DEI Followed By SOB. Real Issue.What He Does Vs What He Says. Mismatch. True Soros. Not Christie.

The lunacy from the left is both laughable as well as dangerous.

+++

how do I put dowloads in>

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

DEI followed by SOB radical progressives!

Today in America, institutions, from universities to governmental agencies and to corporate workplaces, continue to embrace Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and associated ideologies closely linked to critical race theory (CRT). In the process Jews, particularly those on college campuses, find it impossible to live securely and safely within their Jewish identities.

The asserted goals of DEI are positive: to promote the representation, participation, and fair treatment of historically marginalized groups. In practice though, DEI, which require its adherents to follow its tenets blindly without doubt or reservation, has been deployed to advance a radical agenda that undermines fundamental American values by promoting equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, collective identity (race, gender, etc.) over individual character, censorship of opposing viewpoints over freedom of speech, and a victim culture that crudely bifurcates society into oppressors and oppressed

In particular, DEI initiatives are weaponized against Jewish students, maliciously portraying them and the Jewish State as vicious oppressors. Kamau Bobb, the head of diversity at Google, wrote that Jews have an “insatiable appetite for war” and an “insensitivity to the suffering [of] others.” Nowhere is his attitude more prevalent than in the DEI offices that now populate colleges and universities across the country.

Some compare the present cultural change in America to the 1960s, but for the Jews, that analogy is incorrect. In the 1960s, there were still strong feelings of sympathy for the Jewish people who had survived the Holocaust and other terrible acts of persecution, such as the expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Muslim countries after the independence of Israel

 

These led Jews to be early and prominent leaders in the Civil Rights movement, like Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. Rabbi Heschel was a close confidant of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and marched alongside him in Selma in solidarity.

Today, Kenneth Marcus, Founder and Chairman of the Brandeis Center for the Protection of Human Rights Under Law, shares “[i]n the DEI programs, we’re seeing anti-Jewish stereotypes, biases, defamations, separation of Jews from other groups, and so-called ‘erasive antisemitism,’ which is to say denial of what it means to have a Jewish identity.”

Erasive antisemitism is destructive because it denies the ability of Jews – a people from geographic Asia, some of whom were forcibly exiled to Europe by the Roman forerunners of Western Civilization, who against all odds persistently maintained our own unique Jewish Civilization through two thousand years of statelessness – to claim and celebrate our own identity. One of the integral aspects of Jewish Civilization has always been the devout desire to restore our ancient nation in the Land of Israel.

A recent study showed that the private social media accounts of DEI officers at university campuses exhibit a remarkable level of virulence against the State of Israel, compared to generally positive feelings towards the People’s Republic of China. The authors noted that “[o]f the tweets about Israel, 96 percent were critical of the Jewish state, while 62 percent of the tweets about China were favorable. There were more tweets narrowly referencing “apartheid” in Israel than tweets indicating anything favorable about Israel whatsoeve

Regarding Israel, the word genocide was associated nine times, the term ethnic cleansing appears seven times, and the accusation that children are specifically targeted appears 27 times. Meanwhile, DEI staffers generally praised China and even wrote glowingly about Chinese efforts to reduce poverty in Tibet, where China is pursuing cultural genocide of the Tibetan people. The report determined that “DEI staff have an obsessive and irrational animus toward the Jewish state.” DEI staffers on university campuses are supposed to be advocates for students, helping them navigate issues of inclusivity and belonging. When DEI staff and administration hold clear animus and bias against the world’s only Jewish state, universities are implicitly and unfairly discriminating against Jewish students.

People are imperfect, so criticism always has a role to play. However, the irrational malice DEI staffers demonstrate against Israel is of a different order. Under the widely-adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is used by the U.S. State Department, examples of antisemitism include “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”; “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”; and “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” All of these have been demonstrated by college DEI staffers – establishing college campuses as unfriendly and unwelcoming spaces for young Jews.

The average university now employs roughly 45 DEI staffers. These small armies rarely celebrate Jewish identity or work towards our inclusion; far more often, they exclude and marginalize Jews on campus and label them as white privilege, whether or not this matches their self-identity. Some states, notably Texas, are considering legislation that would ban DEI programs at public universities.

In the meantime, a generation of college students is being governed by an ideology hostile to Jews that is inculcating ideas about our community that are very different from the principles that our faith embodies, and the United States purports to champion. If American institutions continue to adopt and reflect extreme DEI ideologies, Jews will stuffer. For as George Orwell presciently wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Adam Milstein is an Israeli-American philanthropist, chairman of the Israeli-American Council, real estate entrepreneur and president of the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation. He can be reached at adam@milsteinff.org, on Twitter, and on Facebook.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE REAL ISSUE IS AMERICAN DO NOT WANT TO WORK MOST ILLEGALS DO ,SO WE SHOULD SHIP AMERICANS TO MEXICO AND KEEEP THE ILLEGALS:

+++

 

What did Presidents Hoover , Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

This is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.

Back during the great depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after WWII to create jobs for Returning veterans.

In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexicans. The program was called Operation Wetback. It was done so WWII and Korean War veterans would have a better chance at jobs. It took two years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then, they could surely do it today. If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Why, you might ask, can't they do this today? Actually the answer is quite simple. Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians looking for votes!

This is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around.

Reminder:Don't forget to pay your taxes! - 12 to 20 million illegal aliens are depending on it

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

IT IS NOT WHAT HE SAYS BUT WHAT HE DOES:

+++

Blinken tells AIPAC ‘America is more secure when Israel is strong’

The federal government’s chief diplomat affirmed that the U.S.-Israel partnership “touches on every aspect of our lives.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken addressed the 2023 American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Summit (AIPAC) at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., saying, “the depth and breadth” of the alliance between the U.S. and Israeli governments “is matched only by the strength of the ties between our peoples.”

Speaking on Monday, Blinken pointed out that when President Harry S. Truman was considering recognizing the establishment of modern-day Israel in 1948, many government leaders, including Secretary of State George C. Marshall, opposed doing so, believing that the nascent state could not survive. Blinken then noted that his grandfather, Maurice Blinken, who founded the American Palestine Institute after World War II, wrote a report countering this view, persuading many skeptics.

Blinken described what the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden was doing to strengthen the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. First, he said the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security was “non-negotiable” and “iron-clad.” Blinken laid out the levels of financial support that the United States provides, including $3.3 billion in military financing; $500 million for missile defense; $1 billion for replenishing the Iron Dome; and “tens of millions more for new counter-drone and anti-tunneling technologies.”

He emphasized that the Biden administration also worked to defend Israel in the battle of ideas, insisting that antisemitism “needs to be defeated everywhere in the world.”

“We continue to reject the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement for unfairly singling out Israel,” said Blinken.

The Secretary of State named Iran as the gravest threat Israel faces. “That regime routinely threatens to wipe Israel off the map. It continues to provide weapons to terrorists and proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, who reject Israel’s right to exist,” he said. “Iran cannot and will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Blinken warned that “all options are on the table” for preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

He also said that the administration aimed to “achieve significant historic progress to deepen and broaden the Abraham Accords,” pointing out that it’s in America’s national security interests to promote Saudi-Israeli normalization. 

At the same time, Blinken reiterated the administration’s support for the two-state solution and opposition to Israeli settlement expansion.

jns

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

Anti-semitism is essential

Depicting harsh criticism of the billionaire as akin to traditional conspiracy theories remains a partisan talking point. Defending him endangers Jewish and American lives.

BY JONATHAN S. TOBIN

At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, it is more than curious that so much of the time of those whose task is to defend the Jews is spent attacking critics of George Soros. While the debate about whether attacking the 92-year-old far-left philanthropist is inherently antisemitic has been simmering for years, it went into overdrive last month when fellow billionaire and Twitter owner Elon Musk likened him to Magneto, a comic-book mutant villain with superpowers as well as a Jewish backstory.

What followed was a storm of attacks on Musk for employing what many on the left considered to be a classic trope of antisemitism in which wealthy Jews were seen as puppeteers controlling a vast conspiracy whose aim was, like that of the character created by Stan Lee, world domination. And when those critiques come from sources like the Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt and Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, they would seem to be definitive. Both claim that the talk about Soros, a Hungarian-born Jew, is redolent of past invocations of the Rothschilds and emboldening extremists who attack Jews.

While both Greenblatt and Lipstadt are willing to concede that, in theory, it’s kosher to criticize Soros in some instances, they have given their stamp of approval to what has become a partisan talking point for Democrats in which virtually every invocation of Soros and the outsized role he plays in American politics can be painted as an antisemitic dog whistle. That essentially makes it impossible to talk about what he’s doing without being accused of mimicking the authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In response, two young American Jewish conservative activists—Newsweek senior editor-at-large Josh Hammer and former federal prosecutor Will Scharf—have launched a website called Jews Against Soros. They claim that “Attacking Soros for his influence on American politics, to say nothing of his nefarious agenda in Israel itself, isn’t antisemitic. It is simply a fact that Soros funds a huge proportion of the radical left in this country. And he must be stopped.”

While they say their intention is to “build a grass-roots army of Jews committed to standing up against Soros and his brand of leftism,” to date, their effort consists of a website, a press release, some tweets and press interviews. Compared to the vast resources that are at the command of Greenblatt—not to mention Lipstadt’s standing as a representative of the U.S. government, and the fact that liberal corporate media are similarly committed to defending Soros—the pair are clearly outmatched. But they are nonetheless correct.

The escalation of arguments about Soros has gone beyond the effort to make Republicans stop mentioning him when they bash liberal political mega-donors. It is now a matter of faith on the left that complaining about Soros, no matter how it is done, is a form of antisemitic invective. That would be unfair under any circumstances, but it can’t be tolerated any longer because of Soros’s growing impact on American society due to his campaign to elect pro-crime prosecutors throughout the United States.

To accuse Soros of seeking to enact vast changes in American politics and law to the detriment of its citizens isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s reality. Those groups and individuals tasked with defending the Jews against their enemies are now essentially acting as his bodyguards and trying to make that dubious cause indistinguishable from the fight against antisemitism. That isn’t just disingenuous but a fundamental betrayal of the Jewish people.

Such arguments have gradually been heating up in the last 25 years as Soros’s Open Society Foundation evolved from its original purpose of promoting democracy in Eastern Europe at its founding in 1984 to one that is openly political. His fund is widely acknowledged as the largest political donor in the world, spending tens of billions supporting a host of left-wing causes and politicians in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, including Israel.

The stakes in this argument have gone up since Soros launched his crusade to elect “reform prosecutors.” There’s nothing shadowy about it. He boasted of it in an op-ed published last summer in The Wall Street Journal. As author Matt Palumbo has documented, he has poured more than $40 million into election campaigns that have elected 75 different candidates to prosecutorial posts who now preside over the criminal justice system in cities and counties throughout the United States where approximately one-fifth of Americans live.

Everywhere where these people take office, the quality of life has declined, and criminals have benefited from policies that are rooted in the notion that law enforcement is inherently racist. Much like the adoption of critical race theory-influenced curricula in schools and the imposition of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in hiring and policymaking in education, business, the arts and the Biden administration, the shift in criminal justice is a function of an ideological war on the Western civilization and American history. But its impact is not purely a matter of a foolish adoption of the idea that all whites are privileged and that America is an irredeemably racist nation. As the efforts of Soros’s favorites—like George Gascon in Los Angeles, Kim Fox in Chicago’s Cook County, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia and Alvin Bragg in Manhattan—have proved, the results are a disastrous increase in crime and misery for law-abiding citizens.

As it happens, the vast majority of the victims of Soros’s efforts are not those who can be accused of “white privilege” but minorities who live in poorer neighborhoods that desperately need more policing and the locking up of criminals who prey on fellow African-Americans and Hispanics.

This development has made the debate about Soros even more dishonest than efforts in the past by left-wingers to demonize those who gave large sums to elect Republicans like the Koch brothers or the late Sheldon Adelson. Soros isn’t just trying to elect more Democrats at the expense of Republicans. Given the vast sums he has devoted to election campaigns and “social justice” organizations that are thinly disguised political operations, it is not unreasonable to speak of him as one of the most influential people in the United States and the one doing the most harm to the country.

It is true that extremists and antisemites bash Soros, and that efforts to demonize him based on his childhood experiences surviving the Holocaust are unfair. Yet it is equally true that his record as a hedge-fund operator in which he ruthlessly shorted foreign currencies is such that it is hard to distinguish between what might be termed Rothschild-style antisemitic rhetoric of the past and the truth about a financier who acquired enormous wealth by profiting from the economic suffering of countless millions in countries across the globe.

At this point, Soros isn’t just a controversial person whose activities are being falsely characterized by antisemites to justify their maniacal opinions about Jews. The scope of his political donations (his funding of anti-Israel groups is only a small part of the story) is so ambitious that he has become the living embodiment of what in the past would have been dismissed as a conspiracy theory. To deny this—as liberal Jewish groups are doing—isn’t just wrong but undermines the fight against antisemitism.

It’s not just that the arguments of Jews Against Soros are valid. It’s that Soros’s funding priorities are themselves linked to the leftist war on the West that is both intent on fueling a perpetual war of the races and an antisemitic effort to smear the one Jewish state on the planet as a function of colonialism and white privilege oppressing people of color. With Soros aligned with enemies of the Jews, to defend him and essentially delegitimize attacks against him is to actually aid the antisemites. Seen from that perspective, the claim that Jews Against Soros is koshering the antisemitic right is not just wrong but a disgraceful kind of gaslighting that has become a sadly common meme of left-wing commentary.

The argument from pearl-clutching moderates and liberals that people like Musk, Hammer or Scharf should pull their punches about Soros because some lunatics on the fringe will use their critiques to justify antisemitism doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Extremists don’t need conservatives or independents like Musk who see through the gaslighting about Soros. But Soros and his apologists very much need to silence legitimate criticism—even when it is, as in Musk’s case, expressed in satire—in order to distract the public from the reality of the Soros agenda and how much of an impact he’s having on American life.

It isn’t going too far to assert that Soros is endangering far more American and Jewish lives than stray marginal extreme right-wingers. It’s time for sensible people to take off the gloves with respect to what Soros is doing. It’s also time for his defenders to take off their blinders and acknowledge the reality about a man whose political spending is doing incredible damage both to America and to the Jews.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

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

CHRISTIE IS NOT SOMEONE I WOULD HAPPILY VOT FOR BUT IF BIDEN RAN I WOULD VOTE FOR THE DEVIL:

+++

Chris Christie’s 2024 Mission

Is it knocking out Donald Trump? Or does he think he can win?

The Editorial Board 

The Republican presidential contest is about to get more crowded, and this week’s first new entrant is Chris Christie, the former two-term Governor of New Jersey. Mr. Christie is expected to launch his 2024 bid Tuesday during a town hall in New Hampshire. One adviser is telling the press Mr. Christie plans to campaign by “mixing it up in the news cycle,” while “engaging” Donald Trump.

That could be a public service. Mr. Christie became nationally known as Governor for his public smackdowns of political opponents, which circulated on the internet. During the 2016 presidential debates, Mr. Christie memorably exposed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a robotic repeater of canned talking points. Seven years later, Mr. Christie’s pitch is that he can put his prosecutor’s experience to use in telling hard truths about Mr. Trump, among other things.

One foretaste was his reaction to Mr. Trump’s recent CNN town hall, in which the former President refused to take sides on Ukraine’s effort to repel Russia’s brutal invasion by Vladimir Putin. “I think he’s a coward and I think he’s a puppet of Putin,” Mr. Christie told a radio show. “He wouldn’t say last night that Ukraine should win the war. I mean, I was stunned. It was, to me, it was the most stunning moment of the debate.”

Most of the GOP’s other 2024 contenders, by contrast, continue to treat Mr. Trump as if they’re handling unexploded ordnance.

Is Mr. Christie joining the presidential fracas because he wants to knock out Mr. Trump? Or does he think he can win?

“I’m not a paid assassin,” he recently insisted. “When you’re waking up for your 45th morning at the Hilton Garden Inn in Manchester, you better think you can win.” But if Mr. Christie isn’t a guided missile aimed at Mr. Trump, is he an unguided one, liable to blow up, say, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis?

In retrospect, Mr. Christie’s best shot at the White House might have been 2012. After he passed, GOP voters that year tried out all the flavors of the month—Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum—before settling on an overmatched Mitt Romney.

Mr. Christie gave it a go in 2016, but the public mood had shifted, and the Bridgegate drama had intervened. He denied knowing that traffic by his New Jersey constituents across the George Washington Bridge had been throttled as political retribution. But whatever the truth, he never made it out of single digits in the Real Clear Politics average.

Mr. Christie’s biggest appeal has always been his intelligence and tough-talking persona. He won the governorship twice in blue New Jersey, and he signed useful legislation reforming pensions and capping property-tax increases to 2% a year. Although he didn’t succeed in permanently shifting New Jersey’s politics to the right, there are worse things than an eight-year holiday from tax-and-spend liberalism. GOP GovernorsLarry Hogan and Charlie Baker also didn’t exactly paint Maryland or Massachusetts red, respectively. But Mr. Christie has proven he can win in suburban precincts.

Mr. Christie’s job No. 1 is to get a hearing. The first GOP debate is scheduled for August, and the Republican National Committee says candidates who want to participate must have at least 1% support, plus 40,000 individual donors. Assuming he pulls that off, Mr. Christie might need to goad Mr. Trump into showing up. If the former President is still leading the polls by 30 points, he might try to skip. We doubt Mr. Christie will let him get away with it.

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