Not Just Rabbi Akiva Yosef Shlesinger: A Rabbi Persecuted by His Own for Promoting Jewish Autonomy in Israel

President Grant and the Chabadnik

By Jonathan D. Sarna

Spring 2012

On April 20, 1869, President Ulysses S. Grant held an informal reception on the grounds of the White House. Almost seven weeks had passed since his inauguration, and the hero of the Civil War was now seated in his presidential chair, greeting well-wishers and entertaining callers. Suddenly, an exotic-looking rabbi appeared on the scene seeking an immediate audience with the nation’s leader. Bedecked in what The New York Timesdescribed as an “Oriental costume” consisting of a “rich robe of silk, a white damask surplice, a fez, and a splendid Persian shawl fastened about his waist,” he strode self-confidently toward the president. Grant instinctively rose to greet him.

Grant and Sneersohn ArticleThe rabbi’s name was Haim Zvi Sneersohn, and a few weeks earlier he had arrived in the United States from the Land of Israel ostensibly to raise funds and publicize his views on the coming of the messiah. Sneersohn was the great-grandson of Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the revered founder of the Hasidic movement today known as Chabad-Lubavitch. He was also the grandson of that family’s most notorious black sheep, the founder’s emotionally troubled son Moshe, who to the movement’s great embarrassment had converted to Christianity in 1820. Perhaps to escape the stigma of what was then seen as the ultimate form of religious betrayal, Haim’s parents moved the young boy, his siblings, and grandmother from Russia to the Land of Israel in 1843 or 1844 to begin a new life.

By 1869, the 35-year-old Sneersohn had spent the better part of his life as a meshulakh, or emissary, for Chabad and for Jewish philanthropic institutions in the Holy Land. He raised money, among other things, for the shelters for the needy (Batei Machase), which would later house Yeshivat HaKotel in Jerusalem. He also bestirred the faithful to prepare for the coming of the messiah. “The finger of God,” he announced to audiences, “points out to us that the day is not far distant when the grand deliverance will take place.” As an itinerant fundraiser, Sneersohn had already carried his message across much of the Jewish world, including Russia, Egypt, Persia, Australia, England, and Romania. He had achieved renown as a polyglot and able public speaker. Wherever he traveled, Jews and non-Jews turned out to hear him. That proved true in the United States as well.

Before meeting Grant, Sneersohn had lectured twice in Washington, D.C. concerning Jews in the Holy Land. A local correspondent writing in the European Hebrew-language newspaper Ha-magid reported that his audience was “large and appreciative” and included such notables as the Turkish ambassador, members of the president’s own family, local clergy, and several congressmen. “His eloquence and fluency in the English language were generally admired,” the fawning correspondent wrote, “and his words made a good impression upon the audience.”

Sneersohn, however, had not just come to Washington to make a good impression and spread his religious message. He also carried out a secret political mission undertaken on behalf of the Jewish community of Jerusalem. That mission had already brought him to the State Department, where he had a long discussion with Secretary of State Hamilton Fish. Now it brought him face to face with the president of the United States.

“Permit me to give my thanks to the Almighty, whose mercy brought me here,” Sneersohn began. Without waiting for a reply, he pronounced the traditional blessing that Jews make upon seeing a monarch or head of state: “Blessed be the Lord, who imparted from His wisdom and from his honor to a mortal.” Following a florid display of praise for Grant and the United States, he closed in on his subject: “to advocate the cause of his oppressed brethren in the Holy Land.” He requested the appointment of a Jew to the staff of the American consulate in Jerusalem. He sought permission for Jewish residents, during times of violence, “to seek refuge under the Stars and Stripes.” Most importantly, he called upon Grant to dismiss the American consul in Jerusalem, Victor Beauboucher, so “that the principles of the Government may be truly embodied in its representative abroad.” If Grant moved favorably on all his requests, he intimated—implying that as a rabbi and resident of Jerusalem he possessed extraordinary spiritual powers—”this free country and its exalted chief should be blessed on the sacred spot of our common ancestors.”

Grant was sensitive concerning all matters Jewish. Back in 1862, he had expelled “Jews as a class” from his war zone, an order that Abraham Lincoln had overturned. Grant belatedly apologized for the order following his 1868 election, and now Sneersohn gave him the chance to prove that apology genuine.

Sneersohn’s main objective was to remove Consul Beauboucher. A Frenchman, Beauboucher was the first and only American consul at Jerusalem who was not a United States citizen. He had received his consulship in reward for services rendered to the Union army during the bloody Battle of Coal Harbor in 1864, in which he fought and suffered a shattered leg. In his memoirs, Grant accepted responsibility for the terrible losses sustained in that ill-advised assault on Robert E. Lee’s fortifications near Richmond. “I have always regretted,” he wrote, “that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made . . . No advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.” The State Department’s appointment of Beauboucher to Jerusalem, in 1865, was a form of restitution.

Sneersohn and the Jews of Jerusalem may not fully have understood that, but they did quickly discover how ill-equipped Beauboucher was for his position. He particularly infuriated Jews when he utilized the power of his office to assist Protestant missionaries in a heavy-handed but ultimately unsuccessful effort to convert a young Jewish orphan named Sarah Steinberg to Christianity. The consul’s home guards had broken into the home of the rabbi suspected of harboring Steinberg, destroyed his household goods, and carted him off to jail. The whole incident was labeled an “abomination” by Jewish newspapers and led to demands for the consul’s removal. As a self-styled representative of the Jewish community of the Holy Land, Sneersohn hoped to use his charm and media savvy to wreak revenge on Beauboucher and to promote both the Jewish community’s interests and his own.

What Ulysses S. Grant made of the scene unfolding before him is difficult to say. The correspondent of Washington’s National Intelligencer felt that he had been “deeply moved by the rabbi’s sincere and feeling words.” The modern-day editor of the Ulysses S. Grant papers considered the meeting with Sneersohn important enough to list in his “Ulysses S. Grant Chronology.” But Grant himself, in typically laconic fashion, simply asked a few questions and declared, “I shall look into this matter with care.” That was enough to earn him a “fervent prayer” from Rabbi Sneersohn, a universalistic twist on the traditional prayer for the government recited in many synagogues to this day: “May the Supreme King of Kings grant you a long life, and inspire you with benevolence and friendship toward all mankind.” Grant, who usually kept his religious feelings to himself, responded gratefully. “I thank you,” he said, “for your wishes and prayers.”

Onlookers believed that Sneersohn would succeed in his mission. “The American Government,” the National Intelligencer predicted, “can not refuse so humble a request . . . [T]he Israelites . . . shall have in the American consulate at Jerusalem an advocate.” Unbeknownst to Sneersohn, Beauboucher was ailing and eager to leave Jerusalem. He had already written to Grant requesting transfer to Italy, Spain, or Germany. By 1870, he was gone. Sneersohn took credit for the removal, but it was probably preordained.

Having accomplished his mission and become something of a media sensation, Sneersohn proceeded across the United States, lecturing and speaking to journalists wherever he went. Like a 19th-century Shmuley Boteach, he craved publicity. When Judge Bellamy Storer of Cincinnati described him as “destined in the Providence of God to be a minister and a messenger . . . to the world,” he publicized the testimonial. When Mormon leader Brigham Young invited him to address the citizens of Salt Lake City in the Mormon Tabernacle “on subjects of such deep and abiding interest to us all as the past history and present condition of God’s covenant people Israel,” he publicized that letter too.

The issue that ultimately brought Sneersohn back onto the national stage, however, was Romania. With its Jews in trouble, he came up with a plan to help them. The condition of Romania’s Jews had been worsening since 1866, when a new conservative government took power that legalized anti-Jewish discrimination. It limited where Jews could live, denied them the right to own land, and restricted the kinds of occupations they could hold. A rewritten Romanian constitution stated, unambiguously, that “Romanian citizenship may be acquired by Christians only.” Jews, even when native born, were deemed stateless foreigners. (One minister called them a “social plague.”) The regime forcibly deported hundreds of Jews and encouraged mob violence against thousands of others. One politician openly suggested that the best solution to the problem posed by Jews was to “drown them in the Danube.”

In June 1870, just as Sneersohn arrived in San Francisco, reports reached the United States that “fearful massacres” of Jews were taking place in Romania. The San Francisco Bulletin put the figure of those murdered at “a thousand men, women, and children.” The New York Times, comparing the violence to the infamous St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of 1572 that had decimated France’s Huguenot population, called upon the United States government to “do all in its power to check the hideous massacre.” Meanwhile, “leading Israelites” from around the country “arouse[d] their representatives in Congress to do all they can,” and similar messages poured into the White House.

Sneersohn, who had travelled through Romania, was naturally distraught, and so was his host, Benjamin Franklin Peixotto. The latter, scion of a distinguished Sephardic family, was a lawyer, journalist, an exceptional orator, a disciple of Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and a well-respected Jewish leader who had been a past president (the official title was “Grand Saar”) of B’nai B’rith. Sneersohn saw in him a kindred spirit and concluded that he might become the instrument of Romanian Jewry’s salvation. Having learned from Beauboucher what an American consul might accomplish abroad, for good and for ill, he concluded that Peixotto should now put his own name forward for the vacant American consulship at Bucharest. Peixotto agreed. “I am ready and willing to go to Bucharest,” he announced in a dramatic letter to Simon Wolf, the recorder of deeds for the District of Columbia and President Grant’s chief advisor on all Jewish matters. Sneersohn’s powers of persuasion had worked their magic.

PeixottoPeixotto understood that the consulship carried no salary. He would have to raise whatever funds he needed himself. He also understood that the situation of Romania’s Jews was, in reality, less dire than the sensationalist press had first reported. Much to the embarrassment of American Jewish leaders, reports of large-scale massacres in Romania turned out to be greatly exaggerated. Nonetheless, Romanian Jews continued to suffer significant oppression, and Peixotto, having committed himself to Sneersohn (“my constant companion and counselor”), remained under his spell. “Heaven,” the would-be consul avowed, “hath not placed it in my power to show the extent of the sacrifice I would make for suffering humanity, for persecuted Israel.”

Earlier, Sneersohn had himself written to Grant—”the chosen Chieftain of the United States of America, warrior, hero and prince of peace”—about Romania. Never wanting in self-confidence, the rabbi urged the appointment of “a Jewish citizen . . . as Consul,” a slap at the State Department’s first choice for the position who, like Beauboucher, was not a citizen. “Such an example of so great and mighty a nation in its appreciation of men and its honor of their rights without regard to religious belief,” he advised the president, “could not fail to make an impression.” Peixotto, who was at once native-born, religiously engaged, and highly accomplished, was in Sneersohn’s view the perfect choice. Although Simon Wolf was unimpressed by “the machinations of Rabbi Sneersohn,” and considered the man “unpredictable and impracticable,” and although Peixotto admitted to not having supported Grant in the 1868 election, Wolf “very reluctantly” sent his name to Grant. Grant obligingly forwarded the name to the Senate and, by unanimous consent, that body approved the nomination on June 29.

Once in Romania, Peixotto, much as Rabbi Sneersohn had anticipated, devoted the bulk of his energies to improving the lot of the local Jews. He strongly advocated for their emancipation and citizenship; promoted education and modernization; created and subsidized a pro-Jewish liberal newspaper; established a Jewish fraternal organization parallel to B’nai B’rith; and, when Jews were attacked in 1872, he rushed to their defense, providing refuge for some of them in his own home. In a private letter, he gave vent to his true feelings about Romania at that time: “The lightning of heaven,” he wrote, “should blast a country so infamous.”

Sneersohn published his account of the Romanian situation that same year, in a book entitled Palestine and Roumania: A Description of the Holy Land and the Past and Present State of Roumania and the Roumanian Jews. A collection of his letters, articles, and speeches, the volume concluded with a vainglorious recitation of his own accomplishments on behalf of Romanian Jewry:

I was the first who applied to the American Government in their behalf . . . I succeeded in persuading my friend Benjamin Peixotto to quit his native shores for the sake of his brethren in Roumania . . . I actually succeeded in arousing the sympathy of the liberal Americans for my suffering brethren in Roumania.

Reminding readers that he was not one of those rabbis “who saw nothing in the world but the four walls of the Beth-Hamedrash,” he concluded with a call for peace, for improvement in the Jewish position in the world, and above all-this 24 years prior to Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State-for “the great cause of establishing a Jewish independent commonwealth in the land of our forefathers.”

Sneersohn’s Zion-centered solution to the Jewish problem in Romania placed him at odds with Peixotto, who advocated large-scale Romanian Jewish emigration to the United States. For the first time, but not the last, the Promised Land of Israel and the Golden Land of America offered competing options for Jews persecuted in Europe. In response, a disappointed Sneersohn assailed the plan of his former protégé in what has been described as “biblical but ill-tempered invective.”

In his call for a Jewish commonwealth, Sneersohn failed to mention that he had himself taken out American citizenship. But now, for ideological reasons, health reasons, and in hopes of establishing a Jewish agricultural colony, he returned to the Holy Land, settling in Tiberias. During the first seven decades of the 19th century, many Christians had come to the Holy Land to work the land with their own hands. Sir Moses Montefiore of England advocated for these same kinds of productive activities on the part of Jews. Echoing these calls, Sneersohn argued that a successful agricultural colony would encourage Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel and help bring an end to Jewish dependence upon charity.

The Jewish religious establishment in Tiberias vehemently disagreed. They viewed Sneersohn as an interloper and considered his planned colony a threat both to the Tiberian community’s holy traditions and to its settled norms. Religious zealots—then as now part of the fabric of Jewish society in the Land of Israel—soon excommunicated the great-grandson of Schneur Zalman of Liadi and spread scurrilous reports concerning his activities. On November 28, 1874, they set upon him with stones, robbed him of his worldly possessions, stripped him stark naked, tied him to the back of an ass, and paraded him through the streets and outside the city walls. To shocked onlookers, they explained that Sneersohn thought that he was the messiah (who, by legend, is supposed to arrive on a donkey). Sneersohn never fully recovered from this attack. Though he maintained friends in high places and was even able to enlist American diplomats on his behalf, all efforts to retrieve his possessions and bring his persecutors to justice failed.

By 1878, Sneersohn had recovered enough to reunite with Ulysses S. Grant when the latter became the first American ex-president to visit Jerusalem as part of his round-the-world tour. Meeting him at the governor’s house, the rabbi offered Grant yet another heartfelt blessing and lobbied him on behalf of the “committee for distributing relief to American Jewish citizens.” As a newly minted American citizen himself, he had a personal stake in this committee’s success. Grant, however, failed to rise to the bait. He simply promised “to inform some of his friends, leaders of Israel in America, of the facts,” and there is no evidence that he ever did. Nor, in the end, would it have mattered, for by 1882, Sneersohn was dead. He took ill on a trip to the Cape Colony and was buried on South African soil.

In 1973, Israel Klausner published a brief Hebrew language biography of Sneersohn, describing him as one of the early heralds of the modern State of Israel (me-mevasrei medinat yisrael). But his true significance lies elsewhere. In his exotic dress, public displays of piety, florid oratory, unabashed chutzpah, self-interested politics, wide-ranging travels, philanthropic missions, unseemly quarrels, and fervent messianism, Sneersohn introduced Americans to a new, and distinctively modern, rabbinic type.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Where Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon Are in Agreement…

Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon: Similar Halachoth, Similar Approaches

“A home becomes transformed when the walls display the likeness of the Rambam or the Vilna Gaon or the other righteous great.”

– Rabbi Avigdor Miller

(Continued from here.)

Three halachoth that we saw in the past week shed light on an approach to Torah study and the halachic process which has been gained popularity recently.

The first halacha is in Hilchoth Sta’’m 10:6. There, Maimonides writes

ולא יאחוז הספר כשהוא ערום, He should not hold the [Torah] scroll while (he/it) is naked.

which is as ambiguous as the source text which appears a few places in the Talmud (Megilla 32a, Sabbath 14a, etc.):

אמר רבי פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן כל האוחז ספר תורה ערום נקבר ערום. ערום סלקא דעתך? אלא אימא נקבר ערום בלא מצות. בלא מצות סלקא דעתך? אלא אמר אביי נקבר ערום בלא אותה מצוה.

R’ Parnach said in the name of R. Yohanan: Whoever holds a Torah scroll naked is buried naked. Naked, you say? — Rather, “naked,” without [the merit of performing] commandments. Without commandments, you say? think you? — Rather, said Abaye, he is buried without [the merit of performing] that commandment.

Does this mean that one should not touch the scroll directly, but rather with have an intervening kerchief, or that one who is not clothed should not hold a Torah scroll? Rashi, and most others who followed him, including the Tosafists, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulhan Aruch, takes this to mean the former, and that makes sense, considering that the next line in the Talmud, despite its own inherent ambiguity, discusses the cloth used to cover and protect the Torah scroll:

אמר רבי ינאי בריה דרבי ינאי סבא משמיה דרבי ינאי רבה מוטב תיגלל המטפחת ואל יגלל ספר תורה:

R’ Yannai the son of the elder R’ Yannai said in the name of the R’ Yannai the great: It is better that the covering [of the scroll] be rolled up,and not that the scroll of the Torah should be rolled up.

and that is why you find people, who, when it comes time to roll the scroll, make sure not to directly touch it.

The problem with this approach is that it is unclear, what, if any, problem exists, either ritually or ethically, in directly touching the Torah scroll. Without spoiling the surprise for you, I would mention now that the Vilna Gaon (Orah Hayim 147:1) makes this point, and dismisses the suggestion, made by the Magen Avraham and others, that perhaps because the sages made an enactment that one needs to ritually wash his hands after touching the Torah scroll, which is mentioned in the corresponding text in Shabbath 14a, we should derive that there is something wrong with doing so, or that there would perhaps also be a problem with touching the scroll’s handles.

However, when we look again at the Maimonidean formulation, we see that he does not add Rashi’s interpretation, and as R’ Kappah points out, in context it is clear that Maimonides meant that one should not hold a Torah scroll when he is unclothed, and if the Talmud really meant as Rashi et al. believed,  then R’ Parnach should have formulated his rule the way the Shulhan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 282:4) unambiguously did:

ולא יאחוז הספר בלא מטפחתת, He should not hold the [Torah] scroll without a[n intervening] kerchief.

(In Orah Hayim 147, he formulates it differently, but still unambiguously: “It is forbidden to hold a Torah scroll naked, without a kerchief.”)

Maimonides holds of the latter interpretation of R’ Parnach’s teaching,  and this fits well with other, similar halachoth regarding the proper respect due to scrolls and t’fillin, e.g., Hilchoth Sta’’m 4:22, which discusses the laws of being properly clothed while wearing t’fillin.

What is the Vilna Gaon’s true opinion? Well there is nothing explicit, but there is much to consider: he brings absolutely no source for the Shulhan Aruch’s ruling that one should not directly touch a Torah scroll, neither in Orah Hayim 147 nor in Yoreh Deah 282. Was the Vilna Gaon not aware of this well-known talmudic teaching, which, because it concludes one of the shorter and “easier” tractates, is one with which even those who don’t regularly study talmud become familiar? (I was just at a Siyum Massecheth Megilla yesterday.) No source what so ever? Rather, by not giving a source, the Vilna Gaon is implying that this halacha has no basis in the Talmud, because all the purported sources that others may marshall actually mean something else, and as we just saw, he explicitly rejects attempts to explain the meaning of a possible alternative explanation. We see from this that the Vilna Gaon, as a matter of practical halacha, follows the simple understanding of the sources, the one Maimonides understood: one should not hold a Torah scroll while he is not clothed.

Continue reading…

From Avraham Ben Yehuda, here.

Bill Clinton’s War on Serbia

20 Years Ago: Bill Clinton Bombs Serbia, Killing Hundreds of Civilians

Twenty years ago, President Clinton commenced bombing Serbia for no good reason. Up to 1500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest BS morality plays of the modern era. Clinton sold the bombing as a humanitarian mission, but the resulting carnage resulted in the takeover of Kosovo by a vicious clique that was later condemned for murdering Serbs and selling their kidneys, livers, and other body parts.

But Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo;  a statue of him was erected in the capitol, Pristina.  It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.

The U.S. bombing of Serbia was a crime and an outrage from the start.  Editors were chary of articles bashing the bombing campaign so much of my venting occurred in my journal:

April 7, 1999 Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton’s Serbian policy based on the pictures of the bomb damage — rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing. The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities…. What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.

April 17 My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds – or for America’s saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to “uphold American values.” Make me barf! Just another … Hitler-of-the-month attack..

May 13 This damn Serbian war… is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world… and to problems within this nation.

I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled “Moralizing with Cluster Bombs” in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years (St. Martin’s Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two reviewers to attack the book.  Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the Denver Rocky Mountain News:  “Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress.”

As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle.  In an October 2002 USA Today article (“Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield“) bashing the Bush administration’s push for war against Iraq, I pointed out: “A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill…. Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag, ethnic cleansing continued – with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians.”

In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed: “After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO’s “peace” produced a quarter-million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees. At least the Serbs were not murdering people for their body parts, as the Council of Europe recently accused the Kosovo Liberation Army of doing to Serb prisoners in recent years. (“When the transplant surgeons were confirmed to be in position and ready to operate, the [Serbian] captives were … summarily executed by a KLA gunman, and their corpses transported swiftly to the operating clinic,” where their kidneys were harvested for sale.) Perhaps even worse, Clinton’s unprovoked attack on Serbia set a precedent for “humanitarian” warring that was invoked by supporters of Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq.”

Reposted below are a Washington Times piece on post-war body harvesting and a couple of Future of Freedom Foundation pieces on Clinton’s lies.

Washington Times, August 5, 2014

When the spoils of war are human organs

by James Bovard
Bill Clinton’s Kosovo ‘freedom fighters’ trafficked in body parts

Former President Bill Clinton continues to be feted around the world as a progressive champion of human rights. However, a European Union task force last week confirmed that the ruthless cabal he empowered by bombing Serbia in 1999 has committed atrocities that include murdering individuals to extract and sell their kidneys, livers and other body parts.

A special war-crimes tribunal is planned for next year. The New York Times reported that the trials may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: “Past investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses’ fears of testifying in a small country where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in the government.” American politicians have almost entirely ignored the growing scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as “the George Washington of Kosovo.” A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative report tagged Mr. Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.

The latest allegations might cause some Americans to rethink their approval of the 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia killed up to 1,500 civilians. In early June 1999, The Washington Post reported that “some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton’s ‘finest hour.’” Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because the Serbs were allegedly committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Mr. Clinton and Britain’s Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.

The KLA’s savage nature was well-known before the Clinton administration formally christened them “freedom fighters” in 1999. The prior year, the State Department condemned “terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army.” The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Mr. Clinton portray himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Mr. Clinton was aided by many congressmen anxious to portray U.S. bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA “stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.”

After the bombing ended, Mr. Clinton assured the Serbian people that the United States and NATO agreed to be peacekeepers only “with the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold.” In the subsequent months and years, American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serb civilians, bombing Serbian churches and oppressing any non-Muslims. Almost a quarter-million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Mr. Clinton promised to protect them. By 2003, almost 70 percent of the Serbs living in Kosovo in 1999 had fled, and Kosovo was 95 percent ethnic Albanian.

In 2009, Mr. Clinton visited Kosovo’s capital, Pristina, for the unveiling of an 11-foot-tall statue of himself. The allegations of the KLA’s involvement in organ trafficking were already swirling, but Mr. Clinton overlooked the grisly record of his hosts. Instead, he stood on Bill Clinton Boulevard and lapped up adulation from supporters of one of the most brutal regimes in Europe. A commentator in the United Kingdom’s The Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Mr. Clinton “with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999.”

Shortly after the end of the 1999 bombing campaign, Mr. Clinton enunciated what his aides labeled the Clinton doctrine: “Whether within or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing.” In reality, the Clinton doctrine was that presidents are entitled to commence bombing regardless of whether their accusations against foreigners are true. As long as the U.S. government promises great benefits from bombing abroad, presidents can usually attack whom they please.

Mr. Clinton’s war on Serbia was a Pandora’s box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and most of the media portrayed the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq and for the Obama administration to bomb Libya. Both interventions sowed chaos that continues to curse the purported beneficiaries.

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton will never be held liable for killing innocent Serbs or for helping body-snatchers take over a nation the size of Connecticut. Mr. Clinton is reportedly being paid up to $500,000 for each speech he gives nowadays. Perhaps some of the well-heeled attendees could brandish artificial arms and legs in the air to showcase Mr. Clinton’s actual legacy.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

יהדות בריטניה: הדג מסריח מהראש

לא תגורו מפני איש

הרב אליהו קאופמן

      מה שאירע בלונדון – בירת בריטניה, בפרשת העריות של הדיין יונתן אברהם, הוא המשך למה שהתחיל שם לפני מספר שנים עם הרב חיים הלפרין. שניהם – דרך אגב, תושבי השכונה החרדית המודרנית “גלדרס גרין”. כאשר התפוצצה פרשת הרב חיים הלפרין מיד החלו הניסיונות לטייח ולעקם את האמת. במוצאי שבת שלאחר שמחת תורה של אותה שנה הוזמן הרב חיים הלפרין לביתו של הדיין חנוך הרנטרויא, משכונת “הנדון” הסמוכה ל”גלדרס גרין”. הרב הלפרין – רב בית המדרש שברח’ “בריג’ ליין 65 ב”גלדרס גרין”, היה בטוח שהוא מוזמן לישיבת רבנים של האזור הצפון – מערבי של לונדון. זה לא היה מופרך כי ישיבות כאלה התקיימו מידי פעם ואליה הגיעו רבני “גלדרס גרין” ו”הנדון” לטכס עצה ביחס לעמדה ולפעילות כזו או אחרת בלונדון. בבית הרב ערנטרויא – זקן הדיינים והרבנים באזור ובעבר אב”ד בית הדין של ה”יוניטד סינגוג” בלונדון ובבריטניה (“בית הדין של המדינה”), אמנם הגיעו כול רבני האזור אבל זו הייתה מלכודת ה”כיפה אדומה” עבור הרב חיים הלפרין. היו שם הרבנים ווינגרטן, הגר, רוברטס והיו שם גם הדיינים ליכטנשטיין, גאלי ואברהם ועוד רבנים ודיינים אחרים. אבל הנושא לא היה עניין של פעילות תורתית או משהו דומה אלא היציאה לאור השמש של מעלליו של הרב חיים הלפרין בעשרות נשים חרדיות, כולל נשואות. לא ארחיב כאן על מעלליו של ה”רב החסידי” והשמנמן מפאת הצניעות אבל רק אציין שבאחד המקרים הוא טען כלפי נערה חרדית שקצת ירדה מהדרך כי “אם אני לא אעשה לך את זה אז גויים טמאים יעשו לך את זה ויטמאו אותך”. כך לפחות הופץ הסיפור שאולי הינו אמת ואולי הוא אגדה. הרב הלפרין עמד מול כול אותם הרבנים ופרץ בבכי. הוא הודה במעשיו והבטיח לעזוב את לונדון בזמן קצר ביותר. אבל בבוקרו של יום שני שאח”כ הגלגל התהפך.

         באותם ימים עוד היה בחיים נשיא ארגון “כדתיא” – ארגון הגג של הקהילות החרדיות בבריטניה, הרב אלחנן הלפרין מ”גלדרס גרין, אביו של הרב חיים הלפרין. על מה שהסכים הרב הלפרין – לעזוב את לונדון, לא הסכים האב ועימו שני בניו משה ודוד, אחייו של חיים. משפחת הלפרין – ובראשם האב הזקן, יצאה חוצץ נגד סילוקו של הרב חיים הלפרין מלונדון והאב אף ענה כי “הכול עלילה”. הם ניסו לתלות זאת במלחמת ה”ליטאים נגד הרב החסידי חיים הלפרין”. לימים הובהר כי בוודאי שלא כך היו הדברים משום שבין רבני “גלדרס גרין”, שקמו נגד חיים הלפרין, היה גם הרב הגר, רב בית כנסת מרכזי וכולל גדול ב”גלדרס גרין”. אבל הרב אלחנן הלפרין לא הרפה וכנגד העובדות נגד בנו חיים הוא גייס “שושלת יוחסין” שבה טען כי בנו הוא צאצא של ה”דברי חיים” מצאנז וכול הפוגע בבנו הרי שה”דברי חיים” ינקום בו משמים. בוודאי שכול הסיפור הזה מופרך שהרי יצחק אבינו מעולם לא נקם משמים במי שנלחם בעשיו בנו. לחצה של משפחת הלפרין – לטיהורו של חיים, הפך לאובססיבי ולאף לאלים. כך למשל נעל הרב משה הלפרין (כיום הוא יורשו של אביו בבית המדרש המרכזי – “בית שמואל”, ב”גלדרזס גרין”) את אב”ד “כדתיא” – הרב אפרים פדובא מ”סטמפורד היל”, בבית אביו ואיים לא לתת לו לצאת מהבית עד שהרב פדובא ישנה ויחתום שחזר בו כנגד אחיו חיים. כך ניסו האח דוד הלפרין ועסקן מרכזי מ”גלדרס גרין” להלך אימים על הנשים הנפגעות ועל בעליהן של הנשואות ולאיים עליהם לבטל את תלונותיהם במשטרת לונדון. התוצאות היו שהרב חיים הלפרין אמנם נותר ב”גלדרס גרין” אך הוא יצא מכך ב”שן ועין”.

       בית מדרשו של הרב חיים הלפרין התרוקן מעשרות מתפללים חשובים ואמידים שהחליטו שזה לא יהיה יותר רבם. במקומו של הלפרין הם בחרו את הרב יוסף וויינברג – לשעבר ראש ישיבת וינה, ונכדו הגדול של הרב המנוח ומיסד החינוך החרדי בבריטניה, הרב שמלק’ה פינטר זצ”ל. משפחת הלפרין ניסתה להפעיל כוחניות נגד שליחתו של הרב ווינברג ללונדון אך נכשלה. גם במישור המשפחתי נאלץ הרב הלפרין להתקפל. הרב חיים הלפרין היה המועמד הטבעי לרשת אביו – כרב בית המדרש המרכזי ב”גלדרס גרין” (“בית שמואל”) אך הפרשה גרמה לכך שהיורש הפך להיות אחיו, הרב משה הלפרין, המכהן כיום כרב בית המדרש במקומו של אביו המנוח, הרב אלחנן הלפרין. גם מעמדו של הרב חיים הלפרין – כדיין ב”כדתיא” החרדית, עורער ונשר. אבל מנגד הוא עזב את העיר, הוא ממשיך לתפקד כרב של בית מדרש פרטי והתלונות נגדו במשטרה נסגרו ע”י אילוץ הנשים לחזור בהן. היה נכון שאילו תמורת סגירת התלונות הללו הוא יפסיק לתפקד כרב בלונדון ויעזוב את העיר אבל כאמור, זה לא קרה. יש לציין כי יותר מעשור לפני התפוצצות פרשת הרב חיים הלפרין הרי שכותב שורות אלה שמע על דברים דומים על הרב הלפרין מדיין מרכזי בלונדון, ואף לו מאותו דיין כי הרב חיים הלפרין קיצר ימי נידה לנשות חלק מבאי בית הכנסת שלו, שלא עפ”י ההלכה. תלמיד חכם ב”סטמפורד היל” טען בפרשה שהוא אמנם איננו יודע פרטים ממשיים על מעללי ההלפרין הזה אבל לאחר שראה ושמע מיהן מספר נשים שהלכו ל”התייעצויות” אצל הרב חיים הלפרין הרי שהוא לא מתפלא על פיצוץ הפרשה הזו. אבל הנזק הגדול נעשה בכך שבראות אחרים ש”לית דין ולית דיין” כנגד העריות הללו הלך המצב והדרדר לכך שגם אחרים – כולל רבנים ודיינים, זלזלו בענייני הצניעות והעריות.  ב”סטמפורד היל” ניסו לא מעטים לגונן על חיים הלפרין משום היותו חסידי, אחרים טענו כי עשה זאת כ”מסג’ רפואי” וברשותן של הנשים, והיו בכלל שניסו לטעון כי “עדות נשים היא פסולה”. אין ספק שהמגינים הללו הזיקו לנושא עצמו ודרדרו את במצב תוך זלזול בצניעות והורדתה עוד יותר למטה ממה שהיתה עד אז. וכך הגענו לפרשת יונתן אברהם – דיין ב”בית הדין של לונדון והמדינה”.

       הסיפור החדש התפוצץ בשבועות האחרונים. הדיין הלה – אף הוא תושב “גלדרס גרין”, נתפס ע”י בלש פרטי כשהוא מטמא בזנות אשת איש, שהיא ובעלה הגיעו אליו לצורך “שלום בית”. לעומת הרב חיים הלפרין – הרי שהדיין הזה התפטר מיד מכול תפקידיו. כנראה שחסר לו ה”ייחוס” המזרח אירופאי והחסידי שהיה לחיים הלפרין. אבל גם עליו מנסים חבריו לגונן. כך למשל עשה הדיין הוותיק חנוך ערנטרויא, שבעבר היה אב”ד בית הדין שבו כיהן הדיין אברהם שסרח, וכיום ערנטרויא עומד בראש בית הדין האירופאי של “ועידת רבני אירופה” ועוסק בגיורים די בעיתיים, כאשר חלק מה”גרים” הללו נדחפים על ידו להפוך ל”רבנים” שאפילו מעורבים כ”דיינים”, שלא עפ”י “שולחן ערוך”. דיין ערנטרויא – שבפרשת חיים הלפרין הוא היה נחרץ ביותר ולא ניסה למצוא “קולות” להשתקת הרעש סביב הפרשה, הרי שבפרשת דיין אברהם הוא תלה בבתי הכנסת ב”גלדרס גרין” מודעה המבקשת לאסור בבתי כנסת ובשולחנות שבת את הדיבור על הפרשה הזו. היחיד ששבר את בקשתו היה הרב אהרון בצוץ, רב קהילת הספרדים ועדות המזרח, ששמה “כנסת יחזקאל”.

        הרב אהרון בסוס בנה את קהילתו בעשר אצבעות. בשנת 1990 הוא היה רב צעיר ב”גלדרס גרין” שאנשיו חיפשו לו פעם עשירי למניין ברחובה של עיר. אבל עם השנים הוא הפך את קהילתו לקהילה הספרדית המרכזית והגדולה של בריטניה. כיום – כמעט שלושים שנה אח”כ, יש לו סניף אפילו בשכונת רמת בית שמש א’ שבבית שמש, והקהילה שלו שם נקראת “מעם לועז”. אלה הם בני הדור השני והשלישי שגידל הרב בצוץ לתורה ולמצוות בבריטניה ולימים עלו לישראל ובנו את קהילתם בבית שמש. אבל בשנים האחרונות פרסומו יצא בשל עמידתו בפסוק “לא תגורו מפני איש”. עוד לפני פרשת דיין אברהם שסרח הוא התעמת עם אחד בשם דואק, שהגיע מארה”ב והפך לעמוד ה”דיינות” בבית הדין של ה”ספרדים – פורטוגזים” בלונדון. בית דין זה הוא הרביעי בגודלו בין בתי הדין היהודיים בבריטניה וגם הפחות חשוב שבהם. רוב היהדות הדתית של יוצאי המזרח חברים בבתי הדין של ה”יונייטד סינגגוג” (“בית הדין של המדינה”), בית הדין של “חברת בני ישראל” (“פדריישן”) והחרדים חברים ב”כדתיה”. הדיינות והכשרות של בית הדין הקטן הזה מזערית אבל בית הדין הזה עשיר מאוד מהימים שלפני התבוללותם של צאצאי היהודים הספרדים והפורטוגזים. דואק הגיע ללונדון מארה”ב לאחר שבני עדתו (עדת יוצאי העיר חלב שבסוריה) הראו לו את הדרך לטיסה חד כיוונית לבריטניה בשל עמדותיו הפרו רפורמיות והפרו קונסרבטיוויות, ובעיקר בשל תמיכתו בהכרה לאנשי התועבה. האיש הזה הוא חתנה של הבת הסוררת והמורדת של הגר”ע יוסף – גב’ זכייה בר שלום, שגם אחייה הכריזו מלחמה עליה ועל חתנה המפוקפק. מרגע בואו ללונדון החל דואק בסערות פרובוקטיביות, ובראשן הצהרותיו בדבר תמיכתו בהכרה בתועבות ובמתן לגיטימציה לאנשי התועבות. באחרונה העלה רעיונות דומים גם “רבה הראשי” של בריטניה – אפרים מירוויס, ששלח חוזר חוצפני לתלמודי התורה החרדים לאמץ את ההכרה בתועבות ובאנשיהם. כאשר אותו דואק החל בהצהרותיו הפרובוקטיביות הרי שהרב בצוץ יצא מיד נגדו. הרב בצוץ – השייך ל”כדתיא”, האמין שבית הדין של החרדים יעמוד מאחוריו אך מה הופתע הלה כאשר הללו רק גמגמו וטענו כי “זהו עניין פנימי של הספרדים”. מסתבר שאם דיין דונר וחבריו מ”כדתיא” היו חיים בימי שבתאי צבי ימ”ש הם היו עונים ל”חכם צבי” את אותה תשובה (…). זו לא הייתה הפעם הראשונה שב”כדתיא” פסחו על שני הסעיפים. לפני יותר מעשור הם פחדו לצאת נגד “גר צדק” מפוקפק שניסה להשתלט, בעזרת כספו, על בתי הדינים בלונדון ולהכניס שם “גרים” כלבבו ע”י הטיית דיני היהדות, ולימים גם הוא הואשם בענייני אי קיום הלכות “אבן העזר”. בית הכנסת של אותו האיש – בשכונת “הנדון”, הסתנף אז ל…”כדתיא”, גם כשבאירועי קידושים ושמחות לא הייתה שם מחיצה בין אנשים לנשים! כאשר עלה עניינו של דואק לכותרות הדיונים בבריטניה הרי שמלבד הרב בצוץ מסתבר שכול הדיינים והרבנים מלאו פיהם מים ורק בחדרי חדרים דיברו על הסכנה באיש הזה, שלמעשה הינו רפורמי. דייני בית הדין של דואק, הספרדים – פורטוגזים, כמובן ששתקו מתוך לויאליות ל”קולגה”. גם בית הדין של חברת “בני ישראל” שתק וכך גם “בית הדין של המדינה”. באותם ימים הוביל את סתימת הפיות לטובת דואק – מטעם “בית הדין של המדינה”, אותו דיין נואף ששמו יונתן אברהם, זה שנתפס לימים באשת איש. אברהם לא התבייש לצלצל שוב ושוב לרב בצוץ ולבקש ממנו להרפות מדואק הרפורמי, ולאחר שהרב בצוץ סירב הרי שאברהם התעלם ממנו במפגשי רבנים וסובב ממנו את ראשו כדי לא לברכו באמירת שלום. לא במקרה חז”ל טענו כי התמיכה בעבודה זרה (במקרה שלנו אלה הרפורמים …) מביאה לגילוי עריות. לא במקרה מי שתומך בחיי “דו קיום” עם אנשי התועבות הוא בעצמו עובר על אשת איש, ומי יודע איזה עוד עבירות הוא ביצע. ממצאי הבלש הפרטי מסתבר שהדיין הנאלח הזה נפגש עם אשת האיש לא רק במלונות אלא גם במקומות מפוקפקים שהצניעות והכשרות מהם והלאה. קולו של דיין ערנטרויא – “דיין העל” של בריטניה, לא נשמע בכול פרשת אותו הדואק וכך גם כאשר הרב מירוויס שלח את חוזר התועבה לבתי הספר החרדים. כאן יש לציין כי כבר בימיה של גב’ מרגרט תאצ’ר – ראש ממשלת בריטניה הגדולה של שנות השמונים של המאה העשרים, כבר עלה עניין קבלת אנשי התועבה כחלק משינויים דתיים בבריטניה, אך בעוד שהכמורה האנגליקנית הייתה מוכנה להתפשר בעניין הרי ש”הרב הראשי” של בריטניה דאז, הלורד עמנואל יעקובובי’ץ, סירב לכך בכול מאודו ולבסוף הכמורה האנגליקנית שינתה את דעתה. על כך יצאה גב’ תאצ’ר השמרנית לטובתו של הלורד יעקובובי’ץ והאדירה את שמו בעוד שכלפי הכמרים היא פלטה מילות זלזול.

       את דיין אברהם לא מספיק להדיח מתפקידיו הרבניים אלא שיש גם לשלול ממנו את זכותו להעביר שיעורי תורה בכול אתר ואתר, ואף יש לדאוג שיעזוב את לונדון. אבל כדי לעשות זאת צריכים רבני בריטניה לשנות את דרכם ואפיים ולהתחיל להיאבק נגד כול מי שפורץ גדר באשר היא. המאבק נגד הרפורמי דואק ונגד הנואפים הלפרין ואברהם חייבת להיות ברורה, חדה וללא משוא פנים. את המאמר הזה הבאתי משום שמישהו צריך לכתוב ולא לשתוק על ירידת קרנה של התורה והיהדות בבריטניה, ועוד כשהדג הרבני מסריח מראשו.

מאתר יורה דעה, כאן.

Deciphering the Research on Vaccines to Make Health Care Decisions

New York Times Editorial On Vaccines: A Pseudoscience Mess!

(Note: My wife vetoed my initial headline: Failing New York Times Op-Ed Full of Fake Vaccine News.  She claims that my sense of humor does not translate to all.)

The lead New York Times (NYT) editorial today is titled, “Know The Enemy.” According to the NYT, the “enemy” is anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of any vaccine.

I guess that makes me the enemy. I thought I was a board-certified physician trying to read and decipher the research on vaccines to help guide my patients on how to make their best health care decisions.

The NYT states, “Leading global health threats typically are caused by the plagues and perils of low-income countries — but vaccine hesitancy is as American as can be.” Both parts of that sentence are correct.

In the early 20th Century, infection was the number one killer of Americans and it killed a high percentage of our youth. However, by the 1950’s infection rates for nearly every childhood vaccine- preventable illness (as well as other infectious illnesses like scarlet fever) had drastically declined—BEFORE vaccines were developed and mandated. In fact, for the major vaccine-preventable illnesses such as measles, mumps, diphtheria, and pertussis, the death rate declined well over 90% BEFORE vaccines were mandated. How did that occur? The death rate from infectious diseases declined not by vaccination, but by public health measures. This includes providing clean water to our houses and safely removing waste products.

Did vaccines lower the death rate for their respective illnesses? We don’t know since the rates were already declining dramatically before the mass vaccination program began. To imply that vaccines were responsible for this dramatic decline in pediatric infectious deaths in the 20th Century is nothing more than FAKE NEWS!

One of the best indicators of the health of a country is the infant mortality rate. Researchers correlated the number of vaccines given to infants and the mortality rate for ages five and under. Guess who gave the most vaccines and guess who had the highest infant mortality rate? If you guessed the US, you win.

The NYT states, “On the internet, anti-vaccine propaganda has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information. The anti-vaxxers, as they are colloquially known, have hundreds of websites promoting their message, a roster of tech- and media-savvy influencers and an aggressive political arm that includes at least a dozen political action committees.”

Well, in this case, there is just me. And, I am not that tech-savvy.

I don’t write anti-vaccine propaganda. I write about the science behind vaccines. And, if you study the science behind vaccines, it is hard not to question the wisdom of injecting our young with too many toxic-laden vaccines.

“The C.D.C., the nation’s leading public health agency, has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice,” writes the NYT. The CDC is a cesspool of corruption, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In fact, the CDC has a senior scientist who has assumed whistle-blower status claiming that published studies (by the CDC) looking at whether the MMR vaccine causes autism were fraudulent. The whistle-blower has stated, under oath, that senior CDC managers directed the whistle-blower and others to destroy and alter the data in order to hide the truth. The data, released by the whistle-blower, did show a strong correlation with the MMR vaccine and autism.

Why doesn’t the NYT write a lead op-ed demanding that the CDC whistle-blower testify in front of Congress about his allegations? To date, it has been over four years since the whistle-blower came forward. To date, he has not testified in front of Congress and the CDC has blocked his testimony in other settings. To date, the NYT has failed to write ONE article about this situation. Perhaps the CDC has no loud voice because it is too busy covering up the truth about vaccines. If there is nothing to hide, then why doesn’t the whistle-blower testify? Why has the CDC gagged him from speaking?

Further in the op-ed, the NYT writes, “The consequences of this disparity are substantial: a surge in outbreaks of measles, mumps, pertussis and other diseases; an increase in influenza deaths; and dismal rates of HPV vaccination, which doctors say could effectively wipe out cervical cancer if it were better utilized.”

Would declining vaccine rates increase the susceptibility for some of the vaccinated illnesses? Yes. For example, measles and chickenpox illnesses will increase if we stop vaccinating for these illnesses. But, children rarely die from measles and chickenpox in modern countries. These illnesses are often treated with supportive care and for the vast majority recovery from the illness is uneventful.

Cervical cancer deaths have rapidly fallen not from vaccines, but better medical care such as the Pap smear.  The HPV vaccine has never been shown to prevent cancer and probably will not in the future.  And, there are too many side effects from the HPV vaccine to recommend its use for a relatively uncommon cancer. Can measles and chickenpox cause serious effects including death? Yes. So can the vaccines.

The NYT mentions the pro-vaccine researchers are having “…to counter pseudoscience with fact” in order to prove vaccines are safe and effective.

Pseudoscience? There is no greater example of pseudoscience than saying it is safe to inject toxic items like mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde into any living being, much less a newborn infant.

Pseudoscience? How about the pseudoscience by not comparing a new vaccine with a placebo to show that it is safe. However, in today’s world, in regards to vaccines, pseudoscience rules.  The fact is that childhood vaccines have not been studied against a true placebo (except for one small HPV study which found much higher adverse effects in the HPV group compared to the placebo). Big Pharma studies the vaccines against other vaccines and other toxic agents which hide the true adverse effects of vaccines.

Pseudoscience? Where are the CDC studies comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated? This simple study could put to rest the idea that vaccines cause too many problems. The CDC refuses to do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study even though Congress has asked for this.

The NYT mentioned the California Disneyland measles outbreak twice. Here are the facts about the Disneyland measles outbreak. A total of 147 people were sickened with measles. No deaths were reported. Of those sickened with measles, 45% were unvaccinated. Of the remaining subjects, 18% were vaccinated and 38% had unknown vaccination status. Perhaps the NYT editorial board should re-watch the Brady Bunch episode where the Brady children become infected with measles. Marcia Brady stated, “If you have to get sick, sure can’t beat the measles.”

Continue reading…

From Dr. Brownstein, here.