web analytics
December 6, 2016 / 6 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘america’

Obama Plans to Rule America Outside the White House

Tuesday, November 29th, 2016

{Originally Published in FrontPageMag}

Barack Obama has two faces. After Trump’s victory and Hillary’s defeat, the public Obama has been gracious and diplomatic. His lectures to Trump, directly and indirectly, are couched in praise. He echoed the feeling of millions on both sides when he said, “We are now all rooting for his success”.

That’s a lie. Or rather a disguise.

Obama and his aides had, in one insider narrative, decided to don the “mask of decorum”. The contempt for Trump still seeps through the mask. And the mask hides Obama’s next big move.

President Obama is over. He knows that. There are still some things that he can do before he leaves office, but everything except the most destructive, can be undone by his successor. The next phase of his campaign will not be fought from the White House. It will be fought against the White House .

The other Obama is emerging in conference calls with his supporters. “One of the challenges that I’ve discovered being president is I’d like to be organizer-in-chief, but it’s hard,” he said in one call.

Obama can no longer be commander-in-chief. Instead he’s plotting to become organizer-in-chief.

The infrastructure for the organization was put into place long before anyone thought that Hillary might lose. Organizing for Action gave him his own organizing hub. If Hillary had won, it would have been a pressure group.  Now that Trump won, it’s an axis to build a personal counterrevolution around.

In his post-election conference call with his OFA troops, Obama told them, “I’m giving you like a week and a half to get over it”. Then it would be time to “move forward not only to protect what we’ve accomplished, but also to see this as an opportunity”. What opportunity could there be in Trump’s win?

Obama is now the only major national figure still standing among the Democrats. After Hillary’s defeat, he’s worked hard to attribute the loss to her shortcomings, not his policies and decisions.  That’s not just to soothe his ego. If he’s going to dictate the future of his party, he can’t afford to be blamed for its latest disaster. And Obama is still determined to dictate the future of the party and the country.

In conventional politics, Obama is done. There’s no way back into the White House. And Hillary’s fate won’t leave much enthusiasm for nominating the uncharismatic spouse of a charismatic ex-president.

But Obama is not a conventional politician. He’s an organizer and a campaigner at the vanguard of a radical movement that seeks to control traditional institutions, but doesn’t feel bound by them. Unlike Bill Clinton, his plans don’t begin and end with the White House. As an organizer, Obama is equipped to build bases of power outside traditional institutions. And that is exactly what he is doing.

The demoralization of the Democrats is, as Obama put it, an opportunity. Social chaos is a time for the left to overthrow and undermine traditional institutions. Fear, anger and despair are radicalizing. The left has always operated by throwing bombs and then profiting from the fallout. That’s Obama’s agenda. Having wrecked the country and the Democrats, he sees that not as a setback, but as an opportunity.

“The network that you represent, you’re perfectly poised to do that,” Obama told his OFAers.  “In other words, now is the time for some organizing.”

While the leftist rioters in the streets are garnering the most attention, the real threat comes from the network of staffers dubbed Obama Anonymous which are beginning to organize and coordinate. OFA is Obama’s equivalent of the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons built Clintonworld around staffers, but its goal was harvesting money. Obama Inc. is being built around organizing and activism. Like Clintonworld, it will be a network encompassing a variety of political and non-profit institutions. Unlike them, it will be much less focused on directing money to its bosses in preparation for an election. Instead it will function like a traditional leftist movement, merging influence operations with crowdsourced mobilization.

OFA will be far more dangerous in the wild than the Clinton Foundation ever was. The Clintons hoped to ride back to power on a giant wave of money. Obama is taking a much more radical course.

The staffers exiting government are being wired into Obama Inc. whether or not they take jobs directly working for him. The OFA alumni are building networks across organizations while taking their marching orders from him. They expect Obama to lead them back from the wilderness and into the halls of power.

 He’s told them so.

“I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen.  But that’s not so far off,” he assured them. “I’m still fired up and I’m still ready to go.” His next comments promised that radical political change could and would take place.

Obama isn’t going to retire. He’s not going to spend years puttering around with a presidential library. He’s not even going to set up a Clintonesque slush fund and try to make his wife president. Instead he wants to force radical change from outside the White House by using the network he’s built.

While the public Obama wraps up business at the White House, concludes yet another world tour, alternating between praising Trump and offering him condescending advice, the other Obama is preparing to deploy a network that will dominate the Dems and set the agenda on the left.

If Obama succeeds, then he will get another shot at picking his White House successor. But beyond that, he’s been handed the keys to an organizing machine that will allow him to set even more of the agenda for his party than ever before. And he has a cause that is sending the party reeling back into his arms.

Obama believes that he can rule America from outside the White House. And he might be right.

Political norms and old rules have been falling faster than leaves in an autumn wind. If Obama sets out to move the center of power outside the White House and into an organization that will control national politics through the left, it would be dangerous to assume that he can’t and won’t succeed.

The Democrats didn’t respond to their defeat, one of a sequence, by trying to move to the center. Instead there is every sign that they are moving further to the left. Keith Ellison, a radical leftist with an anti-Semitic past, is tipped to head the DNC. Schumer still has the Senate, but Elizabeth Warren may have it before too long. Combine that with Obama as the president-in-exile and the Dems will be more radical and extremist than they were even when Obama was sitting in the White House.

The Democrats are ceasing to be a national party. Instead they are becoming a nationalizing party. They are losing their presence in much of the country, from state legislature to state legislature, and becoming the party of major cities and the national government. Their agenda is to move power from local areas to central ones, from the villages and the suburbs to the cities, from states to D.C. and from locally elected legislators in D.C. to the satellite bureaucracies of the Federal government.

Obama sees Hillary’s defeat as an opportunity to burn the Dem’s last bridges with the larger country and its “bitter clingers”, to double down on nationalizing power and to define the political narrative around the agendas of urban elites. The left crippled the Democrats. Now it wants to utterly consume them.

Barack Obama is still being vague and coy about his plans. He informs reporters that he will attack Trump when it comes to “core questions about our values and ideals”. But the “faithful” are getting much clearer signals. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff to do.”

The election was a catastrophic disaster for the Democrats, but it opened all sorts of doors for Obama.

Hillary’s defeat removes the Clintons, his only real internal rivals, off the stage. Trump’s triumph in working class areas cuts more ties with the traditional Dem base and transforms it into a party of left-wing urban elites and their radical agendas. And the popular figures on the left, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, lack his national stature, speaking skills and organization.

Obama will move to consolidate the left. And then the Democrats. He will function as a president-in-exile heading up the opposition to Trump. When it comes to verbally challenging Trump, Obama will be more likely to be interviewed and heard than Ellison or Schumer. And his people will coordinate responses across the left from street level organizing to think tanks and policy moves.

Some of it is ego.

Obama believes that he can find the key to beating Trump in the traditional tactics of the left. But most is ideology and power. Obama is not done transforming America. And America isn’t done with him yet.

Daniel Greenfield

Guatemala Holocaust Museum First in Central America

Thursday, November 17th, 2016

Located in a colonial-era house in Guatemala City, Guatemala, the Museo del Holocausto will be the first Holocaust museum in Central America. When it opens officially, in early 2017, the museum’s permanent collection will focus on the “Holocaust by Bullets.”

Between 1941 and 1944, more than 2 million Jews were massacred when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Because of the region’s inadequate railway systems the Nazis were unable to easily transport the Jews to the camps. Instead, mobile execution units gathered, shot and killed the Jews outside their homes. Soviet villages became execution sites and local villagers became executioners and witnesses.

After the executions, the Nazis buried their victims in mass ditches and continued on to another village. With bodies and bullets beneath the ground, the perpetrators left behind little indication of what had taken place. Some of the murderers were tried in Nuremberg, some in the West and East Germany, but many remain unaware of the magnitude of those mass executions.

Israeli Artist Mira Maylor’s exhibit “Memories of the Holocaust through Art” debuted at the Guatemala Holocaust Museum in November, and will be on display through February 28, 2017. Maylor’s take on memory is displayed in a series of 18 pieces. Israeli Ambassador to Guatemala Moshe Bachar spoke at the show’s opening and the Israeli Embassy in Guatemala supported the exhibition.

JNi.Media

INTO THE FRAY: For America: Respite – NOT Redemption

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

[Our] elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal. – “Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win”, New York Times, November 8, 2016.

Incredibly, this New York Times assessment, predicting an almost certain Clinton victory was posted at 10:20 PM ET on Tuesday, when, in effect, most voters had already cast their ballots. Indeed, it was not until about 5 AM on Wednesday that the paper’s forecasting machinery began to give Donald Trump a greater probability of winning.

Smug and supercilious

Little else could illustrate more dramatically how detached the allegedly “enlightened” social elites have become from the recalcitrant realities in the world around them. Little else could underscore more vividly how the misguided complacency, born of smug arrogance and supercilious superiority, have isolated them from the shifts in the mood of discontent in growing segments of the public, outside their immediate like-minded ideo-intellectual milieu. Worse, it stripped them of any ability –indeed, willingness—to understand them—and even desensitized them to the need to consider them of any weight or merit.

They were so self-absorbed with their own sense of pompous self-righteousness and puffed-up self-importance that they were totally oblivious of an “Other”, which they seemed to be incapable of envisaging. Indeed, although recognizing “the Other” is allegedly the hallmark of their socio-political credo, the only “Others” that these self-anointed paragons of wisdom and virtue can conceive of, are in fact, darker skin-toned versions of themselves.

They were incapable of conceiving that their “progressive” world view of multi-culturalism and moral relativism, in which everything that made America what it is, could be discarded in favor of everything that didn’t, would not have universal appeal for all intelligent life. They were utterly convinced that they embodied “the spirit of the times”, imbued with an unshakeable belief that they were on the “right side of history”—just as ISIS and the Ayatollahs of Iran do.

Intellectual inbreeding in an ideological echo-chamber

In explaining how the Obama administration has managed to enlist the main-stream media to endorse the fatally flawed Iran deal, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications , confessed: “We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say”.

This seems to be precisely what happened during the Trump campaign—particularly in its final weeks. His detractors seized on every piece of information as definitive proof of the coming of his inevitable downfall. Every pejorative item of breaking news was pounced upon as heralding the inexorable demise of his presidential bid. Typical of the misplaced haughtiness this self-reinforcing intellectual inbreeding within a contrived media echo chamber begot, was reflected in a caustic piece written a month before the elections (October 8) by John Avalon, the editor-in-chief of the allegedly “progressive liberal” Daily Beast. Headlined, “All Over But The Shouting: Donald Trump Just Lost The Election”, it informed the readers: “His numbers were already nosediving after a disastrous first debate performance, but the tape catching the candidate bragging about sexual assault has alienated key allies and confirms his critics’ suspicions.”

With unassailable conviction, Avalon assured us: “Mark down the date: October 7, 2016, is when Donald Trump lost the presidency.”

Ouch!!

It would seem that, in contrast to Avalon, the voters understood precisely what I pointed out last week—that the elections were for President, not Pope. Consequently, being a crude (the less charitable might say “lewd”) SOB is not necessarily a definitively disqualifying defect. After all, similar epithets could be attached, not implausibly, to previous incumbents, even heaven forfend, Democratic incumbents—from Clinton to Kennedy.

Rejecting unwanted metamorphosis

As I have written elsewhere, Trump was the creation of Obama and Clinton – a reaction of millions of Americans to the unwanted metamorphosis of their nation. In many ways, he is cut from precisely the same cloth as another phenomenon that pollsters failed appallingly to predict: Brexit. For much like the British rejection of the “Europeanization” of their land, so Trump was a response—albeit a somewhat unrefined one—to what tens of millions of Americans perceived as an attempt to decouple their country from its roots and heritage.

Few could convey the on-going metamorphosis in such biting precision as Daniel Greenfield. In a short essay written a day after the election, he acerbically depicted the concern—indeed, fear—that many Americans felt at the realities unfolding before their very eyes, aghast as they watched the dynamic diversity that characterized their county, rapidly descending into increasingly dysfunctional diffusion.

He wrote: “The tidal force of demographics had made the old America irrelevant. Any progressive policy agenda was now possible because we were no longer America. We

[w]ere Obamerica. A hip, happening place full of smiling gay couples, Muslim women in hijabs and transgender actors. We were all going to live in a New York City coffee house and work at Green Jobs and live in the post-national future.”

Beyond “white identity politics”?

Typically, “progressive liberals” are fiercely protective of minority identities, but somehow denigrate, equally fiercely, any sign that the majority may to wish to preserve its identity. Indeed, in what turned out to be an excruciatingly misguided and erroneous assessment of Trump’s electoral prospects, The Atlantic’s staff writer, Conor Friedersdorf, denounced the conduct of his campaign and warned what fate would befall the Republican Party “If the GOP becomes a party of white identity politics” (August 5, 2016). Since then of course, the GOP has won the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate—and looks set to determine the composition of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. So much for Friedersdorf’s prescience. But of course, in a profound sense, Trump was, purposely or otherwise, invoking identity politics. But his message hit a nerve that went far beyond “white men without a college degree”. It resonated with all those, regardless of gender, race or religion, who identified with the fundamental values and civilizational foundations that made America the exceptional power that it became – i.e. its Anglo-Saxon origins and its Judeo-Christian roots.

Victory of identity over “identity politics”?

In this sense, Trump’s triumph can be seen as a “converse” victory of “identity” over “identity politics—a victory for the vast number of Americans who felt their identity would be permanently jeopardized by the metamorphosis that Obama tried to impose and which a Clinton victory would irretrievably cement.

Greenfield tartly parodies the kind of realities many of Trump’s supporters (even the reluctant ones) recoiled from: “This was Obama’s America…The past was gone… We would become more tolerant and guilty…. It was hot and cold running social justice. The Bill of Rights was done. Ending the First and Second Amendments was just a clever campaign away. Narratives on news sites drove everything…Presidents were elected by Saturday Night Live skits…. Safe spaces were everywhere and you better watch your microaggressions, buddy. No more coal would be mined. No more anything would be made….The end of white people. The end of binary gender and marriage. The end of reason…The end of 2 + 2 equaling 4…It was time to pardon an endless line of drug dealers. To kill cops and praise criminals. To be forced to buy worthless health insurance for wealth redistribution to those who voted their way to wealth….”

So, after decades of being cowed by the dictates of political correctness, it seems as a counter-revolution may just be beginning to take root.

The challenges ahead

It is difficult to overstate the significance of Trump’s victory. For whatever he may, or may not, achieve in the future, it is what he has prevented from happening that is of incalculable importance. For the Obama-incumbency has been one of the most ruinous in the history of the Republic—socially, economically, diplomatically, as well as in terms of security. It has left American society more divided than ever, labor participation at the lowest for decades, American influence waning across the globe, a disastrous Iran deal, allies disheartened and abandoned, adversaries heartened and emboldened, much of the world ablaze with violence, a significant portion, of which due to injudicious US policy in recent years. A Clinton victory would only have sustained and accelerated the downward spiral. That this was averted is something for which we should count ourselves fortunate—very fortunate.

However, Trump’s win is no guarantee of improvement. Far from it! A myriad of difficulties and obstacles will be encountered. Overcoming them will be no small feat. To begin with, there is Trump’s inexperience and lack of familiarity with the mechanisms of government—which hopefully can be partially overcome by a judicious choice of experienced and competent aides and officials who can help navigate bureaucratic obstructionism should such arise.

Many of Trumps stated objectives are, to say the least, controversial. They are likely to arouse stiff opposition in many places within the government apparatus and elsewhere. Dealing with this will require considerable resolve and resourcefulness, and will sorely test the ablest and most committed of administrations.

Refusal to accept defeat?

But beyond these objective difficulties, Trump will face arguably even more harrowing challenges. These will relate to the very legitimacy and authority of his incumbency. Indeed, there are already signs that his defeated rivals do not, and will not, accept defeat. Despite his clear advantage in terms of electors, the popular vote was almost 50:50-with a minuscular advantage (0.2%) to Clinton. This is being seized on by Trump’s opponents as proof as to the invalidity of his presidency, fueling nation-wide protests and refusal to accept his victory.

Elsewhere, rather than acknowledge the dysfunctional defects in their political doctrine, Democrats have looked to lay the blame on the defective nature of Trump’s supporters—attributing their voting either to the basest of motives or their lack of education. By denouncing any call to preserve identity as “bigotry” and social discipline as “fascism”, they are attempting to strip Trump-voters’ preferences of any moral worth, casting them as uneducated, misogynistic oafs. However, as the Washington Post reported, a majority of both White women and college educated Whites voted for Trump.

Thus, ostrich-like, with their heads firmly buried in the sands of denial, Trump’s vanquished rivals obdurately refuse to confront honestly the real reasons for their astonishing defeat –thereby virtually ensuring that it will be repeated, something that will only increase their fury, frustration and befuddlement. Respite not redemption

These sentiments of fury and frustration will clearly intensify their efforts – bolstered by a hopelessly biased main-stream media, much of the politically-correct academia, an array of celebrity entertainers and threats of violent civil strife—to thwart any chances of a successful Trump incumbency. This constitutes a considerable threat to his ability to deliver on his pledges, which is why his success in precluding another 4-8 years of a Clinton continuation of the Obama doctrine is a welcome and much needed respite. For America, however, and for everything that made it America, it is far from being an assured and durable redemption.

Dr. Martin Sherman

Anti-Trump Riots in America Turning Violent – Warning Graphic [video]

Friday, November 11th, 2016

Anti-Trump protesters across America are ramping up their protests into full scale violent riots.

The rioters are starting fires, smashing cars, breaking windows, spray-painting walls, and even beating people up.

In Oregon, Portland police have declared it a riot, according to CNN.

Warning: The video below from Oregon is graphic:

There’s already speculation that these riots are not as organic as they initially seemed, but are being directed by professional, paid protesters.

President-Elect Trump has commented on the protests:

Jewish Press News Briefs

Let’s Make America VOTE Again

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, FirstOne Through}

The United States has a long history of terrible voter turnout.

The voter turnout as a percentage of the voting age population (VAP) since 1992 has been: 58%, 51% (1996), 54% (2000), 60% (2004), 62% (2008) and 57% (2012). This compares to countries like Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom which had turnouts around 70%.

It is not that people are apathetic about the outcomes of elections; they just realize that their votes do not matter.

In the US, presidential election are not based on the popular vote, where every single vote counts. The outcome is awarded by electoral votes, where every state has a set number of electoral votes as roughly determined by the population in the state, in a winner-take-all formulation. Therefore, if a state is a virtual certainty of voting for a Democrat (say California) or for a Republican (like Texas), it makes no difference if any individual casts a ballot. It is therefore possible that a state like Texas can have as few voters as Minnesota, but the 55 electoral votes for Texas would still be cast for the Republican, even as Minnesota only awards its pre-determined 10 electoral votes.

There is a way to get people to participate in the elections, and it does not entail making it mandatory, as is done in Australia.

This proposal is to INCENTIVIZE people to vote by weighing the electoral votes by the percentage of people that vote in the state.

If a state has less than half of the population casting a ballot, that state would only get 50% of the predetermined electoral votes. For every 2% of the VAP that participates in the election, another 10% of the electoral votes would count, up to 58% of the VAP, when 100% of the electoral votes would be counted.

Percent of VAP Percent of Electoral Votes
Less than 50% 50%
50% to 51.9% 60%
52% to 53.9% 70%
54% to 55.9% 80%
56% to 57.9% 90%
58% and above 100%

 

Consider Pennsylvania, with its 20 electoral votes. In the 2012 presidential election, it had a 57.8% VAP turnout (5,596,499 votes out of a voting age population of 9,677,000). According to this proposal, Pennsylvania would have only gotten 90% of its electoral votes, or 18 instead of the full 20. The shortfall of 16,161 voters (which would have brought it to 58%) would have cost the state 2 important votes.

This formulation incentivizes everyone in the state to vote, and everyone in the country to care about each state. No state would be considered “secure,” as the drive to get every American to participate in the democratic process would be critical.

A great example is New York, with its 29 electoral votes, has been a lock for almost every Democrat (as opposed to Pennsylvania which is a “swing” state).  Most New Yorkers (yes, a majority) opt to go to work and skip the polls.  In 2012, only 6,160,193 people voted, out of the 13,302,000 voting-aged population. Only 46.3%. That’s pathetic.  This formula would have penalized the state for the poor turnout, and awarded NY only 50% of the 29 electoral votes, or 15 votes.  The loss of 14 votes would have been equivalent to losing the entire states of Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Americans are going out to vote today, in the somber 2016 election, when people have strong dislikes for the candidates. Many will opt to stay home because of that distaste.

Let’s change the current election model, so people don’t withdraw from the democratic process itself.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

The Broken Glass Ceiling in Politics Hides the Importance of Education

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Paul Gherkin

Why Trump Won and Why He Is The Loud Mouth America Needs

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

The results are flowing in and  Trump has done what every press channel called impossible. 

Correction! It was the press along with the Clinton camp that gave Donald Trump this election. As I followed the continuous bashing and digging to find something in Trump’s past to shadow over the actions of Hillary and the actual problems America faces, it became abundantly clear to me what was going on here.

From the onset of this election it was clear just how desperate the liberals were to discredit Trump and the press played along almost as if they were the mice that were following in line and marching in perfect formation as Hillary and company were playing the flute.  It started with a claim that Trump is planning on kicking out all Mexicans when what he actually said was there must be better border control and the criminals coming in from Mexico must stop.

It went on with “Trump said kick out all Muslims” when what was actually said was, no more Muslims from radical countries will be allowed in till the US can fix the security issues.

Then the liberals tried to frighten Jews by taking what Trump did not actually say and throwing hints out that it could be the Jews next.  Watch this piece of garbage propaganda.

Let me explain what happened here.

There are actual problems in the US and one of the threats is the influx of radical Islamic activists masquerading as refugees.

Just in case you don’t understand what this threat is all about, please watch!

There are liberals out there who will call me a racist just for showing this video. They will attempt to blur up the actual problem and say I hate Muslims. NO! There is a REAL problem of radical Islamic terrorists infiltrating the West under the cover of refugees.

Are there others who are really suffering? Absolutely!

Should the world help Muslims who are suffering? Absolutely!

Should the West put their own security at risk? Absolutely NOT!

So the Democrats took what Trump said, perverted it and then put out a video based on what they lied about Trump’s actual statements.

The Democrats don’t want to talk about  the problems, they blur them with fake quotes and personal attacks. They constantly bring up stories with half truths. They talk about a rape case where an anonymous person claimed Trump raped them and even though the claim was dropped, the Democrats needed no proof.

Of course, if the victim was real and Trump did rape someone he would not have gotten my vote!

But that’s exactly the point, it did not happen and this was a clear attempt at scaring people into voting for a crook.

All of a sudden the Democrats forgot about the laws of democracy when it comes to innocent until proven guilty.

That law only exists when talking about Hillary as the FBI closed a blind eye to the email scandal, top secret info sent over private servers, Benghazi tragedy and of course her belligerence towards women her husband raped and took advantage of. 

If you dare mention these actual cases the democrats would simply tell you you are full of ****.

The Democrats were calling Trump a bully and then the tapes of the insane Clinton supporters were released with everything from violence to flag burning and the Democrats responded with, “Trump is a fascist!” 

Then the Democrats excused the violence with claims that Trump is a racist, bigot, anti semite and then some which justified this kind of “righteous” struggle.

 Unfortunately for them, they had absolutely nothing to back up their charges against Trump. Then they brought in the KKK and claimed that Trump supports it. The KKK can vote for whomever they choose, but Trump made it perfectly clear that he categorically condemns racism and certainly the KKK.  OOPS!

Trump is an anti semite? Are you kidding me! 

He must have been very disappointed that both his kids married Jewish and that his daughter converted and is living a Jewish Orthodox life.

Give me a break!

Israel? Nothing to talk about! 

While Clinton was busy shaking her finger at Israel for building in Jerusalem and calling Jews in Judea illegal, Trump was running an event in Jerusalem that called Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel and promised to move the embassy to Israel’s capital.

While Clinton hires anti Israel advocates such as Blumenthal and Abedin (family ties with the Muslim Brotherhood), Trump’s Israel advisors are Jews who see Jews in Judea as a blessing. Check out this (modified) Jstreet video bashing Trump for being too pro Israel.

Women’s Rights? 

Well, Trump almost lost this one with his big mouth from 11 years ago. His comments were simply disgusting and the kind of talk one hears in a bar. Of course it was a decade ago and the Democrats tried to tie together Trump’s verbal attack against 2 TV personalities who attacked him with the comments from 11 years ago. Have any of you ever played BS? Yup! We called it and Clinton lost the hand! Of course the fact that Clinton took millions from Saudi Arabia, a country that beats women who drive, did not seem to bother the Democrats who waved their hands and dismissed the fact as stupidity.

Bottom line, this was an election between the new religion called liberalism and traditionalism. It is true that Trump is not the best role model for traditionalists, but the difference is, he simply did not buy into the liberal, everything goes philosophy.

NO to abortion NO to making peace with those who seek America’s destruction NO to supporting regimes that burn American flags! NO to illegal immigration YES to focusing on America YES to stopping the flood of cash out to China YES to a strong military YES to strong borders

TRUMP STILL HAS A BIG MOUTH!

But that does not change the fact that he is better for America, Israel and the world. If I had to choose between a big mouth and someone who lies her way through politics, I choose Trump! If I had to choose between a business person who has financial cases against him and a person who got rich on the public’s back in politics, I chose Trump!

If I had to chose between someone who is being charged with making disgusting statements and someone who has actually been involved in so many scandals (sexual through financial) I choose Trump!

America just saved itself from #Libertardation and rock bottom corruption! Let’s hope Trump does what he says he will do and #MakeAmericaGreatAgain!

This Israeli Jew blesses the United States of America!

#GodBlessTheRedWhiteandBlue!

@israel_shield

Rabbi Moshe Weinberger: Critic Of Jewish Life In America

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016

In 1880 there were approximately 250,000 Jews living in the United States. Most of them were either immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Central Europe. However, beginning in 1881 large numbers of Jews began to arrive from Eastern Europe and Russia.

The assassination of Czar Alexander II in March 1881 sparked anti-Jewish riots and massacres. These were followed by the passage of laws that severely restricted the lives of Jews. This combination of economic, political, and physical persecution led to a massive immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe and Russia. Most of them came to the United States. Indeed, between 1881 and 1923 almost 2,800,000 Jews arrived here.

Coming to America did not, of course, solve all the problems of these immigrants. They were faced with daunting challenges in many areas, including those of earning a livelihood and maintaining their religious observance. The religious scene even in the large Jewish community of New York City was more often than not chaotic and bewildering.

To Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, things were so bad here that he felt the need to write a book encouraging Jews not to immigrate and to remain where they were. He was absolutely convinced that, religiously, they were much better off in Eastern Europe and Russia than in America.

Rabbi Weinberger was born in Hungary in 1854 and studied under several noted Torah scholars, among them R. Moshe Sofer (d. 1917, not to be confused with his namesake known as the Chasam Sofer), R. Shmuel Ehrenfeld, R. Elazar Loew, and R. Meir Perles. He was forced to leave Hungary in 1880 for unknown reasons and arrived in New York City.

“Whatever those reasons may have been, New York was the wrong place for him. True, the city then already had an Orthodox Jewish population estimated to number 10,000 people. It housed an impressive Hungarian congregation, Ohab Zedek, founded in 1872/3, as well as several other Orthodox synagogues, most notably Beth Hamedrash Hagodol (1852, reorganized 1859), Beth Hamedrash Livne Yisroel Yelide Polen (1853, later the Kalvarier Shul) and Khal Adas Jeshurun (1856). But these synagogues lived in relative poverty; most lacked the money to support a full-time rabbi. And if any did want a rabbi, they had little trouble luring one with distinguished European credentials, reports of ritual laxity in America notwithstanding.”[i]

Thus, despite his impressive scholarly background and staunch adherence to Orthodoxy, Rabbi Weinberger was unable to find a rabbinical position. So he made a number of unsuccessful forays in business.

In 1890 he became the rabbi of Congregation Bnai Israel Anshei Ungarn of Scranton, Pennsylvania, In 1893 he moved to Philadelphia, where he became the rabbi of Congregation Ohev Shalom.

In 1895 Rabbi Weinberger returned to New York to become the rav of Congregation Beth HaMidrash HaGadol Anshei Ungarn. However, his relationship with his congregants was often contentious. They felt he should devote himself to improving the image and fostering the growth of the shul, whereas he devoted himself to scholarship and education. Some were openly scornful of his effort to found a high level yeshiva. Others felt the congregation should move to a larger building in an effort to attract new members. “If that meant discarding a few time-honored traditions, they were prepared to pay the price.”[ii]

“For eleven years Weinberger kept his position, frequent quarrels and his own difficult economic plight notwithstanding. In August 1905 a dispute caused him to cut back on his classes, and some time later an effort was made to have him fired. But he had a contract and held on, calling all the while for reconciliation. Then, on the last day of Passover, April 17, 1906, accumulated tensions finally exploded. The Hungarian Congregation Beth Hamedrash Hagodol erupted in rioting and police had to be called to quell the disturbance. The incident that occasioned the violence was Rabbi Weinberger’s entry into the matsah business. He claimed to need extra money. This divided the congregation (some congregants were in the matsah business themselves), led to catcalling during the rabbi’s Passover sermon, and finally resulted in blows being exchanged. In the aftermath, Rabbi Weinberger refused to resign his position, placed a ban on his synagogue, and never entered its premises again. Though later he sought reconciliation, he apparently spent his remaining years ‘in exile,’ producing matsah.

“On the surface, based on the limited data available, the Passover riot looks like a classic battle between traditionalists and innovators. Rabbi Weinberger stood for time-tested values; his opponents demanded change. But closer examination reveals a more complicated picture. Weinberger, by entering the matsah business, projected an entrepreneurial image far more characteristically American than Jewish. On the other hand, Weinberger’s opponents, seemingly more outwardly oriented, righteously cloaked themselves in the mantle of tradition, opposing the rabbi’s undertaking as both inappropriate and without precedent. Each side thus respected tradition and feared change, while both – albeit in different ways and for different reasons – also deviated from tradition and accepted change. The resulting guilt, anger, and confusion go far to explain the passionate violence that ensued. In rioting over Weinberger, immigrants partly expressed their frustration at the New World in general.” [iii]

Rabbi Weinberger spent the rest of his life earning his living from his matzah baking business. An ad in Hebrew for his matzahs says in part “Just as in previous years thousands crowed into the synagogue on Willet Street in order to delight in Rabbi Weinberger’s sermons, so too now thousands stand in line to buy Rabbi Weinberger’s kosher and tasty matzot.” [iv] In 1916 Aron Streit became Rav Weinberger’s partner. They originally baked only hand matzos. However, in 1925 Aron Streit and one of his sons opened up a modern (machine) bakery on Rivington Street, and this endeavor eventually grew into the well-known Streit’s matzah business.

“Weinberger dreamed of a united Jewish community and he agitated for the establishment of a chief rabbinate. His efforts in 1895 to found the first institution of higher learning in America patterned on the East European yeshivah were unsuccessful. While serving as a rabbi, he “repeatedly supported shochatim against charges of unfitness seemingly motivated more by personal and economic factors than by religious ones.” Weinberger supported Zionist endeavors and contributed to Hebrew journals.”[v]

“In 1887 Weinberger published his first and most controversial book, HaYehudim v’ha-Yahadut b’New York. Written in Hebrew and directed to his brethren in Europe, Weinberger scorned American society as materialistic, sorely lacking in appropriate family values, and a spiritual danger to religious Jews…. Weinberger cautioned his former countrymen about the poor standards of kashruth and Jewish education and the low level of Talmud knowledge of Jewry’s religious functionaries. He lamented America’s magnificent synagogues, which some Jews felt compelled to build, and chided Jews for the extravagance of luring cantors with inflated salaries to fill normally empty synagogue pews.”[vi]

In addition to the above mentioned book, his other writings include Kuntres Halacha l’Moshe (Philadelphia, 1894); Rosh Divrei Moshe (Philadelphia, 1895); Ho’il Moshe (New York, 1895); Halacha l’Moshe (New York, 1902); Divrei Shalom v’Emet (New York, 1908); Igeret Mishneh: An Open Letter to the Beth Hamidrash Hagadol (New York, 1909); and Dorosh Dorash Moshe (New York, 1914). He also published several articles in Ha-Ivri.

Dr. Yitzchok Levine

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/magazine/glimpses-ajh/rabbi-moshe-weinberger-critic-of-jewish-life-in-america/2016/11/02/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: