JTA: Meet the ‘intensely neurotic’ Jew saving the world’s refugees

She doesn’t feel any need to bring them to Israel. Only the West must absorb these refugees.

Physiognomy is destiny.

These are the women destroying Western civilization. She’s absorbed with tikkun olam and the refugees she’s bringing over will rape, torture and slaughter countless Jews and non-Jews. But at least she gets to feel good about herself.

I wonder how many refugees she shelters in her home? How many does Andrew Silow-Carroll shelter in his home?

According to Yale Law School: “Rebecca M. Heller is a Visiting Clinical Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School. She graduated from Yale Law School in 2010 and received her B.A. from Dartmouth College. She founded and directs the International Refugee Assistance Project (formerly the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project) at Yale Law School, an organization that assists refugees in applying for resettlement from abroad and adjusting to life in the United States.”

Tina-Brown-e1459903592737-635x357

download

download (1)

download (2)

heller

Andrew Silow-Carroll writes for JTA:

Rebecca Heller awarded Charles Bronfman Prize for work providing free legal services to those fleeing war, persecution.

John Oliver was in the audience Monday night for the awarding of The Charles Bronfman Prize, and here’s the crazy thing – he may not have been the coolest or even funniest person in the room.

That’s because the honoree at the Manhattan ceremony was Rebecca Heller, the director and co-founder of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which wrangles law students and pro bono attorneys to provide legal assistance to refugees.

The Charles Bronfman Prize, established in honor of the philanthropist by his children, honors Jews under 50 who distinguish themselves in humanitarian work. As Rosalie Silberman Abella, justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, put it in her introductory remarks, Heller represents the “alchemy of passion, fearlessness, resoluteness, entrepreneurship … and feistiness” shared by previous prizewinners.

Heller was at Yale Law School when she travelled to Israel in 2008. In neighboring Jordan, she met with refugees from Iraq and realized in order to navigate a “deeply entrenched” and patchwork system of resettlement, they needed – what else — a good lawyer. The student organization she founded upon her return became IRAP, which has provided legal assistance to more than 10,000 refugees and claims an 85 percent success rate with resettlement. (Oliver featured an IRAP client, an Afghani translator stranded after assisting US forces, on his HBO show “Last Week Tonight.”)

Among those resettled by IRAP was Farah Al-Khafaji, who spoke at the Manhattan ceremony. An Iraqi, Al-Khafaji and her father started an engineering and construction company that assisted American forces in building helipads, roads and security barriers in the wake of the 2003 invasion. This, as you’d imagine, was not a universally popular vocation in Iraq, and in 2006 she was assaulted, her father was kidnapped, and her husband was killed.

After waiting almost six years for the US to award sanctuary to her and her two children, Al-Khafaji had almost given up hope when she heard about Heller and IRAP. Heller got her an interview at the US Embassy, a safe home in Baghdad and eventually a one-way flight to Washington Dulles International Airport.

“My boys and myself would be dead and buried in Iraq” without IRAP, she said at the award ceremony.

In an on-stage conversation with publishing titan Tina Brown, Heller came across less like a global crusader than, I don’t know, a writer for Oliver’s show. (Oliver laughed as loudly as anybody in the audience.)

She recalled a colleague’s advice on making IRAP more professional: “‘We need a better intake system than running into me on the street.’” She described how the US would reject the claims of Iraqi asylum seekers because of dubious charges leveled against them during Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror — compounding their suffering because we “forgot to burn down the Iraqi Ministry of Justice.”

And she ridiculed the torturous screening process that makes refugees from Syria, Africa and Colombia have to prove, over and over again, that “the worst thing that ever happened to you happened.

“And this is the way we are saving people,” she deadpanned.

The award ceremony, postponed from last year so Heller could give birth to her daughter, took place in the genteel surroundings of the New York Historical Society. Meanwhile, a nasty and often misinformed national debate rages on immigration and refugees. Heller, who described herself as an “intensely neurotic and self-critical Jew,” decried the “false conflation between terrorism and refugees” and tied her work to Jewish history.

Today’s refugees are no different from those who wandered from “port to port” during World War II seeking safe harbor, she said. “What’s different is that we are calling them terrorists.”

Lest anyone fail to make that connection, Justice Abella described her Jewish family’s story. Her father survived Theresienstadt, her mother Buchenwald. Her father, a lawyer, was appointed by the Americans as head of legal services at the displaced persons camp where Abella was born.

Abella recalled when Eleanor Roosevelt visited the DP camp, and Jacob Silberman got to offer an official greeting. “These few children are our fortune, and our sole hope for the future,” he told the first lady.

“I was one of those children,” said his daughter, the first Jewish woman to sit on Canada’s high court.

Mike emails: “How appropriate. The Bronfman family has gone from bootlegging booze during prohibition to honoring human bootleggers today.”

Posted in Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on JTA: Meet the ‘intensely neurotic’ Jew saving the world’s refugees

How Come Israel Gets To Use Remittance Weapon And Trump Can’t?

Peter Brimelow writes:

VDARE.com has been discussing the utility of taxing remittances from legal and illegal immigrants back to Mexico for years e.g. National Data | A Supply-Side Solution For Illegal Immigration by Edwin S. Rubenstein, January 26, 2004. So we are naturally delighted by Donald Trump’s just-released proposal to tax remittances to finance his Great Wall of Trump [Trump reveals how he would force Mexico to pay for border wall, by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Washington Post, April 5, 2016. A facsimile of the actual proposal is reproduced here].

The MSM, which more than any politicians really has emerged as the Official Opposition and Enforcer of the Narrative, is reacting with its usual outrage and incredulity when confronted with a new and unwelcome idea—just like the famous apes in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey trying to scare away the mysterious Monolith:

But if Trump holds his ground, as he will, the MSM will eventually calm down and, like the 2001 apes, start to look at the monolith more carefully, if reluctantly. We went through exactly this cycle with Trump’s proposal to put a hold on Muslim immigration—which, of course, turned out to be immensely popular with, you know, Americans.

Normally, I ascribe this MSM cycle to stupidity and groupthink. But it happens that Israel has successfully used the remittance weapon to get control of illegal immigration, as we have repeatedly documented, for example here.

Yet I can find no mention of this obvious parallel in current coverage. And I don’t believe that no-one in the U.S. MSM is aware of it.

Posted in Immigration, Israel | Comments Off on How Come Israel Gets To Use Remittance Weapon And Trump Can’t?

Dennis Prager: A Note to Conservatives Who Are Secular

Dennis Prager’s idea of who is profound is profoundly revealing:

The most profound thinkers in America are conservative. There are, of course, bright liberal and leftist thinkers, but I can’t think of one who approaches the depth and wisdom of the best conservative writers and thinkers. What liberal historian, for example, approaches the understanding of life and history that author Paul Johnson has exhibited in his many works of history? Who on the left matches psychiatrist/writer Theodore Dalrymple’s insight into the underclass? What left-wing columnists understand human nature, the state of mankind, or contemporary America as do George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell, or many of the leading columnists at publications such as National Review, City Journal, Commentary Magazine or the Wall Street Journal?

…The vast majority of leading conservative writers, just like their liberal colleagues, have a secular outlook on life. With few exceptions, the conservative political and intellectual worlds are oblivious to the consequences of secularism. They are unaware of the disaster that godlessness in the West has led to.

Most leading Republicans and most of the wealthy donors to the Republican Party — in addition to virtually all libertarian politicians and think tank scholars — are either uninterested in the death of Judeo-Christian religions and values in America and the West, or they’re OK with it. They think that America can survive the death of God and religion, that fiscal and other forms of conservatism without social conservatism can preserve America.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off on Dennis Prager: A Note to Conservatives Who Are Secular

Trump Is Nasty and Probably Stupid, Too — but Better than Hillary

I don’t hear much introspection from Dennis Prager about how he totally missed the rise of Donald Trump, how he never expected Trump to dominate the race. This column doesn’t get it. Trump’s stand is on nationalism, protecting America from unfair trade and from illegal immigrants. Ill advised tweets are not that important.

Dark Enlightenment tweets: “The late great @LawrenceAuster called Prager “the silliest man in America”, he continues to live up to that moniker.”

Dennis Prager writes March 31, 2016:

I have said from the outset that I would vote for Donald Trump if he is the Republican candidate. I am contemptuous of much of what he does, I don’t trust what he says, and I have no reason to believe he holds conservative values, but . . .

The “but” is that if he is the Republican nominee, he will be the only alternative to the Left’s further ruining America for another four years — and really for much more than four years, because with two or three more left-wing Supreme Court justices, the Left won’t need to win the presidency or Congress in order to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008. With a left-wing Supreme Court, the Court will transform America by simply legislating from the bench; leftist jurists regard their role as promoting “social justice,” not judging according to the rules of justice and within the constraints of the Constitution. As far as domestic policy is concerned, with a left-wing Supreme Court, the presidency and the Congress will become irrelevant. Because I can chew gum and walk at the same time, I can vote for Donald Trump in the general election while at the same finding much of what he does and says unacceptable. As I explain to all those who ask, between a Republican I don’t want and a Democrat I don’t want, I will vote for the Republican I don’t want…

Having said that, whenever I begin to hope that Trump, even if he continues to act indecently, will at least begin to act intelligently as the possibility of his being nominated approaches reality, he does something so stupid that my heart sinks again.

His latest outrage was a tweet with a photo of his wife looking like the beautiful model she is next to an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz’s wife (who, as it happens, in a similarly professionally posed photo, would look very attractive) with the caption (in caps): “THE IMAGES ARE WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.” Yes, I know Trump did this in reaction to an utterly objectionable Facebook ad by a pro-Cruz PAC targeting Utah voters featuring a nude GQ model photo of Melania Trump from 16 years ago (five years before she married Trump).
Nevertheless, any man who feels compelled to announce to the world that his wife is more beautiful than another man’s wife combines meanness, immaturity, and insecurity. But it is a lack of intelligence — or, if you will, intelligent judgment — that may actually most stand out in his sending out that tweet to humiliate Heidi Cruz. Does he give any thought at all to winning the general election? It would seem that he doesn’t. Because if he did, he would understand what everyone except his most fervent supporters understands — that such a tweet repulses most Americans, both male and female.

How would Trump respond if an aide asked him, “Donald, do you think that tweet will help convince an undecided voter to vote for you?” The answer is that Trump apparently has few or no aides who would ask such a question. In fact, at least with regard to foreign policy, Trump has boasted about consulting with himself. As Politico reported: “Asked on MSNBC’s Morning Joe who he [Trump] talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, ‘I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.’”

In addition to meanness, immaturity, and personal insecurity, the my-wife-is-more-beautiful-than-your-wife tweet revealed that Trump either is not very intelligent or lacks intelligent judgment. And the latter is actually more disconcerting than the former. The argument that only a very bright man could have been such a successful businessman only reveals the understandable fact that few Americans have ever interacted with billionaires. Very bright billionaires exist, but they are no more common than very bright professors or plumbers or doctors. I don’t know what Ted Cruz’s chances are of winning the general election. But he won’t come close to losing 50 states. With more tweets like this, Donald Trump could. Proving that intelligence without intelligent judgment is worthless.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Trump Is Nasty and Probably Stupid, Too — but Better than Hillary

Ties Of Blood And Soil

Steve Sailer tweets: “NYT writer can’t quite figure out Joe Lieberman and GW Bush came up with “Homeland” because the word sounds Israeli.”

There’s a great exchange in the Robert DeNiro movie The Good Shepherd about the creation of the CIA:

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?
Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

All culture is the product of particular genes and a particular environment.

Nationalism is the most powerful political force in the world today. Donald Trump is unleashing its power in America. The United States is not just an idea, it is a concrete political state created by a particular people.

James Traub writes for the New York Times:

In 2010, the screenwriter and producer Alex Gansa finished the script for a political thriller involving a deeply troubled C.I.A. agent and a soldier who had been turned by the Taliban, and began thinking about a title. He recalls that he wanted a word or phrase to conjure an atmosphere of “creepy subversion” — something sinister, xenophobic, un-American. “Shadowland”? No, not quite. “Homeland”? Perfect.

Ever since President George W. Bush, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, vowed to “strengthen the homeland” and authorized the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security, this peculiar coinage has burrowed its way into the American lexicon as if it were an earwig. In the current presidential campaign, “homeland” fills the air. In a December debate, both Senator Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich included among a president’s core obligations “protecting the homeland.”

Yet as Gansa intuited, a word ostensibly deployed to offer a sense of comfort instead unleashes deep undercurrents of anxiety. When the D.H.S. was first proposed in June 2002, the conservative columnist Peggy Noonan complained that the president should have found some less spine-chilling entity to secure from attack. Even Tom Ridge, the department’s first director, conceded that he had heard grumblings that “homeland” was un-American.

What is it about “homeland” that feels more like a violation than an affirmation of American identity? In traditional usage, the word evokes the link between a people and the state that is theirs, or that they wish to be theirs. With the founding of Israel in 1948, Jews gained a homeland. Palestinians lost one. “Homeland” throbs with the primal forces of state formation. The word points to a world of solidarity forged through blood ties, through ancient ritual and legend.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Ties Of Blood And Soil