web analytics
January 23, 2017 / 25 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘democratic’

Obama’s UN Abstention Was Enabled By American Jews’ Blind Democratic Party Loyalty

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s blogsite, The Lid}

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu displayed his anger over the UN Security Council  (UNSC)  vote including the ambassadors of all the countries on the UNSC President Obama and John Kerry.  IMHO he should have directed his anger to one more group; American Jews blind Democratic party loyalty empowered Obama to stab Israel in the back.

Over thirty years ago Secretary of State James Baker said “F**k the Jews they won’t vote for us anyway.” But because most American Jews’ Blind Democratic Party Loyalty no matter what, today Democrats Party politicians act as if their stance is “F**k the Jews they will vote for us whatever we do!”

In 2008 despite all the warnings, despite the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church hearing anti-Semitic sermons for two decades, despite the fact that he was close friends with Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Even before the election the Jewish community knew that at a 2003 event honoring Khalidi, Obama had made a toast that was so anti-Israel that the liberal L.A. Times hid the tape. Before the 2008 election Obama had already surrounded himself with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel advisers. Ignoring all that, the Jewish community gave Obama 78% of the Jewish vote. The vote was led by the leadership of certain major Jewish organizations who despite their phony claims of bi-partisanship, have a blind allegiance to the Democratic Party. That allegiance was so strong that when the Democratic Party demanded that V.P. Candidate Sarah Palin’s invitation to speak at an anti-Iran rally be rescinded these major Jewish organizations complied.

During his first term President Obama proved to be the most anti-Israel president since the modern state of Israel was created in 1948. But it shouldn’t have been as surprise.

At the very beginning of his administration Obama told the supposed Jewish leadership that one of his goals was to drive a wedge between the US and Israel. “When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.

Actually, wasn’t exactly Jewish leadership the President spoke with.  Obama decided to include the leader of the anti-Israel organization J Street in his meeting promoting them to leadership. J Street is a George Soros created with that had no legitimacy in the Jewish community. At the same time Obama pushed Jewish members of Congress to endorse J Street by lending their name to the organizations first national conference. That first meeting also sent a different signal to those Jewish leaders Obama left out Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America who was usually included in these type of meetings off his list, because unlike the rest of the leadership Mort didn’t have blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

Despite all this, despite telling leaders he was going to drive a wedge, despite the fact he was picking his own version of Jewish leadership, not one of the people who attended the meeting publicly objected, warned the Jewish community.

Obama even foreshadowed the Iran deal during his first months in office. During his 2009 speech in Cairo he said, “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” which foreshadowed his future negotiations with the rogue Iranian regime.

During the first term Obama continued to surround himself with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic advisers even including Al Sharpton who led two anti-Jewish riots in NYC, or Robert Malley who has not only written anti-Israel essays but his dad was a close friend of Yasser Arafat, these haters plus many more were all appointed without a peep from the supposed Jewish leadership.

During his first term when Obama constantly announced anti-Israel policies, not one of these Jewish leaders opened their mouth. Not one of them called on the silent Democratic Party “supporters of Israel” in congress to criticize this president. Because of that not one of those congressional Democrats complained which enabled even more bad behavior.

Despite an anti-Israel first term as the 2012 election neared, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee in a joint statement asked their fellow Jews to pledge not to criticize Obama’s anti-Israel policy. They said it was to keep the issue bi-partisan but it was because their leadership was very partisan—supporting progressive issues and the Democratic Party candidate. Another of those supposedly “bi-partisan” leaders Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress actually had fundraisers for the president in his home.

Even in 2016 after the election the ADL supported an anti-Israel, anti-Semite Keith Ellison, and crapped all over Steve Bannon who has actively participated  in pro-Israel and pro-Jewish rallies.

On Obama’s insistence, the Democrats removed four pro-Israel planks from their party platform in 2012, when they tried to add one (Jerusalem as capital of Israel) back, the convention voted no but the leadership lied and said it was passed. The planks about not returning to the 1949 armistice lines, not negotiating with Hamas, and Palestinian refugees will return to Palestinian territory as opposed to Israel were never put back. But despite the fact that was on top of the most anti-Israel president in history almost 70% of Jews who voted rewarded Obama by voting for him again.

Famous Jewish supporters of Israel like Alan Dershowitz and former NYC Mayor Ed Koch who criticized Obama as being anti-Israel during his first term, all of a sudden forgave him as Election Day neared. When I pointed out the hypocrisy to the former Mayor, in true Ed Koch style he told me to “go to hell!” If you knew Ed Koch that was a badge of honor.

When they interviewed the president during a teleconference about the Iran deal for the Jewish community, the head of he Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the head of the Jewish Federation didn’t challenge him about the deal. This is not to say they should have been rude, but instead of asking specific questions about the side deals, or about the fact that the U.S. is obligated to protect Iran’s nuclear plants, or the paragraph which allows Iran to take the money and then leave the deal, or the part about Iran doing its own inspections or any specific question about the deal, these two supposed leaders attached their lips firmly on the arse of the POTUS and asked softballs like, “Can the U.S. Israel relationship be repaired?” Or when the president lied during his opening statement, they didn’t question him about it. Perhaps they didn’t read the agreement, perhaps they were trying to protect the president, but it was just another way the Jewish community enabled Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to ignore the Jewish voters.

Then after eight years of a president of the United States did his best to delegitimize the Jewish State, ignored previous US/Israel deals,  publicly berated Israel at every opportunity,  leaving Israel’s Premier to sit and stew with the Israeli delegation in a White House conference room for an hour because they wouldn’t capitulate to the President’s demands, and even blaming Israel and American Jews for pushing the U.S. into the Iraq war while he was trying to sell-in the disastrous Iran Deal and  sent some of his political advisers to Israel along with State Department money, all in an attempt to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel’s most recent election, the Democrats nominated to replace him with Hillary Clinton the woman who was Obama’s partner in screwing Israel during his first administration. Despite the fact that Hillary has made a career of being anti-Israel, and surrounded herself with anti-Semites, 71% of Jews voted for her over Donald Trump who is strongly pro-Israel and pro-Jewish.

People shouldn’t be surprised. By voting Democratic despite their anti-Israel policies and anti-Semitic statements, and our supposed leaders supporting the Democratic Party despite their anti-Israel policies (and their vows of bi-partisanship) we taught the Democrats that they could do anything they want to the Jews, or on Jewish issues and we will support them in the next election, we will give them our campaign donations and we will give them our votes.

Obama had Susan Powers abstain in Friday’s UNSC vote because Jewish voters have been committing Jew-i-cide…supporting a party that hates them.  Ze’ev Jabotinsky was correct when he wrote in “The Iron Wall:”

“It is incredible what political simpletons Jews are. They shut their eyes to one of the most elementary rules of life, that you must not “meet halfway” those who do not want to meet you.”

Candidates’ positions are influenced by their voters to some extent. Progressives have become the most important voting bloc in the Democratic Party, they tend to be anti-Israel (just check out the last two DNC Platforms, and included amongst are many  anti-Semites.Why do you think Keith Ellison is the leading candidate to take over the DNC? So if the Jews are going to blindly vote Democratic anyway, why not appease the progressives and crap on Israel? 

On the Republicans side the reason many GOP candidates are pro-Israel is the evangelical vote that is a major part of their base. But if the very pro-Israel evangelicals ever lose their influence in the party, Jewish issues will be truly bi-partisan…. both parties wont care about them.

There is only one way to avoid anti-Israel bipartisanship.  First of all, Jews need to start voting for the other guys—not blindly, but look at Republican candidates with an open mind. The other thing the Jewish community has to do is stop financially supporting groups whose leadership blindly supports progressive politics and parties.  There are plenty of Jewish charities to give money to…I strongly urge my fellow Jews to donate to those groups instead of the blatantly political ones like the ADL, The Jewish Federation, The American Jewish Congress, The American Jewish Committee and any organization that support the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.  Only by shifting the Jewish vote and moving our money away from Democratic organizations masquerading as Jewish ones will we be able to make BOTH parties fight for our support by backing those issues important to the Jewish community.

Jeff Dunetz

Democratic Whip to Kerry: Shut Up!

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, second in ranking to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, on Tuesday released a statement calling on Secretary of State John Kerry to cancel his Middle East peace speech scheduled for Wednesday, just days after the US had allowed an anti-Israel resolution to pass in the UN Security Council.

“I urged the Administration to veto the recently passed UN Security Council resolution regarding Israel and settlements,” Hoyer, an old friend of Israel since his election in 1981, wrote, in reaction to “reports that Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama Administration intend to lay out a formulation that would disadvantage Israel in any future negotiations on a final settlement with the Palestinian Authority.”

“Unfortunately, they failed to do so, and Israel’s enemies were strengthened,” Hoyer continued.

“As Ambassador Power pointed out in her statement on the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on the situation in the Middle East, ‘…as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations.’ 2016 was no exception, and there were more resolutions regarding Israel than there were regarding Syria, North Korea, Iran, South Sudan, and Russia combined,” Hoyer wrote.

“”Now, it is my understanding that Secretary Kerry, in the last few days of this Administration, intends to outline the parameters of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This flies in the face of the United States’ longstanding position that such a formulation should be reached only through negotiations by the parties and not by the United States, the United Nations, or any other third party.

“I urge Secretary Kerry and the Administration not to set forth a formula, which will inevitably disadvantage Israel in any negotiation. The United States must now take steps to signal unequivocally to the entire world that we will continue to stand by our ally Israel as it seeks to build a future of peace and safety as a Jewish state and an equal member of the family of nations.”

Rep. Hoyer represents Maryland’s 5th congressional district, which is 60.2% White, 30.3% Black, 3.7% Asian, and 3.5% Hispanic.

David Israel

Electoral College Vote Confirms Donald J. Trump is US President-Elect

Tuesday, December 20th, 2016

Six weeks after the American people voted Republican Donald J. Trump into the White House, the country’s Electoral College on Monday confirmed the decision in a formal ballot.

Along with that, Vice President Mike Pence was confirmed in his position as well.

The 538 members of the Electoral College are really the ones who count when the decision is made on who enters the White House.

During the November 8 election, at the end of the day Trump won 306 of those votes – considerably more than the 270 he needed to beat his Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton.

This time around, for the final call, some of the GOP defected, and so did some of the Democrats.

According to the New York Times, two Republicans voted for someone other than Trump.

But they were neutralized by their Democratic opponents, who elected to cast their ballots for someone other than Clinton.

Some of the electors were “faithless” – that is, voted for someone other than the chosen nominees, and therefore their votes were discounted altogether and they had to be replaced.

Of the 306 electors pledged to Trump, 304 voted for him this time around. And of the 232 electors who had voted for Clinton on November 8, only 224 voted for her on during Monday’s ballot.

The figures echo an election in 1808, when six electors also voted for someone other than their party’s nominee.

Hana Levi Julian

Israel is a Burden to the Democratic Party

Monday, December 12th, 2016

In a recent piece by Times of Israel staff we learn that, according to the Brookings Institution, a majority of Democrats consider Israel a “burden.”

The great majority of Americans, however – 76 percent – disregard Democratic Party disdain for the Jewish state and see Israel as a “strategic asset.” And they should. Aside from all the medical and technological breakthroughs that Israel is responsible for, it is also one of best allies the United States has in the world. Israel not only shares key intelligence information with the US government, it is also a bulwark of liberal democracy in a part of the world famous for brutal, head-chopping theocratic regimes that loathe both countries on religious grounds.

But none of this is new.

The Democratic Party betrayed the State of Israel and the Jewish people when it decided that making a home for itself of anti-Semitic anti-Zionists was a dandy idea. In almost any political venue controlled by Democrats anti-Semitic anti-Zionists hold a well-respected seat at the table alongside the Jews that they perpetually spit at as racist, colonialist, imperialist, militaristic, apartheid, scum.

From Daily Kos to the National Democratic Party, Jewish Democrats are taken for granted and held in contempt. And why shouldn’t they be? American Jews are at least as slavish to the Democrats as are American black people and the party leadership knows it. This is why they did not hesitate to put up an anti-Zionist, like Keith Ellison, as the primary contender for DNC Chair.

After listening to arguments, I’ve decided that Democrats are right to back Ellison. Ellison is staunch in his support of the party, he is the first Muslim-American to join the ranks of Congress, and he, in both votes and values, represents the character of the Democratic Party as it is in the early twenty-first century.

A Touch of Historical Backdrop

From FDR to the present, great numbers of Americans viewed the Democratic Party as the vehicle for the people. If the Republicans allegedly represented the party of uncaring plutocrats, the Democrats developed a reputation for standing with American workers, the labor unions, and the regular people. Rolling into the 1930s and the Great Depression government and business ruled the United States. It took many decades of fighting and dying for the labor movement in the United States to earn the recognition and power that it received under FDR and the New Deal, thereby creating the economic possibility of a burgeoning American middle-class after World War II.

Following that war, American liberalism shifted from a focus on labor to a focus on ethnic minorities, or what you might call “rights liberalism,” which would come to dominate Democratic politics in the form of “identity politics” by the turn of the century. So, for many of us growing up on the coasts following the Vietnam War, politics seemed simple and Manichean. It was a black and white choice between the forces of freedom and fairness versus the forces of traditional repression and prejudice.

In the early 1980s, however, the American cultural-political zeitgeist shifted quickly under president Ronald Reagan. Suddenly, according to singer-songwriter Huey Newton (who I loathed) it was “hip to be square” and American college students shifted from a focus on the humanities and social sciences to business administration and the art of money-making. What those of us who held fast to the earlier, 1960s visions of our older brothers and sisters did not at first realize was that the social justice vision of American politics was strengthening beneath the surface of Reagan’s America. It may have been a New Day for American conservatism, but the ideological children of Abbie Hoffman, if not Robert Kennedy, were gaining power just beneath the surface of American public life, particularly at the universities.

Why Trump Won

 For many liberals it seemed that Reagan had done such a good job of trashing their political movement that they changed their primary self-identifying term from “liberal” to “progressive.” The American Left was so savaged by the Gipper that by the end of the 1980s the very word “liberal” had fallen into disfavor. By the 1990s, when we were all familiarizing ourselves with Bill and Hillary, the progressive-left moved back into the foreground, yet seemed entirely incognizant of the amazing strides that the American people had made concerning fairness and decency toward ethnic minorities, women, and Gay people in the previous decades. By the Era of Clinton, the bad old days of de jeure racism was long over, Gay men and women were emerging from their closets, and almost everyone considered female corporate executives as natural as daytime.

Things were not perfect, and things will never be “perfect,” but the United States had come a very long way in a very short period of time toward equality of opportunity for all Americans, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.  Instead of acknowledging this and moving forward in a potential spirit of harmony, the progressive-left during the Obama administration used gender, race, and class as political weaponry with which to demean, defame, and even ruin the lives of people who might fairly disagree with them on substantive issues.

 Political Correctness became stifling to thoughtful people who realized it was no longer about fairness toward others, but about ideological bullying, repression of alternative thought and speech, social shaming, and legal harassment for the purpose of political dominance and power.

In this way, perfectly reasonable questions concerning the rise of political Islam became entirely verboten among the allegedly “sophisticated” on the coasts. Likewise, Americans who saw the chaos and violence and rapes associated with the Muslim immigration crisis in Europe, and who dared raise concerns, were lambasted as the worst people on the planet. Furthermore, Jewish American college students who support Israel, and thus the movement for Jewish freedom, were spit upon as baby killers and racists and supporters of genocide by those who claimed to represent the Left.

 There were many reasons why Hillary Clinton got beat. The common wisdom is that a combination of angry white working-class racists and fearful white upper-class racists did Hillary in. As we got closer to November the progressives and the Democrats beat the drum of racism and sexism and hatred so intensely that they scared the holy hell out of their own children who hoped not to be snatched out of their beds by Nazis or Klansmen by the morning of November 10.

And this represents a major, and largely overlooked, reason why Democrats and progressives were weeping into their beers the next day. You cannot go around telling regular Americans, of any ethnicity, that they’re a bunch of heinous racist, sexist, Nazis and then expect them to support your candidate.

 However, if the Democrats believe that Israel is a burden to the United States then they need to bring in Representative Ellison to help relieve them of that burden. We all know about Keith Ellison by this point. He’s an anti-Zionist who promoted the notion that Israel is an “apartheid” state, who voted against funding Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, and who was a long-time admirer and supporter of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic (and stone-cold crazy) Nation of Islam.

Nonetheless, the Democrats should bring in Ellison as Chair of the DNC because it’s important to Jewish people that you stop playing hide-the-salami with your anti-Zionism.

It’s just good to know where people actually stand.

Michael Lumish

Democratic Congresswoman Introduces ‘Stop Arming Terrorists Act’

Sunday, December 11th, 2016

Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard last week introduced the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” after visiting New York’s Trump Tower and meeting President-elect Trump. Gabbard, an Army veteran and a member of the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services, wrote: “If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Why does our government get a free pass on this?”

She told NPR on Friday that the US government has been “quietly supporting allies, partners, individuals and groups who are working directly with al-Qaida, ISIS, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and other terrorist groups by providing them with money, weapons and intelligence support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”

As a result, Gabbard said, “we will end up with a situation where not only will the Syrian people be under greater human suffering and an even more dire situation. We will end up with al-Qaida now having far greater military capability, far greater strength and posing a greater threat not only to the region but to the United States and the rest of the world.”

Host Scott Simon noted that “the Assad regime has used chemical weapons and has committed what a lot of people consider to be war crimes against its own people.”

“You really think the Syrian rebels would be worse?” he asked.

“My statement stands,” Gabbard answered. “If those who are calling for the removal of this regime are, in essence, accepting the fact that al-Qaida would take over that country, whether it’s al-Qaida or ISIS or other terrorist groups – and for people to think that that would somehow improve the lives of the people there in Syria or that it would somehow better secure the American people – I think that’s a crazy notion.”

A supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, Gabbard sees a common approach by Sanders and Trump regarding US intervention in Syria. “It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton,” she said. “I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that we don’t continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.”

JNi.Media

Ellison Would Be Troubling Pick For Democratic Party

Thursday, December 8th, 2016

I have been involved in national elections for about 50 years. I recall as a student advocating first for Hubert Humphrey (1968) and then George McGovern (1972) when they ran against Richard Nixon.

I worked for the election of Bill Clinton and the candidacy of the Gore/Lieberman ticket. I remember a long-shot Senate candidate named Barack Obama, in a bar across the street from the AIPAC convention, telling me of his commitment to the safety and security of Israel.

In later years, I expanded my advocacy to take on a more bipartisan character. But one consistent thing I found in all those years and among the hundreds of congressional members and leaders of the Democratic Party I worked with was a strong commitment to U.S.-Israel relations.

This partnership between the pro-Israel American community and the Democratic Party has been steadfast and beneficial to our nation, to our ally Israel, and consistent with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans.

America loves Israel and Israel loves America. There is a natural connection between America, the greatest force for good in the history of mankind, and Israel, miraculously brought back to life after 2,000 years as a light in the most troubled part of the world.

The Democratic Party has made that connection a pillar of its platform since Harry Truman recognized Israel in 1948, minutes after the new nation declared its independence.

This legacy of the Democratic Party has, however, been placed at risk with the candidacy of Congressman Keith Ellison for Democratic National Committee chair. Given his troubling voting record on Israel and disturbing past affiliations, Rep. Ellison’s ascension to that position could spell disaster for the Democratic Party and the bipartisan nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Ellison has served in Congress since 2007, but his controversial actions preceded his election. During the 1990s, he served as a local spokesman in Minnesota for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Ellison publicly claimed in 1995 that Farrakhan “is not an anti-Semite.”

During his successful 2006 congressional campaign, Ellison received roughly $50,000 in campaign contributions that were given or raised by officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was spun off from Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a group that was found to have ties to Hamas.

In 2009, although the majority of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress rejected the heavily biased UN Goldstone Report, Ellison argued that it “only presents facts and raises recommendations for the future.” (Even the author of the report had serious regrets about it in hindsight.)

Ellison was the congressman who initiated the 2010 “Gaza 54” letter, asking the administration to pressure Israel to ease the blockade of Gaza. He has gone on Twitter and publicly compared the treatment of Palestinians under Israel to “apartheid.”

In 2014, during that summer’s outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Ellison was one of only eight members in the House to vote against a bill to provide emergency funding to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system – this at a time when Israeli towns were under a constant barrage of Hamas rocket fire.

The person who heads the DNC will be responsible for the party’s platform stance on issues such as America’s response to the Iranian nuclear weapons program and our relationship with Israel and its neighbors. It can be fairly stated that Ellison has one of the worst records on U.S.-Israel relations in Congress. The clear disdain for Israel and its close relationship with America that Ellison has demonstrated is at odds with the party and the nation.

Dr. Ben Chouake

The Democratic Party has Tuned Out the Jihad… if it Ever Tuned it in to Begin With

Sunday, December 4th, 2016

The Ohio State University Jihad attack a few days ago did not really happen.

Or, to be more precise, for many Americans it did not really happen because they simply don’t care about Islamic theological violence against their fellow Americans. The reason that many Americans, particularly of the progressive variety, tend not to care about this kind of violence is because to do so is considered “racist” by president Obama, the leadership of the Democratic Party, and the elite media.

Koranically-based attacks on innocent Americans are, therefore, perceived like the weather. A typhoon or a flood or an earthquake may happen now and again, but what can you do? You cannot dwell on such things. They are simply “acts of God” and there is very little to be done or said, for most of us, beyond, “Gee, how unlucky.”

The truth is that the Ohio State attack will, with the obvious exception of 9/11, slide down the memory hole along with all the others. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, apparently inspired by the Palestinian-Arab “car ramming intifada” put eleven people in the hospital for reasons of Muslim religious intolerance while Democrats cannot even bring themselves to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”

We know, however, that the attack was done for religious reasons – and was thereby a Jihadi attack – because Abdul told us so on a recent Facebook posting where he wrote, “By Allah, I am willing to kill a billion infidels.” It should also be noted, shamefully enough, that ONLY conservative outlets are covering this angle of the story.

The problem is that after eight years of Obama administration, and Democratic Party, obfuscation concerning the rise of political Islam people are terrified to so much as discuss the matter lest they get smeared as racist… which is part of the reason that we just saw the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. Progressive-left Democrats are not afraid that if they speak out against the most fascistic and widespread political movement in the world today that some crazed Shaheed will leap from the bushes with a scimitar, but something far worse. They are afraid that their own friends will look down upon them as Neanderthal racist pig farmers.

So, people won’t discuss the Jihad because there is too much at stake. Friendships and reputations and, even, employment can be at risk. In Europe one can literally go on trial for questioning immigration policy in manners too blunt. Alternatively, in the United States we tend to apply social and economic pressure, rather than the direct threat of imprisonment, for crimes of political incorrectness.

Furthermore, in the US we all understand that the good people favor open immigration, because the US is a country of immigrants. It’s only the bad people – the rat-bastard racist Trumpeteers – who want to significantly screen Arab-Muslim immigrants for ties to political Islam. Those who prefer open borders, however, insist that just as our ancestors came to this country with no intention other than to build better lives for themselves and their families, so people throughout the Middle East and North Africa are likewise seeking better lives. 

And, needless to say, no one should be more cognizant of this than American Jews, such as myself.

{My parents had me rather late in life, but my father came through Ellis Island as a baby in the arms of my grandmother early in the twentieth-century from the Ukraine via Argentina. They fled the Ukraine and the town of Medzhybizh which, as it happens, was the birthplace of the Chasidic movement. The Nazis also paid a visit to my paternal ancestral hometown in Operation Barbarossa during World War II. Were it not for my family’s earlier departure, not a one of them would have survived, chances are.}

But, the point is that there is intense social pressure within the United States to avoid discussing either the Jihad or the potential problems with large-scale Arab-Muslim immigration. Consequently, we rarely even think about these questions, because as human beings we tend not to fret about things which have no real place within out cultural-political frameworks. So, because we don’t discuss it, we don’t think about it, and because we don’t think about it we don’t pursue vital questions around such issues.

It is for this reason that the great majority of Americans have not the slightest clue what is happening in Europe, particularly in Germany and Sweden, under the burden of mass Arab-Muslim immigration. They don’t know about the Rape Game called “taharrush” or rising rates of immigrant crime or the never-ending violent conflicts with the cops and the indigenous population. To the extent that Americans have even heard of such figures as Geert Wilders or Robbie Thompson, they are vaguely dismissed as the irrational and hate-filled vestiges of hard-right White Supremacy in Europe.

Thus most Americans, like most Europeans before them, are simply tuning out the Jihad when it arrives in their own neighborhoods.

The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge it, the major media barely discusses it, and virtually no one in the Democratic Party does so beyond smearing the reputations of those of us who would like to open a national discussion on the question.

The truth, of course, is that there is nothing the least little bit “racist” about opposing Koranically-based violence in the United States, or anywhere else, for that matter. Opposing Islamic terrorism is no more racist than opposing German National Socialism or Soviet Communism. It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity and everything to do with a political-theocratic ideology that demands the submission or death of the infidel, the violent elimination of Gay people, the conquest of Jerusalem, and the complete domination of women.

And this is part of the reason why Trump took the White House.

Perhaps things will change when liberals rediscover their liberalism.

Michael Lumish

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/israel-thriving-mike-lumish/the-democratic-party-has-tuned-out-the-jihad-if-it-ever-tuned-it-in-to-begin-with/2016/12/04/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: