to term as “settlers” Israelis who have legal ownership that was only discontinued by the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967 is misleading and tries, by the use of one improper word, to hide who exactly is the settler in an “occupation”

In order to cast doubt on the Jewish family’s right to receive back what was stolen after 1948, the reporter says that Israel captured the ‘West Bank’ from Jordan in 1967 but does not mention that Israel fought a defensive war as it was attacked by the Arab countries. There is no mention of the lynching of Jewish residents of mixed towns by their Arab neighbors or that Hamas, now more popular in the ‘West Bank’ than Abbas; Palestinian Authority has stuck to its constitutional aims to kill the Jews and take back the whole land, usually phrased as “from the River to the Sea”.

Fortunately the article does quote a Deputy Mayor of East Jerusalem who acknowledges that the land reclamation laws do favor the Jews in order to protect Israel’s character and the Mayor gets to the point: “This is a Jewish state.” And that bothers many people more than anything.

And so, all references to East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria at public gatherings should have an acknowledgement similar to the one given at public events in Western Canada, where an acknowledgment that the event is taking place at unceded native territory (where no treaty has been yet signed). It should say that “This land is acknowledged as the historical connection of the Jewish people with historical Palestine which is ancient Israel, now reconstituted as the national home of the Jews in our country as recognized by the San Remo Conference of 1920.”

Perhaps there should also be added the following: “The continued use of the words describing Jews as ‘settlers’ or ‘occupiers’ is contrary to law. We acknowledge that the proper word is “one who returns” or in Hebrew – אחד שחוזר

Recall that a native can be defined as a person associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not. All Jews are native to Israel, whether or not we ourselves have been resident there.

We hope that the Abrahamic Accords will once again have Arabs (for now in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco) accepting, for the mutual benefit of all their people, one small Jewish state among a vast sea of Muslims. We hope that the Europeans who killed so many of us will agree to stop using ‘settler” and “occupier” and learn the history of the Jews to know that we are those who have returned to our indigenous Homeland.

©Howard Rotberg. All rights reserved.

Biden’s Handlers Walk Back Trump’s Recognition of Golan Heights as Israeli Territory

We’re back in full-on Obama mode now, betraying allies and giving aid and comfort to enemies. It will not, of course, end well.

Biden Admin Walks Back U.S. Recognition of Golan Heights as Israeli Territory

by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 24, 2021:

The Biden administration is walking back the United States’ historic recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights region along Israel’s northern border, a significant blow to the Jewish state and one of the Trump administration’s signature foreign policy decisions.

The Trump administration declared the territory—seized by Israel from Syria in 1967 and later annexed by the country—to be wholly part of the Jewish state in 2019. Then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo took a trip to the area in 2020 and reaffirmed that America formally abandoned a decades-long policy of considering the area occupied.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken first raised questions about the Biden administration’s view on the matter in February, when he would not say if his State Department continues to abide by the former administration’s decision. At the time, Blinken would only say the Golan Heights “remains of real importance to Israel’s security,” but that its formal status remains unclear. Pressed on the issue by the Washington Free Beacon, a State Department official said the territory belongs to no one and control could change depending on the region’s ever-shifting dynamics.

The shift in policy is already causing outrage among Republican lawmakers who backed the Trump administration’s decision and hoped to see it continue. It is also likely to rankle Israeli leaders of all political stripes, the plurality of whom say the Golan Heights is absolutely vital to Israel’s security in light of persistent threats from the Iran-backed Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon and other militant forces stationed in war-torn Syria.

“The secretary was clear that, as a practical matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security,” a State Department official told the Free Beacon. “As long as [Bashar al-Assad] is in power in Syria, as long as Iran is present in Syria, militia groups backed by Iran, the Assad regime itself—all of these pose a significant security threat to Israel, and as a practical matter, the control of the Golan remains of real importance to Israel’s security.”

Recognizing Israel’s control as a “practical matter,” however, falls far short of the formal policy change ordered by the Trump administration, which became the first government to recognize Israel’s complete control over the territory. As it stands now, U.S. policy on the matter is unclear, at best.

Pompeo, who was central to formulating and advancing the Trump administration’s decision on the Golan Heights, told the Free Beacon that the current administration is jeopardizing Israel’s security at a time when Iran-backed militants continue to plot attacks on the country’s northern cities.

“The Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel, they are a part of it. The Israelis have a right to it as sovereign land,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “To suggest that these lands should be returned to Syria, even if conditioned on changes in the Syrian regime, is inconsistent with both Israeli security and the international law.”

The State Department’s “suggestion that if Assad falls and the Iranians leave Syria, the Golan Heights should be given to Syria misreads history and misreads the eternal security needs of the state of Israel,” Pompeo said….


Did Muhammad exist? New book examines the evidence

What I Learned on Twitter About ‘Wypipo’ (White People)

Germany: Muslim migrant screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ murders 3, Interior Minister says he had ‘possible Islamist motive’

eBay Bans Dr. Seuss, Allows Hezbollah

Mali: Muslims injure 15 UN peacekeepers in jihad attack using a ‘vehicle-borne explosive’

Italy: Muslim migrant mother lured her daughter back home, where she was murdered in honor killing

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Crowdfunding Sites Block the Right But Not the Left

There was an in-depth report published in USA Today on 3/28 entitled “Crowdfunding hate: How white supremacists and other extremists raise money from legions of online followers.” Useful as much for what it left out as for what it covered, it is recommended reading.

Two glaring and very common errors informed the report. First, it lumped everyone on the so-called “right” into the same bucket, and second, it made no mention of left-wing groups. There are violent extremists on the right and on the left in America, but the ones on the right are disproportionately targeted.

Most useful was how the article identified four online crowdfunding sites that are attempting to offer services without, as one of their spokespersons said, “discriminating against customers for political reasons.” Those sites are GiveSendGoGoGetFundingAllFundIt and Our Freedom Funding.

The conflict over when to cut a group off rests on competing objectives. On one side is the constitutional right to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. On the other side is the much vaunted need to ensure, as PayPal puts it in their policy, “services are not used to accept payments or donations for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.”

That is a pretty high bar, especially when one steps back and considers the violence perpetrated across America for nearly a year in the name of “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” by groups that raise funds with nearly complete impunity, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter. A recent AP report claims one of the primary BLM organizations, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, took in over $90 million last year.

While Antifa, BLM, and countless other groups have been largely unhindered in their crowdfunding efforts, they hardly need a crowd, thanks to millions pouring in from major corporations, as well as from billionaires including George Soros and Tom Steyer.

There’s plenty of evidence of crowdfunding platforms escalating their war that, from the start, has disproportionately targeted the right. It’s hard to justify why Laura Loomer or Brandon Straka qualify as people so noxious and so dangerous that they have to be banned from raising money online, while hundreds of local Antifa and BLM groups are untouched. But a more egregious example is Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people who were chasing him during the Kenosha riots last summer, killing two of them.

This young man, who claims he acted in self defense, faces a blistering onslaught of civil and criminal actions that will probably cost him millions in legal fees. Despite the fact that there is a solid case to be made for his defense and a reasonable chance he will be acquitted of the most serious charges against him, the accounts set up for people to contribute to him on GoFundMe were taken down. Similar accounts set up on another crowdfunding site, Fundly, were also taken down. Finally, accounts set up on GiveSendGo were able to raise funds for Rittenhouse’s defense.

This isn’t about Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence. It isn’t about his intentions. It’s about his right to legal defense, and the right for people who wish to contribute to his legal defense to be able to do so. How on earth do these crowdfunding sites justify denying people that right?

An even deeper level of financial attack against online fundraising, or any sort of online commerce, comes from the payment processors. These are the intermediaries that crowdfunding sites have to use – along with anyone doing business online – to convert credit card information into actual bank deposits. The only major online payment processors are PayPal and Stripe. And wouldn’t you know it, PayPal and Stripe have cut all ties with GiveSendGo. It is not clear what alternative payment processor GiveSendGo has found, but they remain online and able to accept most – but not all – credit cards.

Perhaps, as Gab is considering, it will become necessary for right-of-center crowdfunding sites, along with all right-of-center websites that engage in internet commerce, to start up their own banks. Maybe they will resort to BitCoin or the totally private Monero. But cybercurrencies come with their own set of challenges, not least of which is the so-called entry and exit points wherein cash turns into cybercurrency, and wherein cybercurrency is turned back into cash.

Better yet, the firms providing financial services in the United States could respect the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, instead of applying one standard to the right wing people they don’t like, and quite another standard to the left wing people they support.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Jews Who Are Complicit in Jew-Hatred

They are not Jews. They are anti-Jews, whoring for 21st century Nazis.

For the past two decades, the most vicious attacks on my colleagues and me, a proud Zionist, have been fronted by left-wing “Jews.”

The Jews Who Are Complicit in Jew-Hatred

It’s a feature, not a bug, of the horrors of the past month

by Seth Mandel, Commentary Magazine, June 20. 2021:

hen the New York Times finally reported on the plague of nationwide street vio-lence against Jews in the spring of 2021, more than a week after the attacks began in the wake of Hamas using rockets to strike Israel, the tone it took was less one of outrage than of bewilderment. “Until the latest surge,” read a May 26 story, “anti-Semitic violence in recent years was largely considered a right-wing phenomenon, driven by a white supremacist movement emboldened by rhetoric from former President Donald J. Trump, who often trafficked in stereotypes.” This was nonsense: The most common street violence against Jews took place in New York and New Jersey, and it had nothing at all to do with Trump or “right-wing” politics. Par for the course for the Gray Lady, perhaps, but far more concerning was where the reporters seemed to be getting the misinformation. “This is why Jews feel so terrified in this moment,” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told the paper. “For four years it seemed to be stimulated from the political right, with devastating consequences.” At the scenes of Jew-hunting that began in May, during the war between Israel and Hamas, Greenblatt lamented, “No one is wearing MAGA hats.”

If there’s one organization whose responsibility it is to prepare not just the Jewish community but the wider United States public and its government for emerging anti-Semitic threats, it’s the ADL. Instead, the head of the ADL has been spreading a cynical left-wing myth about anti-Semitism while threats to the Jewish community fester.

And it’s even worse than it looks, because while there’s long been a willful blindness toward anti-Semitism from the left, the ADL and other partisan groups aren’t the ones experiencing this blindness. They’re the blinders.

THE ADL TRACKS various kinds of anti-Israel extremism when Israel is at war. It issued a list during the latest flare-up with Hamas on May 20 titled “Prominent Voices Demonize Israel Regarding the Conflict.” Demonizing rhetoric, the ADL warned, can “enable an environment whereby hateful actions against Jews and supporters of Israel are accepted more freely, and where anti-Jewish tropes may be normalized.” One category the list featured was of those “Accusing Israel of ‘Attacking al-Aqsa,’” a hoary libel falsely claiming that Jews want to destroy the central Mosque in Jerusalem. It has been used to incite anti-Jewish riots for a century. What was notable here was one name missing from the list, and arguably the worst offender.

On May 12, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had castigated President Joe Biden on Twitter for expressing Israel’s right to defend itself while noting what supposedly was to blame for the violence: “the expulsions of Palestinians and the attacks on Al Aqsa.” Her name and her statement were missing from the ADL’s list of slanders and slanderers. The Jerusalem Post’s Lahav Harkov asked Greenblatt why.

He answered: “We’ve been speaking out pretty regularly, calling out individuals and examples of these crazed—the things I’m talking about right now.”

“Any members of Congress, lately?” Harkov responded.

“I’ll have to go back and look,” Greenblatt said.

He didn’t have to go back and look. It’s likely that the omission was at his explicit direction. He came to the ADL after serving in the Obama administration. His fellow ex-Obama official, Halie Soifer, who served as a national-security adviser to Kamala Harris before she became vice president, took over the flagship Democratic Jewish organization, the Jewish Democratic Council of America. The JDCA’s executive committee is loaded up with current or former presidents and executives of such mainstream Jewish groups as AIPAC, the Jewish Federations, and the American-Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. After pressure built to respond to AOC’s tweet and the others like it, Soifer wrote: “Proud to be a Democrat in this moment when leaders recognize there is no binary choice to be made between Israel’s security & right to self-defense, and Palestinian rights & safety. We can do both at the same time, while rejecting the forced false dichotomy & narrative of divide.” Thus did Soifer give a seal of approval to the effort to dress up hateful anti-Zionism as merely legitimate criticism of Israel’s government.

As Harkov noted, “the ADL’s voice hasn’t been heard on some of these members of Congress who have been calling Israel an apartheid state, who have claimed that Israel has raided al Aqsa, who have also said that Israel is killing too many children, implying that it’s intentional.” Indeed, Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet was just the opening salvo. A day later, on May 13, came a chilling session of the House of Representatives, with dark echoes of Jewish history.

Several Democratic members of the House took turns standing next to blown-up photos of bloodied Palestinian children and gave fiery speeches denouncing Zionist perfidy—the sorts of words and charges that, since the age of the czars, have been followed by the spilling of Jewish blood. This time was no different, except it wasn’t a Russian backwater or a Munich beer hall. It was on the floor of the United States Congress.

One by one, these members of Congress, Democrats all, sought to make the Jewish state the stand-in for “systems of oppression here in the United States and globally,” as Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts put it. Everyone in the world, according to these diatribes, had something to fear from Jerusalem. Ocasio-Cortez, whose family is from Puerto Rico, talked about the U.S. naval exercises held on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques for decades until the Navy left in 2003. The Navy stands accused of testing bombs and other weapons using napalm, depleted uranium, and Agent Orange, sickening the local population. Ocasio-Cortez offered a bizarre conspiratorial accusation: “When I saw those [Israeli] airstrikes that are supported with U.S. funds, I could not help but wonder if our communities were practice for this.”

Pressley equated crowd dispersal conducted by Israeli police at a riot on the Temple Mount to “students protesting to end poverty and oppression in the streets of Bogota [being] shot dead,” white supremacists storming the U.S. Capitol, and “police brutality and state-sanctioned violence” against black Americans.

Missouri Representative Cori Bush made a point of referring to the holy city as “Jerusalem, Palestine,” and suggested that the U.S. was following an Israeli playbook when it “brutalized” black protesters.

Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, who has in the past accused American Jews of disloyalty and shared anti-Semitic content on social media, insisted that the source of the conflict was Jewish settlers uprooting Palestinian Arabs and taking nearly all their land—in 1948, in the “Nakba.”

Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan-born congresswoman of Palestinian descent who has also relentlessly targeted Jews during her few years in the House, spoke that day, but she had laid the groundwork for it at an anti-Israel protest two days earlier. “What they are doing to the Palestinians is what they are doing to our black brothers and sisters here,” Tlaib told the crowd May 11. As she left the stage, the crowd chanted, “Long live Palestine, down down Israel.”

In the days and weeks that followed, even after an Israel–Hamas cease-fire was in place, Jews in America were physically attacked with abandon—diners at restaurants in Los Angeles and Manhattan, Jews on the streets of New York, families in Florida attending synagogue services. The ADL saw a 75 percent uptick in reported incidents. In one typical attack, a group of men reportedly drove around Brooklyn assaulting Jews in the open while yelling, “Free Palestine!”

When called out for their silence, progressive Democratic lawmakers condemned “anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” as one, knowing that their audience would interpret any specific denunciation of anti-Semitism as a statement in support of Israel. That’s what happened at Rutgers University, the school with the largest Jewish undergraduate population in the country. Its provost and chancellor put out a statement decrying anti-Semitism and then were bullied into apologizing for it by a pro-Palestinian group on campus that claimed the statement was insensitive to Palestinians.

Throughout this whole affair, not a single congressional Democrat would criticize any of his colleagues by name. That includes Chuck Schumer, now the Senate majority leader (whose former top aide is also on the executive committee of the National Jewish Democratic Council), who couldn’t be roused from his cowardly torpor even when explosive devices were thrown at Jews in his own city.

The closest anyone came was Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. He and three other Jewish Democrats wrote a public letter to their leadership referencing the types of hateful comments made by their progressive colleagues—without naming them—in an attempt to get support from Democratic Party leadership. The bid failed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stuck with the purveyors of anti-Semitism in her caucus and threw the Jewish Democrats under the bus. Neither the ADL nor the JDCA uttered a peep.

As usual, one exceptional voice in all this was that of the American Jewish Committee, whose young leadership director, Seffi Kogen, noted in Newsweek that “while anti-Zionist gangs beat up Jews in her city, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was providing a quasi-intellectual basis for their actions.” But for a large part of the organized Jewish community, the outburst of violence was met with inexcusable surprise.

As I wrote in these pages in March 2020, after watching mainstream Jewish organizations and political figures bash President Donald Trump’s peace proposal because they deemed it too biased in favor of Israel’s security: “What’s happening here is more than a skirmish over a peace plan, or a distressing glimpse into the way American Jewry’s leaders privilege their partisan leanings over the fact that their leadership roles in American society are due to their Judaism and not their Democratic Party membership. What we are seeing is the way American Jewish leaders fail to take seriously the rising tide of anti-Semitism that masquerades as ‘anti-Zionism’—and even the way progressive groups enable it.”1

Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib, I explained, elevated leftist Jewish groups such as IfNotNow to new prominence by using them to shield the Squad from accusations of anti-Semitism. With their endorsements, in turn, IfNotNow and the New Israel Fund launched a frontal assault on the Jewish Federations because the latter wouldn’t accept a donation earmarked for IfNotNow. The Jewish establishment was trying to hold the line on support for the Jewish state even as progressive politicians were helping foment a rebellion against these very basic Jewish values. The Squad entered a similar alliance with Jewish Voice for Peace, which had pushed one of the anti-Zionist conspiracy theories that reportedly motivated the perpetrators of the 2019 shooting at a Jewish shop in Jersey City.

Nothing has changed. In May 2021, IfNotNow used the occasion of the outbreak of anti-Jewish street violence to launch an invitation to a seminar on “Zionism and Apartheid.” Jewish Democrats in Congress who made general statements against anti-Semitism were accused by Jewish Voice for Peace of “using anti-Semitism as a political weapon to shield the Israeli government from accountability.”

Last year, Sean Cooper of Tablet exposed how the Jewish organization Bend the Arc deliberately turned the group’s work away from the Jewish community and toward various liberal and Democratic Party causes, shaping the activism of its member synagogues along the way. Rabbi David Saperstein, who for years led the Reform movement’s political arm, was listed as a Bend the Arc board member and served as President Obama’s religious-freedom ambassador. During the recent spate of violence, Bend the Arc’s political arm took the time to oppose police protection at synagogues on racial grounds, while also blaming the increase in anti-Semitism during the conflict on “white nationalists.”

Perhaps the most consequential of the progressive left’s alliances has been with Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont and former presidential candidate who arguably has achieved more political success and visibility than any American Jewish politician other than near-miss vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman. Sanders is a mentor and trailblazer for young progressives in Congress, and he made a point of putting the Squad and other anti-Israel activists in visible roles on his 2020 presidential campaign. His moves have scrambled the Jewish community’s response to Sanders’s politics and those of his protégés. That is a feature, not a bug, of this alliance, as far as Sanders and the Squad see it.

“What does it look like when a national Jewish community understands what’s at stake?” I asked here last year. My answer then was the united front the UK Jewish community put up to oppose Jeremy Corbyn, the since-deposed Labour leader who had turned his party into a thoroughly anti-Semitic organization that harassed the Jews in its ranks and incited London’s streets against its Jewish community. Nearly nine of out ten UK Jews agreed that Corbyn was an anti-Semite, and before the election that finally sealed Corbyn’s doom, the country’s chief rabbi was moved to speak out against him.

Sanders and Corbyn were mutual admirers. Ocasio-Cortez backed Corbyn in his election. The warnings that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez were openly modeling the future of their party on Corbyn’s Labour went ignored or dismissed. The events of May have made the Democratic Party’s Corbynization indisputable.

Events in early June then gave the dwindling band of Democratic anti-Corbynistas one more bite at the apple. On June 7, Omar tweeted a summary of a question she had for Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice.”

The comparison of the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban seemed a typically gratuitous demonstration of Omar’s untouchable status. Twelve Jewish Democrats wrote a letter finally naming her while refraining from calling her an anti-Semite.

The response to the letter revealed the depressing reality at the core of American Jewish life: the complete abandonment of the Jews by their own supposed watchdogs and the merger of those groups into semiofficial arms of the very political party now enabling their torment. Greenblatt merely retweeted one of the signatories’ tweets of the letter, adding his own comment: “Well said.” His me-tooing of the statement added insult to injury: Not only were the congressmen given no cover by the ADL, but once they ventured into the breach they were given no reinforcement by it. The following morning, the JDCA tweeted: “Jewish Dems will be meeting with Rep. Omar during our Week of Action to discuss her recent comments on Israel, as well as other priorities of Jewish Dems in Minnesota. There is no equivalence between Israel and terrorist organizations such as Hamas.” The organization sounded more annoyed at having to say something than outraged by what Omar had said.

The final blow came from Pelosi, who told CNN days later: “We did not rebuke her. We thanked—acknowledged that she made a clarification… Congresswoman Omar is a valued member of our caucus.”

What happened in between the release of the letter and Pelosi’s public declaration of Omar’s righteousness was instructive: The Squad went nuclear. Ocasio-Cortez accused her Jewish colleagues of “targeting” Omar and putting her in “danger.” Cori Bush said her Jewish colleagues were motivated by “anti-Blackness and Islamophobia.” Jamaal Bowman, who ousted the pro-Israel stalwart Eliot Engel in a 2020 primary and who represents a New York district with a large Jewish contingent, likewise suggested that the complaints from his colleagues were due to Omar’s being a Muslim black woman. Omar herself complained of the “constant harassment and silencing” by her Jewish colleagues and the “Islamophobic tropes” they supposedly used.

It was an astonishingly vile and aggressive coordinated attack against the Jewish group. The ADL was silent. JDCA was silent. The Democratic Party sided with the Squad. The Jewish community had been abandoned to the rise of the dominant left-of-center ideology according to which Jews are part of a white power structure of which Israel is a prime example.

Corbyn’s attempt to separate the Jews from the Jewish state in the UK failed miserably. But the Squad’s efforts to do the same here are not failing. And it’s not just in the halls of Congress. The New Yorker’s Helen Rosner suggested it would be a good tactic not to beat up Jews, as part of an overall strategy to undermine Israel’s legitimacy. (This after the New Yorker’s union put out a statement of solidarity with the Palestinians that included the phrase “from the river to the sea.”) Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times wrote a column with a headline so instantly infamous that the Times eventually and quietly changed it: “Attacks on Jews Over Israel Are a Gift to the Right.”

Meanwhile, the comedian Sarah Silverman objected to attacks on Jews in Los Angeles not on the grounds that they were evil acts of anti-Semitic violence but rather because “WE ARE NOT ISRAEL.” For his part, Kenneth Roth, the obsessively anti-Israel executive director of Human Rights Watch, declared, “It is WRONG to equate the Jewish people with the apartheid and deadly bombardment of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government.”

Throwing fellow Jews to the wolves is abominable moral behavior. Delicately excising the name and words of a chic Democratic politician from a list of anti-Semitic statements to protect her—or to protect the organization you run from her wrath—constitutes an act of complicity in the violence that ensued in whatever small measure from her remarks. And the man who was thus complicit—Jonathan Greenblatt—had the nerve to act surprised. The anti-Semitic street violence in America is “literally happening from coast to coast, and spreading like wildfire,” Greenblatt told the Times. “The sheeraudacity of these attacks feels very different.”

It feels different because it feels so familiar. And if the American Jewish community is to survive, it must start acting like it. And we must start by cleaning our own corrupted house.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hamas, Islamic Jihad Mobilize Gaza’s Children for Summer Military Training Camps to Attract Next Generation of Islamic Terrorists

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

VIDEO: FL Governor DeSantis Promises He’s ‘Only Begun To Fight’ — ‘Put On Full Armor Of God’ To Fight The Left

Watch Governor DeSantis’ speech from this past weekend, and you will understand why the Left is terrified of him. Governor DeSantis could very well end up saving this country. #DeSantis2024.

DeSantis Rises As He Promises He’s ‘Only Begun To Fight’: ‘Put On Full Armor Of God’ To Fight The Left

By Daily Wire, June 21, 2021

Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was repeatedly met with standing ovation over the weekend as he spoke to the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference.

DeSantis’ speech comes after a new straw poll from a top conservative summit over the weekend found that DeSantis has overtaken former President Donald Trump as the person that conservatives desire to be the next president.

DeSantis, who spoke for half an hour at the event, highlighted his record as the state’s governor and what his goals are moving forward.

Highlights from DeSantis’ speech include:

  • “And for me, my ability to serve as governor and the opportunity, wasn’t an opportunity to be somebody. I didn’t need another title. It was an opportunity to do great things on behalf of the state. I was not going to settle for merely being the controlled opposition to leftism. Instead, we were going to fight big battles and we were going to win and we have practiced that.”
  • “My first year as governor, I signed into law, the largest expansion of school choice anywhere in the country. I signed a ban on sanctuary cities. And through my appointments, I was able to shape the Supreme Court of Florida from being one of the most liberal courts in the nation to being one of the most conservative.”
  • “I can tell you if Florida had not done what we did [with the pandemic], many other states would not have followed, and we could still be in lockdown in this country right now. … So ultimately, Florida chose freedom over Fauci-ism and we are better off for it.”
  • “But, you know, as important as the COVID was all of last year and into this year, one of the major events we had to deal with last summer, were roits all across the United States. And I made a decision, as soon as I saw that, that would not happen in Florida. We were not going to let our cities burn down. We called up the national guard and immediately, we worked with local law enforcement. We were ready. And as a result, we didn’t see the type of devastation that you saw in many of these other cities. … I also proposed that our legislature pass and I signed a few months ago, the strongest anti-rioting, pro-law enforcement legislation in the country, which basically says in Florida, we are not going to let any local government defund the police. We’re also going to make sure that people who engage in mob violence are held accountable. I’m sick of seeing things like in Portland, they riot, they get arrested, they have their mugshot taken, they slap them on the wrist and they put them right back on the street to do the same thing all over again. In Florida, if you engage in mob violence, you’re going to jail, and you’re going to stay in jail.”
  • “The rule of law is also being challenged by feckless policies of the Biden Harris administration at our Southern border. We had under president Donald Trump, we had a series of policies that worked, those policies upheld the sovereignty of our country. They made sure that our asylum system was not being abused. And everybody saw the results of that. When Joe Biden took office, he reversed those policies, not because there was a legitimate basis to do so in fact. It was because he needed to show that he didn’t like Trump and that he wasn’t going to be like Trump. Well, the result has been a disaster on the Southern border: human trafficking, crime, and drugs pouring into our country. And it’s gotten so bad and the Biden administration has been so reckless that states are now stepping up to secure the border, particularly in Texas and in Arizona and those governors and those states called on all the other governors and all the other states for support in this vital mission. And I’m proud to say Florida was the first state to answer the call. We are gonna’ help secure the border. We don’t want these drugs coming into our country. And we need to act because I can tell you, these cartels are eating Joe Biden’s lunch. And so I’m thankful that the governors are stepping up. What does it say about an administration when the states have to step up and do the jobs that the federal government is supposed to be doing? But nevertheless, this is where we are. And so we’ll do what we can to be helpful.”
  • [On woke corporations]: “I said, look if you are in one of these corporations, if you’re a woke CEO, you want to get involved in our legislative business. Look, it’s a free country. You know, you want to get in there and slam us or smear me or my legislature or Floridians, it’s a free country, but understand, if you do that, I’m fighting back against you and I’m gonna’ make sure that people understand your business practices and then we’re going talk about what you’re doing and we’ve been very clear about that. We are not going let our state be run by woke corporations. So we passed the bill. I signed the bill. The left had a spasm. The media had a spasm. The businesses didn’t say anything. They didn’t say anything because I think what they do is they think when the left comes after you, the path of least resistance and the way to avoid conflict is just to cave to them and genuflect to whatever they’re asking, even though it’s not based in fact, I think we basically said, ‘actually, you know, if you go down that road, you’re guaranteeing conflict because we will fight back and we will make sure that we’re defending our people, we’re going to defend our legislature, we’re not going to take this lying down.’”
  • [On corporations having too much power] “Now there’s problems with that. One, I’m not sure that’s the best for the economy, but two, if corporations are going to be in charge of all these things in our daily lives, I think it’s a problem for conservatives that they don’t share our values, but here’s the thing. As conservatives, we have to advance public policy that elevates the freedom of the individual over the freedom of the corporation. And that’s what this fight is about. Do we want individuals to be able to speak? Do we want to support that freedom or do we want to support the freedom of massive monopolies to censor views they don’t like? I know which side I stand on. I’m for the average American and the average Floridian who’s trying to fight back against big tech and make their voice heard.”
  • “But speaking of not sharing our values, if you look at what’s going on in our country, I don’t think you could discuss the ills of what we see going on without identifying one of the main reasons for that. A very partisan, corrupt, corporate, media, and many of them are based in New York City. They do not tell the truth routinely to the American people. Instead they manufacturer partisan narratives regardless of the facts. And their duty seems to really be trying to gaslight people into believing their narratives rather than to inform them of things that are actually going on.”
  • “One of the ways I think we can create a better foundation going forward and hopefully produce people that are understanding some of these narratives are for what they are, is we need a renewal of American civics back in our public school system and in our schools. People need to be taught why America was founded, what the principles that made our country unique were, they need to be taught that our rights do not come from government. They come from God. So they need to be taught what makes the country unique. They need to be taught American history, it needs to be factual, needs to be honest, need to talk about of course, many great achievements, many, many great lows, many triumphs, many tragedies, but that needs to be done honestly. And it cannot be infected with ideologies like Critical Race Theory.”
  • [On fighting back against the political left] “It ain’t going to be easy. You got to be strong. You got to put on the full armor of God. You got to take a stand, take a stand against the left’s schemes, you got to stand your ground, you got to be firm, you will face flaming arrows, but take up the shield of faith and fight on. So I look forward to joining with you in the battles to come. I can tell you that in the state of Florida, I’ll be holding the line, I’ll be standing my ground, I won’t back down, and I have only begun to fight. Thank you, God bless you, thank you so much.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Muslima Pediatric Radiologist Dr. Fidaa Wishah Accuses Jews of Cannibalism, Calls for End to Jewish State

How is this terrorist’s daughter still practicing?

Pediatric Radiologist Dr. Fidaa Wishah Accuses Us of Cannibalism, Calls for End to Israel

By: David Lange, Israelly Cool, June 22, 2021

Fidaa is a Pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and is affiliated with medical facilities Henry Ford Hospital and Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital.


“She is accepting new patients. Be sure to call ahead with Dr. Wishah to book an appointment.”

Just a word of advice: when you call ahead to book an appointment, do not mention you are Jewish, and when meeting with her, hide all signs of Jewishness.

Better yet, keep your children the hell away from her!


Note besides wishing for an end to Israel (and thus the murder of millions of children), she accuses us of cannibalism. Medieval Blood Libel achievement unlocked!

Please join me in complaining to the hospitals where she could potentially endanger (Jewish) children’s lives:

  • Phone: (602) 933-1213
  • Email: PCHCares@phoenixchildrens.com

And leave a review hereherehere, and here.

Hat tip: Stop Antisemitism

Update: Yup, not antisemitic.

Update: It turns out her father is a terrorist.


House Democrats Block Defense Assistance for Israel

Islamic Jew-hatred.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Chicago Dyke March Plans Violent Riots, Calls for Destruction of U.S. and Israel

These people are the very definition of useful idiots. “Zionism is queerphobic,” and yet any of these marchers would be murdered in Gaza and could live in peace in Israel. The Leftist-Islamic alliance has nothing whatsoever to do with rational thought or the facts of real life.


Coming in November: The first English edition of the Qur’an that translates ‘jihad’ as ‘jihad’

American University Has Maoist Self-Incrimination Session, Decides It’s ‘Islamophobic’

NYC mayoral candidate Yang refuses comment on Omar’s likening of US and Israel to Taliban and Hamas

Pakistan’s Khan explains why he is silent on China’s mistreatment of Muslims but vocal about Western ‘Islamophobia’

India: Muslim teacher says ‘If someone quits Islam, he needs to be killed’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Truth: Biden is Supposed to DENY HIMSELF Communion

Years ago, because my best friend had some Polish connections, I’d sometimes attend a “Polish” Catholic church in Brooklyn, New York City. Attendance was great enough so that some parishioners had to participate in Mass on the sidewalk, and they, at the appointed times, would kneel down on the pavement as those inside the church knelt in their pews. But something else that occurred would’ve also been striking to too many American Catholics:

After the consecration, fully half the parish did not go up to receive Communion.

The reason why was that, unlike people such as Joe Biden and Ted Lieu, those parishioners take their faith seriously.

In the controversy over whether Joe Biden and other pro-prenatal infanticide politicians should be denied Communion — a story now that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is drafting a “teaching document” about the meaning of the sacrament — some Democrats are tacitly indicating that they consider church attendance a ploy and Communion a prop. They’re signaling that they have no respect for the Church — even as they imply that receiving Communion from it is an imperative.

Denying oneself Communion isn’t just a Polish thing. When a woman close to me who ceased following Church teaching decades ago occasionally attends Mass, she reflexively refrains from receiving Communion. She’s no theologian, but she knows the rules.

Here’s the reality: The Church’s teaching on Communion flows from what the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Cor. 11:26-29:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Paul then warns a line later:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Now, I’m not here to argue theology, but I will explain what the Church — Biden’s church — teaches. To wit: Being “worthy” to receive Communion doesn’t mean being perfect (only God is so). It does, however, mean not being in a state of mortal sin.

As opposed to “venial sin,” the mortal variety is sin grave enough to separate one from God. So the Church maintains that if you’ve descended into it, you must confess it, which involves contrition and a resolution to change your ways, before receiving Communion.

What constitutes mortal sin? Many trespasses do, but the significant point is that this is not a matter of opinion; it’s all well explained in Church documents. And among the mortal sins is refusal to assent intellectually to all definitive teaching.

Moreover and quite obviously, one definitive teaching is that direct abortion is never allowable — and supporting it is a mortal sin.

If the world’s Joe Bidens don’t like this, they should note what I heard a priest once say: “I’m in marketing, not design.”

In fact, pro-prenatal-infanticide politicians’ sin is all the worse because they don’t just support abortion privately, let’s say, with a secret vote on Election Day. They advocate it publicly and obstinately, leading others astray, and facilitate it with policy.

A prime example is Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who proudly listed his deviation (and deviance) from Church teaching and then basically said “in your face!”:

(Here’s a pro tip for Lieu: On judgment day, don’t tell God “I dare you to send me to Hell!” It’s widely rumored that He’s not swayed by political considerations.)

For the record, Signorile needs to bone up on his theology. The Church does not teach that all mortal sins are equally grave but that, as I believe St. Augustine put it, there’s a hierarchy of sin. And not many acts compare with murdering unborn babies.

I’ll lastly mention that these Democrats’ position is so irrational that no one taking his faith seriously could embrace it. After all, receiving Communion should only be important to you if you believe, as the Church teaches, that it actually is Christ’s body and blood (as opposed to just a symbol). Yet this must be accepted on faith based on the supposition that the Church is guided on such matters by the Holy Spirit. So it makes no sense to accept that claim on the Church’s word, but then deny what it teaches is necessary to receive Communion, which often involves truths more easily discernible via reason.

In other words, “I’ll believe you on the bread and wine becoming Jesus’ body and blood,” these would-be-theologian politicians tacitly proclaim, “but you can’t be right on the wrongness of killing unborn babies!”

If you’re sure the Church is so prone to teaching error, why believe one of the most striking things she has to say?

But then again, it would be silly to believe anything the world’s Bidens and Lieus have to say. Their lack of seriousness and dishonesty (intellectual dishonesty in the least) about their faith just reflects their dishonesty in politics. They worship power.

Unlike the Poles and the woman I mentioned earlier, these left-wing politicians don’t even have the respect to abide by the rules of an institution to which they belong voluntarily. So the truth is that contrary to billing, Biden isn’t just not a devout Catholic — he’s not even a good non-devout Catholic.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

WATCH: Exclusive Interview with Governor Ron DeSantis by The Jewish Voice

Nobody is fighting harder for America than the great governor. President Biden and Vice President Harris should be very concerned about sharing a debate stage with Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024. He would wreck them.

Watch Exclusive Interview- Governor Ron DeSantis Speaks with The Jewish Voice

By the Jewish Voice, June 19, 2021


DEMOCRAT JEW HATRED: Seattle Teachers Union Passes Boycott Jews Resolution

Un-Jew Sarah Silverman Wishes Ilhan Omar’s Jihad ‘Squad’ of Lawmakers Included a Jew

“Palestinians” Refuse 1 Million Coronavirus Vaccine Doses From Israel

Canada: Non-Muslim Women Don Hijabs to ‘Combat Islamophobia’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Road to White House: DeSantis tops early 2024 straw poll

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

American U’s School of International Studies Accused of ‘Islamophobia’ for Saying Islam Compatible with Feminism

As has often been pointed out here, “Islamophobia” is used to refer to attacks on innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and to any criticism of Islam, however mild, or opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women.

School of International Studies student Momal Rizvi was asked if Islamophobia rooted in the SIS, and she “would say yes. ‘I feel like it’s definitely mixed between some professors,’ Rizvi said. ‘I think that the ones who have touched on [Islam have] tried to do so in a critical way.’”

This is poorly written. Apparently by “critical” she means “disapproving,” not “analytical,” since this is presented as her explanation of why SIS is “Islamophobic,” but it isn’t entirely certain. In any case, Rizvi objected to a class that taught that “Islam can be compatible with feminism”: “Even though my professor took a somewhat positive angle, it was still a weird scenario because I think I was the only Muslim student in that classroom.” Apparently even raising the question opened up the suggestion that Islam might not be compatible with feminism is off-limits. No student should even get the slightest impression that there might be anything negative about Islam.

Meanwhile, Chris Edelson, an assistant professor in the Department of Government, manifests the intellectual laziness that is ubiquitous today. “We talk about the history of terrorism to show that terrorism is not specific to one group; there are all kinds of terrorist groups. We talk about coverage issues involving terrorism. Unfortunately, we’ve had terrorism in the U.S. recently, carried out by people who are not Muslim: the Jan. 6 Capitol attacks. When Al-Qaeda carries out a terrorist attack, or ISIS does, it doesn’t mean all Muslims are responsible. When the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and QAnon supporters carried out the Jan. 6 attacks, it doesn’t mean that all white people are responsible, or all Christians are responsible.”

The January 6 “attacks,” in which the only person who was killed was a Trump supporter, are not remotely comparable to the 9/11 attacks, in which nearly 3,000 people were murdered. Nor were “they” carried out by “white supremacists” or Christians.” But most egregious is Edelson’s assumption that people hold “all Muslims” responsible for jihad attacks. Who actually does that? I’m routinely accused of doing so, and yet the accusers have never and can never produce even a single statement from me to this effect. But claiming this serves to inhibit honest investigation of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists, because such investigations are “Islamophobic.”

Likewise overcooked is the article’s claim that “Islamophobic tropes” are “often portrayed in political discourse, everyday media and education,” including “terms like ‘Islamic menace’ or ‘violent foreigner.’” I just did a search for the term “Islamic menace,” and the overwhelming majority of results were for articles scoffing at the idea that there is such a thing. Likewise with “violent foreigner.” The idea that these are everyday terms is a product of Leftist paranoia, and has nothing to do with reality.

Student petition stirs up questions about Islamophobia within SIS

by Alisha Chhangani and Zoe Bell, The Eagle Online, June 17, 2021:

A petition that began circulating in late February on social media sparked a conversation among American University students and staff members alike — whether or not Islamophobia is rooted in the School of International Service….

Islamophobia engenders negative stereotypes that continue to discriminate against Muslim- Americans. These Islamophobic tropes are often portrayed in political discourse, everyday media and education. Terms like “Islamic menace” or “violent foreigner” lead to an association between Islam and terrorism which is biased, harmful and many times untrue.

After sophomore Marisa Sette published “How Can You Be a Feminist and Muslim?” in the School of International Service Case Studies in Intercultural Communications, the petition began circulating to have her work removed.

In an email to The Eagle, Sette wrote that she developed the case study “in good faith.”

“I wish the [Muslim Students Association] nothing but the best this Ramadan, and I hope that one day they will see that I never wrote the article with the intention of ill will nor do I hold any in my heart towards any member of their community,” she wrote.

The ensuing controversy sparked a bigger question: is Islamophobia rooted in the SIS?

Momal Rizvi, a sophomore majoring in international studies, would say yes.

“I feel like it’s definitely mixed between some professors,” Rizvi said. “I think that the ones who have touched on [Islam have] tried to do so in a critical way.”

Rizvi said that her Justice, Ethics, and Human Rights in International Affairs course covered the connection between Western feminism and Muslim women. Her professor assigned an article on the topic written by a Muslim woman and agreed with the stance of the article: that Islam can be compatible with feminism.

“Even though my professor took a somewhat positive angle, it was still a weird scenario because I think I was the only Muslim student in that classroom,” Rizvi said.

SIS professor Shadi Mokhtari specializes in the politics and human rights of the Middle East region….

When asked about Islam and the SIS, Mokhtari clarified that each professor has their method of teaching the courses.

“I don’t think there is a specific SIS approach to Islam, there are just a handful of us who are specialists in the region,” Mokhtari said. “The faculty that I know of, who teach Middle East studies and classes related to Islam, are pretty conscious and attuned to Orientalism, savage-victim narratives and Islamophobia. We make sure to address that critique and question the ways it could be applied or misapplied in all of our classes.”

Chris Edelson, an assistant professor in the Department of Government, teaches a class on presidential power in the post-9/11 era. He said he tries to take an objective, factual approach in discussions regarding Islam and debunks common misconceptions about Muslim people and terrorism.

“We talk about the history of terrorism to show that terrorism is not specific to one group; there are all kinds of terrorist groups,” Edelson said. “We talk about coverage issues involving terrorism.”…

“Unfortunately, we’ve had terrorism in the U.S. recently, carried out by people who are not Muslim: the Jan. 6 Capitol attacks,” Edelson said. “When Al-Qaeda carries out a terrorist attack, or ISIS does, it doesn’t mean all Muslims are responsible. When the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and QAnon supporters carried out the Jan. 6 attacks, it doesn’t mean that all white people are responsible, or all Christians are responsible.”

Edelson noted that a lot of Americans’ misconceptions of Islam stem from media coverage, which portrays terrorist attacks through an anti-Muslim lens. He references Muslim-American doctor Ayaz Virji, a minority in his rural Midwestern town who spoke to various audiences about Islam.

At his lectures, audience members would acknowledge that Virji himself was not a terrorist, but ask, “Well, why is it that I always see Muslims carrying out terrorist attacks?” Edelson uses Virji’s story to highlight the prevalence of Islamophobic rhetoric in the media.

“Media coverage focuses on attacks by Muslims, and especially in the U.S. and by foreign-born Muslims,” Edelson said. “So I try to bring all this in so [my students] can understand the context.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Canada: MP takes stand against ‘Islamophobia’ and hatred of ‘LGBTQ2+ individuals, families and allies’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Questions for the New York Times After Its Latest Blood Libel of Israel

The New York Times recently carried on its front page photographs of 67 children, Arab and Jewish, who died during the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel, over the caption “They Were Just Children.” Under each child’s photo, the Times had provided the name of the party responsible for the child’s death; for 64 of the photos, “Israel” was declared responsible. More on this atrocious story is here: “‘The New York Times’ Repackages a Classic Blood Libel,” by James Sinkinson, JNS.org, June 16, 2021:

Though most New York Times readers would not likely have realized it, the dramatic, front-page, full-color photo collage of children killed in the recent Hamas-Israel war was a crudely repackaged version of a classic blood libel against the Jewish people.

On May 28, after Israel ceased its defensive operations to stop Hamas rocket fire and ensure security for Israel’s citizens, The New York Time plastered on its front page a collage of 67 faces of children killed in the conflict, under the title, “They Were Only [sic] Children.”

A caption under each photo in the associated article described how each child died. The captions under 64 of the children perversely named Israel as the cause of death. The truth, of course, is quite the contrary.

Gaza’s terrorist-designated Hamas dictatorship, which started the fighting unprovoked by attacking Israeli citizens with thousands of rockets, determined the pace and intensity of the war, as well as the targets of Israeli retaliation.

While the Times insinuated that Israel chose to kill these children—and that Israel’s actions were unjustified at best and malicious at worst—in fact, every one of those 67 children died at Hamas’s hands.

Hamas was responsible for the deaths of Palestinian children whom the terror group deliberately put in harm’s way by placing its rockets, and launching them, from inside or near civilian structures – kindergartens, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and other places where children would naturally be found. Hamas wanted Palestinian children to die; they would then serve usefully for propaganda purposes – as they did when the photographs of dead Arab children appeared on the front page of the New York Times. Israel, of course, tries as hard as it can to avoid civilian casualties, including children, by telephoning, leafletting, emailing warnings about an impending attack on a target, practicing its “knock-on-the-roof” technique, all in order to get everyone in those buildings to flee. Israel has no desire to kill children or other civilians.

Ever since the Middle Ages, Jews and Jewish communities around the world have been regularly accused of killing innocent non-Jewish children, in bloodlust or in the service of fantastical religious services. Over hundreds of years, such false accusations of murder have come to be known as “blood libel.”…

Despite the Times’ almost daily criticism of the Jewish state—and its decades-long tradition of siding with Israel’s enemies—the front-page photo collage reinvigorated an antisemitic canard, and clearly crossed a line….

There is a straight line from the medieval blood libel of Jews killing Christian children to use their blood in making Passover wafers, and the New York Times blaming “Jews” (Zionists) for the presumably deliberate killing of more than 60 Palestinian children.

Fair-minded people need to ask why, of all the bloody conflicts raging around the world, only the operation involving self-defense for the national homeland of the Jewish people was singled out for this graphically disturbing treatment.

Hundreds of thousands of people die in violent conflict and war around the world every year — 19,444 died in Afghanistan and 19,044 in Yemen in 2020, to say nothing of tens of thousands more in Syria, Somalia and Iraq. Not one of these conflicts was deserving of a front-page photo collage in the Times.

There were many more children who were killed in the continuing wars in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, and, Ethiopia than in the recent Hamas-Israel war. Why was it that the Times has never seen fit to print a similar front-page collage of the dead children in any of those conflicts? Were those children less important than the Palestinian Arab children? Or were the Palestinian Arab children worthy of heightened attention only because Israel could be, and was, blamed by the Times for their deaths?

Moreover, the Times collage project deceptively hid the context of the children’s deaths. It did not mention the [real] reason these children died.

According to HonestReporting, the context was buried: “Just minutes after the war between Israel and Hamas broke out, a 5-year-old boy named Baraa al-Gharabli was killed in Jabaliya, Gaza,” the opening sentence of “They Were Only Children” dramatically asserts. Only 20 paragraphs later do readers find out that al-Gharabli’s tragic death “may have been” caused by a Hamas rocket that fell short.

Israel Defense Forces’ radar images show that some 15 percent of all rockets launched by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) fell inside Gaza, unquestionably killing and injuring many Palestinians. Initial research indicates that failed Palestinian rocket launches killed at least nine of the children pictured in the Times piece. Still, the Times absolves Hamas of the responsibility for their deaths.

The IDF had made public radar images that showed nearly 680 Hamas rockets that had been launched against Israel, but fell instead inside Gaza, where they injured and killed Palestinians, including children. It appears that at least nine of the children who died in Gaza had been hit by Hamas’ own rockets. There is no mention of this under their photos, which attributes their deaths to Israel alone. Nor did the Times mention in the body of its article that accompanied the photos that 680 Hamas rockets fell short in Gaza itself, injuring and killing children and other civilians. Why not? Who at the Times decided that information should be left out?

Furthermore, in an embarrassment to those who put the collage together, some of the photos were of children alive and well, while others were of those who Hamas claimed as members, even if they were only 17 years old. One of them, Khaled Qanou, was a member of the Mujahideen Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement. This vital information was not mentioned anywhere in the Times’ disingenuous diatribe.

Of the 67 Palestinian children who were reported as killed by Israel, we know of at least nine who die from Hamas rockets, not because Hamas admitted it, but because Israeli photos show where a Hamas rocket fell short in Gaza exactly where those children were then reported to have died. Other Palestinian “children” turn out to have been in their late teens, and members of terrorist groups, including the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, and Hamas itself. But that information was kept from its readers by the New York Times; it would only muddy the tear-jerking message that “They Were Only Children.”

Finally, the images provide no clarification as to the remarkably low ratio of civilian deaths in Israel’s wars with Hamas. Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, notes that a United Nations study showed “that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare.”

Kemp states that this ratio was less than 1:1 and compared it favorably to the estimated ratios of NATO operations in Afghanistan (3:1), western campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo (believed to be 4:1), and the conflicts in Chechnya and Serbia (much higher than 4:1).

Kemp argues that the low ratio was achieved through unprecedented measures taken by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties, including warnings to the population via telephone calls, radio broadcasts and leaflets, as well as granting pilots the discretion to abort a strike if they perceived too great a risk of civilian casualties.

And as we know, Israel invented the “knock-on-the-roof” technique, the practice of dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs of targeted civilian homes as a prior warning of imminent bombing attacks to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack. The practice was first employed by the Israelis in the 2008-2009 Gaza war, and along with telephoning, radio broadcasts, and leafletting, was used again in this latest war with Hamas. We have also learned of Israeli pilots aborting a mission when they detected the presence of children at a targeted site. Here is one example.

The astonishingly low ratio – 1:3 — of civilian-to-fighter casualties in Gaza is based on figures from the IDF, which believes it killed 225 Hamas fighters, with about 75 civilians killed. That is an amazing figure; in modern warfare the ratio of civilians-to-fighters killed is ordinarily at least 3:1. But because of the enormous efforts Israel makes to warn civilians away from its targets, sometimes giving them as much as two hours warning to flee, civilian casualties were kept very low, despite Hamas’ deliberate efforts to increase them. That two-hours warning was what Israel provided to the residents of the media tower, the Al-Jalaa Building, that received so much attention because the AP offices were located there, along with the actual target of the IAF, Hamas weapons development and intelligence facilities.

He [Colonel Richard Kemp] also states that the civilian casualties that did occur could be seen in light of Hamas’s tactical use of Gazan civilians “as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters,” and strategic exploitation of their deaths in the media….

Questions for the Grey Lady:

Why have you never published a front-page collage, or even one on an inside page, of children killed in any of two dozen recent conflicts, such continuing wars as those in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Ethiopia?

Why, in your coverage of the children who died in the latest Gaza war, did you make no mention of Hamas’ deliberate use of human shields, including children, by hiding its rockets in, and launching them from, civilian buildings such as kindergartens, schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings?

Why, in your coverage of the children who died in the Gaza war, did you make no mention of the fact that some were known to have been killed by the 680 Hamas rockets aimed at Israel but fell short, and struck people inside Gaza?

Why, in your coverage of the children killed in Gaza, did you not subsequently let your readers know that several of those “children” whose photographs appeared were in their late teens, and were members of Hamas and the Palestinian Muhajideen Movement?

Why did The New York Times publish in its “They Were Only Children” collage a 2015 stock photo of a young girl, claiming Israeli forces killed her during the May 2021 war with Hamas? Why did it never apologize for that error?

Why did you not make any mention in the text that accompanies the photos of 67 dead children that Israeli pilots aborted missions when they detected children too close to the target?

Why do you nowhere mention, in the text accompanying the collage of photos of children killed in the war, Israel’s various methods to minimize civilian casualties? These include warning the inhabitants of impending targets through phone calls, leafletting, emails, and the “knock-on-the-roof technique,” giving them time – sometimes as much as two hours — to flee. Wasn’t all that worth mentioning?

Why do you trust the figures released by Hamas of “67 children” killed when, from the three previous Hamas-Israel wars, the numbers put out by Hamas proved, upon further investigation, to have been grossly inflated? Given that history, shouldn’t we be skeptical of Hamas this time?

Do we have any reason, on the other hand, to think that the figures about casualties provided by the IDF are to be trusted? Doesn’t the IDF have a long track record of putting out reliable figures?

That’s enough questions for now. I’m sure your continued skewed coverage of the Hamas-Israel conflict will prompt still others.



‘Spencer performs a super detective service for the West in this book, Did Muhammad Exist?’

UK: Muslim who called for ‘jihad’ to ‘wipe out Zionist entity’ supports Muslim group 2 prime ministers tried to ban

India: Muslim kidnaps Hindu girl, 15, forces her to convert, threatens to kill her whole family if she goes to cops

American U’s School of International Studies accused of ‘Islamophobia’ for saying Islam compatible with feminism

Canada: MP takes stand against ‘Islamophobia’ and hatred of ‘LGBTQ2+ individuals, families and allies’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Marx, Muhammad and the West’s Current Crisis

The “entire world seems to be going insane,” writes investigative journalist James Simpson in his new bookWho Was Karl Marx?: The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today’s Rampaging American Left. In this primer on the Left’s ideological origins, Simpson reveals the totalitarian trends that are roiling modern America and the wider Western world and offers interesting perspectives on the distinct yet interrelated Islamist threat.

Simpson examines how various modern causes such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement are exploiting concerns including racism in order to transform America fundamentally. “We are actually witnessing a Communist overthrow of the United States in real time. This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it is not,” he writes.  Thereby any specific social justice “issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution” or the “Left’s relentless goal to overthrow the existing order to achieve absolute power and the wealth that comes with it, nothing else.”

In this cold civil war among political organizations, Simpson shows that knowledge is power. As BLM demonstrates, the “great danger of communism is that most of its followers are not communists. They are advocates and do-gooders of every stripe who don’t know or don’t care about the organization’s pedigree.” Yet the Left’s real intellectual forebears would shock any decent observer.

Marxism’s namesake, the nineteenth-century German philosopher Karl “Marx himself, was the biggest fraud of all,” Simpson notes. Marx “has been built up by a century of propaganda into a kind of omniscient, benevolent god.” Yet Simpson details that this supposed savior from humanity’s misery “himself was hypocritically greedy, petty, arrogant, lazy, selfish, dishonest, two-faced, lecherous, bigoted and brimming with hatred.”

Marx established a common historical pattern among the Left’s leaders of fortunate sons who had the luxury of developing arcane theories about the proletariat while spared from the toil of earning daily bread. As a lifelong sponger of others, “Marx’s economic theories had no grounding in reality. He had no experience actually working in the real world and lacked understanding of basic economic principles,” Simpson writes. Marx particularly relied on the wealthy heir Friedrich Engels, who “lived in the lap of luxury while planning world revolution” as a “sort-of revolutionary party animal.”

Similarly, most of the Frankfurt School’s Marxist scholars, established in Germany in 1923 before Nazism’s rise forced flight to New York City, were “trust fund revolutionaries,” Simpson observes. Fidel and Raul Castro, who established Cuba’s Communist dictatorship in 1959, also “as sons of a rich sugar plantation owner…had it all,” and Fidel, when he died in 2016, had amassed at least $900 million in wealth. As the son of a relatively wealthy peasant, Red China’s founding tyrant Mao Zedong had been in his youth “lazy, arrogant, insolent, and refused to work,” as shown by his expulsion from four schools for disobedience.

The “true essence of Communism” is “entrepreneurial parasites; greedy, manipulative, megalomaniacal psychopaths,” Simpson concludes in his historical survey. “By its very nature the communist model requires leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Assad, Mao and Pol Pot—all clever, devious, diabolical, mass murderers.”

Today Marxists usually seek to revolutionize Western societies not through hard power such as military takeovers, but through assaults on Western culture with agendas including a never-ending sexual revolution. “We all have primordial lusts,” Simpson notes. “The communists have always known this. Early on they began developing the philosophies, tactics, and institutions to inject poisonous ideas into our society that would capitalize on those natural human tendencies.”

Simpson highlights Georgi Lukacs, who served as People’s Commissar for Culture and Education in Béla Kun’s brief Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. “Lukacs pioneered the attack on Western culture by using sex as a weapon of moral corruption. He instituted a radical program of mandated sex education in schools,” Simpson notes. This accompanied a “campaign of vilification against Christianity.”

Lukacs “Cultural Terrorism,” Simpson observes, “infuriated Hungary’s Catholic population.” When Romania invaded Hungary, “large segments of the population and the military would not fight when they realized the Communists’ true objectives.” Kun’s government collapsed, and he fled to the Soviet Union.

In 1923, Lukacs helped found the Frankfurt School, which developed Critical Theory. “Critical theory attacks Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, and nationalism,” Simpson notes. Subsequently Derrick Bell, former President Barack Obama’s favorite professor, “devised Critical Race Theory [CRT], an offshoot of Critical Theory applied to race,” Simpson adds. CRT is BLM “in a nutshell, and defines the extreme polarization communists have deliberately fomented in America. They couldn’t achieve it by revolutionizing the proletariat, so they targeted race.”

Another Frankfurt School associate, Herbert Marcuse, ascended the Ivory Tower in professorships at universities such as Columbia and Harvard. This “Father of the New Left” in the 1960s “developed the idea of suppressing conservative speech in his 1965 essay ‘Repressive Tolerance,’” Simpson notes. What subsequently became “partisan tolerance” of only Leftist ideas now dominates Western academia and media.

This Marxist soft power reflects the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, who became Italy’s Communist Party leader in 1924. “According to Gramsci, capitalism’s power or ‘hegemony’ rested in its institutions, that is, churches, schools, the media, Hollywood, the military government and political parties,” Simpson notes. Gramsci accordingly devised what became the subversive “long march through the institutions” by Marxist cadre.

Such stealthy takeovers recall the 1869 Revolutionary Catechism by Russian anarchist Sergey Nechayev, a “blueprint for communist revolution” that Marxists have used throughout history, Simpson observes. In this pamphlet’s words, for any such Marxist “implacable enemy” of Western society, the “object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.” Nonetheless, the “revolutionary may and frequently must live within society while pretending to be completely different from what he really is, for he must penetrate everywhere.”

Given Simpson’s analysis, his situation report on America’s present perils interestingly offers strategies centered on civic society and education. “Leftist and Islamic allies seek destruction of Judeo/Christian values because it is our greatest source of strength and cultural stability,” he writes. Thus, he advocates various means to “Defund Universities,” which only “indoctrinate our youth in the Left’s destructive narratives.”

Simpson’s emphasis on “Judeo/Christian values” means that a church militant looms large in his battleplan. “Discourage interfaith dialogue. It facilitates the Koranic Concept of War: detach the enemy from his faith. Christians and Jews are urged to accept Islam, but Islam is not urged to accept Christianity or Judaism,” he writes. “Liberal churches are apostates,” he adds; “If you are a member, leave.”

Simpson calls for clear stands and aggressive action. “Men are men and women are women” no matter “very extensive cosmetic surgery,” he demands that people recognize in opposition to “transgender” ideology. Meanwhile, truth’s defenders should go on offense: “Infiltrate enemy organizations. Expose their various plans.”

The Marxists exposed by Simpson have often entered Red-Green alliances with Islamists in contemporary Western society, as he and others have noted. Therefore, his analysis sheds light on this parallel menace. For example, any Muslims who claim to be followers of God should answer why they would ally with what Simpson clearly denounces as “Satanic” Marxist forces, especially when they would ultimately seek to dominate Muslims as well.

Simpson’s debunking of Marx and his disciples provides further food for thought on Islam. Given scrutiny of the lives and claims of these ideologues, why should Islam’s prophet Muhammad and his followers experience any better treatment, notwithstanding traditional Islamic blasphemy prescriptions? In particular, the rule of various Islamic empires across history offers spectacles of rapacity and cruelty similar to many Communist dictatorships.

Gramsci’s “march through the institutions” and Nechayev’s covert “implacable enemy” of the “filthy order” also echo in the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad.” Jewish outrage over the anti-Israel tirades of Fairfax County School Board member Abrar Omeish is simply the latest example of disappointment in a Muslim once celebrated for interfaith cooperation.

Perhaps the key lesson from Simpson’s book is that forewarned is forearmed. Understanding of the West and its enemies is just as necessary today as ever in this time of struggle amidst great ideological crosscurrents in America and the wider West. As Jesus once said, the “truth will set you free.” Perhaps Simpson thought on these words when he concluded: “Pray daily for the salvation of our nation.”


EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NEW YORK CITY: Woman converts to Islam, plots jihad bombings because of ‘Islamophobia’

It is a common tactic on the Left: accuse your target of what you’re actually guilty of doing. It is the Left’s lies about rampant “Islamophobia” in the U.S. that incite violence, not opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women. But the Left’s lies are ubiquitous, and are the real pandemic these days.

ISIS fangirl sentenced to 16 years in prison for NYC bomb plot

by Ben Feuerherd, New York Post, June 16, 2021 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

An ISIS-obsessed woman from Queens who considered Osama bin Laden a personal hero was sentenced to more than 16 years in federal prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to a bomb-making charge nearly two years ago.

Before handing down the 198-month sentence, Brooklyn federal Judge Sterling Johnson called defendant Noelle Velentzas the “prime mover” and “brain” behind the plot she hatched with a friend to set off bombs in New York and kill police officers.

“She was the moving force behind this conspiracy,” Sterling added at the remote sentencing hearing.

Velentzas said in brief remarks that she took responsibility for her actions, then ranted about how she was driven to attempt to kill fellow Americans because of Islamophobia and “the sentiment that my religion needs to be defended.”

She added that she’s since learned to build a “higher self” and to not respond to discrimination by building bombs.

“I’m ready to go home and rebuild my life and rebuild my life with my daughter,” she said.

Velentzas was busted in 2015 for conspiring with her roommate, Asia Siddiqui, and a third woman they knew as “Mel” — who was actually an undercover law enforcement agent.

The pair taught each other bomb-making skills and discussed potential targets to attack, including the funeral for NYPD Officer Rafael Ramos, who was assassinated with his partner in Brooklyn soon before Christmas in 2014….


Israel: Muslim cleric calls for murder of police officers

Germany: Muslim migrant murders his wife, invokes Sharia in court, says it allows him to punish her

Pakistan: Muslim clerics lead mob to attack Ahmadi funeral, throw stones at mourners and beat them with sticks

Germany: ‘Right-wing extremist’ who threw burning bottle at families on playground was actually a Muslim migrant

Muslim cleric tells Muslims to move to South Sudan and Islamize it by making ‘sacrifice’ of marrying ‘Negro women’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Deadliest Sin — Coveting

The Tenth Commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” Exodus 20:15

What is the deadliest of sins?

This is a question that many of us ask every day. Is the deadliest sin murder, rape, stealing, adulatory or lying?

The deadliest sin is COVETING.

Why? Because Coveting leads to all of the other sins. Let’s look at the Ten Commandments to understand how the Tenth Commandment (coveting) allows each of us to defile the other Nine Commandments.

  • First Commandment: You shall have no other gods before Me. Coveting oneself, our earthly desires, over God is in reality coveting your body, not the Holy Spirit.
  • Second Commandment: You shall make no idols. When we worship idols then we begin to covet these idols over God and His Son. This leads to the death of the soul.
  • Third Commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. When you hear someone curse, as in rap music or in films or videos, then you are hearing that person covet evil versus good.
  • Fourth Commandment: Keep the Sabbath day holy. If you do not attend church then you are coveting your time over giving time to listen to the word of God delivered by a priest, pastor or rabbi.
  • Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and your mother. This is a two way street. If your father and or your mother abandon you. Or you abandon and disrespect your father or mother then you have sinned against God. Honoring family is a sacred duty.
  • Sixth Commandment: You shall not murder. Murder is truly a deadly sin. Taking another’s life, other than in self-defense, is coveting that person’s life.
  • Seventh Commandment: You shall not commit adultery. Breaking one’s marriage vows is a deadly sin. It kills a relationship, a family and a person’s worth.
  • Eight Commandment: You shall not steal. Stealing or robbery takes from another to enrich oneself. This destroys both the person who has had something of value taken and it creates a criminal.
  • Ninth Commandment: Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Bearing false witness is coveting in that is takes away the truth and presents a lie to others as if it were the truth. This lying has become the new “woke” normal in the media, social media and within communities. Lying is lying. Truth is truth.


Coveting another God, coveting idols, cursing the name of God, not going to church with your family, not honoring your family, murdering another, stealing from someone and lying are all violations of the Tenth Commandment.

The bedrock of any culture is based upon a belief in one God (monotheism). A rejection of idols such as government or worshiping at the alter of the earth (environmentalism). Using curse words in our homes, communities, in films (like Pulp Fiction), on social media and in public is wrong and destroys our Republic. Church attendance is a necessary component of a faithful people. Our founding fathers understood that In God We Trust as a people.

Murder, adultery (and divorce), robbery and lying are all symptoms of both a soul-less person and a community, a city, a state and a nation without a soul.

Coveting is truly the deadliest of sins. It destroys individuals and nations.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump: American Jews Don’t Love Israel Enough

These are godless Jews – they worship at the church of left-wing human secularism. That’s their religion. Religious Jews overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

Indeed. And apparently American Jews don’t like being safe, either. The Trump Administration was without question the most pro-Jewish administration ever. They would not have tolerated the skyrocketing anti-Semitic attacks occurring in our cities. Sadly, President Trump’s pro-Jewish and pro-Israel policies meant nothing to most of America’s Jewish organizations, who overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden in 2020. America’s Jewish leaders never explained to the Jewish voters that they represent, that it would be politically impossible for Biden to protect America’s Jews from the Left. That is because the Democrat Party needs the BDS vote to win elections. History will not be kind to America’s Jewish leaders.

Former U.S. Pres. Donald Trump: American Jews don’t love Israel enough

“I did the Heights, I did Jerusalem, and I did Iran. I believe we got just 25% of the Jewish vote. It just doesn’t make sense.”

By Israel National News, June 17, 2021

In an interview with Ami Magazine published this week, former US President Donald Trump expressed his disappointment with the response of American Jewry to policies he spearheaded as President, policies widely regarded as extremely beneficial to Israel.

“I did the Heights, I did Jerusalem, and I did Iran … I believe we got 25% of the Jewish vote, and it doesn’t make sense,” Trump said. “It just seems strange to me.”

Trump was referring to his administration’s decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, long sought by successive Israeli governments; to the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv; and to America’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal that was seen as damaging to Israel’s security. These policies were hailed in Israel with Trump considered by many as the best President for Israel in decades. However, this did not, apparently, translate into votes in US ballot boxes.

Trump suggested, later in the same interview, that this was because, “Jewish people who live in the United States don’t love Israel enough.” “Does that make sense to you?,” he asked.

He also noted that, “I’m not talking about Orthodox Jews” – and indeed, the increasing support for the Republican Party among the US Orthodox population has long been noted. Among non-Orthodox and non-affiliated Jews, however, support for the Democratic Party remains strong.

RELATED ARTICLE: Un-Jews’: Famed Jewish Dissident Who Spent 9 Years In Soviet Prisons Blasts American Leftist Jews

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Hungary: Prime Minister Orbán says ‘Migrant armies are banging on Europe’s door’

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has issued several warnings over the years about the Muslim invasion of Europe. He has now warned again that “migrant armies are banging on Europe’s doors, on the doors that seal off migration routes on land and at sea.”

Although Orban made reference to an escalation of illegal Muslim migrants as coronavirus recedes, the encroachment has continued throughout lockdowns. Illegal Muslim migrants never stopped swarming into Greece, Italy, the UK, Spain and elsewhere, often bringing in coronavirus with them.

Globalists have been facilitating the destruction of the EU, while responsible leaders are called “racists” for their dedication to democracy, rule of law and protection of their citizenry. Less than two weeks ago, UK Prime Minster Boris Johnson, who has completely lost control of the influx of illegal Muslim migrants swarming into his country across the English Channel (amid public protests), condemned Orbán’s comments about ‘Muslim invaders’ as ‘divisive and wrong’.

PM Orbán: ‘Migrant armies’ are banging on Europe’s doors

by Zoltán Kovacs, About Hungary, June 11, 2021:

Prime Minister Orbán said that we are living in the “age of epidemics and migration,” so we must prepare for tackling immigration and fending off new viruses.

Speaking on Kossuth Rádió this morning, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán laid out the reasons why he plans to “toughen up” Hungary’s stance on migration, as we are living in the “the age of epidemics and migration.” The main question now, he said, is whether we can continue doing things in the same way that we used to before the coronavirus crisis.According to the PM, this is particularly important when it comes to migration, because “migrant armies are banging on Europe’s doors, on the doors that seal off migration routes on land and at sea.” Last year, roughly 10,000 illegal border-crossing attempts were intercepted on Hungary’s southern border fence. In 2021, this number will reach 38,000. That’s nearly four times as many.“Today, migration is not yet the main topic of discussion,” PM Orbán observed, stating that “in the Hungarian government’s view, there is no such thing as good migration, there is only bad migration.” This is why Hungary seeks to take help to where it’s needed the most, instead of bringing the trouble over here. “Migration policy should not focus on letting migrants in, but offering temporary help to those in trouble,” the prime minister said….



State Department Reveals Massive Fraud Investigation of Special Iraqi Refugee Program

Pope Francis renews his call for tearing down of ‘walls of indifference’ toward Muslim migrants

Arab League foreign ministers to form ‘joint committee’ to aid the Palestinian jihad against Israel

ISIS bride Shamima Begum renews plea to return to UK: ‘I was just a dumb kid who made one mistake’

Afghanistan: Muslims murder polio workers amid claims vaccine is Western conspiracy to sterilize Muslim children

Australia: ‘I love Allah. I want to be in paradise and the best thing I can do for my family is to die a martyr.’

‘By Allah, this is unbearable’: Palestinians suffer ‘humiliating’ wait at post office to collect pay-for-slay checks

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

“One Nation Under Allah”?

Recently, a student of Justice High School in Fairfax, Virginia led the graduation ceremony in the Pledge of Allegiance. In this public school setting, when she got to the part about “one nation under God,” she said, instead, “one nation under Allah.” This was apparently without any permission from school officials.

The idea of “one nation under Allah” is a natural outgrowth of the idea of “multi-culturalism,” but is inconsistent with our history. It is true that in some Muslim-dominant nations, Christians there use the name “Allah” for God. But it’s also true that the Allah of the Qu’ran is different than the God of the Bible. Presumably the student used the opportunity to tweak the noses of those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition of America as “one nation under God.”

“One nation under God” allows the Muslim, the Buddhist, the atheist to practice what they wish.

“One nation under Allah” restricts freedom of those who disagree—even fellow Muslims of a slightly different stripe.

The idea of multi-culturalism may sound good to the naïve. While we can learn something from virtually every culture, to say that all cultures are the same is ignorant. They are not.

In places where the worship of Allah is compulsory, there is little room to disagree. Even many Muslims find restrictions under strict Islam troubling. There are many Iranians and Pakistanis and Afghanis lining up to try and live in America. But we don’t have a lot of Americans lining up to go live in Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Here’s what Rabbi Daniel Lapin once told me in a television interview for D. James Kennedy Ministries video, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

America shines like a beacon because America is “one nation under God.”

Although the secularist denies it and gnashes his teeth at the idea that the Christian God had anything to do with the founding of America, the evidence abounds in the actual documents of America’s settling and founding eras, e.g., as found in The Annals of America (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976) or the Avalon Project (on-line) of Yale University.

In their own words:

  • The Pilgrims came “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” (Mayflower Compact, 1620).
  • The Puritan founder of Boston, Rev. John Winthrop, said (quoting Jesus), “For we must consider that we shall be like a City upon a hill; the eyes of all people are on us.” (“A Model of Christian Charity,” 1630).
  • The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), which historians believed was a direct ancestor to the Constitution, notes that the purpose of their settlement was for “the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.” This is why Connecticut is called “the Constitution state.”

And on it goes.

The Pilgrims, Puritans, and Quakers who founded British North America fled Mother England and other countries to get away from religious tyranny—in that case tyranny from professing Christians.

James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, wrote the “Memorial and Remonstrance” (1785). In this document, he notes that as Christians we must have tolerance for those who have not yet been enlightened by the Gospel of Christ.

Said Madison, “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God therefore, not to men, must an account of it be rendered.”

And thus, the founders established a nation where there would be no “establishment” of religion—nor would the free exercise of religion be squelched. This was understood for the first 150 years of American jurisprudence as meaning there would be no national church in America. In Britain, they have the Church of England. But there’s no Church of America.

But now the secularists have been imposing in effect a religious system of secular humanism. Rabbi Lapin calls them “the secular fundamentalists.” They are like the mullahs of Islam, only they seek to impose secular orthodoxy, including sexual libertinism.

And so, an “enlightened” student in America calls this country “one nation under Allah.” But that is so far from our history and is totally anathema to freedom. Only as “one nation under God,” do people, even of the Islamic faith, enjoy liberty in America.

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Sometimes It Takes a Few Pogroms

Sometimes it takes a few pogroms to drive home the solution, inducing Diaspora Jews to make Aliyah as their forebears left Europe.

Merriam-Webster defines “pogrom” as “an organized massacre of helpless people – specifically such a massacre of Jews.”

According to theOxford English DictionaryOED), the word pogrom entered English from Yiddish which borrowed it from Russian. The OED gives two meanings for the word:

In Russia, Poland, and some other East European countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: an organized massacre aimed at the destruction or annihilation of a body or class of people, esp. one conducted against Jewish people.


An organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group.

Note that the Merriam-Webster refers to the victims being “helpless” and that might also refer, in contemporary analysis to a lack of power. Both definitions refer to the massacre being “organized”. The latter also adds that is an “officially tolerated” attack.

A pogrom then is somewhat different than a riot. For example, riots in large American cities by supporters of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, generally targeted government buildings and businesses, rather than ethnic or racial minorities. But these riots were quite successful as the rioters, particularly BLM, achieved financial and moral support that empowered Blacks vis-a-vis educational curricula and Critical Race Theory now embedded – although facing a backlash – in government, schools, and corporations.

But the riots themselves and violence as a tactic have been adopted by groups who decide to do pogroms targeting Jews, especially the haredi Jews who are readily recognized by their dress. So, we are in an era where both riots and pogroms are becoming more common. And based on the non-reaction of the Democrats in the U.S. and the law enforcement officers, the message of the utility of riots spread around the world. As long as the violence is against individuals or small groups of Jews as opposed to attacking the Jewish state and IDF, then these count as pogroms.

In the U.S. in the last year, there have been increasing numbers of attacks against Jewish owned businesses and synagogues and individual Orthodox Jews walking to or from synagogue. In Europe, there have been many attacks especially in France, where a Jewish school was violated with murder and older Orthodox women were murdered in their homes. France and Sweden show us that the more Islamists populate a country, the more murders are committed against Jew – and others also.

In Canada, in large cities like Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax, there have recently been “protest” demonstrations against Israel for defending itself against Hamas missiles and some of these turned violent. In Toronto, Palestinian Arabs and their supporters have taken to organizing large protests in Jewish neighbourhoods, which seem to aim for violent confrontations.

It is one thing to have a protest at City Hall, and another to have a protest in a Jewish residential neighbourhood.Typically these protests have Jews outnumbered by about 20 to 1, probably because Jews fear violence at the hands of those more comfortable with street-fighting. They are not quite pogroms because there is little in the way of guns. However, there is evidence of police officers refusing to aid Jewish victims and instead saying that they are only in attendance to separate the parties and that they lack the manpower to really keep the peace; query whether this attitude amounts to tolerance of criminality.

Significant pogroms in the Russian Empire included the Odessa pogromsWarsaw pogrom (1881)Kishinev pogrom (1903), Kiev Pogrom (1905), and Białystok pogrom (1906). After the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, several pogroms occurred amid the power struggles in Eastern Europe, including the Lwów pogrom (1918) and Kiev Pogroms (1919).

Of course the most significant pogrom in Nazi Germany was the Kristallnacht of 1938. At least 91 Jews were killed, a further thirty thousand arrested and subsequently incarcerated in concentration camps, a thousand synagogues burned, and over seven thousand Jewish businesses destroyed or damaged. Notorious pogroms of World War II included the 1941 Farhud in Iraq, the July 1941 Iași pogrom in Romania – in which over 13,200 Jews were killed – as well as the Jedwabne pogrom in German-occupied Poland.

Post-World War II pogroms included the1945 Tripoli pogrom, the 1946 Kielce pogrom and the 1947 Aleppo pogrom.

In the period before the declaration of the State of Israel, the Jews were targeted in the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed pogrom.

We now turn to the question of whether the recent disturbances and violence in Jerusalem and other “mixed” cities like Lod, Acco, and Yaffo, amount to a return of pogroms to the Jewish people, even though we now have our own state and well-trained and equipped military. But a military cannot stop the knifing of a Jewish resident by his neighbor. If Jews, who were generally of the opinion that Arab Israelis were enjoying their democratic rights, becoming more satisfied and integrated with life in Israel, now see their neighbours joining a pogrom or a lynching, Israel has yet another difficult security problem.

A number of Israeli writers have addressed this. Victor Rosenthal, who writes under the name Abu Yehudah,writes: in a piece entitled “Israel is stuck:”

“Why do I think coexistence is impossible? Because – as has been demonstrated conclusively in the last few weeks – the combination of the nature of Arab culture, combined with the all-pervasive Palestinian narrative, the well-organized and financed anti-Zionist forces, and the effective use of media, especially social media, make it so.

“Let me make it clear at the outset that I am talking about all of the Land of Israel, by which I mean all the land between the river and the sea, from the Golan to the border with Egypt. My argument is that if coexistence between Arabs and Jews is failing within the boundaries of pre-1967 Israel, then a fortiori(or kal v’homer) it cannot succeed within the larger boundaries of all the Land of Israel.”

“The narrative says that the Jews have stolen the land from the Arabs, and the state is illegitimate… It postulates a ‘Palestinian people’ that goes back centuries in the land. That is a fiction…

“In Arab culture, personal, family, tribal, and now national, honor has a very high priority. The restoration of lost honor justifies violence – indeed, if the loss was violent, the response must be also. Loyalty to the group and perseverance in search of justice are important values. Accounts must be settled, and in the ledgers of the Palestinian Arabs, much is owed to them by the Jews.” That, too, if fiction.

Rosenthal says that Meir Kahane “was right about one thing: in order for the Jewish state to continue to exist, it cannot continue to have a large Arab minority. I am certain that many Israelis agree in their hearts, but are afraid to express agreement from fear of being called “racist” or worse. But race has nothing to do with what is at bottom a national conflict, and indeed it is a profoundly unhelpful concept.”

Martin Sherman is another prolific writer grappling with the lesson of the Arab Israeli pogroms. He writes in his essay, “Et tu, Ahmad: The illusion of Arab loyalty”:

“Violent Israeli Arab “display(s) of alienation—indeed, aversion—to their own state is not confined to select elites within Arab-Israeli society. Indeed, when Arab Israelis perpetrated lethal acts of terror, they were feted as heroes by their kinfolk, who collaborated in hiding them from Israeli authorities. When two of them were eventually located and killed, they were given huge funerals, where they were enthusiastically eulogized by approving mass processions—and lauded as martyrs for Al-Aqsa for gunning down two Israeli policemen (from the Druze community) at the Temple Mount.

‘The unavoidable conclusion from this dismal record is that Israel has been enormously—and ill-advisedly—tolerant its Arab citizens, allowing blatant and barefaced displays not only of disloyalty but of equally brazen identification with Israel’s enemies—even in times of ongoing hostilities.

‘Seen in this context, the current revolt is clearly aimed at changing the very essence of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, annulling the very foundation for its establishment and transforming the rationale for its continued existence.

‘Accordingly, the situation can no longer be seen as one centering on the question of individual rights, but of collective survival—and it must be treated as such.”

Caroline Glick in her recent piece, “Facing the real cause of the long Arab war” says that after 75 years of making excuses and denying the plain fact that anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred is the root and the branch of the Arab conflict with Israel, Israelis of all walks of life and across the political spectrum need, in light of the recent Arab-Israeli pogroms, to accept that it is true that the root cause of the War is Jew-hatred..”

Says Glick: “The Palestinian war, now joined by Israel’s Arabs and supported by the ruling party in America, presents Zionism with its supreme test: Will Israel protect its Jewish national identity, or will it crumble under pressure?”

“Israel must do two things to persevere. First, it must quell the Arab-Israeli violence and confiscate all illegal weapons now in the hands of the Arabs.

“More fundamentally, after 75 years of making excuses and denying the plain fact that anti-Semitism is the root and the branch of the Arab conflict with Israel, Israelis of all walks of life and across the political spectrum need to accept this truth. As a society, we must demand that Israel’s Arab citizens and their leaders recognize the legitimacy and justice of the existence of the State of Israel. And we must not accept no for an answer any more.”

In my book, The Ideological Path to Submission… and what we can do about it (Mantua Books), I agree with the approach of Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum to distinguish between Muslims who can adjust to lives of freedom, responsibility, women’s rights, rights of other religions including Judaism and non-violence, and other Muslims, usually called Islamists who seek Jihad, conquest, a world-wide Caliphate, forced conversions, Sharia Law and violence. My book deals mainly with Islam in America, Canada and Europe, but I hold the same distinctions must apply to Islamic Israelis.

The only Muslims that should live in Israel are those non-Islamists who accept the virtue of the Jews, the Torah and that the Qur’an says that the land of Israel is for the Jews.

Sometimes it takes a few pogroms to drive home the problem and the solution alike.

The Russian and Ukrainian pogroms in the early 19th century were the determining factor for Russian Jews to depart Russia and the Ukraine for America. A lot of Jews paid with their lives so that others would understand that the time had come to leave.

My father’s cousin, upon liberation from Auschwitz, decided to go back home to Lodz Poland. He and others were met with a violent pogrom from the Poles who did not want the Jews back. After a few years, he and his new wife made Aliyah.

Pogroms against Jews in contemporary Europe and the danger that riots in America might turn into pogroms will induce Diaspora Jews to make Aliyah. But they must see an Israel that understands that Arab Israelis must not only be cleansed of guns and other weapons, but must clearly support reformist Islam and not Islamism. At a time when Muslims up 20% of Israel’s population, it is essential to adopt this paradigm about Muslim neighbours and co-workers.

The mini-pogroms that started a couple of weeks ago must make it clear to both antisemites and Jews everywhere that the best thing for all concerned is a division between modernist more liberal Islam and the Islamists, and only the former should populate Israel, and perhaps the rest of the West. Those who follow radical hegemonic Islamism might stay in one of the numerous Islamic theocracies.

Sometimes it takes a few pogroms.

©Howard Rotberg. All rights reserved.

NEW YORK CITY: Muslims Screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ Burn Israeli Flag, Repeat Genocidal Chant Calling for Israel’s Destruction

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means that Israel will be erased completely, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This will lead to the deaths of millions of Jews.

Welcome to de Blasio’s New York.

“‘Allahu Akhbar!’: Pro-Palestinian protesters chant as they BURN Israeli flag in march through NYC that left diners shocked and saw ‘blood’ thrown at BlackRock offices

by Melissa Koenig, Daily Mail, June 12, 2021:

A group of pro-Palestinian protestors burned an Israeli flag outside of Rockefeller Center as they marched through the streets of midtown Manhattan while demonstrating over businesses with ties to Israel.

The group carrying Palestinian flags and signs saying, ‘None of us are free until all of are free,’ ‘Imagine justice,’ and ‘We will free Palestine within our lifetime.’ They were also filmed chanting: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’.’ Some critics claim that line is anti-Semitic because it appears to call for the destruction of Israel.

When the group got to Rockefeller Center, the protesters were seen tearing apart an Israeli flag and setting it on fire, and stomping on it, yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’. One woman was even filmed kneeling down and spraying more accelerant onto the flag in an apparent attempt to get it to burn faster.

Some members of the group were also seen carrying placards saying ‘Abolition Now,’ in an apparent call to dismantle the police.

Then, when they passed the BlackRock offices on 52 Street, two men sprayed red paint to symbolize the blood they claim the business has on its hands.

BlackRock, an asset managements firm, has significant investments in US defense firm Lockheed Martin, which supplies weapons technology to the state of Israel. It is owned by Larry Fink, who sits on the board of MoMA. …


Canada: Day of Rage planned in Vancouver to ‘reject Zionist annexation of Palestinian Land’

Greece: Muslim migrants jailed for burning down Europe’s largest migrant camp, leaving over 12,000 without shelter

UK: Muslim ‘refugee’ detained for smuggling illegal Muslim migrants into the country inside sofas

June 15: 106th Anniversary of Turkey’s 1915 Assyrian Genocide

Islamic scholar quotes Qur’an to support claim that ‘massacring this enemy [Israelis] is a divine order’

Pakistanis enraged as Saudi Arabia eases female guardianship rules: ‘This is what follows when you recognise Israel’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.