++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Biden's failed policies causes states to absorb expense for his destructive policies:

Breaking: Gov. Greg Abbott: We’re Going to Start Jailing Border Crossers in Texas

+++++++++++++++++++

Failed education and failed American cities are among our nation's two greatest tragedies:

Unique "Johnnie" stories from a unique college:

Stories from St. John's College 6/4/21

St. John’s College News via blackbaudemail.netcommunity1.com

ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE NEWS

Stay up-to-date on all things St. John’s with stories about our students, faculty, alumni, and more.

NEW ALUMNI SUCCESS PROJECT SPOTLIGHTS TRAILBLAZING JOHNNIES

Thanks to the one-of-a-kind education provided by the St. John’s Program, Johnnies enter the workforce with a variety of unique professional qualities that lead to an enormous range of professional experiences. Inspired by St. John’s alumni, the college communications office recently developed a new project that highlights Johnnies achieving career success across the globe.

JOHNNIE ALUM WINS PRESTIGEOUS 2021 MARGARET BRENT AWARD

Joining former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joan Haratani (SF79) has received the American Bar Association’s Margaret Brent Award, which honors “outstanding women lawyers who have achieved professional excellence and paved the way for other women in the legal profession.”

WINE LOVER, WINEMAKER, WINE IPO: ZACH RASMUSON (A95) ON LIFE IN NAPA VALLEY

In the span of 25 years, St. John’s Annapolis alum Zach Rasmuson (A95) went from amateur wine enthusiast to executive vice president and chief officer of operations at Duckhorn Wine Company, a Napa Valley mainstay since the 1970s that includes eight lauded wineries and 900 acres of vineyards—and just went public.

PUTTING THE FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW INTO PRACTICE: ECE TUGLU (A21)

During her summer 2020 Pathways fellowship, Ece Tuglu (A21) put her Johnnie education to good use in her University of California, Berkeley course, “The Supreme Court and Public Policy.”

SANTA FE JOHNNIES WIN PROJECTS FOR PEACE FELLOWSHIP

In early March, Simran Thapa (SF22) and Bryn Frye-Mason (SF23) were awarded a Projects for Peace fellowship. The two Johnnies’ winning proposal, “Securing Peace in Bardiya, Nepal: Freeing Women for Civic Engagement,” links improvements in maternal health with women’s abilities to participate fully in their communities, simultaneously laying out a plan for achieving both.

TUTORS TALK (& READ) BOOKS: ANDY KINGSTON

Santa Fe tutor and jazz pianist Andy Kingston has been fascinated with the relationship between music and writing for “a long time,” in his words. We spoke with Kingston about W.E.B. Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk, the similarities between seminar and improvisational jazz, and more.

CAMPAIGN UPDATE

Johnnie Uses Online Investing Revolution to Give Back and Free Minds→

Andrew Hastings (A20) never expected his investment in a troubled technology company to return 300 percent in a matter of months. When it did, the 2020 graduate saw his good fortune as a gift—one he wanted to share with his alma mater.

Spring 2021 Freeing Minds Campaign Impact Report→

This spring, St. John’s welcomed our students back to campuses and classrooms where great things are happening. View our Spring 2021 Freeing Minds Impact Report and see how your gifts are making a difference.

ST. JOHN’S IN THE NEWS

“A Tale of Two Curricula: General Education at St. John’s College and the University of Chicago”→

“At the center of Maryland’s historic capital, Annapolis, lies St. John’s College. Described by the New York Times as ‘the most contrarian college in America,’ St. John’s has attracted attention for its moves against the grain of the higher education scene of today.” In late March, Brandon Shin of the Chicago Maroon published a long-form article tracing the intertwining paths of Great Books at St. John’s and the University of Chicago, highlighting the “vision realized” of the St. John’s Program.

Keep up with the campuses by following us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and on Instagram:

ANNAPOLIS

60 College Avenue

Annapolis, MD 21401

410-263-2371

SANTA FE

1160 Camino de Cruz Blanca

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505-984-6000

Unsubscribe Update Preferences Privacy Policy Support SJC

And:

The Hoover Institution Monthly Briefing on Education
June 2021

In this briefing, we explore the Hoover fellowship’s latest research and analysis on education policy. In particular, Senior Fellow Paul Peterson provides recommendations on expanding school choice options, especially as new opportunities have emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

FEATURED ANALYSIS

Expand School Choice and Provide Fiscal Relief to Districts

In a chapter written for a new volume about improving K–12 education in the post-COVID-19 era, Senior Fellow Paul Peterson explains that public school closures have resulted in a national learning slide, with disproportionate consequences for America’s disadvantaged youth.

“More educated, higher income parents are hiring tutors, forming learning pods, and committing more family time to educational purposes,” writes Peterson.

Peterson also explains that these disparities extend to those receiving in-person instruction during the pandemic. In November 2020, 60 percent of children attending private schools, compared to just 22 percent of their public school counterparts, were being taught in the classroom.

Peterson notes that public school closures have led to significantly reduced enrollments that will result in funding reductions, with negative consequences for school districts’ budgets. He argues that this looming fiscal crisis has intensified the debate over school choice between parents who desire more options and teachers’ unions who want to limit them. He makes the following recommendations for state and local policy makers in the post-pandemic environment:

Lift enrollment limitations on charter schools.
Expand the number of charter schools when individual charters are oversubscribed.
Share underutilized district facilities with charter schools.
Broaden access to voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs by raising current limits on the number of recipients, income levels, and tuition support.
Safeguard districts from serious fiscal risks to declining enrollments.

Click here to read the chapter “Expand School Choice and Provide Fiscal Relief to Districts.”

Post-Pandemic Portfolio Schools

In another chapter in the volume, Peterson argues that states and districts can forestall post-pandemic enrollment declines and contain the power of teachers’ unions by encouraging the expansion of “portfolio schools,” which offer students the opportunity to pursue specialized studies tailored to their personal interests and career goals.

Peterson makes the case that expanding portfolio schools would have a positive impact on urban school districts, where the pandemic has accelerated chronic absenteeism and drop-out rates. He writes that for many students, this model of schooling also offers a more stimulating learning environment and places great emphasis on academic performance and teacher accountability.

Click here to read the chapter “Post-Pandemic Portfolio Schools.”

Click here to read the entire volume How to Improve Our Schools in the Post-COVID Era.

Toward Equitable School Choice

In a December 2020 essay for the Hoover Educational Success Initiative, Peterson explains how school choice currently favors students with greater economic resources. To make it more equitable, he advocates that policy makers at the state and district levels should expand access to high-quality schools for lower-income families.

Peterson offers detailed action plans to close the school choice gap that encompass all sectors: public districts, charter networks, and private educators. Specific recommendations include encouraging common-enrollment systems that allow parents to list schools in order of their preference on a districtwide basis; providing financial support for comprehensive transportation systems that provide equal access for all students to district, charter, or private schools of their choice; distributing tax credits; facilitating charter school growth by fostering proven providers and minority entrepreneurs; and much more.

Fellow Spotlight: Paul E. Peterson

Paul Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government and director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University; and senior editor of Education Next: A Journal of Opinion and Research. His research interests include education policy, federalism, and urban policy. He has also evaluated the effectiveness of school vouchers and other education reform initiatives, and has served as a leader in the field of education policy, including

as head of the Florida state Education Citizen Review Group and member of the Department of Education’s independent review panel.

Peterson is the recipient of numerous awards for his scholarship and is the author and editor of several books, including his most recent, Teachers versus the Public: What Americans Think About Schools and How to Fix Them with Michael Henderson and Martin R. West; Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School with Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessman; Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning; School Money Trials: The Legal Pursuit of Educational Adequacy; The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools with William G. Howell; Reforming Education in Florida; Generational Change: Closing the Test Score Gap; and Choice and Competition in American Education.

More from Paul E. Peterson

In the Wall Street Journal, Peterson writes that nationwide school lockdowns have been the driving force behind a revived and robust school-choice movement. He explains that while school districts have dithered on their reopening plans, parents have explored alternatives and state governments have responded with policies favorable to school choice, including the expansion of charter schools, tax credits for low-income students, and the enlargement of voucher programs.
In an April episode of Matters of Policy & Politics, Peterson talks to host Bill Whalen about COVID-19’s impact on the nation’s school-choice movements and the clout of teachers’ unions.
In a recent episode of the Education Exchange podcast, Peterson interviews Thomas Carroll, the superintendent of the Catholic Schools Office of the Archdiocese of Boston on how Massachusetts’s Catholic schools have remained open for in-person instruction during the pandemic as the state’s public schools have operated virtually.
In a January article for the Dallas Morning News, Peterson argues that policies that empower school choice will reduce achievement inequalities further aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

For more insight on important education issues visit
https://www.hoover.org/research/education.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It takes an enormous amount of arrogance and "chutzpah" for anyone or any entity to even debate and/or question whether a nation has the right to defend itself:

Structural Antisemitism

When AOC says it’s simplistic to say that Israel has a right to defend itself, she’s right.

It is simple: Israel has a right to defend itself.

Structural racism means different things to different people. But here’s a serviceable definition from the Aspen Institute, hardly a hotbed of conservatism:

Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist. [Emphasis mine]

Fair definitions of systemic and institutional racism, as well as sexism, track with this. These notions emerged from critical race theory and other projects intended to explain disparities in outcome when no racist intent could be found. While I have many disagreements with people who make a living using these ideas as cudgels, I am also perfectly willing to concede that there are many examples of structural, systemic, and institutional racism. Although, if you search for “examples of institutional racism” on Google, a great many of them don’t conform to this definition. Most of the examples here, for instance, are just examples of racism, full stop. You don’t need modifiers to the word “racist” when describing slavery or Jim Crow.

When Pete Buttigieg said there was systemic racism built into American infrastructure, he was roundly mocked by some people on the right. But he was right. Across the nation, roads, railroad tracks, dams etc. were constructed in ways that disproportionately and adversely affected black communities. Sometimes, the intent was primarily racist, sometimes it was incidentally so. Building a road through a poor community with little political clout is easier than building one through a community with lots of political clout. You don’t need a Ph.D. in American history to know that black communities were disproportionately poorer and less powerful than many white communities.

That said, whatever the original intent was 50 or 100 years ago, that doesn’t mean a transportation official who maintains those roads today is racist himself. Similarly, “food deserts” and affordable housing are real problems that disproportionately affect poor urban areas that tend to be populated by “black and brown” communities. The zoning policies driven largely by affluent white (and usually progressive) NIMBY-ism are often to blame. But that doesn’t make the city councils of New York or San Francisco racist.

But this isn’t a “news”letter about structural racism or the inherent discrimination built into urban zoning and infrastructure. It’s about geopolitical structural antisemitism.

The late Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of the U.K., argued antisemitism is a virus that mutates over time (watch this excellent six-minute video for his full argument). He notes that in the Middle Ages, Jews were hated for their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Jews were hated for their race (and, I would add, in some places for their culture). Today, they’re hated for their state. For Sacks, the thing that binds all three notions together is the idea that Jews should not be allowed to live collectively as Jews.

There are legitimate objections to this argument. I don’t think everyone who hates—never mind criticizes—Israel is antisemitic. If that were true, a great many Jews in the United States (and even in Israel) would qualify as antisemites.

And that brings me to structural antisemitism: According to Sacks, there are 159 nations that can be called “Christian nations,” and 56 that can be called “Muslim nations.” I think this is a little glib in that not all of the Christian nations are organized as such, and there are also about a dozen Muslim-majority nations that have ostensibly secular regimes. But it’s definitely true that there’s only one Jewish nation-state.

And the rules for Israel are different.

Right now, China has a gulag archipelago of concentration and reeducation camps for Muslims. It is well into its fourth decade of ethnic cleansing in Tibet. Outrage over these facts has increased in the last year or so, but it would have to quintuple and quintuple again to reach the institutionalized outrage Israel is subjected to constantly. Saudi Arabia has been doing in Yemen what Israel is routinely—and falsely—accused of doing. Burma’s treatment of the Rohingya is far more brutal than the worst excesses—real or even alleged—of the Israel Defense Forces. How often do you hear speeches about that from the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes and Cori Bushes of the world?

Consider the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, which routinely attracts the worst human rights abusers in the world in a geopolitical version of regulatory capture. By any objective metric, it is institutionally obsessed with Israel. It is the only country in the world that is a permanent agenda item for the council.

The invaluable U.N. Watch database shows that since 2015 alone, the Human Rights Council has issued condemnations for:

· Russia: 12 times

· North Korea: six times

· United States: seven times

· Syria: eight times

· China: zero times

· Pakistan: zero times

· Venezuela: zero times

· Libya: zero times

· Cuba: zero times

· Turkey: zero times

· Zimbabwe: zero times

· And Israel? 112 times.

In 2020 alone, it received 73.9 percent of all condemnations by the U.N. General Assembly.

You could say that Hamas launched another war against Israel earlier this month. But that would miss the crucial point that Hamas is always at war with Israel. Its stated public aim is the destruction of the state of Israel and the murder or expulsion of its Jewish inhabitants. It just sometimes holds off shooting for a while. Regardless, it started this latest conflict (and all the while, Israel has never started a war, though it has finished quite a few).

Over the last two weeks, Hamas launched some 4,000 rockets at Israel. Most of them have been intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome system, and a few have malfunctioned and fallen on Palestinians within Gaza. Israel has launched heavy airstrikes at lawful military targets—such as rocket stockpiles, weapons caches, and Hamas leaders. When there’s a reasonable expectation that doing so will kill civilians, the IDF drops leaflets or calls occupants of buildings to warn them. As David French—who served as a military lawyer in Iraq—notes, this is not only consistent with the laws of war, it’s a much higher standard. That’s not what the U.S. did in Iraq, and America’s practices are far more enlightened than Russia’s, China’s, Saudi Arabia’s, et al. Maybe we fall short of Canada, I don’t know. But you get the point.

And yet, if Israel’s critics on social media (and also in Congress and in the press) are to be believed, Israel deserves the lion’s share of the blame. Iron Dome was built primarily to protect Israeli civilians from indiscriminate killing, because Hamas’ rockets aren’t guided missiles. In fact, they aren’t even remotely accurate; they consider a blown-up grade school to be every bit as much of a win as a blown-up tank. But Iron Dome was also built—with the support of the Obama administration—to make far deadlier responses from Israel unnecessary. If Israel didn’t have Iron Dome, it would have to take much harsher actions against Hamas.

That’s the thing. Israel has to do what it can to stop attacks on its own people. There isn’t a government in the world that has a different perspective or policy. Since the first city-states were created—ironically in that neighborhood—the first obligation of any state has been to defend its inhabitants from outside aggression. But when Israel does it—and really, only when Israel does it—those behind that decision are painted as the villains. When Hamas launches missiles and Iron Dome stops them, Israel is in the wrong. Where’s Gaza’s Iron Dome? Well, as Avi Mayer notes, Gaza’s Iron Dome is not launching rockets at Israel.* Israel gets attacked. Israel responds to the attack. And its response is the thing that angers people and shout “genocide”—which is a particularly grotesque thing to say about a nation born out of the Holocaust.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was appalled by President Biden’s statement that Israel has a right to self-defense. I don’t think Ocasio-Cortez is an antisemite, but I do think she’s perpetuating structural antisemitism. When she says it’s simplistic to say that Israel has a right to defend itself, she’s clearly right in a sense. It is simple: Israel has a right to defend itself.

But what she and countless others are arguing is that Israel has no right to act like a normal country. You don’t have to hate Jews to believe that the only Jewish country in the world is also the only country in the world that can’t behave like a normal country and defend its citizens. But the policy that flows from that argument is, in important ways, antisemitic—even if it isn’t intended as such.

That, by the way, is what Israel wants to be—a normal country. But it’s stuck in an abnormal predicament. Obviously it has never been perfect. Obviously it has made mistakes, most of which were apparent only in retrospect. And obviously there are Israelis who have bad ideas and bad intentions. Again, though, this is true of every country, normal and abnormal. (And yes, obviously the plight of the Palestinians is lamentable.)

But when people point to the fact that Israel is militarily more powerful than its neighbors, they make it sound like this is somehow unfair. On several occasions, Israel’s neighbors have declared war on Israel with the intention of destroying it. Those countries could afford to lose those wars—and they did—but Israel couldn’t, because to lose once is to lose for all time. If you know everybody in your neighborhood wants to kill you, you’re not the bad guy for being better armed than your neighbors.

Oh, I should add, Israel doesn’t just want to be a normal country. It wants to be a normal democratic country governed by the rule of law, and it wants to be a Jewish country. It strives to reconcile all of these desires, which is why the freest Arabs in the Middle East are Israeli Arabs who enjoy the same rights as Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs are in the Knesset. Israeli Arabs criticize Israel all of the time, almost as much as some Israeli Jews do. None of this is true in Gaza or the West Bank (and the Arab countries in the region aren’t much better). Hamas wants the whole region to be Judenfrei.

You’re free to argue that the region should be rid of the Jews because the Jews are “colonizers.” The key problem with that argument, though, is that it’s hogwash. The only independent state that ever existed in what the Romans dubbed the territory of Palestine was a Jewish state. Yes, there have been non-Jews in that region for a long time. But Jews have been there at least as long. (I’m always amazed by people who seem to think Judaism is a younger faith than Islam or Christianity, or that the Hebrews are some sort of Western implant.) You can argue Israel has no claim to a nation on that ground. But by that logic, no one does.

The legal case that ignited all of this centers on six families living in properties once owned by Jews. Note the term “legal case.” It’s been wending its way through Israeli courts for decades. Do you think Hamas would defer such decisions to lawyers and judges? Again, when Israel tries to do things the right way, it’s proof to many critics that the nation is wrong.

And if you always start with assumption that the Israelis are wrong, or if you always end with that conclusion regardless of the facts, you may not be antisemitic, but you’re on the side of structural antisemitism.

Correction, May 21: This piece originally attributed a statement about Iron Dome to Yair Rosenberg. It should have been Avi Mayer of the American Jewish Committee

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If the truth gets out will it be seen as such? Very difficult to believe it will in today's environment where the mass media seems not to care, reports only what they wish and proceeds to slant whatever they wish. They remain one of the greatest threats America faces. Reposting:

EVERYONE IN AMERICA ShOULD READ THIS AND LET IT SINK IN.

Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Biden’s income inequality speech: "The Two Americas."

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.

The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.

It’s not the haves and the have nots --- it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Biden pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Biden will take it for you. Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America .

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers; they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education and/or employment.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I chose another avenue.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Joe Biden needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Joe Biden intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

President Biden and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.” Biden would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if President Biden Barack gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Biden offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And:

As more of our sacred institutions lie the effect is not contained but spills over into ever facet of our belief system. It is only natural that the expressions: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." begins to take hold.

Fauci Emails Show We Should Question the 'Science' on Climate Change

Katie Pavlich

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What goes around often returns:

Targeting American Jews, then and now

By Dr. Stephen H. Norwood and Dr. Eunice G. Pollack, JNS

Opinion pieces in the mainstream media on the anti-Semitic attacks in U.S. cities in the wake of the most recent outbreak of the Hamas-Israel conflict claim that such a “street-level response to geopolitical events” (Gerard Baker, Wall Street Journal, May 24) was common in Europe but had no precedent here.

Walter Russell Mead, also in The Wall Street Journal (May 24), attributed “past anti-Jewish violence in America” only to “a deranged individual,” “an outgrowth of communal tensions” or “an attack on a particular Jewish individual such as the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank.” He added, “Last week brought something different.”

Similarly, Michelle Goldberg in The New York Times (May 25) labeled the “flagrant public assaults on Jews” as “new.” Even Jonathan Greenblatt, national director and CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, in conversation with Goldberg, characterized “the brazenness and the boldness” of the attacks as unique. He appears stunned that people are afraid to wear items that will identify them as Jews “in public.”

In fact, this is not new. Fueled by the Nazis’ ascent to power and inspired by the virulently anti-Semitic radio priest Father Charles Coughlin, marauding gangs of Irish Americans in the 1930s through World War II routinely and openly assaulted Jews in New York, Boston and Philadelphia.

Just as in Los Angeles last month—where anti-Semites asked diners “Who’s Jewish?”—attackers in earlier times went on what they called “Jew hunts,” challenging victims by asking, “Are you Jewish?” Wielding lead pipes, bricks, brass knuckles and knives, they savagely beat and slashed their prey, taunting them, “The Jews killed Christ; we’re going to kill you!” Terrorizing entire neighborhoods, they promised, “There’ll be no more Jews on Jew Hill Avenue (Blue Hill Avenue in Boston) when this war is over.”

In Florida last month, men shouting “Free Palestine!” screamed, “We’re going to rape your daughter! We’re going to rape your wife!” In the earlier period, the anti-Semites actually targeted Jewish girls, tearing their clothes off or sexually battering them. Meetings of Jewish Girl Scouts, as well as Cub Scouts and other social clubs, were widely canceled as Jewish parents dared not allow their children to go out in afternoons or evenings.

And much like the recent defacing of synagogues, anti-Semites desecrated nearly every synagogue in Washington Heights in Upper Manhattan, hurling prayer books into toilets and smearing “pornographic hateful descriptions” of Jews on the walls.

Seeking out Jewish cemeteries across Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island, vandals overturned gravestones and painted swastikas on them, much as they were doing all over Axis-occupied Europe. Large gangs smashed synagogue windows with the rallying cry, “Let’s kill the Jews!”

Today’s anti-Semitic promoters of boycotts of Israel call for the denial of U.S. military aid to the “apartheid, colonial settler” Jewish state, a libelous image they share with attackers in the street. Similarly, Coughlin’s movement—the Christian Front—waged campaigns to boycott Jewish businesses and to prevent the United States from providing military equipment to Britain prior to America’s entry into the war.

While last year marauders used the pretext of a fight for social justice to burn and “loot” Jewish stores in the Fairfax district of Los Angeles, in the 1930s and 1940s, anti-Semitic thugs needed no excuse as they damaged, destroyed and robbed Jewish shops. The police forces, heavily Irish American with many allegedly members of the Christian Front, did nothing to stop them.

Just as those who attack Jews in American cities today, along with their apologists, repeat Hamas’s anti-Semitic libels about the bloodthirsty Jewish state that targets innocent civilians, those who terrorized American Jews in the 1930s and ’40s, along with the Christian Front, endlessly promoted Nazi propaganda. They reported on Nazis’ great “respect for the Church” and explained that the British House of Commons was “a Yiddish assembly” that allowed Jews to deprive Arabs in Palestine of any rights.

This was in 1938, the year before Britain issued the infamous White Paper that severely limited Jewish immigration into Palestine, thereby sealing the fate of the millions of Jews trapped in Europe.

Mainstream U.S. newspapers ignored the attacks on American Jews until 1943, when Arnold Beichman in the New York tabloid PM provided a blistering, well-documented account of the “organized campaign of terrorism” in Boston. The next day, the governor of Massachusetts, Leverett Saltonstall, spotting Beichman at a press conference, told him: “That is a stinking article and you can get the hell out of this office.”

Then, as now, politicians were wary of denouncing the anti-Semites.

Dr. Stephen H. Norwood and Dr. Eunice G. Pollack are co-authors of “White Devils, Satanic Jews: The Nation of Islam From Fard to Farrakhan” in Modern Judaism, May 2020, as well as co-editors of the prize-winning two-volume “Encyclopedia of American Jewish History.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I find Vernon Jones interesting and appealing but I also have doubts about his alleged baggage:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/tgp-exclusive-vernon-jones-says-brian-kemps-stacys-law-agreement-secret-georgia-democrats-not-informed-deal/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++