EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!

EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters
CLICK! For the full motion to quash: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/UOJ-motiontoquashmemo.pdf

Thursday, July 14, 2016

R' Hershel Schechter Av Beis Din Of The RCA Conversion Court In The U.S.A. - "Converted" Ivanka Trump To Judaism! PUBLISHED MARCH 14, 2010.

Photo Of Ms. Trump - Wikipedia - June 2009
In July 2009, after studying with Rabbi Elie Weinstock from Ramaz School, Trump converted from Catholicism to Judaism,[11][12] , and took the name Yael.[13] The beth din that converted her included Rabbi Haskel Lookstein. On October 25, 2009 she married Jared Kushner, owner of The New York Observer,[14][15] in front of 500 guests at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. [Wikipedia]


By Yechiel Sever - Deiah V'Dibur News - 2008:

Following an agreement signed by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) to set up a network of regional botei din in cooperation with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Eternal Jewish Family (EJF), headed by HaRav Leib Tropper which works extensively to uphold proper conversion practices around the world based on consultations with gedolei Yisroel, is warning against certain Chief Rabbinate officials who are offering support and recognition for modern rabbis who do not operate in accordance with halacha and is urging the Chief Rabbinate to announce publicly that it will not back these rabbis. According to reports in the foreign press the list of rabbis approved for these botei din includes individuals whose kehillas hold minyanim for women.

Recently officials at the Chief Rabbinate have recognized a number of new rabbis outside of Israel, some of whom are upstanding dayanim. But there are also a number of modern rabbinical organizations whose dayanim do not operate in accordance with halacha and Jewish hashkofoh, and their actions are liable to create major breaches in Kerem Beis Yisroel.

EJF has voiced its strong support for steps the Chief Rabbinate has taken to strengthen conversion abroad by cooperating with the organization, but at the same time EJF is warning not to submit to pressure of any kind, and to ensure that conversions are performed only by dayanim who have yiras Shomayim and are qualified to uphold the halacha passed down through the generations — especially in the area of conversion, a matter held dear by Torah-true Judaism.

The organization also notes the importance of distinguishing between rabbonim, who may be very capable of heading a kehilloh, but they are not dayanim who have specialized training and experience — including shimush — needed to sit on the bench of an orderly, permanent beis din. Without this training and experience they should under no circumstances be authorized to serve as dayanim in conversion courts. Proper conversion courts require an av beis din widely recognized as an expert and two other dayanim worthy of the title.

Recently, with the encouragement of EJF, 13 botei din have been set up around the US to hear cases related to all areas of Jewish law, including conversion. All these botei din include a well-known av beis din.

EJF welcomes the RCA's initiative to transfer the authority to perform conversions from individual rabbonim to fixed, regional botei din, but at the same time calls on the organization to ensure that the sitting rabbonim are properly trained to serve as dayanim.

In a related matter, EJF wishes to clarify that information regarding the agreement reached between the Chief Rabbinate and the RCA is being distorted in reports in the general press due to the efforts of several people who have ulterior motives.

Chief Rabbi Amar has told Rav Tropper that the Chief Rabbinate has only approved seven regional RCA botei din and not 15 as has been widely reported in the press. Also Chief Rabbi Amar has said that rabbis whose kehillas have prayer groups for women will not be approved as dayanim.

In a conference call among Rav Nochum Eisenstein, chairman of the Vaad HaRabbonim Haolami LeInyonei Giyur founded by HaRav Chaim Kreiswirth zt"l, Rabbi Peretz of the Chief Rabbi's Office, and a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, this message was clearly conveyed. Nonetheless, the Jerusalem Post refused to print a correct of the incorrect information in their previous articles, saying that it was not "interesting" to their readers.

Ivanka Trump: Officially Jewish and engaged; membership has its privileges.
By Allison Hoffman | 1:05 pm Jul 17, 2009 - Tablet Magazine
It’s been a big week for Ivanka Trump, the lovely heiress/socialite/real-estate developer. First, she became a Jew! Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, the Modern Orthodox synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, earlier this week formally certified the conversion of the daughter of real estate mogul Donald Trump (himself raised Protestant, by way of the positive-thinking pastor Rev. Norman Vincent Peale). Oh, and then Ivanka went and got engaged, to her boyfriend, New York Observer owner Jared Kushner, for whom she converted in the first place. Mazel tov to both.

The Forward:

....On October 25,2009, The New York Times announced the marriage of Jared Kushner, whose family name graces a New Jersey Orthodox Jewish day school, to Ivanka Trump, glamorous daughter of business tycoon and ubiquitous public personality Donald Trump. This unlikely union seemed so unremarkable that it didn’t even merit the “Vows” spotlight the Times frequently reserves for couples from divergent or unique backgrounds. Instead, the Times announcement straightforwardly noted: “Rabbi Haskel Lookstein is to officiate,” leaving it for those who read between the lines to understand that Ivanka had undergone a traditional religious conversion to Judaism prior to the Orthodox nuptials.........


Is Ivanka Trump Jewish?

In: Judaism [Edit categories]

[Improve]

She may have converted but most conversations done these days are for the sake of marriage, and no REAL conversion panel [like in Orthodox] will allow one to convert for this reason alone. One must have had a genuine feeling of being a Jew as well as living the full Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. Conservative and Reform conversations are not authentic and do not actually make you Jewish.

No, she is NOT Jewish.



Look for the (Triple K) KKK hashgacha on every authentic UOJ psak. Accept no substitutes! KOSHER - from corruption. KOSHER - from bribes. KOSHER from mattress gelt.

Rely only on the KKK. Our yarmulkes are black!

RCA GEIRUS STANDARD AND POLICIES:

http://www.judaismconversion.org/GPS_Policies_and_Procedures.html

"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


"For any other female convert, emulating the types of posts Ivanka puts on Instagram would be unthinkable....PUBLISHED MARCH 25, 2016..."

IVANKA TRUMP POST ORTHODOX JEWISH CONVERSION BY HERSHEL SCHECHTER

Ivanka Trump and Double Standards for Jewish Converts

Jewish converts are often unfairly scrutinized and face intense pressure to obey Orthodox observances. But they should be treated with open arms, just like Ivanka Trump.

  By Bethany S. Mandel


At AIPAC, Trump diverted attention from his controversial appearance there by acting the part of a collected, telepromter-reading, ultra-hawkish-on-Israel politician, including his sharing with the crowd the fact that his daughter would soon have a “beautiful Jewish baby.” Altogether, his flip-floppy, “believe me” performances have made me realize that Trump’s double standards extend beyond himself, and to the rest of his family, particularly his daughter, Ivanka. Somehow, she seems to have been exempted from the invasive scrutiny, questioning, and disrespectful treatment so often aimed at converts to Judaism like her.

Ivanka converted in 2009 (while living with Kushner throughout the entire process - The RCA and Hershel Schechter knew it), before her marriage to Jared Kushner. She rarely discusses her conversion or her Judaism. There is the occasional glimpse on her Instagram feed: Shabbat dinner preparations or mishloach manot baskets and costumes for Purim. She is an involved Jew, but not necessarily one that fits the Orthodox stereotype, posting about non-Kosher food and not-tznius outfits on social media.

Now, let me be clear: there’s nothing wrong with any of this (WRONG). No one has the right to judge Ivanka’s Jewishness or religiosity as as convert just as no one has the right to judge—or question, or pry into—mine. Yet it is hard for me to believe anyone in her well-heeled congregation is giving her a hard time about this. Why, then, am I and the majority of converts I know, constantly the subject of such scrutiny? For any other female convert, emulating the types of posts Ivanka puts on Instagram would be unthinkable.

While conversion revocations aren’t common (but are done retroactively in rare cases) in the United States, there is intense communal pressure for converts to stay on the straight and narrow because of a perception that they often “fall off the derech,” or stop being observant. And the very fact that some conversions have been revoked puts intense pressure on converts, especially women (for whom the issue of modest dress is much more germane and whose Judaism their children’s identity hinge on). Who will see it? Will they “inform” on you? Will the impression of laxity give them cause to stop eating at your home, or having their children avoid yours?

As an active member of the conversion community I’ve heard enough horror stories to fill a book: shadchans (matchmakers) refusing to work with converts, probing questions at a Shabbos table with strangers, conversions overseen by rabbis who want to take a walk around the block (if you catch my drift) with their shiksa conversion candidate before she becomes officially Jewish. And throughout my own conversion process—and long after—close friends, family, and strangers would tell me: But you’re not really Jewish.

Then there are the horror stories of conversions revoked or questioned for “offenses” like wearing pants or not keeping Shabbat after the conversion. The Israeli Rabbinate—a kind of College of Cardinals for global Jewry—has lent credence to this absurdity, sending a chill through converts and conversion candidates in the United States.

All of which makes much of the Jewish community’s response to Ivanka Trump’s Orthodox conversion—or better yet, the apparent lack thereof— so astounding. Somehow Ivanka has managed to obtain what no other Orthodox convert I know has: acceptance from the Jewish community while at the same time flouting convention that the rest of us could hardly get away with. Apparently having wealth, fame and power buys you a lifetime supply of indulgences. I don’t think the Jewish community has begun to grasp how this makes us look.

To be clear, Ivanka should be treated this way—welcomed with open arms and never having her commitment to Judaism questioned or tested by nudniks. But the rest of us commoners should also be afforded the same consideration. In fact, It’s Jewish law. In Exodus 23:9, God makes quite clear how he feels about how the convert—a stranger within the Jewish community—should be treated. “Do not oppress a stranger; you know how it feels to be a stranger, because you were strangers in Egypt.” And yet, infuriatingly, this clear Biblical prohibition about abusing the convert, the ger, is one of the most ignored parts of Jewish law. Plainly, it states: treat converts with acceptance. And not just the famous, glamorous ones.

The Torah’s commandment to accept the stranger is specifically worded as a warning against hypocrisy. Clearly, that’s a lesson we still haven’t learned.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198879/ivanka-trump-and-double-standards-for-jewish-converts

PS - Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states 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. 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 (certainly when they are living together prior to their marriage). Unlike mental or tacit negations, explains Rav 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. Regardless of what this Jewish court may declare, the conversion is invalid and the person is not deemed a member of the Jewish nation. In Iggros Moshe, Letters of Moshe (Yoreh De’ah, no. 157), he writes that “According to the Law, it is certain that one who converts for the sake of marriage, does not intend to keep the commandments, and is not a proselyte at all.” 
Paul Mendlowitz - 2009

L'Hagdil Torah (HAHA) Ul'Hadira


Private b-day

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.




http://pagesix.com/2012/01/12/private-b-day/

Share this article:

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Court Looked At The Farce That Was The Trump Fraudulent Conversion by Lookstein, Hershel Schechter & the RCA...and Made the Correct Ruling!

Supreme Rabbinical Court declines to recognize Rabbi Lookstein's conversions.

Israel’s Supreme Rabbinical Court on Wednesday night ruled it does not recognize conversions by US Orthodox rabbi Haskel Lookstein, forcing a woman seeking to get married to reconvert and calling into question other people converted by Lookstein, including the daughter of Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump. 

In a hugely controversial step, the Supreme Rabbinical Court asked a female convert of prominent US Jewish leader Rabbi Haskel Lookstein to declare her acceptance of the religious commandments in court so as to avoid doubt as to her Jewishness. 
The ITIM religious services advisory group which was representing the convert, Nicole, in court denounced this step, saying it amounted to a rejection of Lookstein’s conversions and constituted blackmail, while Nicole herself said she felt she had been humiliated. 
US Jewry and critics of the religious establishment in Israel have denounced the ongoing failure of the rabbinical courts system to recognize Lookstein’s conversions as “extremist,” saying that such a stance drives a wedge between Diaspora Jewry and the Jewish state. 
The judges of the Supreme Rabbinical Court said they did not want to get involved in whether or not her conversion through Lookstein was valid, and so requested that she undergo what is known as “a conversion for stringency.”
This type of conversion is performed in a case when the Jewishness of an individual is in doubt, and involves a declaration of Gods oneness and an acceptance of the commandments of the Torah. 
Due to a wish to get married on the wedding date she and her fiancee have set, Nicole reluctantly decided to do the conversion for stringency out of a fear that a failure to do so would require her to postpone the wedding. 
The court then affirmed her declaration and said she could now marry her fiancee.  
In a statement made to ITIM, Nicole expressed disquiet at the way she had been treated by the court. 
“I feel humiliated, what they are saying is that they don't recognize my Judaism,” she said. “I love Rabbi Lookstein, he is my rabbi, he led me into the Jewish world and I don't want his conversion to not be recognized.”
ITIM director Rabbi Seth Farber was strongly critical of the court’s actions, saying that the judges had “blackmailed” Nicole into performing the conversion for stringency by implying that actually clarifying whether or not Lookstein’s conversions are valid could lead to the postponement of her wedding. 
“Today, the Supreme Rabbinical Court has imposed a heavy cloud upon the conversions of thousands of converts, who were converted by orthodox rabbis in the United States,” said Farber. 
“This is a sad day for the converts and this is a sad day for the relations between the state of Israel and the United States Jewry. In their ruling, the Rabbinical judges have humiliated not just the convert, but also hundreds of rabbis in the diaspora and their congregations.” 
Although both chief rabbis David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef have said publicly that they do recognize the validity of Lookstein’s conversions, a statement was released in the name of the Chief Rabbinate praising the Supreme Rabbinical Court’s solution.

Chairman of the Executive of The Jewish Agency for Israel Natan Sharansky said in response to the incident that "today’s decision by the Supreme Rabbinical Court, which effectively delegitimized a prominent rabbi in the American Jewish community, demonstrates why Israel is in danger of being delegitimized as a center of religious authority in the eyes of world Jewry. I call on the Government of Israel, which recognizes the vital importance of the Israel-Diaspora relationship, to take immediate steps to change the attitude of Israel’s religious authorities toward the spiritual leaders of the Diaspora."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Supreme-Rabbinical-Court-sidesteps-recognition-of-Rabbi-Looksteins-conversions-460321

What Is a policeman?


Race relations will be Obama's biggest failure

Obamacare is a huge problem that President Obama will leave his successor.  And there is Iraq, Libya, and so on.  Lots of messes for his successor to clean up, indeed.  

In retrospect, race relations will be his biggest failure.

Back in November 2008, I voted for Senator McCain but looked forward to our first black president bringing us together.  I was anticipating that he'd talk about the structural problems in the black community, such as the collapse of the black family unit and black-on-black crime in Chicago and other inner cities.

Instead, Obama has made things worse by focusing on the police and doing nothing about black districts lacking any hope and seeing no change.

A few months ago, Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University, wrote an article that looks rather interesting after Dallas:

The last Democratic president and the last Republican president both managed race relations more effectively than Obama has. Seven years after American voters made history by electing the country’s first black president, racial tensions have worsened.
  It didn’t rank on Obama’s one-item list of his “few regrets” during his State of the Union address. But signs of Obama’s failure are on our streets, on our campuses and among our leaders, left and right.“Ferguson” has become shorthand for African-American fury objecting to insensitive white cops harassing young blacks. 

 The “Black Lives Matter” movement has spilled into American campus culture, as privileged kids attending the world’s finest universities bemoan their alleged oppression — bullying anyone who challenges them.

This black backlash has prompted a white backlash, personified by Donald Trump. 
Every justifiable police shooting called “racist,” every Halloween costume labeled politically incorrect, every reasonable thought censored makes Trump look like America’s last honest man.
Amid this tension, Obama has been disturbingly passive — even during America’s first serious race riots since 1992. 
He acts like a meteorologist observing the bad weather, not a president able to shape the political climate.

How embarrassing that Obama’s most memorable act of presidential leadership on race may end up being inviting a black professor and a white cop to the White House for his 2009 “beer summit.”

Yes, President Obama will be remembered for two things:

a) The articulate president who could not articulate a message to bring us together.  In other words, the man can speak but has little of consequence to say.

b) The first black president who did not understand the real problems in black communities.

His legacy will be that he left us more angry and divided than ever.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Various rabbis who should know better, argued that this case "Wisconsin v. Yoder"should apply to Hassidic communities and should not be legally forced to educate their kids past the 8th grade. I present this article by Ms. Ungar-Sargon to demonstrate how out of touch those rabbis are and the damage these pseudo-intellectuals do to children because of their inability to interact in the real world outside of their cult-communities...Forcing them underground!

 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.

hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

"How did the Court come to that decision, and how do its reasons relate to the current situation of Satmar education?

First, the Court noted that the Amish are “productive…members of society; they reject public welfare.” Wisconsin could not convincingly argue that Amish children would grow up to be dependent on the state.

In contrast, Hasidic groups are greatly dependent on public welfare. Kiryas Joel is the poorest town in America, with about half the families receiving food stamps and a third eligible for Medicaid and housing subsidies.


Second, the Court believed that the “additional one or two years” of education between completion of eighth grade and leaving school at sixteen were too slight to stand up against the Amish interest in the free exercise of their religion. White, in a concurrence joined by Brennan and Stewart, wrote, “This would be a very different case… if respondents’ claim were that their religion forbade their children from attending any school at any time and from complying in any way with the educational standards set by the State. Since the Amish children are permitted to acquire the basic tools of literacy to survive in modern society by attending grades one through eight, and since the deviation from the State’s compulsory education law is relatively slight, I conclude that respondents’ claim must prevail…” 

But in the case of the Satmar, Skverer and similar groups, there is a large gap between actual learning and an adequate education. Whereas the Amish had full days of secular education from first through eighth grade, many Hasidic boys receive only 90 minutes of secular education a day, from third through eighth grade. According to Shulem Deen, regular Forward columnist and author of “All Who Go Do Not Return,” his two sons, raised in the Skverer town of New Square, cannot read, write or speak English, at ages 13 and 15."
 

Undercover atheists

Seduced by science and rationalism, yet tied to their families and communities, Hasidic atheists opt for a double life

by Batya Ungar-Sargon
 
Header hassidic

The moment Solomon lost his faith, he was standing on the D train, swaying back and forth with its movement as if in prayer. But it wasn’t a prayer book that the young law student was reading – he had already been to synagogue, where he had wrapped himself in the leather thongs that bound him to Orthodox Judaism, laying phylacteries and reciting the prayers three times daily.

The tome in his hands now was Alan Dershowitz’s The Genesis of Justice (2000), which used Talmudic and Hasidic interpretations of the Bible to argue that stories in the book of Genesis, from Adam and Eve eating the apple to Noah and his ark, constituted God’s learning curve – a means of establishing a moral code and the rules of justice that prevail today.

What struck him about the book was its depth, and a complexity of thought that he had been raised to believe was the exclusive domain of the rabbis whose authority commanded his community of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The book’s brilliance, coupled with its unabashed heresy, created the first of many cracks in Solomon’s faith. Seeing the scriptures interpreted in methods so compelling and yet entirely inconsistent with the dogmas of his youth caused Solomon to question everything he believed to be true.

From Dershowitz, Solomon moved on to evolutionary biology, and then to Stephen Hawking and cosmology, and then biblical criticism, until finally, he was unable to deny the conclusion his newly developed capacity for critical thinking had led him to: he no longer believed in the existence of God.

‘It was the most devastating moment of my life,’ he told me. ‘I wish to this day that I could find the holy grail that proves that I’m wrong, that it’s all true.’

And yet 15 years later, Solomon’s life looks exactly the way it did the day of that fateful train ride, give or take a few infractions. Solomon is still leading the life of an Orthodox Jew. He is married to an Orthodox Jew. His children are Orthodox Jews who go to study the Torah at yeshiva. His parents are ultra-Orthodox Jews. And so, with his new-found atheism, Solomon did nothing.
Solomon is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women whose encounters with evolution, science, new atheism and biblical criticism have led them to the conclusion that there is no God, and yet whose social, economic and familial connections to the ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic communities prevent them from giving up the rituals of faith. Those I spoke to could not bring themselves to upend their families and their children’s lives. With too much integrity to believe, they also have too much to leave behind, and so they remain closeted atheists within ultra-Orthodox communities. Names and some places have been changed – every person spoke to me for this story on condition of anonymity. Part of a secret, underground intellectual elite, these people live in fear of being discovered and penalised by an increasingly insular society.
‘Religious fundamentalists want to have a monopoly on truth, a monopoly on morality, but the internet undermines those facades’.

But they are also proof of the increasing challenges fundamentalist religious groups face in the age of the internet and a globalised world. With so much information so readily available, such groups can no longer rely on physical and intellectual isolation to maintain their boundaries. In addition to exposing religious adherents to information that challenges the hegemony of their belief systems, the internet gives individuals living in restrictive environments an alternative community.

‘It helps people find others in the same boat,’ said Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California who studies apostates and secularism. ‘Twenty, thirty years ago, if you were living in Borough Park, Brooklyn, or Alabama and you were surrounded by Hasids or Pentecostal Christians and you started to have doubts, well, you were alone. Now, you can find someone right away who is in the same boat as you and is also sharing your doubts. You can find community, you can find a connection that bolsters your own situation and gives you support – intellectual and emotional. Religious fundamentalists want to have a monopoly on truth, a monopoly on lifestyle, a monopoly on morality, a monopoly on authority, but the internet undermines all those facades.’

Yanky cut an incongruous figure. A tall ultra-Orthodox man with a short, scruffy beard and short side-locks wrapped behind his ears, wearing traditional Hasidic black-and-white garb, he was sitting on a barstool in an out-of-the-way dive bar in South Brooklyn on a Monday afternoon, sipping a Corona. But Yanky is an incongruous man. Like Solomon, he lives in an Orthodox neighbourhood, has many children who attend yeshivas, goes to synagogue to pray, hosts meals on Sabbath. His life, like the life of any Orthodox Jew, is punctuated a hundred times a day by the small demands the religion makes on its adherents’ lifestyle, demands on what they can eat, what they can wear, where they can go, what they can read, whom they can speak to, what they can touch, when they can touch it, and how often.

Somewhat tragically for a person so occupied, Yanky doesn’t believe in God.

Things didn’t start out that way. Yanky, who has a gentle, defeated air about him, and a shy, cynical sense of humour, was among the most fervent scholars of his cohort. ‘It’s hard to describe how earnest a person I was before,’ he told me. He had spent many years studying the Torah in the most prestigious yeshivas. ‘I had really suffered to be there,’ he said, by way of explaining how much it had meant to him and how deeply invested in the holy texts he once was. He even worked as a rabbi on the side, answering questions pertaining to religious law for lay people in his community.

But Yanky had always had philosophical questions, even as a child. At some point, all of the questions added up, coming to a head when his rabbi asked him to study with a man who had recently become observant. This newly religious man needed a study partner to take him through the religious answers to scientific questions. While able to answer the man’s religious queries, the partnership forced Yanky to think deeply about the issues he had been avoiding, such as the conflicts between the Bible’s claims and those made by science. He tried to put an end to their study sessions, but his rabbi was confident in his ability to stay the course. ‘No, no, it’ll be fine, it’ll be fine,’ Yanky remembers his rabbi telling him.

‘It wasn’t fine.’

That’s when his newly observant study partner took Yanky to a presentation by the British scientist and New Atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion (2006). ‘It wasn’t so much that Dawkins was so convincing, or interesting even,’ Yanky told me between short sips of beer. ‘It was just, I was sitting there with this whole group of people who were having this one viewpoint.’ He experienced for the first time what religion looked like from the outside, a series of often ridiculous and always questionable ideas shattering its absolute hold on his psyche.

And something else crystalised at that Dawkins talk: Yanky had at that point hundreds of questions which no one had ever been able to answer to his satisfaction, ranging from scientific questions about the veracity of the Old Testament’s narrative (‘woman very clearly wasn’t taken from man’; ‘ancient humans were not vegetarians,’ he elaborated) to questions concerning the claims made in the Talmud (‘the laws of cooking on Shabbos and kosher cooking laws don’t match up with thermodynamics’; ‘bugs don’t spontaneously generate from plants’). It felt like there was a separate, unsatisfying answer for every burning question. And as Dawkins spoke, Yanky realised that there was one answer that took care of all of his questions – God did not write the Torah because He does not exist. ‘So that was basically it for me,’ he said.

He was an atheist forced to stay under wraps lest his boss fire him, his wife divorce him, and his children get thrown out of school.

Yanky was devastated by his realisation that there is no God. ‘It was very upsetting,’ he said, talking quickly. ‘I remember laying in bed and feeling like the world had come to an end. It wasn’t a relief. It was very painful.’

He was so upset that his first move after this realisation was to search out the smartest and most learned rabbis, hoping that they would have answers for him and be able to convince him that he was wrong – that there is a God, that the Torah is true. He wrote anonymous letters to a few respected rabbis, and posted them snail-mail (though this was 2000, he had little to no contact with the internet, as the most pious Jews don’t). The letters contained his questions, mostly culled from the contradictions between the first chapters of the Old Testament and evolutionary theory: evolution suggests that snakes, descended from lizards, lost their legs long before humans evolved – but Genesis states that they lost them after an encounter with man. The Adam and Eve story suggests that humans were created instantaneously, in a single day a mere 6,000 years ago – yet science reveals the slow evolution of human life on Earth, describing the gradual rise of our hominid predecessors over many millions of years.

The explanations he got from rabbinic scholars were weak and obscure. One rabbi sent him a bizarre note, including a story about sitting in a boat, ‘an elaborate allegory intending to describe how we only coast along over the deep waters of the Torah,’ Yanky recalled. ‘It was cool, but it didn’t help me. Thanks Rabbi.’ With nowhere left to turn, he was finally forced to admit what he was: an atheist leading a double life, forced to stay under wraps lest his boss fire him, his wife divorce him, and his children get thrown out of school.

They call themselves ‘Orthoprax’ – those of correct practice – to distinguish themselves from the Orthodox – those of correct belief. Every time I met one, they would introduce me to a few of their friends, though many refused to speak for fear of being discovered. There are far fewer women in this situation than men, and the women were even harder to draw out. They risk losing their children, especially in New York State, where custody is often given to the more religious parent.

Yet things have changed: once so isolated in their atheism, double-lifers passing for Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox and Yeshivish (known for devouring the Talmud) all gather online in chat rooms. I met undercover atheists from many different Hasidic sects – Satmar, Skver, Bobov – where the focus is mystical. They live in Williamsburg, Long Island, New Skver, Jerusalem. Wherever there is an insular Jewish enclave, there are individuals who have come to the conclusion that God does not exist, and yet they maintain their religious cover for social, familial and economic reasons. Many are well-established in their communities, even leaders. Many are financially successful, family men and women, moral people. ‘I am your neighbour with kids in your children’s class,’ wrote one undercover atheist anonymously on a blog. ‘I am one of the weekly sponsors of the Kiddush club… I was your counselor in camp… I do not believe in God.’

The Orthodox community has grown exponentially in the past 50 years. Ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic enclaves such as Lakewood in New Jersey and Kiryas Joel in Upstate New York have the lowest median ages in the entire United States due to their high birthrate. It is normal for families to have anywhere from five to 12 children.

‘We’re talking about a ghetto that’s locked from the inside’

These communities are organised around religion, explains Samuel Heilman, a sociologist at Queens College in New York, who studies contemporary Orthodox Jewish movements. As the population has expanded, so have attempts to keep members in line. But it has been a losing battle, overall. ‘As a sociological principle, one size can never fit all,’ he told me, ‘and the larger the community, the more difficult it is to control.’

That hasn’t stopped efforts. One method of control is limiting secular education for children in subjects such as mathematics and even English. The lack of skills necessary to navigate the outside world can be crippling to most who consider leaving their communities. Another strategy is turning everyone else into an enemy. The tactic is hardly unique. ‘Every fundamentalist group demonises the other – they tend to be very dualist; you’re either with us or without us.’ In the case of the ultra-Orthodox, ‘We’re talking about a ghetto that’s locked from the inside,’ Heilman said. You have to create a threat from the outside to keep those doors locked.

But even for those such as Solomon and Yanky who were educated enough to pursue outside professions, their own psychological states work just as well as any external rules to keep them put.

The self-policing mechanism kicked in most strongly through the matchmaking apparatus, the place where status is determined in these communities. A person leaving the community puts a blight on their entire family, stigmatising parents, siblings, children, and even cousins, limiting their ability to marry into ‘good’ families with no such stain.
Are double-lifer’s a danger to the fold? It depends on your point of view.

‘For every one of them, there’s five kids, 10 kids born,’ Heilman said.

‘We have 10,000 kids in school in Williamsburg alone. The majority will stay where they are,’ said a Satmar friend – a believer – in agreement.

‘I could pick off a person a day if I wanted to,’ countered an undercover atheist I’ll call Moishe.

If anything, the double-lifers are more like ‘agent provocateurs inside a besieged system’, Heilman contends. 

They know what’s real and what’s not real. They know how to game the system. And they have their own signals. Surely it’s only a matter of time before they begin to share their ideas with those who are still believers.

I’m sitting with Moishe, a scholarly luminary in the ultra-Orthodox world, in Solomon’s office in Manhattan; the two are colleagues and confidantes. Moishe is Hasidic, wears a graying beard, lives in the bosom of a Hasidic sect in Brooklyn and has many children. He has written books of exegesis that are studied in many yeshivas, uncovering the hidden secrets of the Torah.

Solomon, too, lives in Brooklyn, has a wife and a bunch of children, and a good job. He is clean-shaven, wears a suit to work and a black velvet yarmulke. Though both are staunch atheists, neither Moishe nor Solomon has any intention of leaving the Orthodox world.

But the similarities end there – Solomon is deeply emotional, the kind of man whose obvious kindness comes from bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders. He is still dogged by the emotional loss of faith. ‘I have an emotional bond to a God that I know does not exist,’ as he puts it.

Moishe, on the other hand, is driven only by the pursuit of truth, with that almost childlike quality that geniuses display during discovery, and a sense of humour wide enough to encompass all of his own foibles.

Solomon suffers from intense guilt; the psychological toll of leading a double life weighs heavily on him. ‘I used to be tormented by doubt,’ he said. ‘But now I’m tormented by certainty.’ Moishe can’t understand these feelings. He experienced his new-found intellectual freedom with the joy that comes from liberation.
Moishe is still publicly Hasidic. He wears a shtreimel – the traditional fur hat – on Sabbath. At one point, the Hasidic rabbi leading his sect asked him to become even more religious, referred to as ‘going right’.

‘At that time I was like, what do you mean more right? I’m already at the end! What’s north of the North Pole? But he knew what he was talking about.’ Moishe’s journey from believer to atheist happened in a matter of weeks, after a few passages from Maimonides convinced him that the greatest Jewish scholar was, like himself, an undercover atheist.

Moishe explained: on the one hand, Maimonides felt that the belief that the earth was eternal could be destructive to the Jewish religion. On the other hand, he also said that if the infinite character of the earth could be proven, he would accept it as true. Moishe’s conclusion? Maimonides ‘knew the first part of the Torah was iffy at best and bunk at worst’. Moreover, Maimonides’ attempts to reconcile what he thought was true with what he claimed was true were, in Moishe’s words, an ‘epic fail’.

The greatest tragedy for undercover atheists is the barrier it erects between them and their loved ones
‘Nothing he said made any actual sense,’ he explained. ‘So I was left with one option and one option only: he was an atheist but was hiding it. There, now that made sense. So now I look at myself as a reincarnation of Rambam [Maimonides]. I’m an atheist in hiding just like he was.’

Still, despite his confidence that he could convert a person a day to atheism should he so desire, Moishe balked at the consequences. Perhaps the greatest tragedy for undercover atheists is the barrier it necessarily erects between them and their loved ones.

‘I’m desperate to tell my kids the truth,’ Moishe confessed. And yet, he doesn’t dare. Moishe is not alone.

Many I spoke to stay inside the confines of their Orthodox lives for fear of harming their children, opting instead to let them continue to believe what they themselves now consider to be fairy tales.

‘To me, lying to my children was the worst part,’ said another undercover atheist – I’ll call him Yisroel. Yisroel has a very good job – he makes in the high six figures – and is very attached to his wife and children, the opposite of the stereotype that prevails in religious communities surrounding those who lose the faith, namely that they are ‘liars who want to do drugs, cheat on their wives and eat cheeseburgers’, as he put it.

Yisroel’s greatest wish is that his children will learn to think critically and figure things out for themselves. But he has no plans to accelerate that process. ‘I take it one day at a time; I don’t have any long-term goal about that,’ he told me when we met in a Manhattan deli on a rainy afternoon.

Every person I spoke to had a different relationship with his spouse on the subject of belief. Moishe and his wife have an agreement that they will marry off the children before making any changes to their lives, though he doesn’t quite know what change would look like. ‘What am I going to do – move to Kansas?’ he joked.
Yanky felt immense relief after he confessed to his wife – he had felt like he was betraying her. ‘It was making me nuts,’ he said. He told her on Tisha B’Av – a fast day commemorating the destruction of the temple and the end of the Jewish Empire, because, as Yanky put it: ‘It was a good time to suffer, you know? She suffered a lot. She wasn’t too happy. She’s still upset.’ The way he told her was: ‘She hadn’t wanted me to go to the Dawkins talk. And I said: You were right!

But divorce is not an option – Yanky thinks children should have two parents in the same household. ‘It wouldn’t do good things for them in general, and in the religious world, it would damage them, all that stuff,’ he said. ‘And I don’t think moving them out of the religious world would be helpful for them, if that was even an option, so… that’s basically it.’

A few lucky men convinced their wives of their new-found convictions, giving them a partner in crime. One man I spoke to – Yechiel – who lives in Jerusalem told me it was not as painful for his wife when he convinced her. ‘Women are in a much more minor role in the community,’ he said. ‘Women are expected to express religious devotion by raising the kids, by much more physical things – getting a job, supporting their husband’s learning. Much less a direct spiritual experience, so for her to give it up wasn’t giving up much.’
But it was for him. He remembered the direct aftermath of his loss of faith. ‘I was praying to Hashem [God]: Give me back my belief, prove to me that it’s true, begging and begging. At some point, I realised it’s just plain stupid.’ Still, he said: ‘If you would see me in the street, my white shirt and black yarmulke, you wouldn’t know anything at all.’ His wife is now pushing for more changes to their lifestyle, but fear of hurting his parents keeps Yechiel in line.

One Hasidic woman I will call Fruma lives in the Satmar enclave of Kiryas Joel in New York State. Fruma’s husband doesn’t know she has lost her faith. If he found out, he would certainly divorce her and take away her children. The last time she showed signs of non-conformist behaviour, her husband consulted the community leaders. They sent her to see a mental health specialist, who medicated her. ‘The mental illness card has been used often in cases like mine,’ she wrote. She has since seen another mental health specialist; he gave her a clean bill of health.

Fruma lives in constant, crippling fear of her husband finding out her true beliefs, so much so that she refused to meet me, and would communicate her thoughts only via Facebook. The one time we spoke on the phone, she called me from a restricted number. Fruma lost her faith a few years ago, but she found that exercising new freedoms only added to her unhappiness.

‘Lying creates so much inner conflict: breaks down all forms of trust, makes you hate the person involved, but especially makes you hate yourself’

‘At first it felt extremely liberating to finally feel validated,’ she wrote. ‘That I’m not crazy – as some would like me to believe – because I can’t conform and because my thinking is different. After a few months it dawned on me that it’s not all that great. What happened was that those pockets of freedom where I got away for a bit contrasted too sharply to my daily existence, and made the staying so much harder. The feeling that I need to leave was very strong.’

Though Fruma never had a happy marriage, the toll that dishonesty is taking on her is immense. ‘Lying creates so much inner conflict,’ she wrote. ‘Breaks down all forms of trust, makes you hate the person involved, but especially makes you hate yourself.’

After Yisroel, the Manhattan high-earner, told his wife that he no longer believed in God, she was devastated. When he suggested coming out, she threatened to divorce him, ‘a non-starter’, in Yisroel’s words. She felt it would be too confusing to the children, and Yisroel more or less agreed. So, to save his marriage, Yisroel vowed to his wife never to break any of the religious laws, and he never has. And to mitigate his wife’s hopes that he might one day rediscover his belief in God, Yisroel buys a lottery ticket every week, ‘just to keep that door open. I buy the ticket, just for her, and I say: Please Hashem, let me win.’

It’s not all bad. Solomon, who lost his faith on the D train, says there’s a lot of good in the Orthodox community to ameliorate the psychological toll of living a double life, such as ‘the focus on family, the fact that I’m probably not going to have to worry that my daughter’s getting pregnant or stoned at 16. There’s a lot of good, even if none of it’s true. I think it’s a nice life.’

Yisroel calls it ‘performance art’. ‘To a certain extent everyone leads a secret life, showing different sides to different people,’ he said.

Do the undercover atheists herald the end of ultra-Orthodoxy, or only a new, more insulated and controlled beginning? Here, Solomon and Moishe disagree.

As long as ultra-Orthodox communities continue to marry people off at such young ages, doubters will remain stuck, Solomon contends. ‘Religion has survived a lot of major challenges,’ he said, and the recent turn towards fundamentalism within ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities is just that – a coping mechanism to weed out the non-conformists. ‘The radicalisation of ultra-Orthodox Judaism is a sign of its success, not its failure.’

But Moishe believes that the phenomenon of atheism is deeply entrenched in the Orthodox way of life. ‘Everybody’s faking,’ he insisted. ‘I think it’s all going to come crashing down. I say 20 years.’

has a PhD in the 18th-century novel. Her dissertation is entitled ‘Coercive Pleasures: The Force and Form of the Novel 1719-1740’. She is also a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, New York.

Monday, July 11, 2016

"Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury the US Constitution, not to praise it."

But Hillary is an honourable woman

FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr., must know his Shakespeare because he seems to be playing the role of Mark Antony in Julius Caesar.

by Mark Langfan -The writer, who specializes in security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.
Act 3, Scene 2: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Press Room
Enter FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr., stage left

Second Citizen:
Peace! let us hear what FBI Director Comey can say.
FBI Director Comey:
You gentle Americans,--
Citizens:
Peace, ho! let us hear him.
FBI Director Comey:
Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury the US Constitution, not to praise it.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with the US Constitution. The noble Hillary,
Hath told you the US Constitution was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath the US Constitution for answer'd it.
Here, in the face of the US Constitution,
Hillary and the rest took leave and destroyed of thousands of State Department work e-mails that we will never know about or read--
For Hillary is an honourable woman;
So are they all, all honourable men and women--
Come I to speak in US Constitution's funeral.
It was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Hillary says it was ambitious;
And Hillary is an honourable woman.
In the face of the US Constitution,
While at the State Department helm,
Hillary hath brought many bundlers like Rajiv Fernando
home to Washington DC,
Whose donations did the Clinton Foundation’s coffers fill:
Did this in the US Constitution seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, the US Constitution hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Hillary says the US Constitution was ambitious;
And Hillary is an honourable woman.
You all did see that at the House’s Benghazi and State E-mail hearings,
In the face of the US Constitution,
Where Hillary hath thrice by thrice by thrice perjured herself in sworn testimony,
Was this the US Constitution’s ambition?!
Yet Hillary says US Constitution was ambitious;
And, yet, sure, Hillary is an honourable woman.
I speak not to disprove what Hillary spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love the US Constitution once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to now mourn for it?
Nay, dearest Citizens, to yearn for it?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with the US Constitution,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
Alas, if it can ever come back to me.
First Citizen:
Methinks there is much reason in his sayings.
Second Citizen:
If thou consider rightly of the matter,
The US Constitution, and the United States of America,
Has been put to a great wrong.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19170

Sunday, July 10, 2016

After Thursday’s terrorist slaughter of policemen in Dallas, it’s fair to say that Barack Obama might well be the worst president in U.S. history. Here’s why...



The keynote of America’s domestic politics for the last 60 or 70 years—from sometime between the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v Board of Education school desegregation decision and the 1964 Civil Rights Act—has been the nation’s effort to undo the heinous wrongs that slavery and Jim Crow perpetrated on black Americans ever since the first slave was brought here in the 1640s. I am old enough to have had friends who were Freedom Riders, white college kids who went to Mississippi to register black citizens to vote. One I’ll never forget returned with tales of old people, whom legal chicanery had blocked from voting all their lives, marveling in almost Biblical language that such a miracle could be occurring in their own lifetimes, in their own towns. I remember how Sherriff Bull Connor turned the fire hoses and German Shepherds on those civil rights protesters, black and white, in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, and how that same year governor George Wallace stood at the door of the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students, proclaiming himself Jefferson Davis’s spiritual heir and vowing “segregation forever!” But what I most remember is skinny Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach walking heroically down that hostile Alabama street—alone, but followed by federal marshals—to force Wallace to stand aside and let the two students enter. It was as heart stopping as Gary Cooper walking toward the showdown on Main Street in High Noon.

I also remember how civil rights zeal turned into zealotry. We made the integration of our schools, and then the closing of the black-white achievement gap, our principal educational goal for half a century, with the unintended consequence that we neglected actual education and turned urban schools into machines for perpetuating black failure. Judge-ordained busing in Boston, completely contrary to the terms of the Civil Rights Act, made the schools more segregated than ever. A judge-ordained Kansas City school-funding-equalization order, forcing local taxpayers to shell out $2 billion  over  a decade, including building a bizarrely unnecessary Olympic swimming pool, produced no educational gains whatsoever and proved to anyone with eyes to see that money was not the key to racial equality in education.

Then, the colleges turned to affirmative action in admissions, the ed schools taught their students not how to teach or what facts they needed to transmit but only “social-justice” ideology, and deans of diversity began to outnumber actual teachers on college campuses. The professors themselves brought the stupendous achievements of Western culture under the suspicion of creating nothing but racial inequality (and later an unimaginably broad smorgasbord of inequity). They replaced Plato with Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Believing that welfare payments constituted well-deserved reparations for 300 years of slavery and oppression, we New Yorkers created a come-and-get-it dole that ended up with one in eight of our neighbors on the welfare rolls—paid for by the rest of us and resulting in a multi-generational underclass. We entertained the foolish notion that black crime was a manly revolt against oppression—that black criminals were only protesting against the closure of all avenues of honest advancement for their race, as well as against the daily humiliation heaped on African-Americans.

The resulting depolicing of black neighborhoods and unwillingness of courts to punish black criminals drove crime to Hobbesian levels and turned minority neighborhoods into killing fields, where mothers put their kids to bed in the bathtub, trying to keep them safe from stray bullets. They would never send them out for a bottle of milk or take them into the street to learn to ride a bike. In those days, my upright, churchgoing cleaning lady had to pay the gang who controlled her block $20 of hard-earned money to allow Macy’s deliverymen to go past them to bring her the comfortable bed she had labored so long to earn. She lived, in other words, in something like the Middle Ages, when bands of ruffians ruled the land and extorted tribute from the peasants.

Thomas Jefferson had prophesied that God would punish America for black slavery, but he could never have foreseen how squalid that punishment would be.

As the Civil War, which cost 620,000 American lives, drew to a close, Abraham Lincoln gave his Second Inaugural Address, six weeks before one of the world’s perennial multitude of fanatics, this one opposed to votes for black citizens, blew the great president’s brains out. Lincoln had spoken in his address about the immense cost the country was paying for the sin of slavery. In the final accounting, he said, it might turn out that “all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and . . . every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.” But as he looked toward the end of the war fought to end these wrongs, he urged reconciliation. He urged forgiveness. “With malice toward none, with charity for all,” he prayed, “let us . . . bind up the nation's wounds.”

Well, we tried. Despite the evil men who derailed Reconstruction, America took up again Lincoln’s charge “to finish the work we are in.” My whole life coincided with that effort. And for all the resistance and unintended negative consequences, the nation had come very close to succeeding by 2008, when Barack Obama, a black man, was elected president of the United States. A friend had called from London shortly before and asked incredulously, “Surely, America would never elect a black man as president?” “Of course it would,” I said. And when it happened, the resounding shout of joy that went up from the buildings of my ultra-left-wing Manhattan neighborhood was something I had never heard before. My wife and daughter wept. And though no admirer of Obama’s politics, I too felt awe at the historical momentousness of it all.

Not everyone shared that sentiment—most notably the new president and his wife, who had sat for more than a decade in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s Chicago church listening to the reverend firebrand pray for God to damn America for its ineradicable racism. Though the new president had sworn his oath of office on Lincoln’s Bible, anyone who thought that his election marked the fulfilment of Lincoln’s dream soon heard him and his even more race-obsessed attorney general lambaste America for a racism so deep that white citizens couldn’t even see it, bred in the bone as it was. Colleges even made up a term for this molecular-level racism: micro-aggression. It was hard not to think of Robespierre’s fanatical vow that the revolution had indeed erased monarchy and aristocracy from France, but it wouldn’t end until it had erased the very idea of them from every man’s heart as well.

Central to the nation’s Herculean effort to end the wrongs of racism was the new determination of police departments, led by New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner William Bratton, to restore law and order to ghetto neighborhoods, so that civil society could come back to life there, and people wouldn’t have to pay tribute to armed thugs controlling their lives. The old policing had ignored all but the most heinous ghetto crimes. Its spirit was: If they want to kill each other uptown, fine, as long as it stays up there. But for the new policing, all victims deserved police attention, regardless of race. All neighborhoods deserved police protection, regardless of the color of their residents. And since the perpetrators of crime are overwhelmingly young minority men, they properly received a very large proportion of police scrutiny. The alternative, to repeat, was to let them kill each other.

But unlike Lincoln, America’s first black president didn’t bind up the nation’s wounds but scratched them open every time police killed a black man—rightly or sometimes wrongly, because when society arms men with guns and authority, it will inevitably attract some bullies, making a police chief responsible for policing his own men vigilantly, as the NYPD especially has striven to do, and as Plato told us was statecraft’s thorniest problem. Anytime a non-black man killed an African-American, Obama cried racism and said it could have been him or his son, if he’d had one. Every time a cop, white or black, killed a black American, Obama’s reflexive instinct was to blame the cop. About the mayhem of black-on-black murder in the nation’s ghettoes, he gave only a single speech.

When the president praises the Black Lives Matter demonstrators, as if they alone of his fellow countrymen know that platitudinous truth, he is only reinforcing black grievance, when his proper role is to convince ghetto blacks that their lives matter enough for them to take responsibility for them, to stop going around with chips on their shoulders and Glocks in their waistbands, to be fathers to the children they beget, and to set for them an example of the responsible citizenship that is theirs for the asking, thanks to the efforts of so many of their countrymen, white and black, living and dead.

True to form, Obama went into grievance-mongering mode on July 7, commenting on the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile by cops in Louisiana and Minnesota. He noted that “all of us as Americans should be troubled by these shootings, because these are not isolated incidents. They’re symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.” And he went on to detail law enforcement’s racial disparities, as if there were not even more stark and troubling racial disparities in lawbreaking. His familiar conclusion: “If you add it all up, the African American and Hispanic population, who make up only 30 percent of the general population, make up more than half of the incarcerated population. Now, these are facts. And when incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts.”

Later that day, a black former soldier assassinated five Dallas police officers and wounded seven more, sniping from above with a semi-automatic rifle. A sympathizer of the New Black Panther Party, which professes hatred of whites and especially Jews, the sniper, Micah X. Johnson, 25, told police who cornered and killed him that he was avenging cop killings of blacks by killing whites and especially white cops.

If you want to ignite race riots, a sure-fire way to do it is to stir up black hatred and suspicion of cops, which will in turn make cops warier of blacks and more trigger-happy, and so on, until an explosion occurs. So thanks, President Obama. You have set back American race relations by 50 years.