Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and the largest faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), routinely incites terrorism in all forms of its media, propagandizes Palestinian students to commit acts of terrorism, devotes a large portion of its finances to pay terrorists and their families, and names many of its schools and roads after terrorists who have murdered civilians.  President Trump and Congress have rightly demanded a halt to Fatah’s activities promoting terrorism, including the P.A. halting all payments to terrorists and their families, but to no avail.  To enable peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the U.S. must therefore immediately issue an ultimatum to Mahmoud Abbas and the P.A.: either cease funding, incitement, and indoctrination to terrorism in all forms, forthwith, or be designated as a foreign terrorist organization, with all the ramifications that pertain to that designation.

On March 21, 2016, a 21-year-old Palestinian terrorist murdered U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force and wounded ten other people in Tel Aviv.  Instead of condemning this heinous and cold-blooded murder of a U.S. veteran, Fatah posted a statement online hailing the murderer as a hero and a “martyr” and suggested that such attacks will continue.

In response, on March 23, 2018, the U.S. passed the Taylor Force Act as part of the omnibus spending bill (the bill was originally introduced in 2016).  The Taylor Force Act is designed to stop the flow of U.S. funds to the P.A. so long as the P.A. continues to pay terrorists and their families for acts of terrorism committed in Israel.  While the Taylor Force Act significantly limits U.S. funding to the P.A., the watered down version as passed in the omnibus bill could still allow the P.A. to receive as much as about two thirds of the roughly $400 million in U.S. taxpayer money it has been receiving annually, rather than an almost complete stop of U.S. funding to the P.A., as was originally intended.

The Fatah-controlled P.A. has adamantly refused to heed President Trump’s calls to cease terrorism and instead continues to engage in terroristic activities despite a substantial reduction in U.S. funding.  The dramatic drop in U.S. funding of the P.A. is well warranted.  In total, over 140 U.S. citizens have been murdered at the hands of Palestinian terrorists.  The P.A.’s terrorist activities that threaten the security of U.S. nationals make it eligible to be declared a foreign terrorist organization.

On September 16, 2018, another U.S. citizen was murdered: Ari Fuld, a 45-year-old husband and father of four was stabbed to death south of Jerusalem.  U.S. ambassador David Friedman noted, “America grieves as one of its citizens was brutally murdered by a Palestinian terrorist,” describing Fuld as “a passionate defender of Israel and an American patriot.”

The Gatestone Institute pointed out that the day before the attack that killed Ari Fuld, P.A. president Mahmoud Abbas repeated his false allegation that Israel is planning to change the status quo on the Temple Mount by setting aside places for Jews to pray there.  Shortly after Abbas’s incitement to terrorism, the terrorist posted his threat to murder an Israeli in response to Israel’s “crimes” against the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other Islamic holy sites.

This is yet another example of Fatah’s and Abbas’s regular routine of incitement to terrorism.  For instance, in September 2015, Abbas explicitly encouraged terrorist attacks in Israel.  The continuous incitement to terrorism by Abbas and Fatah is by no means an aberration; rather, it is consistent with the PLO charter, which calls for the utter destruction of the State of Israel through violent attacks.

The PLO charter in Article 2 defines Palestine as having the “boundaries that existed at the line of the British Mandate” and in Article 9 calls for “armed struggle” as “the only way to liberate Palestine” (emphasis added).  The boundaries of the British Mandate refer to the entirety of modern-day Israel, with the exception of the Golan Heights.  The PLO charter that calls for the destruction of Israel is a real impediment to peace and must be radically altered.

The violence espoused in the PLO’s charter is found with increased pervasiveness in Palestinian textbooks.  In August 2017, the P.A. completed its first full reform of the Palestinian curriculum since 2000.  According to an October 2017 in-depth analysis by IMPACT-se, radicalization is even more pervasive in the new Palestinian curriculum and pressures “young Palestinians to acts of violence in a more extensive and sophisticated manner,” educating for “a long war of attrition against Israel” and opposing peace with Israel.

A separate report by IMPACT-se from October 2017 listed 90 selected examples of the P.A.’s indoctrination to terrorism at UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East)-funded schools, including calling for the “annihilation” of the “children of Israel” (see example 9 on page 5).  No peace is possible in this environment of Palestinian indoctrination.  The P.A. (with UNRWA’s help) epitomizes the antagonist mentioned by the psalmist: “I am peace, but when I speak, they are for war” (Psalms 120:7).

It is thanks to President Trump that the U.S. has recently completely ceased funding UNRWA.  He deserves kudos for this unprecedented move that makes it that much more difficult for UNRWA to continue funding indoctrinating Palestinian children to aspire to murder Jews.  This bold action, and others like it, could prevent the murders of many innocent people in Israel – including tourists like Taylor Force and American-Israelis like Ari Fuld.

The passage of the Taylor Force Act was followed by the July 2 passage of a similar Israeli bill called the “anti Pay for Slay law.”  This bill requires the Israeli government to deduct the amount of money the P.A. dishes out to terrorists (and their families) from the taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinians.  In response to the Taylor Force Act and the Israeli bill, Mahmoud Abbas vowed to continue funding thousands of terrorists and families of terrorists.  This follows Abbas’s flagrant and shameless defiance of President Trump and the U.S. Congress by publicly designating approximately 7% of the 2018 Palestinian budget, or close to $360 million, toward this end.

Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal to meet President Trump’s basic demands comes at a real price.  In addition to passage of the Taylor Force Act, a complete cessation to U.S. funding of UNRWA, and more recent funding cuts totaling $35 million in September 2018, the Trump administration has ordered the closure of the PLO office in Washington, D.C. and expelled the Palestinian ambassador.  On September 10, the State Department explained the reasons for the closure of the PLO office.

If there is ever any hope of achieving a long sought peace that will prove successful in practice, it will be achieved only through a radical departure from engaging in, financing, inciting, and promoting terrorism by the P.A. (including the PLO and Fatah) or through new Palestinian leadership that abhors terrorism – both in word and in deed – including a major overhaul of the PLO charter.  The people running the P.A. must understand that they are precariously close to being designated a foreign terrorist organization; if they continue to fund terrorism that threatens the security of Americans in Israel, the funds necessary for their continued existence will quickly dry up.

President Trump has proven in word and deed that he seeks tangible peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  For any hope of achieving a breakthrough to peace, the Trump administration should immediately issue this courageous ultimatum.

Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and the largest faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), routinely incites terrorism in all forms of its media, propagandizes Palestinian students to commit acts of terrorism, devotes a large portion of its finances to pay terrorists and their families, and names many of its schools and roads after terrorists who have murdered civilians.  President Trump and Congress have rightly demanded a halt to Fatah’s activities promoting terrorism, including the P.A. halting all payments to terrorists and their families, but to no avail.  To enable peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the U.S. must therefore immediately issue an ultimatum to Mahmoud Abbas and the P.A.: either cease funding, incitement, and indoctrination to terrorism in all forms, forthwith, or be designated as a foreign terrorist organization, with all the ramifications that pertain to that designation.

On March 21, 2016, a 21-year-old Palestinian terrorist murdered U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force and wounded ten other people in Tel Aviv.  Instead of condemning this heinous and cold-blooded murder of a U.S. veteran, Fatah posted a statement online hailing the murderer as a hero and a “martyr” and suggested that such attacks will continue.

In response, on March 23, 2018, the U.S. passed the Taylor Force Act as part of the omnibus spending bill (the bill was originally introduced in 2016).  The Taylor Force Act is designed to stop the flow of U.S. funds to the P.A. so long as the P.A. continues to pay terrorists and their families for acts of terrorism committed in Israel.  While the Taylor Force Act significantly limits U.S. funding to the P.A., the watered down version as passed in the omnibus bill could still allow the P.A. to receive as much as about two thirds of the roughly $400 million in U.S. taxpayer money it has been receiving annually, rather than an almost complete stop of U.S. funding to the P.A., as was originally intended.

The Fatah-controlled P.A. has adamantly refused to heed President Trump’s calls to cease terrorism and instead continues to engage in terroristic activities despite a substantial reduction in U.S. funding.  The dramatic drop in U.S. funding of the P.A. is well warranted.  In total, over 140 U.S. citizens have been murdered at the hands of Palestinian terrorists.  The P.A.’s terrorist activities that threaten the security of U.S. nationals make it eligible to be declared a foreign terrorist organization.

On September 16, 2018, another U.S. citizen was murdered: Ari Fuld, a 45-year-old husband and father of four was stabbed to death south of Jerusalem.  U.S. ambassador David Friedman noted, “America grieves as one of its citizens was brutally murdered by a Palestinian terrorist,” describing Fuld as “a passionate defender of Israel and an American patriot.”

The Gatestone Institute pointed out that the day before the attack that killed Ari Fuld, P.A. president Mahmoud Abbas repeated his false allegation that Israel is planning to change the status quo on the Temple Mount by setting aside places for Jews to pray there.  Shortly after Abbas’s incitement to terrorism, the terrorist posted his threat to murder an Israeli in response to Israel’s “crimes” against the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other Islamic holy sites.

This is yet another example of Fatah’s and Abbas’s regular routine of incitement to terrorism.  For instance, in September 2015, Abbas explicitly encouraged terrorist attacks in Israel.  The continuous incitement to terrorism by Abbas and Fatah is by no means an aberration; rather, it is consistent with the PLO charter, which calls for the utter destruction of the State of Israel through violent attacks.

The PLO charter in Article 2 defines Palestine as having the “boundaries that existed at the line of the British Mandate” and in Article 9 calls for “armed struggle” as “the only way to liberate Palestine” (emphasis added).  The boundaries of the British Mandate refer to the entirety of modern-day Israel, with the exception of the Golan Heights.  The PLO charter that calls for the destruction of Israel is a real impediment to peace and must be radically altered.

The violence espoused in the PLO’s charter is found with increased pervasiveness in Palestinian textbooks.  In August 2017, the P.A. completed its first full reform of the Palestinian curriculum since 2000.  According to an October 2017 in-depth analysis by IMPACT-se, radicalization is even more pervasive in the new Palestinian curriculum and pressures “young Palestinians to acts of violence in a more extensive and sophisticated manner,” educating for “a long war of attrition against Israel” and opposing peace with Israel.

A separate report by IMPACT-se from October 2017 listed 90 selected examples of the P.A.’s indoctrination to terrorism at UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East)-funded schools, including calling for the “annihilation” of the “children of Israel” (see example 9 on page 5).  No peace is possible in this environment of Palestinian indoctrination.  The P.A. (with UNRWA’s help) epitomizes the antagonist mentioned by the psalmist: “I am peace, but when I speak, they are for war” (Psalms 120:7).

It is thanks to President Trump that the U.S. has recently completely ceased funding UNRWA.  He deserves kudos for this unprecedented move that makes it that much more difficult for UNRWA to continue funding indoctrinating Palestinian children to aspire to murder Jews.  This bold action, and others like it, could prevent the murders of many innocent people in Israel – including tourists like Taylor Force and American-Israelis like Ari Fuld.

The passage of the Taylor Force Act was followed by the July 2 passage of a similar Israeli bill called the “anti Pay for Slay law.”  This bill requires the Israeli government to deduct the amount of money the P.A. dishes out to terrorists (and their families) from the taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinians.  In response to the Taylor Force Act and the Israeli bill, Mahmoud Abbas vowed to continue funding thousands of terrorists and families of terrorists.  This follows Abbas’s flagrant and shameless defiance of President Trump and the U.S. Congress by publicly designating approximately 7% of the 2018 Palestinian budget, or close to $360 million, toward this end.

Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal to meet President Trump’s basic demands comes at a real price.  In addition to passage of the Taylor Force Act, a complete cessation to U.S. funding of UNRWA, and more recent funding cuts totaling $35 million in September 2018, the Trump administration has ordered the closure of the PLO office in Washington, D.C. and expelled the Palestinian ambassador.  On September 10, the State Department explained the reasons for the closure of the PLO office.

If there is ever any hope of achieving a long sought peace that will prove successful in practice, it will be achieved only through a radical departure from engaging in, financing, inciting, and promoting terrorism by the P.A. (including the PLO and Fatah) or through new Palestinian leadership that abhors terrorism – both in word and in deed – including a major overhaul of the PLO charter.  The people running the P.A. must understand that they are precariously close to being designated a foreign terrorist organization; if they continue to fund terrorism that threatens the security of Americans in Israel, the funds necessary for their continued existence will quickly dry up.

President Trump has proven in word and deed that he seeks tangible peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  For any hope of achieving a breakthrough to peace, the Trump administration should immediately issue this courageous ultimatum.

BY: Charles Fain Lehman Follow
@CharlesFLehman

September 23, 2018 5:00 am

The key trick of Reihan Salam’s new book, Melting Pot or Civil War?, is that it neatly bridges the yawning partisan gap on immigration using issues that concern both sides. We can have social equality and solidarity, Salam argues, or we can have immigration; we cannot possibly have both.

Salam’s pedigree well-qualifies him to cross the chasm. On one hand, as the executive editor of National Review, he carries impeccable conservative credentials. On the other, being the son of Bengali immigrants who grew up speaking his parents’ native tongue at home, he says many expect him to be something of an immigration dove. One suspects that it is this combination of views that leads to Salam’s thoughtful, measured conclusion that America in the 21st century needs to rethink how many and what sort of people it lets cross its borders.

There are more immigrants in the United States today than at any previous point—43 million, about 13.5 percent of the population. That population has grown steadily since 1965, swelling through multiple attempts at reform.

This growth implies a rebalancing of the American economy. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the noncitizen resident population is substantially less-skilled than their native-born and naturalized counterparts.

This of course is not a byproduct of any innate inferiority of immigrants. Rather, it is because those with the least to gain at home are also the most likely to seek a better life in the United States, and because our immigration system selects for immigrants based primarily on family relationship, rather than educational attainment. Still, the aggregate effect is remarkable.

The most striking thing about the above chart is not the high numbers of low-skilled immigrants. Instead, it is the different shapes of the skill distributions. Citizens—native-born and naturalized—have a roughly normal distribution. The noncitizen distribution, by contrast, is heavily right-skewed.

It is this combination—the rising immigrant population and its low-skill skew—that concerns Salam. What happens, he asks, in a country with a large, low-skilled population, especially when that group is excluded from the rights and privileges of citizenship?

There are two answers. The first views the influx of low-skilled workers as an unqualified boon, with cheap labor increasing productivity and thus GDP. The natural conclusion is that totally open borders would allow the United States to pick up the unclaimed ”trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk” made available by unencumbered migration of labor.

This view has long had its boosters on the left and the right. It will make America better off, they contend, by maximizing GDP, which can then be redistributed to needy citizens. Upon the tide of free immigration, all ships will be lifted.

Salam is not so sure. Unlike other critics of unrestricted immigration, he does not focus on the adverse impacts of low-skilled arrivals on the least-educated of America’s native-born citizens. Rather, he asks, what actually happens to our society when we try to make it rich off of cheap labor?

There are, he points out, countries that far more efficiently extract value from their immigrants than we do. Consider Qatar, where 74 percent of the population are foreign-born workers living as de facto slaves. Or Singapore—a mere 43 percent immigrant—where a noncitizen woman will be summarily deported if she gets pregnant. In both places, large immigrant workforces are used to create stable lifestyles for citizens at the expense of noncitizen labor.

Such conditions are a product of what Salam labels “extreme between-group inequality,” in which “disadvantaged groups can justly claim unfair treatment, and advantaged groups are keen to protect their status.” This is a natural byproduct of the bifurcation of society mass immigration facilitates. The skilled, powerful top half of the distribution benefits, while the bottom half is kept in servitude by their lack of skill and systematic disenfranchisement.

Salam thinks this configuration is unsustainable in America. This is especially because, while first-generation immigrants may be simply happy to make more than they did at home, their children will not be.

“As someone born and raised in neighborhoods transformed by low-skill immigration,” he writes, “I can confirm that: ‘You’re better off than you would have been had you been born in the Third World!’ is not a satisfying riposte. ‘Gee, thanks. I also can’t afford my rent.'”

The dissatisfaction of second-generation immigrants—and subsequent backlash from the entrenched native-born “upper” class—is what will lead to Salam’s predicted “civil war.”

The alternative, then, is the eponymous “melting pot.” Salam’s fundamental proposal is to curb immigration while simultaneously transitioning to a skills-based immigration system. (There are several other, wonkier ideas, but this is the basic thrust.)

This restructuring, Salam argues, would shore up the center of the skills and income distribution, while at the same time spurring innovation to let machines do much of the low-skilled work. This would produce a “more egalitarian economy,” in which “workers enjoy middle class stability” and which “would help heal our country’s ethnic divide.”

Concerns about “extreme inequality” and creating a “more egalitarian economy” are strange to hear from a conservative commentator. But Salam’s purpose is more than just preventing income inequality as an evil per se. Rather, he understands that inequality of the sort he describes eats away at social solidarity, driving society apart. It produces exactly the imbalances of power that he sees in nations like Singapore and Qatar and that he would like to avoid in the United States.

Equality matters not because it is intrinsically unjust, but because an ethnically or socioeconomically unequal society can never be the kind of republic envisioned by the founders. Insofar as open immigration leads to bifurcation, Salam sees immigration restriction as a way to reempower the middle of American society, while simultaneously allowing the immigrants who are already here to slowly join it.

Economically, this would require a step back from welfare-state neoliberalism. No longer able to rely on the immigration engine to boost GDP, policymakers will need to ensure equitable growth through a different historical model, making sure workers’ wages rise steadily (a shift that will be facilitated by fewer foreign-born competitors).

Immigration has become such a wedge issue that Salam’s basic reasonableness is a welcome breath of fresh air. If for no other reason, the book is worth reading for the author’s clear commitment to finding a compassionate, functional immigration compromise, rather than doing what each side’s most vociferous voices want.

At the same time, Melting Pot or Civil War? is most valuable not as a policy proposal, but as a warning. Along innumerable axes, America is coming apart. We can continue to skirmish over immigration, Salam argues, but we do so at our own peril; far better a program which, though it curbs immigration, lifts everyone up in the process.

For all those who have wondered how American Jews could support the Democrats, let me explain.  It has to do with history and psychology.

First, let’s remember that humans are entirely emotional creatures.  We make almost all of our decisions based on emotions and then use logic and reason to justify our emotional choices.  Jews, being human, do the same thing.

When the Jews began immigrating to America by the millions between 1880 and 1920, they were escaping the pogroms (anti-Jewish riots that included arsons, rapes, and murders) in Russia and Poland (then part of Russia).  They arrived in New York City with just about nothing and found themselves living in the impoverished and violent slums of New York’s 5-Points and Lower East Side neighborhoods.  The only jobs they could get were in the garment industry’s sweat shops, where they toiled for 12 or 14 hours a day for only pennies.  Life was miserable, and there was no way to escape.

But then, on March 25, 1911, something happened that changed everything.  The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory caught on fire while it was filled with impoverished Jewish workers, almost all of whom were women.  Those workers were unable to leave the building because the emergency exits had been locked to prevent the workers from stepping outside for a smoke.  One hundred forty-six garment workers died that day due to fire or smoke or jumping through windows several stories high down to the cold, hard pavement.

The Jewish community in NYC then exploded in outrage.  New York was overwhelmed by demonstrations demanding reforms.  The Jewish community joined the movement to unionize New York’s garment industry, a movement that was strongly supported by the Democrats but resisted by the Republicans.  The decision to do that was, of course, totally emotional.  And those strong emotions became part of the American Jewish psyche.  Democrats were presumed to be for the little guy, and Republicans were assumed to be rich, white men.  The Jewish community (other than the Orthodox) and the Democrats became joined at the hip.  The majority of Jewish families taught its kids to vote Democrat for justice for the little guy.  Voting Democrat became a part of Jewish culture in America.

That Jewish emotional attachment to the Democrats has continued for generations even though most American Jews today have never heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.  As time went by and the community became less religious, “progressive” politics replaced Judaism and God.  Their new gods (idols, really) became Democrat leaders, and their new religion became progressivism.  Emotionally, the community is still right where it was back in 1911, despite the fact that America has changed and the Democrats have really changed.  Most of the Jewish community is now so identified with progressivism that 70 percent of American Jews now vote for Democrats.  To do that, they have to deny the Democrats’ Jew-hate and Israel-hate, and so they do.  Like all humans, they see what they want to see and ignore that which they don’t want to see.

That’s why, if you ask a Jewish Democrat how he feels about the Jew-hate in the Democratic Party, he will probably scream insults at you but never touch the subject you brought up.  (That’s happened to me numerous times.)  These Jews just can’t let anything disturb the comfortable delusion that they inherited from their parents and grandparents that the Democrats are for the little guy, especially the Jews.

But times have changed, and they are wrong.  Today, the big issue is the survival of Israel, and it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are on our side.  

Nonetheless, due to the long historical and psychological connection between American Jews and the Democrats, it’s likely to be a long time before that link is broken.

Pete Cohon is a retired attorney living in Tel Aviv, Israel.

For all those who have wondered how American Jews could support the Democrats, let me explain.  It has to do with history and psychology.

First, let’s remember that humans are entirely emotional creatures.  We make almost all of our decisions based on emotions and then use logic and reason to justify our emotional choices.  Jews, being human, do the same thing.

When the Jews began immigrating to America by the millions between 1880 and 1920, they were escaping the pogroms (anti-Jewish riots that included arsons, rapes, and murders) in Russia and Poland (then part of Russia).  They arrived in New York City with just about nothing and found themselves living in the impoverished and violent slums of New York’s 5-Points and Lower East Side neighborhoods.  The only jobs they could get were in the garment industry’s sweat shops, where they toiled for 12 or 14 hours a day for only pennies.  Life was miserable, and there was no way to escape.

But then, on March 25, 1911, something happened that changed everything.  The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory caught on fire while it was filled with impoverished Jewish workers, almost all of whom were women.  Those workers were unable to leave the building because the emergency exits had been locked to prevent the workers from stepping outside for a smoke.  One hundred forty-six garment workers died that day due to fire or smoke or jumping through windows several stories high down to the cold, hard pavement.

The Jewish community in NYC then exploded in outrage.  New York was overwhelmed by demonstrations demanding reforms.  The Jewish community joined the movement to unionize New York’s garment industry, a movement that was strongly supported by the Democrats but resisted by the Republicans.  The decision to do that was, of course, totally emotional.  And those strong emotions became part of the American Jewish psyche.  Democrats were presumed to be for the little guy, and Republicans were assumed to be rich, white men.  The Jewish community (other than the Orthodox) and the Democrats became joined at the hip.  The majority of Jewish families taught its kids to vote Democrat for justice for the little guy.  Voting Democrat became a part of Jewish culture in America.

That Jewish emotional attachment to the Democrats has continued for generations even though most American Jews today have never heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.  As time went by and the community became less religious, “progressive” politics replaced Judaism and God.  Their new gods (idols, really) became Democrat leaders, and their new religion became progressivism.  Emotionally, the community is still right where it was back in 1911, despite the fact that America has changed and the Democrats have really changed.  Most of the Jewish community is now so identified with progressivism that 70 percent of American Jews now vote for Democrats.  To do that, they have to deny the Democrats’ Jew-hate and Israel-hate, and so they do.  Like all humans, they see what they want to see and ignore that which they don’t want to see.

That’s why, if you ask a Jewish Democrat how he feels about the Jew-hate in the Democratic Party, he will probably scream insults at you but never touch the subject you brought up.  (That’s happened to me numerous times.)  These Jews just can’t let anything disturb the comfortable delusion that they inherited from their parents and grandparents that the Democrats are for the little guy, especially the Jews.

But times have changed, and they are wrong.  Today, the big issue is the survival of Israel, and it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are on our side.  

Nonetheless, due to the long historical and psychological connection between American Jews and the Democrats, it’s likely to be a long time before that link is broken.

Pete Cohon is a retired attorney living in Tel Aviv, Israel.

On the surface, the question seems ridiculous. Both of Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page reportedly are ethnically Jews.  Page’s mother was Jewish, according to this biography, while Brin’s family is widely reported to have fled antisemitism in the former Soviet Union and emigrated to America.

Yet, according to one of the most prominent and useful definitions of antisemitism, that of Natan Sharansky, applying standards to Israel that are not applied to other countries is an indicator of antisemitism.

A friend wrote me yesterday about something he noticed about Google Maps:

After reading about the attack on Iranian troops on parade, I wanted to see where Khuzestan Province is and looked on Google maps:

I then noticed that Google maps identify cities and provinces around the world using both the Latin alphabet and the alphabet of the local language.

Except for one nation.

Here is the map (copyright Google):

I wish that Google would tell us why they apply this standard to Israel and no other? I loathe false accusations of antisemitism or any kind of racism, but I am at a loss to explain this anomaly in the case of Israel.

On the surface, the question seems ridiculous. Both of Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page reportedly are ethnically Jews.  Page’s mother was Jewish, according to this biography, while Brin’s family is widely reported to have fled antisemitism in the former Soviet Union and emigrated to America.

Yet, according to one of the most prominent and useful definitions of antisemitism, that of Natan Sharansky, applying standards to Israel that are not applied to other countries is an indicator of antisemitism.

A friend wrote me yesterday about something he noticed about Google Maps:

After reading about the attack on Iranian troops on parade, I wanted to see where Khuzestan Province is and looked on Google maps:

I then noticed that Google maps identify cities and provinces around the world using both the Latin alphabet and the alphabet of the local language.

Except for one nation.

Here is the map (copyright Google):

I wish that Google would tell us why they apply this standard to Israel and no other? I loathe false accusations of antisemitism or any kind of racism, but I am at a loss to explain this anomaly in the case of Israel.

I love James Woods and his Twitter posts. As of Thursday, however, it appears that the Twitter powers-that-be are not so pleased with Woods. His account has been locked.

As BizPac Review reported on Saturday, the news that Woods’ account had been suspended was brought to light by Woods’ friend Sara Miller: “She posted a screenshot of the actor’s tweet, a screenshot of the message he received from Twitter and a statement from him to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.”

At this point, after all the unabashedly conservative tweets Woods has let loose among the internet stream, what could he have possibly done to cause Twitter to lock him out of his account?

It was a meme — and one that mocked the social justice warriors of the radical left (as Woods does so often).

But given what Twitter allows by liberals, I’m shaking my head in amazement at why this would cause such an uproar. Here is what Miller posted on Friday to explain Woods’ Twitter lockout. (As of Sunday morning, Woods’ normally active Twitter still had not had a new post since Thursday.)

TRENDING: Report: GOP Rolls Out Its Own Demands in Fiery Counteroffer to Kavanaugh Accuser

This is the tweet @RealJamesWoods was locked for.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the “Streisand Effect” kicked in and it was retweeted 10,000 times?

Retweet at your peril. @jack is watching… 👀#FREEJAMESWOODS pic.twitter.com/eIZpGkOk6A

— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018

Yes, and here’s the admonishment he received from Twitter. No explanation. Just a clear and swift, “your Twitter account has been locked.”

Hey everyone, for your information @RealJamesWoods has been locked by @Twitter.

“The jihad against conservatives continues.” – #JamesWoods pic.twitter.com/ISgwq2mVnr

— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all have a tangible list of those rules so we could all know what guidelines we are playing by when we tweet?

Zero Hedge reported Twitter directed Woods to delete the post because it contained: “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.”

“In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote.”

Miller also released this statement by Woods directed to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey:

Hey guys, @Twitter has locked @RealJamesWoods’ account.

His statement: “You are a coward, @jack. There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.”#JamesWoods pic.twitter.com/zGVOnxP0D6

— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018

And the puzzle continues. How can he delete the post if he can’t log on to his account? Is Twitter playing games with Woods?

RELATED: James Woods Pulls Out Dictionary To Bury Leftists Attacking Kavanaugh

He’s unable to login, Tweet, view timeline, etc until deleting the Tweet that has been deemed to have broken their rules.

— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018

If you follow Jimmy, the odds of him deleting a tweet because “Big Brother” @Jack ordered it are less than winning the lottery twice in one day AFTER getting struck by lightning. If the tone of this tweet sounds familiar, guess who’s standing over my shoulder…#FreeJamesWoods

— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018

And maybe this sums up all to correctly describe the perceived bias in Twitter’s corporate stance against conservatives.

Nothing whatsoever happened to Peter Fonda after he tweeted his desire to see Barron Trump locked in a cage with pedos, whereas James Woods was locked out for sharing a satirical meme. That’s bias.

There’s bias and double standards every single day.

To claim there isn’t is BS.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 22, 2018

It would be a shame to lose Woods as a Twitter presence. I enjoy his frank bursts of conservative opinion.

I believe his 1.72 million followers might just feel the same way.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

In President Donald Trump’s first speech after a New York Times story alleged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had planned to surreptitiously record the commander in chief and explored the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment to have him removed from office, Trump talked of a “lingering stench” at the Department of Justice and promised more firings.

The remarks were made Friday, just hours after The Times published the article that suggested Rosenstein was willing to take measures that would be extraordinary for anyone in the Department of Justice, much less the deputy attorney general, against a sitting president.

“I want to tell you we have great people in the Department of Justice,” Trump told an audience in Springfield, Missouri, where he was campaigning for Josh Hawley, the Missouri attorney general challenging vulnerable Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill.

“We have great people. These are people — I really believe you take a poll, I’ve got to be at 95 percent,” he said.

TRENDING: Report: GOP Rolls Out Its Own Demands in Fiery Counteroffer to Kavanaugh Accuser

“But we had some real bad ones — you’ve seen what’s happened at the FBI. They’re all gone.

“But there’s a lingering stench and we’re going to get rid of that, too,” he said.

In terms of the FBI, the message was unmistakable: Former Director James Comey, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as well as anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page, have all been fired or left the Bureau.

And, as for the allegations leveled at Rosenstein by The Times, they’re pretty dire.

“The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit,” the piece read.

“Mr. Rosenstein made these suggestions in the spring of 2017 when Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director plunged the White House into turmoil. Over the ensuing days, the president divulged classified intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office, and revelations emerged that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to pledge loyalty and end an investigation into a senior aide.”

Rosenstein also reportedly “raised the idea of wearing a recording device, or ‘wire,’ as he put it, to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was.”

Allies of Rosenstein said the comment was made in jest, and the deputy attorney general himself denied the gist of The Times’ article not once but twice.

“I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda,” a statement by Rosenstein included with the piece read. “But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

RELATED: NYT Report on Rosenstein ‘Wire’ Talk Brings ‘Deep State’ Fears to the Surface

A later statement by Rosenstein was more specific: “I never pursued or authorized recording the president and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false,” he said Friday night, according to Forbes.

Will that end up saving Rosenstein? He has plenty of allies among Democrats, particularly Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer.

“This story must not be used as a pretext for the corrupt purpose of firing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein in order install an official who will allow the president to interfere with the special counsel’s investigation,” Sen. Schumer said in a statement, according to Politico.

The statement also noted that other White House members, such as Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly “have been reported to say critical things of the president without being fired.”

Yes, well, neither of them apparently wanted to wear a “wire” to record the president as if he were a criminal suspect or invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

That’s quite a different thing entirely — and it leaves a stench President Trump may be eager to remove.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

California was once the envy of the nation, if not the world: Disneyland was the happiest place on earth, the beach life influenced all of American culture from fashion to music, while Silicon Valley led the way in tech.

The Golden State may not be dead, but it sure looks like it’s on life support — and its decline can be directly linked to liberal policies run amok.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that California currently has the highest poverty rate in all of America.

Illegal aliens flood across the border, contributing to shanty towns of homeless migrants and public health crises in major cities.

The job of California’s governor is to tackle the most pressing issues facing his state. Instead, Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown is focusing on the issues that really matter to his citizens: Evil plastic straws and soda pop.

TRENDING: Report: GOP Rolls Out Its Own Demands in Fiery Counteroffer to Kavanaugh Accuser

On Thursday, the liberal governor made those arcane issues top priorities when he vetoed several other measures, but signed anti-straw and anti-soda bills into law.

One of those head-scratching laws signed by Brown was Assembly Bill 1884, which makes it illegal for restaurants to give out plastic straws with meals.

Treating the humble straw as some sort of rampant tool of terrorists, Brown declared that “plastic … has become so ubiquitous it now pervades every aspect of modern life” and “has led to disastrous consequences.”

Hey, Brownie. There are piles of disease-carrying needles in your state’s once proud cities and mobs of migrants defecating in your streets. Maybe tackle that before waging a completely redundant war on plastic?

But he didn’t stop there.

Next on the agenda were pesky soda drinks sometimes enjoyed by — gasp! — children.

“Brown also signed Senate Bill 1192 that amends the California Retail Food Code to require all dine-in and fast food chains to offer milk; a non-dairy milk alternative; or sparkling, still or flavored water as a default or advertised beverage for a child’s packaged meal,” reported Breitbart News.

Like the straw crusade, the new law to keep soda out of kids’ hands will likely do little to actually improve anything.

“The bill does not prohibit a restaurant from selling, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one,” Breitbart explained.

RELATED: Insider Documents Show Anti-Trump Google Employees Wanting To Rig Search Results

In other words, kids can still ask for soft drinks, and people can still ask for straws.

Just don’t you dare put a plastic straw in a kid’s soda — it would be really messy to clean up all the liberal heads that inevitably explode.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

House Rep. Trey Gowdy, who must be seeing some things on the House Intelligence Committee as a member, told Fox News about a little noted elephant in the room surrounding the outcry over President Trump declassifying documents:

“I’ve read it. Some of it’s embarrassing for the Department of Justice — some of it’s embarrassing for the FBI. Embarrassment is not a reason to classify something,” said Gowdy. “A lot of it should be embarrassing to John Brennan, and maybe therein lies why he is so adamant that this information not be released.”

The Fox News report noted that Brennan, a former CIA director under the Obama administration was one of the loudest opponents of President Trump’s original order (since backtracked, apparently to assuage allies) to declassify documents surrounding the origins of the investigation of Donald Trump. Brennan even went so far as to tell officials to resign rather than let such a thing happen, cloaking himself in the cloak of a necessity to protect America’s secrets, with his mouth still going strong with the dagger. He had been big on yelling that President Trump is a ‘traitor,’ something he himself has backtracked on, given that it proved it wasn’t going to the government much good to allow him to keep his security clearance. The wildly loudmouthed former CIA director lost it, anyway.

Now Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, who’s regrettably leaving Congress, and has nothing to worry about concerning the swamp leverage or retribution, is pretty well letting the cat out of the bag – that the documents expose Brennan as a complete idiot. He’s a dolt, and his dirty underwear could very easily be on display with a Trump declassification. Washington is a status-oriented place, and the exposure of Brennan as a complete fool would cut into his cocktail party invitations. Life’s tough for a swamp creature when he becomes a figure of fun. 

No wonder he’s yelling so loudly.

Gowdy says that while Trump has withheld declassifying for now, it doesn’t mean he won’t do it in the future.

That should give Brennan something to think about, awaiting that day when the president should act.

House Rep. Trey Gowdy, who must be seeing some things on the House Intelligence Committee as a member, told Fox News about a little noted elephant in the room surrounding the outcry over President Trump declassifying documents:

“I’ve read it. Some of it’s embarrassing for the Department of Justice — some of it’s embarrassing for the FBI. Embarrassment is not a reason to classify something,” said Gowdy. “A lot of it should be embarrassing to John Brennan, and maybe therein lies why he is so adamant that this information not be released.”

The Fox News report noted that Brennan, a former CIA director under the Obama administration was one of the loudest opponents of President Trump’s original order (since backtracked, apparently to assuage allies) to declassify documents surrounding the origins of the investigation of Donald Trump. Brennan even went so far as to tell officials to resign rather than let such a thing happen, cloaking himself in the cloak of a necessity to protect America’s secrets, with his mouth still going strong with the dagger. He had been big on yelling that President Trump is a ‘traitor,’ something he himself has backtracked on, given that it proved it wasn’t going to the government much good to allow him to keep his security clearance. The wildly loudmouthed former CIA director lost it, anyway.

Now Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, who’s regrettably leaving Congress, and has nothing to worry about concerning the swamp leverage or retribution, is pretty well letting the cat out of the bag – that the documents expose Brennan as a complete idiot. He’s a dolt, and his dirty underwear could very easily be on display with a Trump declassification. Washington is a status-oriented place, and the exposure of Brennan as a complete fool would cut into his cocktail party invitations. Life’s tough for a swamp creature when he becomes a figure of fun. 

No wonder he’s yelling so loudly.

Gowdy says that while Trump has withheld declassifying for now, it doesn’t mean he won’t do it in the future.

That should give Brennan something to think about, awaiting that day when the president should act.