Supreme Court restores death sentences in heinous Kansas murder spree

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

USA TODAY:

WASHINGTON — Despite deep divisions over capital punishment, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that in the case of some particularly heinous Kansas murders, death was the appropriate penalty.

The court ruled 8-1 that death sentences handed down against three men in what became known as the “Wichita Massacre” in 2000 should not have been tossed out for procedural reasons by Kansas’ highest court. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor the lone dissenter.

So who committed the Wichita Massacre? Reginald and Jonathan Carr.

RCarr

I’m not a rocket scientist, but people who look like this should not be allowed around civilized people. These guys have a feral look in their eyes.

So what did they do? According to Wikipedia:

The Carr brothers, 22-year-old Reginald and 20-year-old Jonathan, already had lengthy criminal records when they began their spree based on robbery. On December 8, 2000, having recently arrived in Wichita, they committed armed robbery against Andrew Schreiber, a 23-year-old assistant baseball coach. On December 11, three days later, they shot and mortally wounded 55-year-old cellist and librarian, Ann Walenta, as she tried to escape from them in her car; she died three days after the shooting.

Their crime spree culminated on December 14, when the Carrs invaded a home and subjected five young men and women to robbery, sexual abuse, and murder. The brothers broke into a house chosen nearly at random where Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort and his girlfriend, a young woman identified as ‘H.G.’, all in their twenties, were spending the night. They were all working adults: Befort was a local high school teacher; Heyka, a director of finance with a local financial services company; Muller, a local preschool teacher; and Sander, a former financial analyst who had been studying to become a priest. H.G. is a teacher.

The Carrs initially scoured the house for valuables. H.G. learned of Befort’s intent to propose marriage to her when the Carrs discovered the engagement ring he had hidden in a can of popcorn. After the search, the Carrs forced their hostages to strip naked, bound and detained them, and subjected them to various forms of sexual abuse, including rape and oral sex. The brothers forced the men to engage in sexual acts with the women, and the women with each other. They drove the victims to ATMs to empty their bank accounts, before taking them to a snowy deserted soccer complex on the outskirts of town. There they shot the five execution-style in the backs of their heads. The Carr brothers drove Befort’s truck over the bodies and left them for dead.

H.G. survived her head wound at the soccer field because her plastic barrette deflected the bullet. After the killers left, she walked naked for more than a mile in freezing weather to seek first aid and shelter at a house. Before getting medical treatment, she reported the incident and descriptions of her attackers to the couple who took her in, even before the police arrived.

The Carrs had returned to the friends’ house to ransack it for more valuables, and while there killed H.G.’s dog Nikki, which was muzzled. The next day the police captured the Carr brothers. Reginald was identified by both Schreiber and the dying Walenta. The District Attorney said that, based on evidence in the case, the Carrs’ motive was robbery.[1]

With the help of HG’s testimony at the trial, the Carr brothers were convicted of nearly all 113 counts against them, including kidnapping, robbery, rape, four counts of capital murder, and one count of first-degree murder. Reginald Carr was convicted of 50 counts and Jonathan Carr of 43.

If we can locate the genes of people likely to commit such rape, torture and murder, what should we do? How should society react to such people before they commit crimes?

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Supreme Court restores death sentences in heinous Kansas murder spree

A Modest Birth Control Proposal

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

I think it is a great idea to give all girls Norplant starting about age 11 and it should remain mandatory for any citizens until they are given permission to go off it. Getting pregnant is a privilege and only those who are cut out for raising children should be allowed to get pregnant, i.e., those with no criminal record, no welfare taking in their family, IQs over 100, and are married to the opposite sex.

Ryan Landry writes:

At present, the US has a myriad of problems all of which are linked to the big problem of devolution and decline. We might need to expand our horizons, think differently and look for stones that would kill multiple birds. Connecting multiple threads, the US (and world) has an education problem as well as an underclass problem as well as a social dysfunction problem as well as a social welfare expenditure problem that all seem to tie back to a dysgenics problem due to lax morals and unrestrained impulses of teens. It is time Americans get real about the problems around us and as governor, I would propose a “Norplant or No Welfare” policy.

To use the words of President Obama, a pregnancy is a punishment for young girls. Abortion is framed as a really difficult decision that young women need in order to alleviate the burden of a child (adoption = too hard). Birth control is a near scared “right” that women will vote for over all other issues, including civilizational decline. I’ll stop mocking liberals. Pregnancy in school messes with our graduation rates. Teenage pregnancy is also one of the leading markers for someone who will drop out, live in poverty, have children that exhibit dysfunctional behavior, and a host of horrible things. Teen pregnancy also stretches the social safety net and kicks more tax dollars to people for popping out a kid while unmarried. Despite nearly universal sex education and the availability of cheap and easy to access birth control, teenagers are pretty stupid or just do not care. Norplant solves this.

Let us draft a proposal. On the 13th birthday of a daughter, the parents (or legal guardians) of said daughter have the choice of:

1. Their daughter will receive a free Norplant implant that will be effective until her 18th birthday (Norplant lasts five years). In the event that their daughter gets pregnant while on Norplant (99% unlikely), they would be eligible for welfare benefits for said child.

or

2. They decline the free Norplant. In the event that their daughter gets pregnant, they nor their daughter cannot claim any welfare benefits. They will be denied all programs and have to pay for the child themselves.

Is Norplant safe? Perfectly safe. Is it effective? Over 99% effective at preventing pregnancies, and the stupid teens don’t have to do anything. Is this admitting defeat to teenage sex? No. It is fighting the negative outcomes in a different manner. Conservatives want to gripe about free birth control? You already pay for birth control, but this one would be a small outlay for a huge savings. This localizes the consequences of choices to the teen and their parents. No one is forced to use Norplant. You reject the cornucopia of birth control around you, you will pay for the results. Teenagers are bad about maintaining schedule of pills, which is avoided with Norplant. Norplant is 99% effective and lasts five years without the teen doing anything. Through Obamacare and insurance mandates, we are already subsidizing birth control. I would hope that everyone would want to see this smorgasbord of birth control put to effective use.

In addition to these programs, I would suggest the following add-ons. If a women turns 18 and was in the Norplant program with their parents, she would have a one time option of re-upping the Norplant at age 18 to carry them through the next five years. Those feisty young women will shout that it is her body, therefore it is her decision. I’m right there with you, but with the above conditions. The other add-on would be a far more important one, but if a woman childless or with child signs up for social welfare programs, she must get a Norplant implant. Social welfare programs will last as long as her Norplant lasts. If a woman rolls off of a social welfare program and Norplant and is pregnant within one calendar year, she will be ineligible for further social welfare benefits. The progressives may be upset, but even one lonely, undergraduate voice at Harvard thought this might be a good move in 1993. This is a simple program. We just need a good propaganda campaign. A child living in poverty is a crime against that child. It is a soft form of abuse. Let us not place one more child in the clutches of an impoverished home. Think of the children.

Posted in America, Nationalism | Comments Off on A Modest Birth Control Proposal

Is Ted Cruz an anti-Semitic hypocrite?

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

A Jewish friend says: “When is the last time Eshman ever voted for any Republican running for President? The next thing I would expect him to do is attack Cruz because his last name translates to Cross, as in the Cross where Jesus was crucified and died for our sins. It is certainly true that the phrase “New York Jew” conjures up a stereotype, but I don’t think the term “New York values” evokes Jews. This is 2016. I really detest this Jewish paranoia.”

If Ted Cruz is not anti-Semitic, this op/ed may well turn him into a raging Jew-hater. If no matter how much you support Israel and promote other pro-Jewish stuff, you still get called an anti-semite on such a flimsy pretext, then it is irrational to care about Jews and Jewish concerns. If you are going to get called slurs for trivial things, you might as well dismiss the Jews in your mind (even if you take care with your public statements for pragmatic reasons).

Rob Eshman writes:

What’s harder to forgive is the hate.
The language Cruz uses, the images he conjures, foment hate. By deriding New York values, he short-circuits argument and appeals straight to prejudice.
That prejudice shades into anti-Semitism. Because if there is one group that overwhelmingly stands for New York, it’s Jews. Seinfeld. Woody Allen. Bagels. I rest my case.
And if there is one group that supports “liberal New York values,” it is Jews. Abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, social safety nets, environmental protection, climate change action — Jews don’t just consistently poll in favor, they often (loudly) lead the way. Cruz wasn’t aware of that? Of course he was.
Cruz doesn’t shoot from the hip, unless it’s an AK-47 and he’s trying to look macho. So he knows that by saying “liberal New York values,” he is dog-whistling the anti-Semites.
And he thinks he can get away with it for one reason: Israel.
Cruz loves Israel.
“In my view, the United States of America should remain unshakably alongside our vital ally, the nation of Israel,” he said in a speech on Sept. 11, 2013. His Middle East foreign policy could be summed up as WWBD — What Would Bibi Do?
Do you follow? Cruz loves the Jewish State, but loathes the Jewish City. By professing such deep love for the Jews of Israel, Cruz assumes he can say whatever he wants about the Jews of America.
There is a certain political logic to this. Jews who share his views on Israel will likely shrug off his thinly veiled hate speech. Jews who prefer any Republican to any Democrat will accuse those who take offense of being too P.C. — even though these are the same Jews who still obsess over President Barack Obama’s choice of a Chicago preacher 20 years ago.
But what Cruz doesn’t understand is that you can’t have it both ways. Israel exists and thrives, at least in part, because it demonstrates many of the same liberal values as New York. In its embrace of universal health care, religious diversity, artistic expression, women’s rights, gay rights and social innovation, Israel is a Cruzian nightmare.
Those values are difficult to maintain and protect in a country surrounded by enemies and often prey to its own internal dark forces — some of which are also New York imports. But, even so, Israeli society has much more in common with Manhattan than with Midland. This makes me think Cruz loves Israel in theory, just not in fact.
As for Jews, Cruz is content to see how far he can go using a select few of us as donors, and the rest of us as piñatas.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Is Ted Cruz an anti-Semitic hypocrite?

Time (2003): Whites and the Next Racial Clash in America

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Time magazine Feb. 18, 2003:

According to political scientist Carol M. Swain’s unsettling new book, “The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration,” the U.S. is on the brink of an explosion of white “tribalism” that could trigger unprecedented levels of racial antagonism and an epidemic of violence. The underlying cause: a swelling “white nationalist” movement fueled by simmering resentment of affirmative action programs like those used by the University of Michigan. “The book is a wake-up call to warn people that we’re following a dangerous course by pushing identity politics and multi-culturalism,” explains the Vanderbilt law school professor. “There’s nothing special about the U.S. that says we couldn’t have ethnic cleansing and violence here like in Bosnia or Rwanda.”

It’s shocking to hear such a direct prophesy from a scholar like Swain, who is rapidly establishing herself as one of the leaders of a new, increasingly vocal neoconservative brand of black political analysis that rejects affirmative action and reparations for slavery and holds blacks responsible for their own uplift. Until recently, most left-leaning black theorists derided her as a hopeless optimist. Her previous book, “Black Faces, Black Interests,” ruffled many black politicians by dismissing their fear that a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the use of race in the creation of majority black congressional districts would be a disaster. Instead, Swain predicted, the ruling actually would be good for African Americans. As she foresaw, even in the Deep South strong black candidates were capable of winning enough support from whites to prevail in districts where black voters were outnumbered. She also argued that disbursing blacks into mostly-white districts could make it easier for liberal Democrats to compete with conservative Republicans by building multi-racial coalitions. Blacks “need more representation of their liberal views of policy than they need people who look like them” in Congress, Swain contended. Anyone looking at the toothlessness of the Congressional Black Caucus in the Republican-dominated House would find it difficult to disagree.

But, as Swain says, she “turned from a Pollyanna into a Cassandra” as her research into a book criticizing racial preferences made her aware of the spread of what she calls “the new white nationalism,” a form of racial extremism more dangerous than the Ku Klux Klan because of its veneer of erudition and mastery of the Internet. Groups such as former Klansman David Duke’s National Organization for European American Rights and the National Association of White People eschew the discredited notion of white supremacy. Indeed, they don’t claim that whites are superior to anyone else and may even be inferior to Asians.

Instead they push the notion over websites, in publications such as Jared Taylor’s “American Renaissance ” magazine and through on-campus recruiting drives that all racial groups have unique interests and the god-given right to fulfill their destiny. They see themselves, as Swain has written, as “defenders of the legitimate civil rights of white people against what they allege are a host of racial double standards.” In short, that affirmative action has made whites the most discriminated-against group in the country and that it can only get worse as a tide of immigrants transforms the U.S. from a white nation into a rickety Third World republic. The language white nationalists use to promote their insights is stunningly familiar to anyone who has listened to black nationalists like Louis Farrakhan — but that’s not surprising, since the white nationalists appropriated it. As Swain observes, “the multicultural left has provided a language that works very well for whites who want to push white-identity politics,” says Swain. “They say that if it’s good for blacks to celebrate their heritage, it’s good for whites to celebrate theirs.”

What concerns Swain the most is such groups now seem to be finding an audience among mainstream whites whose gripes about racial preferences and high crime rates among blacks have been tuned out by white liberal politicians. Though she has no proof that the membership of such groups is mushrooming, their influence is being felt widely. Indeed, some of the rhetoric used by white nationalists is indistinguishable from the verbiage used by President Bush in his assault on the “quotas” supposedly used by the University of Michigan. “If we keep going down this road, it’s going to increasingly pit racial groups against each other,” she warns. “Some white people, who are otherwise good people, who don’t hate blacks, are going to be pushed into the arms of these extremists if we don’t change course.”

Swain thinks there’s only one way out of this bind: recognizing that whites have “legitimate” beefs about race that should be openly debated by politicians and scholars. She also believes we should immediately do away with racial preferences in university admissions, hiring and government contracts that not only fuel white resentment but send the message to blacks that they can’t meet the same standards as everyone else. Swain’s detractors say such steps amount to no more than a cowardly capitulation to racism, but she won’t back down because she does not believe that blacks need the crutch provided by race-conscious policies. For Swain, a deeply devout evangelical Christian, such beliefs are not academic. Now 49, she went from being a high school drop-out and single mother in rural Virginia to a Ph.d and a chair at a leading university. “Somehow, we’ve got to embrace an American national identity that pulls us together instead of dividing us into warring camps,” says Swain, “perhaps through a renewed emphasis on the Judeo-Christian idea of a common creator and the brotherhood of man.” It’s an old-fashioned idea that could prevent Swain’s troubling predictions from coming true.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Time (2003): Whites and the Next Racial Clash in America

German Guide For Refugees: “Women are to be respected, no matter what they wear.”

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

Miriam Lilian D Or I was wearing a winter coat and this still happened to me, as much as it would have happened if I wore a miniskirt.
Luke Ford By a black man?
Miriam Lilian D Or Yes. It happened Thursday night.
Luke Ford Try not to be racist. Not all black men grope white women.
Luke Ford Try to let go of your white privilege.
Luke Ford Stop taunting black bodies with your white privilege.
Miriam Lilian D Or I admire that he just went for it.

Too many people don’t live life to the full.

Where does one go in LA for the best anti-rape courses? Asking for a friend.

We should make rape education courses mandatory in our schools beginning at age five.

‘No means no’: Norway sends migrants on anti-rape courses

Hå (Norvège) (AFP) – “She kissed him — it’s an invitation to have sex.” The asylum seeker’s answer hangs in the air. The instructor’s smile falters, and an explanation is required.

In Norway, migrants are being given courses to prevent violence against women, especially rape, and to teach them how to interpret customs in a country that may seem surprisingly liberal to them.

The courses were introduced several years ago, but have become particularly topical after complaints of mass sexual assault on New Year’s Eve in the German city of Cologne, by a crowd of mostly Arab and North African men.

This particular morning at the Ha reception centre in southwestern Norway, a dozen Syrian and Sudanese asylum seekers fidget in their seats in a small room as their group discussion starts.

The curtains are drawn and a space heater blasts out hot air to heat up the room, but the participants keep their jackets on.

“The idea behind this course is to talk about risk situations that can arise when it comes to rapes and sexual assaults,” the group’s leader Linda Hagen says, kicking off the class in Norwegian, with an interpreter translating to Arabic.

“We need your help so that we can together detect these situations.”

What is the difference between love and sex? What do these pictures of women projected on a screen bring to mind, one with bare shoulders and the other veiled?

Can the use of violence be legitimate? How do you know if a woman is consenting to sex?

– Cultural misunderstandings –

The participants brainstorm scenarios where cultural differences may cause misunderstandings.

Little by little, they warm up and begin to speak.

According to US News & World Report, Germany is the best country in the world. So of course they will want to import millions of Muslims.

New York Times:

Faced with the task of integrating hundreds of thousands of newcomers into German society, government agencies, private foundations and the state broadcast network have all been looking for ways to explain the country’s history and traditions to recent arrivals in easily understandable public information campaigns.

Those efforts have included: a new guidebook to the country aimed at the small number of refugees who already speak German; a shorter pamphlet available in 13 other languages; a phone app with versions in Arabic, Persian and French; a video podcast series featuring helpful hints in English from a young journalist born in Munich to parents who fled the Vietnam War; and, perhaps least successfully, an attempt to instruct the new arrivals in proper behavior in the form of a 14-panel cartoon similar to an airplane safety information card.

The cartoon guide to “Germany and Its People,” posted online in October by the Bavarian arm of the state broadcaster, Bayerischer Rundfunk, baffled, amused and offended foreign journalists and commentators this week when it entered the online debate over the refugee crisis.

Looking at the part of the guide instructing foreigners not to grope women, beat their children or harass homosexual couples, Jenan Moussa, a reporter based in Dubai, observed that it was difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.

That the guide included a panel discouraging the physical abuse of women was taken by some as a response to the spate of attacks on women in Germany on New Year’s Eve, but in fact it was posted online three months before those assaults.

Despite the serious nature of those crimes, the apparent absurdity of using simple line drawings to try to stamp out offensive behavior by Middle Easterners in Europe inspired one online satirist, the Lebanese-British architect Karl Sharro, to produce his own guide for Western behavior to be avoided in the Middle East.

Mr. Sharro’s illustrations suggested that the West should avoid conducting airstrikes, invading Iraq, furnishing repressive regimes with tear gas and deadly weapons, overlooking the jailing of dissidents and cozying up to autocrats like President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt.

Though Bayerischer Rundfunk’s cartoon guide has attracted this sort of ridicule on social networks, the broadcaster was also involved in the development of the far more sophisticated new app, Ankommen (meaning “arrival” in German), and produced the clear and respectful “Guide for Refugees” video series anchored by Henry Lai, a German reporter of Vietnamese ancestry.

A German state broadcaster’s video guide for refugees offers helpful hints to life in their adopted country. Bayerischer Rundfunk, via YouTube
Posted in Germany, Rape | Comments Off on German Guide For Refugees: “Women are to be respected, no matter what they wear.”

You Could Say The Same For Auschwitz

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

“Sweeping its horrific history of displacement, racism, and class warfare under the rug for a second, Elysian Park is a pretty chill spot.” (Vice)

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on You Could Say The Same For Auschwitz

A Google news search reveals that rabbis and Jewish groups have stopped calling for America to bring in Syrian Muslim refugees. Why the change?

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

Perhaps widespread revulsion at the Cologne NYE groping by Muslim immigrants was a factor? Maybe there never was a Jewish imperative for Western countries to take in more Muslims who are likely to hate it?

3063DD0400000578-3408905-image-m-35_1453321434717

Unhappy homos at Trump-Palin rally.

download

Notice anything about the physiognomy of people who despise Donald Trump? I can usually tell someone’s politics just by looking at them. Softies lean left and on their emotions. Hardies lean right.

Posted in Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on A Google news search reveals that rabbis and Jewish groups have stopped calling for America to bring in Syrian Muslim refugees. Why the change?

Like David Bowie, I use racism to fight racism. If you ever took Luke Ford for what was on the surface, you were missing something.

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

Adam Parfrey writes: “Luke Ford’s racism is always revelatory. Thank you, Luke, for all of it.”

Washington Post:

Was David Bowie’s 1983 hit “China Girl” racist?

Yes.

But racist on purpose.

If you’re wondering why that makes a difference, consider Bowie’s comments in Rolling Stone that same year: “Let’s try to use the video format as a platform for some kind of social observation, and not just waste it on trotting out and trying to enhance the public image of the singer involved. I mean, these are little movies, and some movies can have a point, so why not try to make some point.”

At the time, the “China Girl” video was a marvel. It depicted the gender bending Bowie as a hypermasculine protagonist in a lush, interracial romance. It was also rife with stereotypes. The lyrics indicated a desire to conquer — and offered a threat of racial violence.

I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It’s in the white of my eyes

My little China girl
You shouldn’t mess with me
I’ll ruin everything you are
I’ll give you television
I’ll give you eyes of blue
I’ll give you man who wants to rule the world

Bowie’s new fans — those who flocked to him after the success of the 1983 “Let’s Dance” album — may have thought they were getting a salacious pop single served up with a taste of Asia, but older fans from the ’70s knew better: Bowie was donning the role of a racist womanizer not only to decry racist womanizing but to condemn the West’s demeaning view of the East as a whole. “China Girl” was a parody of racism and stereotyping.

“The message that they have is very simple,” Bowie said. “It’s wrong to be a racist!”

“If you ever took Bowie for what was on the surface, you were missing something,” said Tiffany Naiman, whose work on Bowie was published in “David Bowie: Critical Perspectives.” “I think he was well aware of his elite cosmopolitanism. He was able to move through different cultures because of his privilege but he understood otherness and wanted to highlight that.”

Posted in Asians, China, Personal | Comments Off on Like David Bowie, I use racism to fight racism. If you ever took Luke Ford for what was on the surface, you were missing something.

What Draws Some Jewish Voters to Donald Trump? His ‘Chutzpah.’

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

Organized Jewry hates Donald Trump and will do anything they can to stop him. Regular Jews like the guy.

Is Donald Trump’s chutzpah kinda Jewish? Does he come across more Jewish or more WASPy or more black?

Nathan Guttman writes for the Forward:

“A mensch with chutzpah.”
These were the yiddishisms that Republican Jewish Coalition board member Abbie Friedman deployed when he introduced Donald Trump at the group’s candidates forum last December. It was, in part, an effort to ease the palpable discomfort of wealthy RJC donors with the brash billionaire who would be president.
The problem, though, is that for many Jewish Republican voters, the New York billionaire’s ratio of chutzpah to mensch leans too heavily to the former, leading them to throw their support behind other, more conventional contenders. Still, the GOP front-runner, now preparing for the official kickoff of primary season, has succeeded in charming some Jewish voters with his outsized personality and trademark bluntness.

Jewish Trump supporters have their own Facebook page, a Twitter account and even a rabbi. One rabbi. Many of these supporters and sympathizers seem to be drawn to the candidate more for his swagger and his image of business success than for what he is saying and proposing to do if elected president. Most important, they relish the prospect that he will bring this spirit to the presidential race to ensure that the Democrats don’t win another four years in the White House.
“I’m a NFH — Not for Hillary,” said Joan Rubin, a Jewish Chicago native who spends her winters in Florida. “I don’t know who will win the nomination, but I will definitely vote for Donald Trump if he’s nominated. We can’t have what happened in the past seven years continue.”

Almost across-the-board, mainstream national Jewish groups have denounced Trump for his call to indefinitely ban entry of all Muslims to America, and his suggestion that authorities should close mosques judged to be extremist. They view Trump’s move as an affront to American Jewry’s own history, which included the government’s exclusion of their European brethren when they sought to flee Nazism. But even before Trump’s Islamophobic comments, his soaring popularity in pre-primary polls raised concern within the Republican Jewish establishment, which has traditionally sought to back candidates closer to the political center.

Trump backers generally tend to be less educated and to earn less than average Republicans, while American Jews, in general, fall into neither of these categories.

Some Jewish supporters of Trump still feel uneasy identifying publicly as being in the Donald camp. “I don’t need people asking questions,” said a Florida Jewish resident who strongly supports Trump but asked not to be named. She argued that the media has distorted Trump’s message and therefore expressing public support for him is considered socially unacceptable in her circles. She expressed full support for Trump’s call to ban Muslim entry to America, arguing that Muslim immigrants have shown no willingness to assimilate into society and that the local Muslim community has not sufficiently condemned terrorist attacks carried out by violent Islamists. “Trump’s the only one forcing the press to report things they don’t want to report,” she said.

But not everyone is embarrassed about going on the record. Trump recently got an unexpected endorsement from the legendary Jewish comedian Jerry Lewis. “I think he’s great,” Lewis said in an interview with Raymond Arroyo on “The World Over.” “He’s a showman, and we’ve never had a showman in the president’s chair,” the octogenarian comic explained.

Jewish backers of Trump interviewed by the Forward sought to distinguish between the outspoken candidate’s achievement-driven personality, which they find attractive, and some of his positions, especially those relating to women and ethnic minorities, which they find unappealing.

“In the beginning I was very, very excited with Donald Trump. I admire his business ability and I think he is an amazing man,” Rubin said. “But I was shocked by some of the things he said.” But these comments did not make Trump any less of a legitimate candidate in Rubin’s eyes. She initially thought that Chris Christie would poll more strongly and that Jeb Bush (“He’s so nebbish, I can’t believe it”) would be a top-tier candidate. Trump, now in the lead, is just as good for Jewish voters, she said, as long as he defeats Hillary Clinton.

Some GOP candidates, mainly Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, have already built bridges to the Jewish community, cultivating donors and arranging meetings with community leaders.

In contrast, in his RJC address, Trump voiced doubt about Israel’s commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians and was booed after he refused to say whether Jerusalem should serve as the undivided capital of Israel, a priority for many in America’s pro-Israel lobby.

“Do me a favor, just relax,” he told one of the people booing, in a trademark display of his accent on the chutzpah side of the ledger.

Trump also seemed to suggest that the wealthy Jewish donors in front of him sought to put a puppet in the White House. “You’re not going to support me even though you know I’m the best thing that could happen to Israel,” Trump said. “I know why you’re not going to support me — because I don’t want your money. You want to control your own politician.”

This approach has done little to build more bridges for Trump into the Jewish world. But one Trump enthusiast, Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg of Edison, New Jersey, tried to change this reality, setting up a “Rabbis for Trump” Facebook group, only to learn he was the sole rabbi in the group. Rosenberg changed the name to the singular form, and now he runs the “Rabbi for Trump” page.

“Cruz already had his following of rabbis, and I didn’t see a lot of effort with regard to Trump,” Rosenberg told the Forward. “Politically, it’s not right to put all your eggs in one basket.”

Rosenberg, who is rabbi emeritus of Congregation Beth El in Edison, chose Trump because of his “personality, character and vigor to make change in this country.” He dismissed Trump’s use of offensive language toward women, Mexican immigrants and even to Jewish listeners as “his sense of humor,” which is “part of his personality.” If Trump gets elected, Rosenberg added, he’ll have to “tone it down a bit.”

As for Trump’s call to ban entry of Muslims to America, Rosenberg thinks it “didn’t come out correctly.” But he agrees with the need to halt absorption of refugees “until we know exactly what’s going on with the Muslim community coming from outside.”

For other Jewish backers of Trump, the call to ban Muslims was a breaking point.

Jeremy Leyden, a journalist and international media consultant, was drawn to Trump’s success story. “The man is successful; he knows business, knows how to negotiate and has a daughter who is an Orthodox Jew. I put it together, and it sounds very good,” said Leyden, who divides his time between the United States and Israel. “His personality is very Israeli,” Leyden observed. “He’s very confident, just like Israelis are, and you need to be confident in the Middle East. If you’re not, they’ll treat you like a rag.”

Leyden used his digital marketing expertise to set up a Trump outreach campaign in New Hampshire with its own Facebook page. Separately, he also launched a “Jews 4 Trump” Facebook page and a Twitter account.
“Then he comes up with this proposed ban on Muslims,” Leyden said of Trump’s December 7 statement. “That really turned me off big time.”
Leyden asked the campaign for clarifications, and when those weren’t sufficient he raised his concerns on the New Hampshire Facebook page he had created, only to have the Trump campaign try to shut down the page. Leyden said he is now “moving away” from the Trump campaign and looking toward Cruz as his candidate. But the “Jews 4 Trump” page will remain active in the hope that the candidate will change his views on banning Muslims from entering the United States and state that he supports the unity of Jerusalem.
“There were many Jews who were initially turned off by Trump’s bombastic nature, and others were turned on by it but later became turned off because of the ban on Muslims,” he said.
Jonathan Gould, a New York entrepreneur, expressed the dilemma facing voters who see value in Trump’s anti-establishment posture while rejecting his policy on many other issues.
“I feel Donald Trump’s anti-Washington stance is worth continuing to hear even when it’s contrary to core Jewish values along the way,” he said. “Our country’s suffering from the lack of an effective government assaults my Jewish sensibilities.”

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off on What Draws Some Jewish Voters to Donald Trump? His ‘Chutzpah.’

Jewish Football

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Luke Ford

Listening to a Jewish lawyer talk about how he has his opponent boxed in, all receivers covered, that the quarterback has to run and how he has really big lineman chasing him, makes me realize that the practice of law plays the same role for Jews that football plays for goyim. It’s a way to legally express your aggression.

Watching your average Jew trying to play football is like watching your average goy trying to play lawyer. Yes, I know there are great goyisha lawyers and great Jewish football players. I’m talking stereotypes here.

Posted in Football, Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Football