In 2008, Elliot Dorff joined Rabbis for Obama in their claim that Senator Obama would be a “leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel.”
Dorff, a Beverly Hills based clergyman, showed a deep grasp of geopolitical issues when he claimed that because of President Bush, “now the Taliban inhabit Iraq, where they never used to be.” This would have come as news to both the Taliban and Iraq. But Rabbis for Obama kept Dorff’s testimonial up because no one there seemed to know any better or know anything except how awful Israel is.
Like many of the Rabbis for Obama, Dorff was a left-wing radical who could be counted on to sign any letter attacking Israel. In 2010, he joined the unofficially nicknamed ‘Rabbis for Hamas’ by signing a letter demanding that Israel end the blockade of the genocidal Islamic terrorist group.
Elliot Dorff had also signed an earlier letter praising the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, which led the area to be taken over by Hamas. But this was only to be expected from a member of J Street, serving on the anti-Israel group’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council.
The Sheriff’s Office signs off on employment with a terrorist organization.
Nezar Hamze has two paying jobs. In one, he is a Deputy Sheriff at the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO), under oath to watch over, protect and promote the best interests of the community. In the other, he is the Regional Operations Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for the Florida chapter of CAIR, an Islamist group with numerous ties to international terrorism. It is disturbing and dangerous that someone from CAIR is involved with law enforcement. It is more disturbing that Hamze has his job at CAIR with the blessings of the Sheriff’s office.
In June 2014, Hamze applied for the position of Certified Reserve Deputy with the BSO. He had applied for the same position in March 2012 but was rejected. At the time of his 2012 application, Hamze was serving as the Executive Director of CAIR-Florida. His 2014 application states (in type) that he, at the time, had the title of Regional Operations Director of CAIR-Florida and has the word “current” penciled next to it.
Europe’s slow-motion immigration disaster has accelerated with the continuing turmoil in the Middle East and Africa. In Calais hundreds of illegal immigrants stormed the entrance to the cross-Channel tunnel in an attempt to reach more immigrant-friendly England. In northern Greece, 3000 migrants attacked the border with Macedonia to get closer to more prosperous northern Europe; Macedonia let them pass a few days later. Hungary, a member of the EU border-free Schengen zone, is deploying its army to slow down the migrant tide, and border-fences are springing up in Bulgaria and Hungary. Meanwhile, thousands of immigrants continue to drown in over-crowded ships or suffocate in smugglers’ trucks while trying to enter Europe.
Europe has long had an immigration problem, but in the last year the numbers have skyrocketed. About 124,000 immigrants reached Greece by sea between January and July this year, a 750% increase from the previous year. Germany estimates 800,000 new migrants will reach the country by year’s end, 4 times as much as last year. The United Kingdom has seen 330,000 enter so far this year, while 107,500 made it to Europe, both numbers new records.
President Obama argues that his nuclear agreement with Iran means “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off.” He says, moreover, that it sets the stage to “incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave.” It will be “a lot easier,” he predicts, “to check Iran’s nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies’ interests if they don’t have the bomb.”
The approach is a signature feature of Obama’s foreign policy. He has counted on diplomacy in a whole host of other areas to reduce tensions and preempt military conflict. And this approach has failed him repeatedly.
He reset relations with Russia—and Moscow annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine. He launched a strategic partnership with China—and Beijing occupied and built military installations on disputed islands in the East and South China Seas. He extended an open hand to the Muslim world—and radical Islam erupted. Will the agreement with Iran be the next Obama initiative to invite more violence rather than less?
Why did the illegal-immigration issue launch Donald Trump’s campaign? Why did his recent tense press conference exchange with Univision’s Jorge Ramos please even some of Trump’s liberal critics? What is it about illegal immigration that has finally turned off so many Americans?
Over the years immigration activists successfully deconstructed the complex issue of illegal immigration into a race and class morality tale of privileged whites picking on poor brown people. The operative buzzwords were “racism,” “nativism,” and “xenophobia.” That theme is now mostly bankrupt given that every great lie eventually falls from its own weight.
It was rarely the host, but more often the activists on behalf of the guests, who framed illegal immigration in racial terms. Activists foolishly fabricated the controversy as “we noble Latinos” against “you prejudiced non-Latinos.” They forgot apparently two obvious truths: one, thirty percent of Americans are not so-called white; and, two, most people resent ethnic chauvinism. Is an unemployed African-American sympathetic to the argument that someone has a birthright to illegally cross into the United States and find instant employment? Is a Punjabi-American, waiting patiently for his engineer cousin to get a green card, eager to be told the United States must make special concessions to the Latino lobby? Does a third-generation Mexican-American prefer that his neighborhood school and emergency room be flooded with indigent illegal Mexican nationals?
Sometime in the last five years, the public woke up and grasped that Latino elite activists were not so much interested in illegal immigration per se, but only to the degree that the issue affected other Latinos. Were 3,000 Chinese illegally entering California per day by ship on the Northern California coast, Latino activists and politicians would probably be the first to call for enforcement of federal immigration law.
The New York Times did a spotlight on one of the heroes of America. Was it a special forces soldier who fought in Afghanistan? No. Was it a border patrol agent apprehending a drug dealer about to cross the border and commit an act of hate? No.
It was a Houston municipal judge who removed his testicles, called himself a girl, and is held up as a role model for the nation.Phillip, now “Phyllis,” Frye is a municipal court judge in Houston, recruited by Houston’s lesbian mayor, Annise Parker.
At one point in the 1980s, Ms. Parker gave Ms. Frye a ride to a conference. During the drive, Ms. Frye confided that she sorely missed playing sports, and that no women’s team would let her join.
Ms. Parker, who coached a lesbian softball team, looked over at the strapping, 5-foot-10 woman beside her and thought, “I really need a power hitter.”
“I got back to her later and said, excuse the pun, ‘I’m willing to go to bat for you,’ ” Ms. Parker said.
The new bogeyman, hex, curse, sneer and left/liberal branding iron is racism. It comes with many names. “Islamophobia.” Bigotry. “White privilege.” It is invoked the moment a single person or publication criticizes the influx of Muslims and illegal immigrants into Europe or into the U.S. It is the “one size fits all” smear that is supposed to automatically silence critics of mass immigration and conflict-engendering multiculturalism and cause them to hang their heads in shame and apology – which it succeeds in doing – and then wave in without control the dross of the earth to loot, murder, rape, destroy, and force “whites” to pay Islamic or welfare state jizya, as the price of being left alone – for the time being.
There was a passage from Churchill’s speech condemning the Munich Agreement of September 1938 which sprang to mind a few weeks ago. In many ways that awful pact mirrors the tragic folly of the Iran nuclear agreement. In it Churchill mentions Czechoslovakia’s isolation and her betrayal by the European democracies which, in many instances, resembles Israel’s position today with the notable exception that Israel is highly armed and far better led:
On October 3rd 1938 with Britain still singing the praises of “Good Old Neville”, Churchill rose to address the House of Commons and quickly punctured the euphoria. Amid catcalls and roars of “rude!” and “nonsense!” and “sit down!” he turned on the men skulking on the Treasury Bench and thundered,
“…..we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat …the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course … All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies.” Ignoring the uproar around him, he gave a stern warning, “Do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless, by a supreme recovery of our moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”
Given the weak state of Britain’s defenses it would have made perfect sense to come to an arrangement with Hitler but Churchill understood the absolute evil of Hitler and his Nazis in a way that others did not. It is inconceivable to me that the P5+1 are incapable of recognizing the absolute evil of the Iranian regime’s Islamic supremacist ideology particularly since, unlike Hitler, it does not even bother to hide it.
I won’t attempt to top Marion DS Dreyfus’s fine August 8th review on IPT of Joy Brighton’s Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women and Everyone Else . I reviewed Brighton’s book on Rule of Reason on May 6th, 2014 and on Family Security Matters on May 10th. An excerpt of the review also appeared on the Counter Jihad Report on May 12th, 2014.
Dreyfus’s review was reprinted on several other blog sites, most notably on The National Writers Syndicate site on August 8th, 2015. Her review is tellingly illustrated with a photograph of ISIS sex slaves being paraded in a cage on the back of a pickup truck.
Further, much of the material covered in Brighton’s nonpareil book has been cited in my own Jihad: Islam’s Reign of Terror and in A Handbook on Islam.
What follows is a reprint of my May 6th review for those who may have missed it.
It is a profound and critical moment in our nation’s history when more than 200 flag officers condemn Barack Obama’s alarming Iran deal.
The most dangerous presidency in American history is now rushing to its climax. This is the lethal moment that Bush and Cheney warned us about – the catastrophic moment when a fanatical Armageddon regime in Tehran will be guaranteed a path to nuclear weapons. Some military experts are convinced they already have them.
The Bush administration made many mistakes, but it was absolutely on target about the danger of terrorists armed with nukes. For rational actors, nuclear weapons are a last-ditch defense, because in a nuclear exchange, everybody loses. Irrational and suicide-preaching regimes are different, just as Jim Jones was different from your Junior League Club.
Today, Obama actually wants to give the most destructive weapons in the world to Iran’s genocidal regime.
He has simply switched sides.