President Biden’s Jewish Mouthpiece: ‘If You Fear for Your Life Take Off Your Kippah’…!

Team Biden’s atrocious advice to Jews to hide their identity

“It pains me to say this,” tweeted Team Biden staffer Aaron Keyak recently, “but if you fear for your life or physical safety, take off your kippah and hide your” Star of David. Keyak’s official White House title is “Jewish engagement director,” and his tweet revealed much about Team Biden’s views on anti-Semitism and cultural politics in 2021 — none of it good.

Keyak, an Orthodox Jew, is a longtime Beltway swamp creature and Democratic Party hack. During the 2020 campaign, it was his job to tell Jewish voters that then-President Donald Trump was their No. 1 enemy, that his supposed philo-Semitism was a ruse.

Trump was arguably the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish president in US history. Fulfilling a promise made by several of his predecessors, and dismissing the objections of the foreign-policy establishment, Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. To the amazement of the world, he also brokered historic peace deals between the Israelis and several Muslim states.

How to paint Trump as bad for Jews and Israel? Easy — by lying.

Repeatedly, Keyak echoed the “both sides” calumny, the false notion that Trump praised the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville in 2017. Trump, Keyak said, had “inspired . . . anti-Semites to feel encouraged” and thus “made me feel unsafe in my own country.” Trump’s presidency, he wrote in the lefty Israeli newspaper Haaretz, “has helped embolden white supremacy throughout America. He has routinely refused to condemn their hatred.”

All lies. But all, apparently, in a day’s work for a Biden apparatchik.

Of course, it was precisely the wobbliness of President Joe Biden’s support for Israel that emboldened Hamas to attack the Jewish state. And it was the ensuing conflict that led to a wave of physical assaults against Jews across America — none of them, it is safe to say, perpetrated by people in MAGA hats.

And what, in this dire situation made possible by his boss’s fecklessness, is Keyak’s suggestion to his fellow Jews? To put away the outward signs of their faith and peoplehood.

It was heartening to read the replies to Keyak’s tweet: “Nobody should have to hide who they are to be safe in America.” “That type of submission never led to anything good.” “Interesting — I didn’t fear for my life or physical safety under Trump.”

Having lived in Europe for two decades, I’m not unfamiliar with the idea of Jews concealing their identity. As the Continent’s Muslim population has grown, so, too, has the amount of brutal public violence against Jews. The “genteel” anti-Semitism of European cultural elites, usually disguised as opposition to Israel, often abets the street-level Islamist thuggery.

In 2013, 49 percent of Jews in Sweden said they didn’t dare to wear such objects in public; the corresponding figures for France and Belgium were 40 and 36 percent, respectively. In the years since, those numbers have only risen.The result: Even as European Muslims audaciously block traffic by praying in the streets, European Jews don’t dare hang a tiny Star of David from their necks.

Hiding one’s Jewish identity, alas, is always only one step in a grievous process of retreat. The first step is explicitly distancing oneself from Israel. The second step is removing the kippa and Star of David. And the third step is flight.

“Facing record levels of anti-Semitism,” reported National Geographic in 2019, “many French Jews are joining an exodus to Israel. A third of all the French Jews who’ve emigrated to Israel since its establishment in 1948 have done so in the last 10 years.” The trend is present across Western and Northern Europe.

Where are these Jews fleeing to? Many choose Israel, needless to say. But others settle in America.

Yet with our new president lavishing praise on anti-Semites like Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib (and sending mixed messages on the vile Linda Sarsour), and with his errand boy Aaron Keyak urging his fellow Jews to ditch their yarmulkes, what kind of refuge can America be?

You don’t have to be Jewish to be distressed by the thought that America, under Biden, may be the next Western country Jews flee.

Bruce Bawer is the author of several books, including “The Victims’ Revolution.”

From NY Post, here.

טף למה באין להר הבית

עליית ילדים קטנים והפרדה מגדרית בהר הבית

ב”ה

ו’ מרחשון תשע”ח

הרב יצחק שטרן / sh2345364@gmail.com

פתיחה

בחסד ה’ על עמו, זוכים אנו בשנים האחרונות להתעוררות גדולה בקרב בית ישראל לעלות בקודש, להסתופף בהר מרום הרים, לחזות בנועם ה’ ולדרוש לשכנו. צופים אנו מדי יום ביומו, ובעיקר בתקופות החגים ובראשי חודשים, בהמוני בית ישראל העולים להר הבית, מקום השכינה, ומתחילים אנחנו לראות בהתגשמות חזון הנביאים (ירמיהו לא, י-יא): “כִּי פָדָה ה’ אֶת יַעֲקֹב וּגְאָלוֹ מִיַּד חָזָק מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבָאוּ וְרִנְּנוּ בִמְרוֹם צִיּוֹן וְנָהֲרוּ אֶל טוּב ה'”.

דיון רחב מתנהל בבתי המדרשות אודות עליית נשים, נשואות ופנויות, להר הבית. יש הנוטים לאסור, ויש המצדדים להיתר, ואין בכוונתנו להיכנס כעת לדיון זה. אולם בפועל, כל זמן שלא הוכרעה ההלכה, עינינו רואות שעליית הנשים הטהורות הולכת וצוברת תאוצה, וחובה עלינו לתת את הדעת על הסדרי העלייה להר הבית בזמן שעולים שם גברים ונשים כאחד.

מראה נוסף הנגלה לעינינו בשנים האחרונות הוא עליית משפחות להר בית ה’. הורים המשתוקקים לדרוש את ה’ נוטלים עמם את ילדיהם, קטנים וגדולים, ועולים עמם להר. תינוקות עטופים במנשא, פעוטות יושבים בעגלה, וילדים שטרם הגיעו לחינוך נותנים ידם בתוך ידי אביהם, ומסובבים בהר. ביקורים משפחתיים אלו מעוררים את השאלה הידועה: “וטף למה הן באים?”. האם זו תופעה ראויה המועילה לחינוך הקטנים, או שמא יש פגם בהנהגה זו וסרך של פגיעה במצוות מורא מקדש?

במאמרנו נבקש לסדר בקצרה את מטרות העלייה להר הבית, ונבחן אם העלאת הילדים הקטנים משרתת מטרות אלו או שהיא נוגדת להן; נברר את סדרי ההפרדה המגדרית שהיו נוהגים בבית המקדש, ונציע בעזרת ה’ הצעת מעשית לשמירת סדרי הצניעות והקדושה בעלייה להר הבית בזמננו.

מטרות העלייה להר הבית בזמן הזה

דומה שיש לחלק את מטרות העלייה להר הבית בזמן הזה לשתיים שהן ארבע:

  • הצהרת ריבונות.
  • הגברת המודעות לבניין המקדש.
  • תפילה.
  • דרישת קרבת ה’.

הצהרת ריבונות והגברת המודעות לבניין המקדש

בתודעת רבים, בישראל ובאומות העולם, השתרשה הטעות המבישה שהר הבית שייך למוסלמים והכותל המערבי שייך ליהודים. רבים בישראל בטוחים ומאמינים כי הכותל המערבי הוא המקום הקדוש ביותר עבור היהודים. הר הבית? זה לא שלנו, זה שלהם. עפר לפיהם.

אט אט, בזכות עבודה מאומצת של אנשים צדיקים שכבודם של הר הבית ובית המקדש נגע בלבבם, החלה לחדור בנו התודעה האמיתית: הר הבית שייך ליהודים. הוא, ולא הכותל שלמרגלותיו, הוא – ובית המקדש שייבנה עליו – הם המקום המקודש בעולם.

תובנה זו מחלחלת באומה בזכות מאמצי מכון המקדש ודומיו להוציא ספרים, סידורים, תמונות, משחקים וכיוצא באלו, המקרבים אלינו את ממשיותו של בית המקדש, ומציפים בקרבנו את הציפייה לראותו בנוי ועומד על מכונו במהרה בימינו.

אמצעי נוסף וחשוב מעין כמותו שפעל, וממשיך לפעול, לשינוי התודעתי – בעם ישראל ובקרב אומות העולם – הוא חזרתם המחודשת של בני ישראל להר המוריה. אם עד לפני שנים לא רבות, רגילים היינו לצפות על ההר רק באנשי האומה הישמעאלית, כעת אין זו כבר תופעה משונה לראות יהודים טהורים עולים ומבקרים בהר בית ה’.

המהלך הזה בתחילת דרכו, והוא הולך ומתעצם ככל שעם ישראל חולץ נעליים ו’מצביע ברגליים’, ומגיע בהמוניו ל”הַר ה’ יֵרָאֶה”. כל אחד מן העולים בטהרה מוסיף להגברת המודעות הכללית בעם, ולהצהרת הריבונות של עם ישראל על הר הבית. כיום, גם אנחנו וגם אויבינו מבינים שהר הבית אינו שייך למוסלמים, וודאי לא להם בלבד. היהודים חוזרים וטוענים בעלות. לא טענה שאין עמה חזקה, אלא טענה ברורה וחדה: הגענו, חזרנו הביתה, למקום נחלת אבותינו.

העלייה להר, אם כן, היא ההצהרה החזקה ביותר בדבר הריבונות שלנו על ההר – “כָּל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּדְרֹךְ כַּף רַגְלְכֶם בּוֹ לָכֶם יִהְיֶה” (דברים יא, כד), והיא מגבירה ומחזקת את המודעות של כלל ישראל לציפיית בניין המקדש השלישי – “כִּי רָצ

ךָ אֶת אֲבָנֶיהָ וְאֶת עֲפָרָהּ יְחֹנֵנוּ” (תהלים קב, טו).

המשך קריאה…

מאתר איגוד רבני הר הבית והמקדש, כאן.

Bibi Ego and Superego

Netanyahu To Step Away From Politics To Spend More Time With Ego

A side-effect of the decades of nurturing that political and psychological symbiosis has been the prevention of any credible leader emerging in Netanyahu’s wake.

Caesarea, June 1 – Israel’s longest-serving head of government, forced to leave the position he has held continuously since 2009, announced today that he intends to take a break from the vicissitudes of the public, diplomatic, electoral, and legislative scene, in favor of a period of quiet reflection during which to focus on nurturing his inflated sense of self-importance.

Outgoing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told reporters today that he steps away from the premiership with an eye toward spending more time at home, with his ego, where the two can offer mutual support without the distractions or complications inherent in a public political life.

“My ego has supported me and sustained me my entire career,” explained Netanyahu, who held office for more time than even Israel’s founding father David Ben-Gurion. “I have of course reciprocated and fed my ego the entire time, but too often the demands of political life have not permitted me to devote proper individual attention to my ego, and I expect to remedy that deficit in the coming months, perhaps years.” He declined to indicate whether this hiatus from public political life represents a permanent retirement or a brief interlude.

Analysts have long noted the symbiotic relationship between Netanyahu and his ego. Numerous commentators have remarked since the 1990’s, when he launched his political career, that the interests of Netanyahu’s ego and the interests of the State of Israel as articulated by Netanyahu often appeared synonymous. The dovetailing of the two entities aroused suspicion among rivals, opponents, and occasionally allies, but Bibi, as he is popularly known, managed to shepherd both with considerable skill. Only in recent years, as his political fortunes and legal troubles have made his future in public life uncertain, has a large-enough swath of the Israeli electorate made the distinction between Israel’s interests and those of the Netanyahu ego.

Experts observed that a side-effect of the decades of nurturing that political and psychological symbiosis has been the prevention of any credible leader emerging in Netanyahu’s wake. “There’s been no room for anyone else on the Right,” explained columnist Nahum Barnea. “The Netanyahu ego demands exclusivity, a demand that rules out tolerance for any potential challengers within the political bloc. Only now, as Bibi steps out of public life to swell his ego in private, can we expect to witness the development of strong politicians elsewhere on that arc of the political spectrum.”

The experts and commentators failed to discern among themselves the same trait of confusing personal ideological interest with that of the state or society.

From PreOccupied Territory, here.

Is Slavery Economically Wise?

The Left Argues Slavery Was an Economic Blessing. Here’s Why They Are Wrong.

08/20/2019

The legacy of slavery in America is once again becoming a hotly discussed topic. The New York Times has launched The 1619 Project, commemorating the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves brought to the colony of Virginia. The project “aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.” One of the lead essays informs us that “in order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.” And over at Vox, an interview with historian Edward E. Baptist teaches us that slavery was a remarkably modern and efficient business practice, which helped the U.S. transform from a colonial economy into “the second biggest industrial power in the world.”

There are rhetorical and ideological concerns on both sides of this sensitive topic. The case for systematic reparations collapses, for example, if it turned out that slavery was an inefficient system that made blacks and whites—with a few notable exceptions—poorer. On the other hand, if the vision of The 1619 Project is correct, and modern America was built on slavery, then it would be silly for MAGA-wearing patriots to try to downplay the peculiar institution as an unfortunate footnote in the story of liberty.

In the present post, I am not going to weigh the historical evidence. For critiques of the “New History of Capitalism” (with its alleged reliance on slavery), see this article from Olmstead and Rhode, or this essay by Phil Magness.

Instead, I want to clarify the logical framework to show what it would mean to actually argue or demonstrate that slavery was an economically efficient method of production, which not only enriched those directly involved in the slave trade and labor sites, but also showered material benefits on the rest of (free) society at large. As we will see, in his Vox interview the historian Baptist doesn’t even attempt to make such a case.

Once we clarify the actual issue, it should be clear that slavery is like war: Yes, a few privileged elites can benefit financially from it, but it’s not “good for the economy.” Slavery, like war, is a destructive institution that reduces the welfare of most people in society, though a few beneficiaries can profit from the insidious system and thus have an incentive to sing its blessings.

Framing the Issue

To understand if slavery is an “efficient” method of economic organization, we have to ask the standard economist question: Compared to what?

There is no doubt that a healthy adult slave in a region with adequate natural resources can produce more than a subsistence amount of output, allowing for the owner to keep the slave alive and keep the surplus for himself, living up to the Marxist vision of how labor markets work in general. So if the question is, “Was US output higher with millions of productive slaves working, than it would be if those slaves suddenly disappeared?” then the answer is, “Yes, of course, slavery was ‘productive’ in this sense.”

But that’s not really the question. The question is, if all of the plantation owners in (say) the year 1850 had suddenly freed all of their slaves and turned them into free laborers, what would that have done to the course of US economic development? Is it really true that this change would have made the country as a whole poorer?

The issue isn’t whether cotton was an important export, or whether the expected future flow of labor of the slaves was a valuable financial asset (codified in the market price received in auctions). The issue is whether had the slaves all been freed, would that change have made cotton exports grow more slowly over the 19th century, and would it have made the productivity of the (former) slaves’ labor grow more slowly? Those are the types of questions we need to answer, if we want to know whether slavery was a boon for American capitalism rather than a blight that was not only immoral, but also inefficient.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.