As the sinking ship known as Democrats goes down, how long will it be before talk of how they were stabbed in the back by those disloyal, ungrateful, hyper-white Joos is shouted from the mountain tops?

from the NY Post

Jewish voters are furious at Dems’ defense of Ilhan Omar

Jewish voters furious at Democrats’ defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar say they’re done with the party that has held their support for generations. “We felt we had a home there,” said Mark Schwartz, the Democratic deputy mayor of solidly blue Teaneck, NJ. “And now we feel like we have to check our passports.”

Jordan Manor of Manhattan, who calls himself a “gay Jewish Israeli-American,” laments, “The party I thought cared about me seems to disregard me when it comes to my Jewish identity.”

Mark Dunec, a consultant in Livingston, NJ who ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2014, says, “I’m physically afraid for myself and for my family,” adding, “I see my own party contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.”

Omar, a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota, sparked the firestorm in February for using anti-Jewish tropes: saying that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins” and accusing Jewish-American legislators of “dual loyalty.” Many, including some fellow Democrats, deemed her comments anti-Semitic—but the party’s lefty activists pushed back. “No one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latin + other communities,” complained Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a March 5 tweet. 

Omar issued only a partial apology. In response, the House passed a resolution condemning all “hateful expressions of intolerance” with kitchen-sink language that named nearly a dozen different groups. “I feel confident that [Omar’s] words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Many Jewish Dems in the city aren’t buying it. “The fake defense she doesn’t know what she’s saying? I don’t believe it,” said Sara, a Queens teacher who asked not to be fully identified. “This is a grown woman and a member of Congress. Trying to excuse this as naivete is inexcusable.” For her and others, anger is sparking immediate action.

“The watered-down resolution triggered my decision to walk away from the Democratic Party,” said Allison Gangi of Manhattan. “I never dreamed anti-Semitism would have become mainstream on the left, but it has.”

Sara said she is “not comfortable anymore being a Democrat” and will register as an independent.

Among his Teaneck neighbors, Schwartz said, “Our only question now is, do we start voting Republican, or do we become Republicans?”

Others say they feel like the wandering Jew of legend. “I’m homeless. I don’t think I can vote for Trump, even though he’s great for Israel,” said Jason, a start-up owner from Long Island who asked that his surname not be used. “But as a Jew, I can’t see a way to support the Democratic Party. It’s supporting your own destruction.”

Last week, President Trump issued two tweets boosting “Jexodus,” a new advocacy group—advised by a prominent GOP strategist—that encourages moderate and conservative Jews to find a new political home. More than 4,000 people have signed on, organizers said.

“Since launching this, the anti-Semitism we are seeing is so blatant and obvious it’s terrifying,” said Elizabeth Pipko, the group’s spokeswoman and a volunteer on Trump’s 2016 campaign.
The organization’s Instagram and Facebook pages are regularly targeted with hateful messages, she said. “I leave them up, because people have got to see it,” Pipko said.

Could that be coffee that they smell?

The Left Would Be Wise To Worry About Its Anti-Semitic Wing

By John Podhoretz

Jewish conservatives get asked this question more than any other: “Why are Jews liberals?” The question eventually got so tiresome that my father, himself a prominent Jewish conservative, wrote an ­entire book about tracing the history back to Biblical times. You can still buy it on Amazon. So I’m not going to answer it here.

What we know is this basic fact: In national elections, Jews vote for Democratic candidates by a margin of 3 to 1. That number has been fairly consistent through four elections now. It suggests Democrats should have no concerns about keeping Jews in their coalition for another generation.

And yet they do have such concerns. And they should.

This week, prominent Democrats announced a new group called Democratic Majority for Israel, led by the pollster Mark Mellman. He told The New York Times: “Most Democrats are strongly pro-Israel, and we want to keep it that way. There are a few discordant voices, but we want to make sure that what’s a very small problem doesn’t metastasize into a bigger problem.”

The “very small problem” Mellman has in mind is a trio of newly elected Democrats: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar. They seem to have very few foreign policy views aside from a caricature of Israel as an occupying colonial force that sits up at night thinking of new ways to torment Palestinians.

Such ideas haven’t arisen from nowhere. They are the full flowering of decades of leftist propaganda and fashionable campus blatherskite. From such repellent acorns mighty trees grow, as we have seen in Europe. Britain’s Labour party did little to head off the virulent Israel hatred in its ranks, and it is now headed by an out-and-out anti-Semite.

In Britain, once-overwhelming Jewish support for Labour has cratered. A poll before the 2017 election found that only 13 percent of Jews supported Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour because of its horrid record on ­anti-Semitism.

That is why Mellman and his fellow Democrats are smart to be doing this now, before the conflict actually begins to bite. The problem is “very small” at this moment, but the party’s trend line to the left suggests it will grow in force absent some major intervention or ideological change of heart.

Nor are the views of the new, leftist members of Congress completely alien to the kinds of Democrats who take official roles in the party. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, delegates removed language supporting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

When the Obama White House, fearful of losing campaign dollars, intervened to have the language restored, there was a vocal fight on the convention floor. It sounded very much like those who didn’t want the pro-Jerusalem language restored won a voice vote — and when the chair announced otherwise, the hall erupted in boos.

Bernie Sanders came very close to espousing anti-Zionist opinions openly in 2016, and he won 22 states. His path was softened by the hostile posture of President Barack Obama’s administration. Obama claimed to be a friend of Israel, but there was no country or government he criticized more over his eight years — and he concluded his term allowing a UN resolution hostile to the Jewish state to pass without an American veto.

The activist base’s growing antipathy to Israel is less worrisome to friends of the Jewish state than it would have been at any other time in the country’s history, because Israel finds itself in a surprisingly strong position internationally and at home. It has held the line against Palestinian terrorism, and it is working in concord with Arab and Muslim nations in a manner that would have seemed science-fictional at the turn of the century.

What should be concerning is the subject that goes unaddressed in Mellman’s fight: the potential mainstreaming of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party as represented by the renewed public importance of Louis Farrakhan and the refusal of vanguard figures on the left, like the leaders of the Women’s March, to repudiate his noxious filth.

Here, too, Democrats need not worry today about this electorally or when it comes to votes and donations. Instinctively liberal, Jews are bound to be more alarmed by some of the white-nationalist encroachments into President Trump’s GOP. But the Corbyn example looms large and is arguably far more dangerous to the American Jewish future than anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party is to Israel’s future.


I think Podhoretz has the cart before the horse.

The Jews are the ones to be worrying.

Most of the left-leaning Jews I know would vote for Hitler himself if it meant protecting legal abortions.

As more Jews abandon Judaism for the theology of progressiveness and distance themselves from Israel and as more Muslims enter this country, “Jewish issues” will be less relevant to Democrats.

Jewish Democrats are rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

It’s a question of how long they can be the Democrats’ punching bag before they either leave their party or religion.

They Only Go Low

Left wing subversives can only go low.
They put the sub in subversive.
For eight years these self-hating Jews in name only heaped praise and kissed the ass of the most anti-Israel/anti-Semitic president evuh.
Now they are the Maharal, creating golems to save the Jewish people.

The NY Post article: The obscene effort to shame ‘Trump’s Jews’

Have You No Shame?

leslie-stahlI can’t remember the last time I watched 60 Minutes.

Most likely before the Dan Rather fake news story about George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard.

Mrs. LoB prevailed upon me to watch the show this past Sunday for the Bibi Netanyahu interview.

My wife was disappointed in the brevity and the short circuited end.

I was mortified by the self-serving Kapo/Sonderkommando piece of garbage, Leslie Stahl.

Bibi kept his cool and held her at bay throughout her condescending, sandbagging attempts to disparage him.

Beside the content of her false and malicious, at best out of context accusations, her tone of voice was one that invited a slap in that dried up prune face of hers.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself Ms. Stahl. You displayed the most egregious version of a Jewish Uncle Tom I’ve seen in a while.

You don’t deserve a TMQ2 invitation but rather a TMQ2 imperative to;



LoB’s Half Ass Book Review

It’s a half ass review because the author is an ass and I stopped reading halfway through.

my-promised-landAri Shavit, a reporter for Haaretz newspaper, wrote his personal and personalized history of Israel, as My Promised Land.

It’s a left-leaning mea culpa that alternately excoriates and praises those responsible for Israel’s creation and survival.

I forgave Shavit for referring to his great-grandfather, who emigrated to Ottoman Palestine in 1897, as a colonialist.

Having set the tone of the book with this take on events, it only got worse

I reached my breaking point on page 221 when he stated,

“Enlightened Israelis and American Jews are ashamed of Israel.”

What the fuck?

Here is a representative of the left-wing telling me if I’m not ashamed of Israel, I’m unenlightened.

That’s rich.

Liberal Jews have their heads so far up their own asses they have to look out of their navels, but I’m not enlightened.

I’ll  have you know, Mr. Shavit, I’m enlightened and proud of Israel, very proud, and you have earned an official TMQ2 invitation to…


Israel Does Not Exist to Make Liberal Jews Feel Good

John Podhoretz

In one of the most important pieces written during the course of this conflict, Shmuel Rosner has taken to the website of the New York Times, where he is a contributing opinion writer, with a profoundly thoughtful riposte to the disapora Jews who have expressed their disaffection with Israel as a result of the goings-on—from Jon Stewart to Ezra Klein, from Peter Beinart to Roger Cohen.

Rosner says these men may be right that Israel is in danger of losing its bedrock support among American Jews in particular. He says that would put Israel in a difficult position and represent a near-tragic development. But his central point is this: Israel is not actually their country. They do not live in Israel, they do not vote in Israel, their children are not in the Israeli army. Israel is a nation of 8 million people, and it must act in accordance with the views of its electorate and the existential needs of its people as Israelis define them. These liberal Jews, Rosner writes,
seem to believe that the implied threat that Israel might lose Jewish supporters abroad will somehow convince the government to alter its policies. This is a self-aggrandizing fantasy and reveals a poor grasp of the way Israel operates. To put it bluntly: These Jews are very important, but not nearly important enough to make Israelis pursue policies that put Israeli lives at risk.

Let me be clear: I believe Israel’s relations with Jews around the world are crucially important. Indeed, I’ve devoted a great deal of my career to thinking and writing about this topic. I often find myself preaching to Israelis about the need to be more considerate of more liberal Jewish views on issues ranging from religious conversion to women’s prayer at Jerusalem’s Western Wall. But I would never expect Israelis to gamble on our security and our lives for the sake of accommodating the political sensitivities of people who live far away.

American Jews who condition their support of Israel by standing in superior judgment of the extremely difficult choices it has been forced to make, for decades now, are guilty of converting a country of flesh-and-blood people into a one-dimensional player performing in an abstract moral pageant of their own staging and design.

These “fair weather friends,” as Rosner dubs them, hold Israel to a standard to which they do not hold other countries—and then claim they do so out of commonality and brotherhood. Light unto the nations and all that. But of course the act of separating yourself from your brethren by being their harshest critics is almost the polar opposite of true familial behavior, as Rosner notes:

If all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli Jewish kin. If Jews aren’t a family, and their support can be withdrawn, then Israelis have no reason to pay special attention to the complaints of non-Israeli Jews.

Or, to be cutesy about it, your grandmother might tell you to be a mensch while she’s stuffing you with brisket, but she does so while she stuffs you with brisket, not while she wags her finger at you and sends you to bed without your supper.

Moreover, she would be a fool if she told you that menschlichkeit required you to allow yourself to exist in a state of constant peril lest you violate some abstract moral stricture. And your grandmother is not a fool.

Which is why the more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone all too often taken by these fair-weather critics is so utterly and infamously disingenuous. They are using what they have in common with Israel as a weapon against it, all the while claiming they are acting on its loving behalf.


Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Stood virtually alone in defense of invoking ‘Almighty God’ in public school

When a coalition of secular U.S. Jewish groups joined the fight to oppose prayer in public schools, one of the most prominent rabbis stood virtually alone in vocally opposing them.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, commonly known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe, or just “the Rebbe,” rejected as illogical the argument that prayer in public schools would result in some form of Christian domination over other religions in the U.S.

Schneerson, who lived most of his life in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, died in 1994. He was one of the most important Jewish leaders of the 20th century. His Chabad movement is famous for its legal efforts to publicly display menorahs in U.S. cities on the Hanukkah holiday.

These stories and more [are] documented in the just released biography “Rebbe: The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History” by Joseph Telushkin.


Liberal Jews Sleep With the Enemy

Liberal Myths
Liberal Wishful Thinking.

A powerful protest to the genocidal Iranian regime was abandoned by Democrat loyalists.

Hillary chickened out of speaking at the demonstration held in New York to mark the arrival of Ahmadinejad. She fears Sarah Palin and supports Democrat intransigence. They will never cross the aisle.

Democrat Organizers (liberal Jews) of the demonstration chose to sabotage the supposed message (Jewish and American unity) and follow the last minute marching orders from the Party.

By preventing Sarah Palin from speaking, they show the true colors of the Left, which proves they cannot be trusted when it comes to national security.

Caroline Glick explains further and looks at the speech Palin was to deliver.

An excerpt:

“The Democratic Party should be ashamed. And Jewish American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that”


Bush is the man!Thank God at least one Israeli gets it.

Sadly, Israel (and rest of the world) contains many liberal Jews who badmouth guys like George W. Bush and praise guys like Jimmy Carter.

Many of these left-wing Jews, I believe, live in New York City and work for the New York Times.

Meanwhile, Carter plays grab ass with oil-rich Arabs and other Jew-hating Muslims.

Perplexing is the reality that many Jews seem to be infected with Stockholm Syndrome. Rather than resisting, they identify with their enemy. An urgent need to cope with their overwhelming fear leads them straight to the bottom of the abyss (exempli gratia, attempting to appease jihadists).

This situation creates a paradox for those wishing to offer aid and protect them. Should allies overlook the appeasement and offer help, or leave these misguided and cowardly ass kissers on the business end of jihad’s buggy whip?

To further illustrate my point, here are two comments left under the article below from the Jerusalem Post web site: 

  1. “Bush Is First President To OPENLY Declare That a Pal State Is A Hallmark of US Policy. What Kind Of ‘Friend’ Does That?”
  2. “Bush is the worst enemy of Israel ever.”

See what I mean?

Dolts like these have earned zero help from anybody. Perhaps we should allow the jihadi goat rapers to have their way with them.

Jerusalem Post | 13 May 2008

Of all the US presidents over the past 60 years, it is hard to think of a better friend to Israel than George W. Bush. No president has been more committed to steering the Middle East toward the values of liberty and tolerance which Americans naturally cherish, and presuppose to be universal.

Bush combines a personal affinity toward Israel with policies that are generally responsive to its concerns. His performance as president is best understood in historical context.

Harry S Truman courageously recognized Israel against State Department advice, but was personally prejudiced against Jews. Dwight Eisenhower rolled back Israel’s 1956 Sinai Campaign victory and unintentionally solidified Nasser’s hold on Egypt. John F. Kennedy pushed hard to keep Israel from developing an atom bomb.

Only Lyndon Johnson rises above his predecessors for opposing unilateral Israeli withdrawal after the 1967 Six Day War and establishing the “land for peace” principle which specified that the extent of Israeli concessions would have to be directly negotiated.

Richard Nixon was both personally prejudiced against Jews and the force behind the Rogers Plan that called for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines. His Machiavellian secretary of state has been accused of delaying arms shipments during the Yom Kippur War. And it was also under Nixon that secret contacts between the US and an unreformed PLO began.

When Israel balked at making strategic concessions in Sinai, Gerald Ford ordered a “total reassessment” of US policy toward Israel. Jimmy Carter’s unsympathetic attitude to Israel is now widely understood, notwithstanding his having facilitated the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

Like his predecessor, Ronald Reagan sold advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia. He also stymied Israeli battlefield achievements in the 1982 Lebanon War. George H.W. Bush sought to make US loan guarantees for the absorption of Soviet Jews contingent on Israeli concessions at the negotiating table.

And a well-intentioned Bill Clinton helped broker the 1993 Oslo Accord, which inadvertently set the stage for the second intifada.

BUSH ARRIVES here today with a little over seven months left in his presidency. Though his policies in Iraq were paved with good intentions and Israelis are grateful that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried, we are left with the lingering sense, albeit informed by hindsight, that the Iraqi campaign was a strategic blunder of historic proportions. Meanwhile, the al-Qaida leaders who masterminded 9/11 remain free, and parts of Afghanistan are in turmoil. The “real and present danger” facing Western civilization, Iran, is unchecked.

It turns out that Saddam was not the greatest enemy of civilization; he did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not directly tied to 9/11. Yet, so far, America has lost over 4,000 troops; suffered tens of thousands of wounded and spent billions of dollars in treasure in an Iraq which shows little sign of coalescing. Consequently, it is today doubtful whether the American people have the political will (or the US military the wherewithal) to confront the Iranian menace.

STILL, WHILE Bush may have been wrong on Iraq, he is dead right about Iran – though an ungrateful, sometimes spiteful world appears in denial. Iran is blatantly pursuing destabilizing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them beyond the Middle East, even as key international players stoke its economy.

Teheran exploits America’s dilemma in Iraq by encouraging chaos in a manner beyond the ability of most Westerners to fathom. On the Palestinian front, the mullahs are championing Hamas with financing, weapons and training. Mahmoud Abbas can strike no workable deal with the Islamists looking over his shoulder. Hizbullah-occupied Lebanon is looking increasingly like an Iranian satellite.

The president told The Jerusalem Post yesterday that before leaving office he wants a structure in place for dealing with Iran. Washington already has a strong security commitment to Jerusalem. Now we would urge the president to work for an upgrade in Israel’s relationship with NATO. Europe must understand that Iran is pivotal; that there will be no stability, no progress – not in Iraq, not in Lebanon and not on the Palestinian front – until Teheran’s advances are first contained, and eventually rolled back.

After reading this, just imagine what would be said about Jimmy Carter’s relationship with Israel.