Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Rupert Murdoch and his ex Wendi Deng, who famously reunited them after Ivanka Trump broke off the relationship, sore that Jared Kushner didn’t stand up to his father who insisted she convert to Judaism...

 Ivanka Trump Coerced To Convert To Judaism! What Say You Hershel Schechter, Haskel Lookstein and the RCA?

 Wait, there’s more! This week, The New Yorker reported that Deng is responsible for the unholy alliance (Is that too cruel? Do I care?) between Trumpistan and Kushervania. That is to say, she brokered their reconciliation in 2008, when they briefly split due to that fact that Ivanka (who, as the magazine recalls, appeared in the documentary Born Rich “wearing a necklace with a silver cross”) was not exactly who Kushner’s mother imagined him standing under the chuppah with. And if you’re reading this, you know exactly what I mean (and honestly, hasn’t poor Seryl Kushner been through enough?)


 Rupert Murdoch and his ex Wendi Deng, who famously reunited them after Ivanka broke off the relationship, sore that Jared didn’t stand up to his father who insisted she convert to Judaism, according to The New Yorker.


 The Torah’s Approach to Conversion

Based on: Jewish Conversion, Its Meaning and Laws, by: Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, 1995, Feldheim Publishers, Pages 14-60.
To be valid, a conversion must be sincerely motivated, and accompanied by the willingness and opportunity, to observe the precepts. Insincerely motivated candidates, are unacceptable, and are to be rejected, even if we merely suspect their insincerity. Although the Talmud (Yevamos 24) rules that once performed, insincerely motivated conversions are valid, this statement requires much clarification, and is dependent on numerous, complex, factors.

The Talmud is speaking of situations in which mitzvah (commandment) observance is the traditional requirement for acceptance into Jewish society. When such is the case, even the insincere proselyte has to conform to the norm. Thus, of necessity, his conversion results in religious observance. Because our current society is free and permissive, conversion does not necessarily result in mitzvah (commandment) observance.

 In addition, those who interdate or intermarry, are obviously totally uncommitted to Judaism, and it is highly improbable that they will build Torah homes, once their Christian partners have converted. It is highly unlikely, too, that a female proselyte, will be more observant than her Jewish husband, who by his very behavior, in chosing a gentile for a wife, demonstrates that he is far removed from Jewish values.

In the light of these problems, how do we procede when faced by applicants whose motives are ulterior?

a. The conversion of one who evidently has no intention to observe the precepts, who is merely mouthing a false acceptance declaration, is obviously invalid.

b. The conversion of one who did not present the court with sufficient guarantee that he would
observe the precepts, is highly problematic, and under certain circumstances may be invalid.

c. According to Maimonides: Laws of Forbidden Relations 13:12 and the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) (yoreh De’ah 268:12), a person who has already converted for ulterior motives, but whose intentions at the time of conversion (regarding precept observance) are not known, is accorded the status of a doubtful convert. When he demonstrates, by his subsequent conduct, that he is indeed precept observant, he is accorded the status of a genuine proselyte. The reason we do not nullify his conversion at the outset, as in case “b,” is that we fear that as he uttered his acceptance declaration, he might have truly intended to observe the precepts. (Case “b”, involves a conversion performed without sufficient guarantee that the convert had fully accepted Torah observance.) (Recently, the Worldwide Central Rabbinic Committee for Conversion Matters, alerted converts involved in such cases to this problem. Since then, many conversions have been referred to the Committee. Each case was presented to Israel’s greatest rabbis for a decision. In cases where the convert was currently Torah observant, and it was not possible to ascertain exactly what took place at the time of his conversion, the Committee advised the convert how to procede.

(Note: We have not presented halachic (Jewish Law) decisions. A qualified rabbi or conversion court, must be consulted in each and every case. Our purpose is to provide a general understanding of the conversion issue.)

Sometimes, various arguments are forwarded to justify the validity of conversions performed for the sake of marriage. It is worthwhile to review these arguments and to point out their flaws.

The first argument is based on the principle that “devarim she’balev, einam devarim,” which literally means that “tacit thoughts are inconsequential.” Some people use this principle to prove that the insincere convert’s mental negations of the precepts, cannot nullify his positive oral acceptance of them. However, nearly all of our rabbinic authorities, assert that this claim is invalid. In Teshuvos Achiezer (111, no.26), HaRav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski maintains that one who mentally negates the precepts, while orally accepting them, is not a true convert. He bases his argument on the rationale that because conversion is in itself a “davar she’balev” “a matter of the heart,” it is the candidate’s inner conviction which determines the validity of his conversion. Other authorities invalidate the claim of “tacit thoughts are inconsequential” as it pertains to conversions, on the grounds that this principle applies only to matters of transaction, and not to ritual acts.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein views the problem from a different vantage point. He accepts the argument that tacit thoughts cannot invalidate ritual acts. However, he points out that it is inapplicable in the case of such conversions, because the very marriage of a gentile woman to a non observant Jew, is equivalent to an open declaration that she will not observe the precepts. As we have already explained, this is so, because it is highly unlikely that the gentile member of such a union, will be more committed to Judaism than her remiss Jewish husband. Unlike mental or tacit negations, explains HaRav Feinstein, open declarations do invalidate conversions. When such cases appear before a rabbinical court, its members actually become witnesses to an acceptance declaration that is not sincere. Therefore, it is no longer a tacit insincerity, but rather an obvious one. As such, they are forbidden to sanction the conversion. 

There are rabbis who permit such conversions, even when it is highly unlikely that the converting partner will observe the precepts. They base themselves on the principle advanced in the Talmud Shabbos 34, that “one who converted amidst gentiles, is still a convert.” This principle is referring to one who converted, even though he knew very little about the precepts, particularly the Sabbath. These modern rabbis claim that such candidates assume that the precepts are merely ceremonial and not obligatory, and therefore place them in the category of those who have accepted Judaism on the basis of a very meager knowledge. However, this argument is faulty for two reasons. Firstly, the Talmud is speaking of one who would observe the Sabbath, if informed of its laws. Generally, people who convert only to facilitate marriage, have no interest in leading Torah lives, and as such, cannot be equated with the above mentioned Talmudic archetype. In addition (as taught by the Chazon Ish: Rabbi Karelitz), the conversion of one who does not believe that the Divine origin of the Torah is the binding force of all the precepts, is invalid. As a rule, most people who convert for the purpose of marriage, lack this basic inner belief.


This declaration that the convert was clearly lying about his wish to convert and accept mitzvos - that there was never conversion - is not some obscure minority opinion. It is clearly the view of the Achiezer and Rav Moshe Feinstein - amongst others.

The Achiezer says here that if the convert does not keep Shabbos and kashrus - that shows that the conversion was not sincere and never took place

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:26.4):… Because of this reason it appears that Rav Posen is concerned about conversion these cases because they won’t observe the laws properly. However according to what I have explained there is no concern for this since they have accepted to observe all the mitzvos – even though it is true that they have in mind to transgress certain mitzvos later out of lust. However this intention does not disqualify their acceptance of mitzvos. It is only where they specifically refused to accept mitzvos that their acceptance of the mitzvos is disqualified. However where is clear that after conversion they will definitely transgress the Torah prohibitions against violating Shabbos and eating improperly slaughtered meat and we know clearly that their conversion was only for appearance sake without inner sincerity – it is an umdena demukach [a proven assessment] that this that he said he was accepting the mitzvos was totally meaningless. Consequently their acceptance of mitzvos is invalid [and they are not valid converts].

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:28): Concerning the common practice of converting women who are married to Jews - according to the straight halacha it is not correct to convert them. That is because they are converting for the sake of marriage. Therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him as is clear from the Rashba (#1205). While previously I had written to be lenient in these cases and I based myself on the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor 132) and Rav Shlomo Kluger also paskened leniently in an actual case. Nevertheless the fact is that there is not genuine acceptance of mitzvos in these cases. It is quite obvious that their hearts are not with the Jewish people since they do not observe Shabbos or niddah and they eat unkosher food as I wrote in the previous letter. This problem has already been noted by by the Beis Yitzchok who concluded that a proper beis din would not be involved in this. And regarding the issue of governing the non‑Jewish children…However the writer is correct that a good beis din should not be involved in this type of conversion. Nevertheless I don’t see that it is proper that the rabbis of the generation should make an open protest against conversion. That is because in the eyes of the masses it would be viewed as a chilul HaShem to prevent the women to convert and in particular their children since according to the straight halacha it is possible to convert them.

Reb Moshe is saying here that those who convert for ulterior motives are on probation to establish if they were sincere in their acceptance. If there is no sincere acceptance then there never was conversion.

Igros Moshe(Y.D. 3:106): A candidate for conversion who does not want to accept a certain mitzva is he a ger bedieved?… Concerning the subject of conversion, the vast majority of them want to convert because of marriage and therefore should inherently not be accepted. However if they were accepted anyway - they are in fact valid gerim. This reservation about accepting converts for the sake of marriage is true even if they accept all the mitzvos since they did not decide to convert for the sake of Heaven. Therefore it is obvious that there is suspicion that despite the fact they stated before the beis din that they are accepting to do the mitzvos – that they are not telling the truth and they need to be examined further. 

 This in fact is the intent of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12): When it is known that they converted for ulterior motivation, they should be treated with suspicion until that their righteous is established. That is because since they converted for ulterior motivation, they should be suspected that even though they have verbally accepted the mitzvos but not in their heart. Since there is clear reason to suspect their lack of sincerity, it is not considered a merely a possible mental reservation which has no halachic significance (devarim sheb’lev). See Tosfos (Gittin 32a) and Tosfos (Kiddushin 49b)…Therefore they are to be viewed as doubtful gerim until their righteousness is establish and then they are viewed as definite gerim. 

Most of the time and perhaps all of the time when a Jew wants a non‑Jew, that the Jew himself is not observant. Therefore it is not logical that the non‑Jew who is converting for the sake of a Jew will be more observant. It is as if we are witnesses that the non‑Jew is not definitely accepting the mitzvos. 

Therefore it requires a great deal of deliberation in the acceptance of gerim. Unfortunately due to our many sins the situation has degenerated in many places that they accept these type of gerim – even G‑d fearing rabbis – because of the pressure of congregants on them. Therefore it is very critical to fix and create protective measures to stop this great breakdown of the system. It is certain because of these problems that the rabbis of Holland made a decree that gerim would not be accepted unless all of the rabbis agreed. This type of decree is a legitimate approach to protect the Torah and mitzvos against that which can not be permitted as is stated in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 228:28). Concerning the present case where the candidate for conversion wants to accept all the laws of the Torah but does not want to accept wearing modest clothing. She wants to wear the clothing that are worn – due to our many sins – by the average woman of this degenerate generation. The question is whether to accept her as a valid ger and if the answer is negative - what is her status if she is accepted anyway?

 This requires careful thought. Bechoros (30b) states that a non‑Jew who comes to accept the entire Torah except for one thing is not to be accepted. R’ Yose says that he isn’t accepted even if rejects one detail of a rabbinic halacha. The question is whether this gemora is only concerning initially whether to accept the candidate as seems from the language of the gemora or that even if he accepted – he is not a valid ger? It is certain that gerim are accepted even though they don’t know most of the laws of the Torah - because we instruct them only in some of the mitzvos. It is certain that we don’t even teach them most of the laws of Shabbos. Furthermore we find an even more extreme situation in that even if the ger doesn’t know any mitzvos he is still a valid ger. This is stated in Shabbos (68b) that a ger who converts amongst non‑Jews is liable for one chatas for all the violations on every Shabbos and prohibited blood and fat and idolatry. Thus we see that even if he isn’t instructed in a single mitzva or even the foundations of religious belief he is still a valid ger. That is because the case in the gemora concerns a person who has accepted upon himself to do all that a Jew is required to do – and that is sufficient for valid conversion. 

We are not concerned with the possibility that if he knew this particular mitzva he would not accept it. That is because even if it were so it is only a mental reservation which has no halachic significance. Thus informing a candidate for conversion of the nature of mitzvos is only something that is desirable, but has no halachic consequence if not done. Therefore we must say that the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:3) “all matters of conversion have to be in the presence of 3 fit to judge whether it is to instruct him about mitzvos or for his acceptance of mitzvos” – is not to be understood literally. That is because the point of the Shulchan Aruch is that the acceptance of mitzvos has to be in the presence of 3 but instructing him about mitzvos is not required for the validity of the conversion. The reason the Shulchan Aruch mentions instructing him in mitzvos is because that is what the beis din does concerning some of the mitzvos when he accepts the obligation to do mitzvos.

 That is in fact the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12) “and even if he is not informed of the reward and punishment of mitzvos he is still a valid ger.” This wording of the Shulchan Aruch here is also not precise because even if the candidate is not instructed at all concerning any mitzvos – as long as he accepts the obligation to do all the mitzvos that Jews are required to do – he is still a valid ger. It is only because it is typically not forgotten to instruct him in some mitzvos that the Shulchan Aruch mentions that they forgot to instruct him regarding the reward and punishment of mitzvos – because it is possible to forget this occasionally. However if they do tell him a particular mitzva or he knows about it himself since he sees Jews observing it and he says that he doesn’t accept it – that is the case that Bechoros (30b) says that he is not accepted as a ger. Therefore it is possible that in this case even if he was accepted as a ger – despite his rejection of a particular mitzva – bedieved he would still not be a valid ger. However Bechoros (30b) says that he is not to be accepted - which seems to be that he is only not accepted initially if he rejects any mitzva. Furthermore it would seem from the statement of R’ Yose in Bechoros (30b) that even if rejects a single detail of a rabbinic law he is not accepted – it would seem that since he has accepted every Torah mitzva including not to deviate from the rabbinic teachings – but at least he would be a ger according to the Torah. That is because it doesn’t make sense that the Sages would uproot the Torah level conversion - which is relevant to the validity of marriage and other matters – and to create a leniency and that this would not be mentioned openly in the gemora. Therefore we can conclude that even according to R’ Yose he is only saying not to accept them initially but if they were accepted – even if they had rejected a rabbinic law – they are still valid gerim. Furthermore they would be obligated to keep even the mitzva that they had rejected. That is because this that they did not accept it has no halachic significance to exempt them because they are make a condition against that which is written in the Torah – and therefore the condition is nullified...

 Therefore this woman who doesn’t want to accept to wear only modest clothing should definitely not be accepted initially. However whether she should be accepted bedieved depends on this doubt and it would seem more likely that bedieved if she was accepted that she would be a valid convert. Furthermore concerning whether to accept her initially – any conversion which is because of marriage even if she accepted the entire Torah – she should not be accepted. 

If so it is certainly is a major justification for the requirement that all the rabbis of Holland agree to accept her conversion – even if she accepted all the Torah laws. Nevertheless it is good that all the rabbis did not agree to accept her because of her refusal to wear modest clothing. That is because accepting her with two issues against her is much more serious than if she only had one. However there is another consideration since because of our many sins we find that Jewish women also are not careful about wearing only modest clothing – even those who are Torah observant. Therefore a non‑Jewish woman who comes to convert might think that modest clothing in only an act of piety that the rabbis are trying to impose on her more than is actually required – because she knows women who are observant and yet wear immodest clothing. And even if the rabbis tell her that it is actually prohibited and not just an act of piety – she doesn’t believe them. If so perhaps she should be viewed as converting without knowing the laws of the Torah and would be considered a valid ger according to Shabbos (68b)? This seems logical – even though I don’t have a proof for this presently. Nevertheless with all things considered it is better not to accept her because she should not be accepted anyway since the conversion is for the sake of marriage. Therefore even though people are lenient to accept converts for the sake of marriage it is not correct to be lenient in additional factors. Consequently the decree is correct and she should not be accepted


On Conversion to Judaism, by Rabbi Dr. Chaim E. Schertz



Rabbi Schertz received his semicha from Yeshiva University in 1969.  He also received masters in Jewish Philosophy from YU’s Bernard Revel Graduate School.  He has a second masters in the History of Ideas from New York University, and a PhD from New York University in the History of Western Thought.  He taught Classics in Pennsylvania State University and Philosophy at Regis College in Denver, Colorado. Rabbi Schertz served as the Rabbi of Kesher Israel Congregation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for over 25 years and is currently retired and living in Harrisburg.

The one element in the process of conversion with which all interpretations of the concept agree is the insistence that conversion may not happen under duress or coercion. The Talmud clearly states that a non-Jewish slave may be circumcised under duress [against his will] for becoming a slave, but a free man may not undergo such conversion. The Talmud gives the example of an adult who comes to be converted, nevertheless, he has no power to convert his adult son against his will. This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Eleazer as interpreted by Rava. The rabbis, however, go one step further and insist that even a slave, who is an adult, cannot be converted against his will. Thus, no adult can be coerced into conversion. [Yevamot 48:a]
In addition to such biblical analysis and exegesis there appears to be a logical underpinning to this conclusion. The Talmud stated in Ketubot 11:a that in cases dealing with minors one may provide them with Judaism without their awareness. This is based on the principle that one may provide another with any benefit [in this case the benefit is Judaism) without the consent or knowledge of the other. The corollary to this concept is that one may not impose any obligation upon another without that person’s awareness or consent. The Talmud assumes that in the case of an adult non-Jew, who has been raised as a non-Jew, the freedom that he enjoys in living as a non-Jew overrides any aspect of Judaism because Judaism entails a host of obligations. He is not anxious to limit his life style by the myriad of obligations which Judaism imposes despite the fact that Judaism may endow him with a higher spiritual life. Any attempt to impose such obligations upon him is tantamount to coercion and has no halachic validity.

The one other objection to the use of coercion is historical by nature. We have stated above that the foundation upon which the principles of conversion were established upon the conversion of the Israelites on Mt. Sinai. This was stated clearly by Maimonidies that in all future generations if a non-Jew wishes to enter the Covenant he must undergo the same ritual and requirements which the ancestors of the Jews underwent in the Wilderness [Issurei Biah 13:4]. This is similarly maintained by the Tosafists [Sanhedrin 68:b, under the heading Katan]. The Tosafists there maintain the various elements which allowed the Israelites to be converted into Jews, including the conversion of children. These principles applied to the future conversion of non-Jews.

Perhaps the most famous example of the invalidity of conversion when duress is an underlying issue, is the matter of the acceptance into Judaism of the Kutites. The Talmud discusses a controversy between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva whether the Kutites, who inhabited the Land of Israel after the Babylonian expulsion, were to be considered true converts (gerei emet) or converts who became so because of their fear of lions that roamed that area (gerei arayot). It is clear that if their conversion resulted from their fear, it was not acceptable in any sense. See Kiddushin 75 b.

The historical circumstances which demonstrated the inapplicability of coercion was stated in Tractate Shabbat 88:a.   The Talmud introduced an Aggadic interpretation of the Biblical text which implied that the Israelites camped beneath Mt. Sinai. Rabbi Avimi bar Chama bar Chasa stated that this came to teach that God placed the mountain upon their head and threatened them that if they did not accept the Torah they would be buried in that location, which seems to be a coercive statement. Rav Acha bar Jacov derived from this incident that due to the coercive nature of the act it had no legal or moral authority. Thus, if God should attempt to indict the Jews for non-observance they could always respond that their conversion had no validity because it was done under duress. Rava then stated that the issue of duress was canceled during the days of Achashverous when the Jews willingly accepted their conversion.

We must note that there appears to be one discrepancy in the Book of Esther that may lead to an opposite conclusion. The text states that, “many from the nations of the land became Jews because the fear of the Jews fell upon them” resulting from the king’s decree which empowered Jews (Esther VIII: 17). This implies that conversion which resulted from fear was an acceptable conversion. One could reply to this question by pointing out that the text never stated the normal term for conversion mitgayarim, but rather a unique term mityahadim. That could easily be taken to mean that there was no real conversion, but that these people merely took upon themselves the external appearance of being Jews to avoid calamity. Rashi, however, does interpret that the term mityahadim means mitgayarim i.e. conversion. One could explain this interpretation by noting although the conversions were performed, there is no indication that these conversions were accepted by the rabbinic authorities of that day. This is similar to the case of the Kutites who also converted. If, however, they converted primarily out of fear, then it is agreed that their conversion was invalid.

The passage outlined above in tractate Shabbat 88:a is quite problematic. It implies that from the time of the Exodus until the Persian conquest of the Babylonians, a period of about 700 years, there were no real Jews in the world. One, thus, must understand that this passage is to be seen as hyperbole rather than an accurate historical record. It is important, however, because it demonstrates how much emphasis the Talmud placed upon the requirement that no coercion could be part of the conversion process.

An adult may reject any element of the conversion process with which he does not agree or finds offensive which in turn nullifies the conversion itself as long as it is done prior to the conversion. “If a non-Jew is ready to accept the Torah with the exception of one law we should not accept him as a Jew. Rav Jose the son of Rav Judah says, even if he rejects one point or detail of the laws established by the Scribes ( the Oral Law)” [Bechorot 30:b] In the case of the conversion of minors, following the view of Rabbi Yosef (Ketubot 11:a) upon reaching adulthood they may always reject their prior conversion.


Teshuvot Chemdat Shlomo (Y.D. 29-30, referenced in the Pitchei Teshuvah 268:9) draws a fundamental distinction between Hoda’at Mitzvot and Kabblat Mitzvot. Chemdat Shlomo argues that although Hoda’at Mitzvot is not essential, Kabbalat Mitzvot is crucial. The convert’s commitment to observe (all) Mitzvot signifies the core of the conversion. If in a peculiar case the Beit Din mistakenly failed to inform the convert of the Torah’s obligations, the Geirut is acceptable BeDiEved. 

 However, if the convert is not committed to accept the Torah’s rules when he finds out what they are, the conversion is invalid.

The Chemdat Shlomo’s distinction has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of Poskim. These authorities include Rav Yitzchak Shmelkes (Teshuvot Beit Yitzchak Y.D. 2:100), Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (Teshuvot Da’at Kohen 147), Teshuvot Devar Avraham (3:28), Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky (Teshuvot Achiezer 3:26 and 28), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:157), Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (citing his father in footnote 22 to Kol Dodi Dofeik), Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:35) and Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvot 1:104). 
These authorities rule that if a covert did not commit to observing the Torah, the conversion is invalid.

Thus, were a non-Jew to be convinced (coerced) to undergo a conversion ceremony but is fully aware eating shellfish is forbidden by Jewish religious law and has no intention of observing those strictures, his or her mouthing of a mitigated “kabbalat hamitzvot” does not result in a conversion.

Rabbi Feinstein Igrot Moshe. In number 157 he writes:
… it is obvious and clear that [a non-Jew who did not accept (all) the mitzvot] is not a convert at all, even after the fact [of his conversion ceremony]… because kabbalat hamitzvot for a convert is essential [“me’akev”]. And even if he pronounces that he is accepting the mitzvot, if it is clear to us [“anan sa’hadi”] that he is not in truth accepting them, it is nothing.
And Rabbi Feinstein, concludes:
I altogether do not understand the reasoning of rabbis who err in this. Even according to [their mistaken notion], what gain are they bringing to the Jewish People by accepting such ‘converts’? It is certainly not pleasing to G-d or to the Jewish people that such ‘converts’ should become mixed into [the Congregation of] Israel. As to the halacha, it is clear that they are not converts at all.


Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner celebrated Kushner’s 31st birthday with an intimate dinner rather than a blowout Tuesday, when they were seen at “a cozy corner table” at Jesse Schenker’s West Village hot spot Recette. Spies say the pair nibbled on hamachi with uni, fluke with shellfish congee and s’mores with graham cracker ice cream, topped off by a candle. Trump then presented her hubby with two maroon Polo Ralph Lauren waffle shirts and other gifts.  


Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Bible Codes Connect Arson in Israel With Hot Air from Agudah Convention and Messianic Donkeys from Brooklyn...

 “Who makest winds Thy messengers, the flaming fire Thy ministers.” Psalms 104:4 (The Israel Bible™)

According to international Bible Codes expert Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson, the fires that have been burning in Israel from Haifa to Jerusalem are “a sign that we are nearing the time for Messiah.”
The series of Bible Codes videos, released in quick succession by Rabbi Glazerson, connect the fires with Nibiru, the arrival of the Messiah, and terror. 

In the second of two videos, released on November 24, Rabbi Glazerson finds, in the same table, Bible codes for Hamas, haFatah (Mahmoud Abbas’s political party, Fatah), terror and mitzitim (arsonists). In addition, he points out that the code for hatzatot (arson) crosses with the code for haAravim (the Arabs).

Terror Arson in Bible Codes

Rabbi Glazerson often calls the Torah “the blueprint of creation”. This point can be seen especially clearly in this table when he points out Bible Codes for srayfot (fires), Israel and Cheshvan 5777 (the Hebrew month and year that corresponds to November 2016). In other words, Bible Codes contain specific details of events that would not happen for thousands of years. 

Toward the end of the video, Rabbi Glazerson mentions several times that, according to Kabbalah (Judaism’s mystical tradition), there will be many troubles all over the world toward the End of Days. Paradoxically, such troubles reinforce the hope of those waiting. “According to Kabbalah,” he teaches, “this is a sign that we are nearing the time for Messiah.”

Rabbi Glazerson expanded on the point that constant troubles are a sign of the End of Days. Speaking to Breaking Israel News, he said, “As the Vilna Gaon (a world-renowned Jewish sage from the 18th century) says that, like the birth pangs are frequent before the birth, so are the troubles before Moshiach. And like the darkest night before dawn, so are the troubles before redemption.”

This video, connecting the fires and the coming of the Messiah, came short on the heels of another, released November 23, in which Rabbi Glazerson mentions earthquakes, fires and floods as by-products of the dwarf star Nibiru’s influence on Earth. He points out the code for Nibiru in the table. 

Nibiru, Messiah and Fire


This is significant because the table in this video is based on the Book of Numbers 23-29, which Nibiru expert and End of Days blogger Menachem Robinson points out, “happens to be exactly where the Torah tells us about the Star of Jacob, Nibiru. It is all coming together.”
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh; there shall step forth a star out of Yakov, and a scepter shall rise out of Yisrael, and shall smite through the corners of Moab, and break down all the sons of Seth. Numbers 24:17
Reflecting on the large number of disasters occurring in the world today, Rabbi Glazerson said, “These are all signs before Messiah to bring us to the understanding that the world is not in our hands.” 

Rabbi Glazerson also points to several codes related to Messiah. This table includes the codes Ben Yishai (son of Jesse, a reference to King David and the lineage of the Messiah), David (King David, of whom the Messiah will be a descendant), Moshiach (Messiah) and Moshiach Ami (the Messiah of My people).

Rabbi Glazerson ends the video with a piece of advice: “Everything which is happening is in the Torah, and therefore keeping the Torah is the only way to bring us Messiah and peace and quiet.”

Agudah Codes At Every Table With The Bencher @  Convention - #CANTKEEPMYEYESOPEN

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/79252/bible-codes-connect-arson-israel-nibiru-messiah-watch/#q9k7lPXo50hIeOw4.99

Monday, November 28, 2016

The solution is keeping rabbis away from the state’s decision-making positions altogether....

The problem isn’t the rabbi, it’s the Rabbinate!

BinHad & SoSad - Chief Taliban of Israel
Rabbi Eyal Karim stated in the past that homosexuals were sick people. He asserted that the reason for halachic restrictions on women’s testimonies in a court of law was their “sentimental nature,” although he did not claim that this perception should be implemented in civil courts. 

He was also quoted as saying that the Halacha allows Jewish fighters to rape good-looking gentile women in order to maintain the Hebrew army’s high morale.

 When he was asked to clarify the comment, he explained that “In our times, when the world has advanced to a level of morality in which we do not marry captives, this law should certainly not be performed in actual fact, especially as it is also completely against the army’s values and orders.”

Rabbi Eyal Karim. Represents the majority opinion, or at least the Orthodox majority opinion in Israel (Photo: Bamahane)
Rabbi Eyal Karim. Represents the majority opinion, or at least the Orthodox majority opinion in Israel

On Wednesday, in a written statement to the High Court of Justice, Karim was more resolved: “I have never said, written or even thought that IDF soldiers are allowed to rape women during wartime… That was my position then and it is still my position today.” He even added that “Every person must be treated in a way that is equal, respectful and draws people together, regardless of their religion, descent, sex or sexual orientation.”

Is Rabbi Karim stressing and clarifying his opinions or telling the High Court what the High Court wants to hear? Who knows. The wordings he voiced in the past suggests an ability to be flexible. The Chief Military Rabbinate, after all, is worth a statement or two. Or maybe not. 

In any event, Karim is not the problem. The opinions he presented are problematic not because of a radical interpretation of the Halacha. On the contrary, in many aspects Karim presents a “moderate” approach. Unlike some of the Halacha commentators, who see its literal implementation as a religious duty or believe that the circumstances that prevented such a literal implementation have disappeared, Karim acknowledges the world has changed. 

“In our times, the world has advanced morally,” he admits. “There are binding values and orders in the world that are not in line with the literal halachic orders and require a new interpretation that would match, for example, the army’s values and orders.”

So Karim is not calling for the execution of those accused of homosexual intercourse, is not demanding that the halachic evidence laws regarding women be applied to the civil courts and is not in favor of making rape permissible for soldiers in need of strengthening their combat spirit. 

Rabbi Karim represents the majority opinion, or at least the Orthodox majority opinion in Israel. As Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef wrote, “Israel’s Torah and Israel’s rabbis” are on trial. He is right. The mainstream halachic stance (“Israel’s Torah” in its Orthodox interpretation) is simply not in line with the universal equality values, which the State of Israel at least allegedly supports. The Halacha does not believe in equality between men and women, for example, and it definitely does not believe in equality between Jews and gentiles. There are different rules for each of these groups, which blatantly discriminate against the group that is perceived as inferior by the Halacha arbiters. 

But that doesn’t mean that these rules are always implemented. There are often excuses justifying the failure to implement them in certain historical and political circumstances. The Halacha arbiters can issue a commentary that will halt the essence of problematic religious laws (the Halacha does not believe, for example, in the implementation of rules regarding a rebellious son). They can also argue, as Karim did, that the world has changed, or that a different set of rules (the army’s values and orders) does not allow its implementation.

In any event, the sacred order itself and the sacred tradition it is wrapped in are not canceled. Rather, they are placed on the shelf, and the question of whether to use them halachically or not is put in the hands of the authorized commentators—namely, Rabbi Karim and his colleagues. What will happen when “Israel’s hand will be firm,” then? The time for compromises will pass. 

In a secular state, is it appropriate for people whose world view completely contradicts the state’sto be in positions of power on the state’s behalf? The answer is no. Will the High Court petition against Karim’s appointment do any good? I doubt it. It won’t be easy finding a different Orthodox rabbi with a liberal and egalitarian world viewpoint. 

The solution, then, is not finding such a rabbi, but keeping rabbis away from the decision-making process on behalf of the state. The problem, in other words, is not the rabbi. The problem is the Rabbinate.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

CBS - 60 Minutes Interview Taped Friday Night November 11, 2016, After Dark....

Let me be clear - I was posting about the RCA conversion scam since 2009 (read link below) --- This is about fraudulent conversions --- therefore Lookstein's, Schechter's and all conversions are suspect when "converts" are treated totally differently, in clear violation of basic Jewish law - without any set of consistent standards. Ms. Trump is a victim of this fraud, wittingly or not! Any wonder Lookstein is a persona non-Grata in Israel?




"a. Where the Conversion is Primarily for the sake of Marriage

i. Where marriage to a particular Jewish partner is a major incentive to a prospective conversion, there is an increased possibility that the geirus may come with less than the complete commitment necessary for a conversion that would be in keeping with the standards we are trying to set for the regional Batei Din. Nonetheless, experience also shows that such a motivation can result in converts of the highest caliber. Conversion for the sake of marriage therefore requires the Beit Din to constantly reevaluate if the candidate and future partner are likely to subscribe to the requisite beliefs and practices. The Beit Din must be convinced that if the potential spouse were to disappear from the candidate’s life, his or her commitment to the Jewish faith and people would not waver. These factors inevitably prolong the process and make examination of the prospective convert more intense. Indeed, should the couple mention a proposed wedding date as a deadline or goal, the Beit Din should respond that the process will take significantly longer than that......"

c. Requirements of Other People in a Candidate’s Life

i. When a candidate is previously intermarried or is converting for the sake of an individual Jew (as per above), the spouse’s observance level and attitudes must be consistent with the present and future Torah observance of the candidate and not be a source of conflict or opposition to the convert’s adopting a halachic lifestyle. The Beit Din should also consider whether other significant individuals in the candidate’s life such as parents, or any existing minor children, will have an impact on the success or failure of the process and the aftermath of conversion.

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות גרים סימן רסח סעיף יב

אפי' נודע שבשביל דבר הוא מתגייר, הואיל ומל וטבל יצא מכלל העובדי כוכבים, וחוששים לו עד שתתברר צדקתו


RCA Kosher Shellfish!

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner celebrated Kushner’s 31st birthday with an intimate dinner rather than a blowout Tuesday, when they were seen at “a cozy corner table” at Jesse Schenker’s West Village hot spot Recette. Spies say the pair nibbled on hamachi with uni, fluke with shellfish congee and s’mores with graham cracker ice cream, topped off by a candle. Trump then presented her hubby with two maroon Polo Ralph Lauren waffle shirts and other gifts.  


Ivanka Trump leaves the 21 Club in New York City after dinner      

Monday, November 14, 2016

IDIOT Jewish Parents Continue To Send Their Kids To Yeshiva Torah Temima Knowing Lipa Margulies Endangered Their Kids By Keeping Yudi Kolko As Teacher and Principal For 25 Years...

Bill Cosby Expects to Resume His Career Once Sexual Assault Case Is Over 


Lipa Margulies Continues To Lead Yeshiva After Acknowledging in $2 Million Dollar Settlement Case That He Endangered Kids For 25 Years! (LIKE A DOG - NO SHAME)


Even The "Stupid Inferior Goyim" Got Rid Of Pope Benedict & Cardinal Bernard Law...


Margulies Prays For His Money at 2:20 -- 

Agudath Israel Accomplice & Co-Conspirators To His Crimes!

As he fights to put an end to a criminal prosecution, Bill Cosby is optimistic that he'll again entertain fans at some point in the future.

On Thursday, Cosby's attorney Angela Agrusa argued to a Massachusetts judge why documents produced by Creative Artists Agency should be sealed in a defamation lawsuit brought by seven women. The documents in question, according to court briefs, contain information about Cosby's negotiated compensation for his performances, some of his contracts and also reflect the cancelation of business arrangements since the sexual assault firestorm.

The plaintiffs are objecting to the proposed sealing. One of the arguments being made by the women is that Cosby has no prospects in the entertainment business. Therefore, Cosby couldn't experience harm from disclosure.

Agrusa disputes.

"Plaintiffs’ argument that Mr. Cosby has no basis to protect this information because he has no potential agreements or performances on the horizon is baseless," she wrote in a brief filed with the court yesterday. "When Mr. Cosby is cleared from all liability and charges, and the impact of Plaintiffs’ defamatory conduct has subsided, he expects to resume his career, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. But disclosure of this type of financial and business information is irreversible.

Even after his name is cleared, if released to the public, this information would improperly restrain his employment and tie his hands for renegotiation."

CAA is no longer representing Cosby, whose most serious legal difficulty is in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where he faces a charge of sexually assaulting former Temple University employee Andrea Constand.

Cosby is presently attempting to convince the judge in the criminal case to dismiss it as a violation of his due process rights. Cosby's attorneys argue he has suffered prejudice from the long delay in the filing of charges. The 79-year-old entertainer also points to blindness and memory decline as preventing him from assisting in his defense.

Over in Massachusetts, where Cosby experienced a separate win earlier this week by getting a judge to order American International Group to pay his legal fees in the defamation suits, the suing women pointed to that issue of slipping eyesight as another reason why the resumption of his career is "highly improbable."

This gets a retort as well.

Agrusa writes, "Mr. Cosby’s visual impairment that prejudicially impacts his ability to defend against decades-old allegations does not in the same way affect his ability to continue his career in entertainment, as there are many examples of highly successful, and visually impaired entertainers, e.g. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles."


Friday, November 11, 2016

The concerns I have about Trump’s competence, temperament, and reliability are real and justified. That does not mean I will root for him to be incompetent, unmeasured, and unreliable. I genuinely and prayerfully hope he will surround himself with wise and intelligent people, and that his worst instincts will lose out to his best instincts, and that his genuine love of his country (which I do not question) will enable him to realize that he lacks policy gravitas, and needs men and women of experience and wisdom and conviction to advise him...

What It All Means and Where We Go from Here 

I take back absolutely nothing I have felt or said throughout this ugly and painful election season...

 My commitment, as long as I have been writing on this 2016 presidential election, was that I was going to celebrate whoever lost on election night, and mourn whoever won, pretty much in that order, and then that my real primary care and concern was the preservation of the GOP Senate majority. I stayed up basically all night and brought in the wee hours of the morning elated, and I mean elated, that the Republican party and some of its very best conservatives won their Senate seats last night, that the United States Congress in both chambers is red, and that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the president of the United States. I am utterly shocked that Trump has won, as is every honest person in the country, and I will share more below about my posture toward this shocking and historical Trump victory.

 I am not celebrating the Trump victory, because I have huge concerns about what his election will mean for the country and the conservative movement at large. But before I go deeper there, let’s be very honest about what happened last night.

The Democrats nominated a God-awful candidate, with abysmal baggage, non-existent trustworthiness, and someone who represented everything this election turned out to be against — cronyism, insiderism, establishmentism, and whatever else you want to call it. The Left faces an internal crisis in the years ahead that I think will be brutal. In short, they are going to have come to terms with what they did — they nominated a totally corrupt and scandal-plagued person when almost any level of a normal, measured candidate could have won the race. And let’s be clear here — I do not mean that James Comey or Trey Gowdy or Donald Trump got to unfairly pin a corrupt label on her — I mean she is corrupt. The Left decided to ignore the content of the WikiLeaks e-mails, and I really do not know why. They showed in clear English for anyone who cared to read that she and her husband were running a Clinton Inc. enterprise that was riddled with pay-to-play, quid pro quo, and nefarious, dirty, ugly activity. 

Did Comey ever produce e-mails from Hillary that represent a criminal indictment? No. But can we please put to bed once and for all why those e-mails are not forthcoming? Because she deleted them. Thirty-three thousand of them. And then took bleach and hammers to the whole residual apparatus. I am the furthest thing from an alt-righter and from a conspiratorialist, but these things are not up for debate: Hillary brought the e-mail scandal on herself because she was hiding something, and you know it. If you are a liberal Democrat who hates Trump, you still know it. If you are a conservative Republican repulsed by Trump (like me), you know it. Hillary is the reason Donald Trump is the president-elect. Period. Let’s gladly go to where some of you want me to go with this piece. I thought Hillary would beat him anyways. Yep. And based on the fact that nearly every Republican outperformed Trump in the key states he won, I’d say the data backs up the major thesis I have always had: Trump was the least likely to beat Hillary (look at how much Rubio won by in Florida and Portman in Ohio, etc.), and that was empirically and demonstrably true.

 Now, of course, where I and everyone else was wrong, was that Trump being the least likely candidate to defeat Hillary meant that he wouldn’t do it. He did do it. The rather remarkable string of catastrophic self-induced mistakes he made proved not to be enough to defeat him. So, I celebrate Hillary’s loss, admit I predicted wrongly on Trump’s outcome, celebrate the GOP Senate victories, and then turn now to the future. Here are the major takeaways I have had: 

(1) The concerns I have about Trump’s competence, temperament, and reliability are real and justified. That does not mean I will root for him to be incompetent, unmeasured, and unreliable. I genuinely and prayerfully hope he will surround himself with wise and intelligent people, and that his worst instincts will lose out to his best instincts, and that his genuine love of his country (which I do not question) will enable him to realize that he lacks policy gravitas, and needs men and women of experience and wisdom and conviction to advise him. I won’t spend this article telling you what I predict is going to happen. I will just say that it is a given that I am rooting for him to defy conventional wisdom and outperform expectations. 

(2) I have been an outspoken, unrepentant opponent of Trump’s from day one, and that is because I have been appalled by his vulgarity, immaturity, narcissism, and instability. I can’t think of one point I have made about his business biography or personal character that is untrue. And yet, even an anti-Trumper like me found myself almost rooting for him when held up against the disgusting arrogance and smugness and elitism and foolishness of the Hollywood culture opposing him. Beyoncé and that stupid “Fight Song” video and all the idiots threatening to leave our country repulsed voters, and made people want to vote for Trump. That is a fact. They are the big losers from last night.

 (3) I do not believe the polls were sinister, fixed, crooked, or evil — I believe they were just plain ole wrong. They were based on models that proved wrong. This ought to be a lesson to those who rely on flawed mathematical inputs to derive outputs of policy (I am talking to you, Keynesian central bankers). I truly do not believe the pollster class will ever recover from this. I chose to believe the polls because the vast testimony of history is that the polls are right. They were wrong here, and as Politico said this morning: WE WERE ALL WRONG. That seems obvious, right? But we were more than wrong. We were laughably oblivious. The entire Washington political-media complex completely missed the mark. Not by inches or feet, but by miles. For a year and a half, we scoffed at those who said the polls were wrong. The polling industry is broken. We had our eyes trained on prognosticators and pundits — but they were all wrong, too. There will be plenty of time to dissect it all. The joke is on us.

 (4) We had a GOP wave last night. Portman in Ohio winning huge. Rubio in Florida. Ron Johnson shocking the world to win Wisconsin and defeat career politico Russ Feingold. Evan Bayh getting sharply rebuked in Indiana as Todd Young didn’t just win, but crushed him. GOP House seats far outperforming expectations. Pat Toomey winning in Pennsylvania. But you get the idea. This was a Trumpian victory and I wouldn’t tell the Trump people any differently, but it was a GOP night through and through as all the data and results reflect.

 (5) Did the Hispanic vote matter? You bet. Trump lost Nevada. He lost Colorado. He lost New Mexico. He won Arizona by a way-too-tight margin. Most of my belief that Trump could not win came from the demographic realities around this voting segment, and they proved correct. However, the other side of the equation won — could he pick up enough white working-class voters to overcompensate for the losses with Hispanics? I would have bet “no.” But he did. The wins in Wisconsin and Ohio and Pennsylvania are the difference in this race. As of press time we do not have finality in Michigan, Minnesota, or New Hampshire, but he has narrow leads in at least two of those three states as well. That is just stunning, and it quite frankly is a huge validation of the Trumpian theory I was most skeptical about — that he would put those Rust Belt states in play. He did. I was wrong. He is now president-elect. But, of course, that doesn’t change the legitimate problem with Hispanic voters that has a risk of becoming generationally bad if we do not do something about it.

 (6) With all due respect to my friends on the left, the episodic cases of derangement they have waged against perfectly reasonable and credible GOP conservative leaders over the years are a huge reason why Trump won. You cannot call every single person you disagree with on perfectly reasonable issues a racist, sexist, and homophobe, and then expect people to take you seriously when a real demagogue enters the fray. The Left’s hysteria and lack of charity with those they disagree with for years has led to a credibility deficit. I find Trump’s behavior toward women and comments about Hispanics revolting, but when I see the Left say to “choose love not hate” (in opposing Trump), I think they fail to see how utterly hateful they have been toward God-fearing non-hateful sincere Americans for years. I don’t agree with the punishment, but the reality is that too many middle Americans were tired of being insulted so unfairly, and took it out on the other side by voting Trump. Legitimate disagreements need to be allowed without such hateful rhetoric from the Left. Trump should not be absolved of his rhetoric, and I have no intention of letting him off the hook into his presidency either, but leftist derangement gave us Trump. The boy (and girl) cried wolf too many times.

 (7) The masterpiece book Coming Apart by Charles Murray described a sociological phenomenon that came to fruition in the electoral realm last night. These are the areas in which all of my attention is focused — how the policy prescriptions and ideas we believe in as conservatives can be applied to the segments of society most suffering, so as to create a free and virtuous society. I fear Trump has bitten off more than he or anyone can chew, because he has falsely claimed that white working-class America is suffering because of bad trade deals, as opposed to real cultural milieu. Truth be told, the Right needs to listen to the plight of working America and offer solutions; and those solutions cannot be nationalistic promises of protectionist nonsense. There is a lot more to say here.

 (8) This brings me to my final point. There are three major divisions now going on in our country that are the defining situations of this age. First and foremost, rural America vs. urban America, or that sociological/cultural divide described in point seven. Secondly, the civil war on the left, which my liberal friends do not yet know how massive it is about to become. That radical progressive wing of Warren and Sanders is going to go to war with center-left moderates, and it is going to be nasty. And then the one which I believe will dictate so much of the future of American political life: The civil war on the right — the battle between populist-nationalists and idea-driven conservatives. 

I am well aware of the fact that Trump’s win grants the appearance that the former is winning over the latter. I am not so sure. The “across country” wave of ideological conservatives who won by much larger margins tells a different story. I am convinced of this: The winner of this battle will determine the fate of conservatism in this generation. The latter must, must, must defeat the former. We found out last night that there is such thing as an Obama-Trump voter. Everyone wants to believe that the government can solve their problems, or that a strongman can. The Obama coalition fell apart for Hillary Clinton because she was not credible, exciting, believable, or desirable. Millennials don’t trust her. Working-class whites loathe her. And the African-American vote appears to have voted for her in expected proportions but with much lower turnout. But conservatives better admit this: Trump picked up the votes needed to win for the same asinine reason Obama initially did — novelty and messianic hope. And that brings me to my prayer for Trump. I pray that he will forfeit all the demagoguery that defined his campaign, and transition to an ideas-based administration with competent and outstanding people ready to execute for the betterment of our country. I do not believe he will.

 But I do hope for it. Stuffing a protectionist trade pact down our throat will not help factory workers in Ohio who have been technologically displaced, but it will be fatal if it creates a trade war with China. There is a policy agenda that can improve the situation in America dramatically, create growth, and allow for some of the aforementioned rifts to begin to heal. And then there is his blustery, vindictive rhetoric.

You must know what I am hoping for. To those who supported Trump, congratulations. I take back absolutely nothing I have felt or said throughout this ugly and painful election season — besides my inaccurate prediction that Trump would lose. I feel compelled to write and speak what I believe the truth to be, and I have tried to faithfully do that. My ultimate responsibility is to the truth, and I feel I have been faithful to my truth,  and to the standards of truth I believe in.

 The campaign is now over. Most of what I prayed for, I got (a whole separate article is coming on Prop 61’s stunning defeat!!!!!!!). I wish to be in conflict with no man — as much as it depends on me. Do I wish newly reelected Senator Marco Rubio was the one giving a presidential-acceptance speech today? You bet I do. And I frankly think it will still come. But for today, congratulations to Team Trump, and may God Bless America. P.S. — Did I mention Justice Scalia’s legacy may be the big winner?

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Can You Choose The Woman In This Photo That Was Converted To "Orthodox Judaism" By The RCA, Hershel Schechter & Haskel Lookstein?

Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. A billion regulations, a million immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer your America. It was his.


American Uprising

Everything is about to change.


This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution.

It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.

They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.

They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.

The Great Blue Wall crumbled. The impossible states fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin.

Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors and the rest of the nation, from coast to coast, rose up with it.

They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election.

They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.

They fought and they won.

This wasn’t a vote. It was an uprising. Like the ordinary men chipping away at the Berlin Wall, they tore down an unnatural thing that had towered over them. And as they watched it fall, they marveled at how weak and fragile it had always been. And how much stronger they were than they had ever known.

Who were these people? They were leftovers and flyover country. They didn’t have bachelor degrees and had never set foot in a Starbucks. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.

They were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration? Everyone knew it was here to stay. Black Lives Matter? The new civil rights movement. Manufacturing? As dead as the dodo. Banning Muslims? What kind of bigot even thinks that way? Love wins. Marriage loses. The future belongs to the urban metrosexual and his dot com, not the guy who used to have a good job before it went to China or Mexico.

They couldn’t change anything. A thousand politicians and pundits had talked of getting them to adapt to the inevitable future. Instead they got in their pickup trucks and drove out to vote.
And they changed everything.

Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. A billion regulations, a million immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer your America. It was his.

He was JFK and FDR rolled into one. He told us that his version of history was right and inevitable.

And they voted and left him in the dust. They walked past him and they didn’t listen. He had come to campaign to where they still cling to their guns and their bibles. He came to plead for his legacy.

 And America said, “No.”


Wednesday, November 09, 2016

God Is On Our Side!

Obama didn't make history after all. He wasn't a teleprompter demi-god standing athwart of history. He was Carter and Ford. He was there to be forgotten. He didn't change the world. He wasn't the messiah. He was merely mortal. Just another politician who will sag and age. Who will, in the end, be photographed like Bill Clinton, lonely and lost in a world that has passed him by.

Obama and his supporters loved talking about history. His victory was historic. They were on the right side of history. History was an inevitable arc that bent their way.

The tidal force of demographics had made the old America irrelevant. Any progressive policy agenda was now possible because we were no longer America. We Were Obamerica. A hip, happening place full of smiling gay couples, Muslim women in hijabs and transgender actors. We were all going to live in a New York City coffee house and work at Green Jobs and live in the post-national future.

The past was gone. We were falling into the gorgeous wonderful future of dot com instant deliveries and outsourced everything. We would become more tolerant and guilty. The future was Amazon and Disney. It was hot and cold running social justice. The Bill of Rights was done. Ending the First and Second Amendments was just a clever campaign away. Narratives on news sites drove everything.

Presidents were elected by Saturday Night Live skits. John Oliver, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Samantha Bee were our journalists. Safe spaces were everywhere and you better watch your microaggressions, buddy. No more coal would be mined. No more anything would be made. The end of men was here. The end of the dead white men of the literary canon. The end of white people. The end of binary gender and marriage. The end of reason. The end of art. The end of 2 + 2 equaling 4. This was Common Core time. It was time to pardon an endless line of drug dealers. To kill cops and praise criminals. To be forced to buy worthless health insurance for wealth redistribution to those who voted their way to wealth.

This was Obama's America. And there was no going back. We were rushing through endless goal posts of social transformation. The military fell. Then the police. Now it looks as quaint as anything from the 50s, the 70s or the 80s. A brief moment of foolishness that already appears odd and awkward. And then one day nostalgic. It wasn't the future. It's already the past. It's history.

Scalia died. Hillary Clinton was bound to win. And she would define the Supreme Court. Downticket races would give her a friendly Senate. And then perhaps the House.

But there is no right side of history. There is only the side we choose.

The Obama era was permanent. It was history. Now it is history.

Its shocking ascendancy has been paired with an equally shocking descent. The Obama era is done. It's gone. It's over. It was wiped from the pages of history in one night that left Congress and the White House in Republican hands.

It would have been bad enough if Jeb Bush had succeeded Obama. That would have been inconvenient, but not a repudiation. Instead Obama's legacy was dashed to pieces. His frantic efforts to campaign for Hillary did no good. The public did not vocally reject him. What they did was in its own way even worse. They brushed past him. They sidelined him. They gave him passable approval ratings while dismissing his biggest accomplishments. They forgot him. They made it clear that he did not matter.

And that is in its own way far more brutal and wounding. They didn't just destroy the Obama era. Instead they dismissed it as if it never existed.

Obama didn't make history after all. He wasn't a teleprompter demi-god standing athwart of history. He was Carter and Ford. He was there to be forgotten. He didn't change the world. He wasn't the messiah. He was merely mortal. Just another politician who will sag and age. Who will, in the end, be photographed like Bill Clinton, lonely and lost in a world that has passed him by.

The Obama era ends not with a bang, but with a whimper. With a national consensus that maybe he didn't really matter so much after all. And those to whom he mattered the most were his enemies determined to undo everything he did.

Obama once thought that he belonged to the ages. Now he belongs in the rubbish bin.