Yeshiva World News

[By Daniel Perez]

We live in an age of cultural sensitivity run amok – to the point where political correctness supersedes actual correctness as a matter of course. For example, I live in the United States, where people, out of a fear of offending the Black community, will refer to any and all Black persons as “African-American,” regardless of the nationality of the individual in question, as if it’s a fixed phrase that implies politeness whether or not it’s actually applicable. It’s this sort of self-righteous ignorance that reared its head earlier this week, and turned an innocent joke by an American leader into an alleged racial slur.

In an interview on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he’d like to be Iran’s first astronaut. Tweeted Arizona Senator John McCain: “So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space – wasn’t he just there last week?” appending to his pithy remark a link to a news story regarding the recent launch by Iran of a spacecraft with a monkey in it.

Okay, first of all – that’s actually pretty funny. Well played, Senator. I for one find it encouraging to see an elder U.S. statesman making such savvy use of social media, though I’m not entirely certain the line wasn’t typed by a sharp-tongued intern.

That said, it seems that some can’t take McCain’s harmless witticism at face value, and instead felt it necessary to malign the Senator with accusations of bigotry (to wit, Republican Congressman Justin Amash’s admonition that McCain should “wisen up & not make racist jokes.”)

Now I’m not going to win many hearts and minds by pointing out the obvious, but regardless of whether you think McCain’s comment was unbecoming a member of the Senate, you have to admit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does look rather monkey-like. I say this as a man who married into a Persian family (note: “Persian” is what those Iranians call themselves who are proud of their culture but ashamed of the government of their country of origin), none of whom happen to resemble simians. But I digress.

As an American, I spent the better part of the last decade rolling my eyes as President George W. Bush, our head of state, was constantly likened by my left-wing peers (often my own countrymen) to a chimpanzee. Now, these same people take offense when one of our leaders has a little fun at the expense of the despotic leader of a hostile foreign regime? I still feel like I’m pointing out the obvious here, but since no one seems to be saying it, perhaps I should: Assuming that McCain’s jab at Ahmadinejad was motivated by race is itself racist. No one would say that the Bush/Chimpanzee visual comparisons were motivated by anti-white racism, per se. Rather, liberals sought to vent their dislike of the Republican Commander-in-Chief – whose Conservative policies and frequent malapropisms led many to doubt his intelligence, and whose prominent ears certainly weren’t doing him any favors. Yet say it about a Middle Eastern leader, and you’re racially biased. The very fact that there are more compelling, non-racial reasons for the analogy tells us that it is more likely McCain’s detractors who are fixated on the issue of race, and not Sen. McCain himself.

The most ironic part of all is that Ahmadinejad himself continues a proud Islamist tradition of dehumanizing the members of a particular ethnic group, based on a passage in the Quran where certain Jews are cursed by G-d and transformed into apes and swine. In June of 2010, the Iranian President referred to the founders of the Jewish state as the “dirtiest,” “filthiest,” and “most criminal” of “so-called humans.” I wonder if Congressman Amash was as distraught by Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic tirade as he was by McCain’s wisecrack.

When all is said and done, however, I can see how McCain’s comments may be seen as unfair, undiplomatic, and simply mean-spirited. So, while I am not an officially elected or appointed representative of the United States Government, as an American citizen, I would like to issue an apology on behalf of my country:

We’re sorry, monkey. We didn’t mean to compare you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You’ve already been through a lot this week – being launched into space in a shoddy Iranian-made rocket is stressful enough, without us adding insult to injury. So again, we apologize if you were in any way hurt or offended by the Senator’s remarks.

In response to the brouhaha generated over his quip, Sen. McCain asked: “Re: Iran space tweet – lighten up folks, can’t everyone take a joke?”

I know the question was almost certainly rhetorical, but since we’re already on the subject, I’ll go ahead and answer it anyway: No they can’t, Mr. Senator. No they can’t. But those of us with our heads far enough removed from our posteriors to hear your joke for what it was, we support you.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks that by zeroing in on this Twitter nonsense we’re ignoring the much more urgent story, namely: The Mideast dictator who wants to wipe another country off the face of the earth is launching missiles into outer space? And the first time we’re hearing from it is about Iran’s Government News Agency? Don’t we have people who are supposed to be on top of this?!

Or as the average Twitter user would put it: OMG! WTH?

Twitterers are nothing if not concise.

Maybe our leaders have more pressing matters to attend to than Twitter-based flame wars.

Daniel Perez is the former editor of the Jewish Voice of New York. His work has appeared in a variety of news outlets, including Yeshiva World News and JNS. Mr. Perez is currently working as a freelance writer and consultant and is accepting new clients. He can be reached at dperez577@yahoo.com.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

[By Avi Schick]

In coming days, the Senate is expected to approve $50.5 billion in federal aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. This is in addition to the $9.7 billion in aid approved earlier this month. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development will determine how most of the aid is distributed. Their to-do list should include a clear message that houses of worship and other religious institutions will be fully eligible for assistance.

In New York state alone, hundreds of houses of worship were damaged by Sandy. More than 200 Catholic parishes were affected, including Our Lady of Solace in Coney Island, which was completely devastated. The New York State Council of Churches reports that over a hundred of its member churches sustained damage, while the UJA-Federation reports that dozens of synagogues were affected. Among them was Agudath Israel of Bayswater in the Rockaways, which had recently completed a top-to-bottom rebuilding and is now destroyed.

Hurricane Sandy was nothing if not ecumenical. Yet with the FEMA application deadline less than a week away, there is fear that the distribution of relief aid will be less inclusive. Without clear guidance from the Obama administration, it is likely that many religious institutions will be discouraged from applying for assistance while others are likely to have their applications denied.

After the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, both FEMA and HUD refused to consider applications from damaged churches. It took an act of Congress to get the federal funds flowing, and ultimately $6 million was distributed to affected churches. While the language of the Oklahoma City statute was limited to that incident, its logic extends to Sandy and other natural disasters.

After an earthquake struck Seattle in 2002, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel stepped in to continue what the Oklahoma City amendment began. After FEMA denied the Seattle Hebrew Academy’s application for assistance, the Justice Department issued an opinion deeming the distribution of disaster relief to the religiously affiliated school a permissible extension of the government’s police powers.

That seems like common sense. After all, when evacuation orders were issued for Hurricane Sandy, houses of worship were not excluded. When emergency workers helped fortify buildings, houses of worship were not excluded. When first responders trained their hoses on burning roofs and used their pumps to empty flooded basements, houses of worship were not excluded. So when FEMA is going up and down the block distributing aid to repair the roofs of damaged buildings, why should houses of worship be excluded?

As Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, told me recently, “The wind and waves did not discriminate when it came to destroying property. The houses of worship are the very bedrock of the neighborhoods now trying to rebuild. To not offer natural disaster assistance grants to rebuild a house of worship just doesn’t make any sense.”

One would have hoped that the Seattle opinion and common sense would be sufficient, but FEMA has apparently reverted to a position that provides less than full participation for religious institutions. Its reasons for doing so are not entirely clear but seem to include a mix of constitutional, statutory and regulatory concerns.

Many of these concerns should have been put to rest by the Oklahoma City experience and Congress’s approval of aid to religious organizations there. Nobody suggests that government should entirely rebuild sanctuaries or pay for the printing of prayer books. But if roofs are being repaired and other structural damage is being remediated, the religious nature of what might occur below shouldn’t matter. That is consistent with the reasoning of a 2003 Justice Department opinion that permitted the federal government to provide assistance to help restore the landmarked Old North Church in Boston.

In essence, federal disaster relief is a form of social insurance meant to help repair a tear in our social fabric. Houses of worship are an important part of that social fabric and are often where people turn for comfort and support after a disaster. After Hurricane Sandy, they are equally in need of repair and should be equally eligible for assistance.

FEMA implicitly acknowledges that its aid is a form of insurance. That’s why individual applicants are not means-tested for eligibility. The displaced occupants of modest bungalows in the Rockaways and beach-front homes in Belle Harbor were both entitled to emergency assistance. There should also be no religious test.

Last month the White House organized a wonderful ceremony in celebration of Hanukkah. It concluded with President Obama and the first lady leading their guests in singing the 13th-century Hanukkah hymn Maoz Tzur. The second verse begins with a request to rebuild our houses of prayer. Let’s hope the Obama administration sings that same tune when communicating with the agencies that will distribute the relief aid allocated by Congress.

Mr. Schick is a lawyer in private practice. He previously served in New York state government as a deputy attorney general and as president of the Empire State Development Corporation.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

[By Peter Bella]

History was made. Not His-story, the saga of the messiah, Barack Obama, but real history. Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was reelected to a third term as Israel’s prime minister. This election proved our president wrong.

For months Obama has been privately saying that Israel, a sovereign nation, “does not know what its own best interests are.”

Israel proved him wrong. They reelected a man for a third term who with his people knows exactly what is in the best interests of Israel.

Make no mistake. Obama, like his predecessors, studied past presidents. He, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, only likes and embraces Jews who do not pester him about the “Jewish problem.” Obama believes that he and he alone knows what is best for everybody in the whole world. He is our father, our mother, our teacher, lord and savior.

Netanyahu’s election should send shivers up the president’s spine. “Bibi” has made no bones about Israel’s security and his implacable determination to defend it against governments and non-governmental agencies that would see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Israel is a nation, an independent and sovereign nation, a nation that does not and should not have to take marching orders from anyone, especially not from a president who knows and cares nothing about independence; a president who is sending foreign aid and arms of destruction to Israel’s enemies.

Various groups have waged a war of attrition against Israel for decades. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme fanatical anti-Jewish organization, governs Egypt, Israel’s neighbor. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations have status with the United Nations. Unfortunately our government is supporting these terror groups and rogue governments. The president nominated Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Hagel has made no bones about his anti-Israeli sentiments.

Only Israel knows what is in its best interests – not the United States government, not Egypt, not Iran, not anyone in Gaza or other so-called disputed territories, and not the feckless, useless, irresponsible, and reckless United Nations. The Israeli government is uniquely situated to know what is best for its own interests, security, and survival. This is true of the United States, and every other sovereign nation.

American politicians and bureaucrats are not know-it-alls, no matter what our president believes.

Let us hope that the inauguration of Benjamin Netanyahu is a gala, festive, and historic event. It should be celebrated and feted by the media. His acceptance speech should be broadcast, circulated widely, read closely, and taken to heart.

Alas, the media will ignore it. They are drunk on Obama’s Kool Aid. Whatever he says is their dogma. Obama is trying to portray Israel as a rogue nation, and his media lap dogs will lap it up until the bowl is dry. They obediently sit and stay, reporting whatever the White House tells them to report and exactly as they’re told to report it, for fear that they might be cut off and ignored.

It is time for our government to get real. Israel is an independent nation. America does not govern it. Israel cannot rely on us to hold its interests dearer than our own, nor to care about it as deeply as Israelis do.

Israel is America’s strongest ally in the region. How does America pay it back? We support and throw money and arms at groups and governments that would wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It is a travesty.

If Benjamin Netanyahu is smart, he will tell Obama just what is in Israel’s best interests and then act. Israel owes no one any longer. American treachery is not foreign policy. From the time of its inception, Israel has been in a constant state of war, overtly and covertly. For some strange reason, too many Americans have embraced the cause of terrorism and support those who would destroy Israel. The so-called Palestinians are not a legitimate government, nation, or country. They possess no real estate not granted to them by third parties, parties who have no vested interest in what happens to Israel. Busy body, bleeding heart do-gooders who couldn’t care less about the fate of Israel have helped create the Palestinians’ so-called “government”.

So congratulations, Mr. Prime Minister. We hope your historic reelection will prove fruitful for your people. Continue on the path of security for Israel and ignore America and its clownish government. Our government does not know the best interests of America, let alone of Israel. We cannot solve our own problems, so don’t let us tell you how to solve yours.

Have a gala inauguration, Mr. Netanyahu. Bring on the celebrities. Party hearty. Roll out the red carpet. Kiss and dance with your wife. You earned it. Then, thumb your nose at the rest of the world and do what is in the best interests for Israel.

If you need a historic and celebrity stand up comedian for the inauguration, Joe Biden might be available. Take our vice president. Please.

Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur.  He likes to be the irreverent sharp stick that pokes, prods, and annoys.  His opinions are his and his alone. Mr. Bella is a member of the National Press Photographers Association, Online News Association, Chicago Headline Club, and the Society for Professional Journalists.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

One does not have to be particularly astute to realize that now, following Operation Pillar of Defense that HKBH is out there in the front lines, intercepting the overwhelming number of rockets fired at major population centers. The statistics are astounding, realizing that less than 4% of rockets fired hit urban population centers and most of them did not result in loss of life of injuries.

Some forget or simply do not realize that Hashem does not manifest in the form of a miracle, but “derech ha’teva” as is said in Israel, “nature” is you wish. The Iron Dome’s success undoubtedly prevented countless deaths and injury, not to mention property damage, yet the nation’s political leaders and military commanders who are being interviewed around-the-clock on new stations simply cannot bring themselves to say the “H” word, Hashem.

Some credit the wisdom of the weapons development engineers, others Amir Peretz, who went against popular opinion to push the Iron Dome as defense minister some six years ago, some the IDF and others simply attribute the fact that the nation is not in mourning to a combination of factors, including the Iron Dome, IDF and “good luck”. But they simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that as Jews, Hashem is our guiding light and while we must to our part, we dare not turn our backs on HKBH.

How terrifying it is since we as believers realize that ultimately we will all have to come to the realization that this and all our successes are attributed to HKBH and we will all have to be brought to this reality.

Perhaps this is what the current warfare is about, the beginning of the next stage of this ride, or not, but what is certain is that until Israel’s leaders turn to gedolei yisrael for advice and HKBH for assistance, the war has been lost.

Baruch Oberman is a proud Jew who made Aliya 5 years ago and now resides in Jerusalem.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

Today I had the unique opportunity to meet Israel’s ambassador to the UN, the Honorable Ido Aharoni. He spoke in front of several hundred eager listeners at the Aish Hatora Conference in Connecticut and gave the audience a view of the current state of affairs stating that Israel had the responsibility to secure its citizens safety in the “maximum way possible” even if that meant a ground invasion into Gaza.

I posed the following question to the Ambassador at the follow up Question and Answer session (I was one of four lucky people because he had to run back to NY). I first introduced my question by explaining that During the American Civil War Northern General William T. Sherman’s stated unequivocally, as he marched to the sea burning Atlanta and everything in his way, that that war was hell but that it had to be absolute to bring about the peace. I stated further that the U.S.A. during WW2 dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese and leveled many German cities in their effort to bring the Axis powers into submission and start the process of living in peace again. With that introduction I stated that in fact I was not questioning nor calling for the IDF to level Gaza and bomb it into submission as the allies did during World War Two. On the contrary I questioned the need for any ground invasion in the immediate future what so ever so as to keep Israel’s IDF out of harm’s way. Essentially my question was why it was that Israel would possible entertain sending ground troops in the immediate future when all they needed to do was turn off the water, gas, and electricity and bring the people of Gaza to their knees without firing a single shot. You may say I am naïve but the fact is that most people actually believe that Israel disengaged from Gaza completely in 2006. While it is true there are no longer any ground forces physically there it is a lie to say Israel completely disengaged. Israel still supplies gas, electric, fuel, water, even essential food items, not to mention allowing select citizens of Gaza(even in the current conflict) to get medical treatment in Israel. So why not turn off the gas and electric for a week or two and watch the Palestinians submit. It has never been fully tried so why not try it first before risking countless lives of the brave soldiers of the IDF?

The answer I received was disheartening and explains why Israel can never fully win any war with its enemies, keeping true peace just over the next horizon for the foreseeable future, as uncomfortable as that may sound. At best Israel can hope to put a band aid on the situation for another four or five years until the rockets start flying again from Gaza. The Ambassadors answer included a re-write on American History as he lectured me that the U.S.A. fought the Germans out of the goodness of their heart and because it “was the right thing to do for which History will always be indebted”. Israel, he exclaimed, also had an obligation to show the world that it will do “what is right” at all costs(even at the costs of its own brave soldiers, I thought?) and that the IDF was the most moral of all armies in the world and on to the next question he went. I was saddened by his answer but not surprised.

First of all one need not be a PHD in History to know that the U.S.A. was an isolationist county in the 1930’s and was very reluctant to enter a war in Europe, a full ocean away. Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor, almost two and half years after the Nazis invaded Poland, did the U.S.A. declare war on Japan(not Germany) and only after the Germans declared war on the USA four days after Pearl Harbor did the US enter the war against Germany. True it was the “right thing to do” but more than a million Jews had been slaughtered before the USA went to war and only after the Germans declared war on the USA first on December 11, 1941. So much for doing “what was right”. No doubt, it may have been the right thing to do beforehand but the best interests of the safety of the citizens of the USA did not call for entering the war until attacked almost two and half years after the beginning of the war. Scholars are still debating when and whether the USA would have gotten into the war had they not been attacked at Pearl Harbor first.

As for the rest of the answer by the Ambassador, no doubt the IDF is the most humane and moral army in the world always trying to avoid enemy civilian casualties. But the government of Israel has a responsibility first and foremost to its citizens and not the citizens of Gaza. After one or two weeks without power you may very well see the rockets come to an end. It is at least worth a try. Does that not make sense?

The Israeli government will counter and say cutting off the gas and electric will cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza with unclean water, open sewers, and disease soon thereafter becoming the plight of the “innocent” families of the terrorists terrorizing the children of Southern Israel and that collective punishment is simply wrong. Besides, they will claim, what will the world say? Are you kidding? These are the same people that democratically voted for the very terrorist shooting rockets into Israel and yet we are supposed to feel bad for them? But mind you I was not even asking for the IDF to level any cities. In fact, I do not think they should step foot in Gaza at all. My question to the ambassador simply boils down to this. Is It moral to ask the brave soldiers of the IDF to risk life and limb in a ground invasion while the government that is sending them in harm’s way simultaneously supplies the enemy with fuel, (which can be used for those rockets) food, water, gas, and electric of which if they were deprived of such essentials this could all end in a week or two without firing a shot? Is it not worth a shot (no pun intended)? Such action is not only moral but humane since it will end this disaster sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Asking the IDF to invade Gaza while supplying the enemy is not humane, it is simply insane.

By Jacob Hirsch Esq.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

[By: Ari Werth]

A mysterious building sits on leafy Gershon Agron Street, a block away from Jerusalem’s Old City. A row of black SUVs with tinted windows and diplomatic license plates line the street. Armed men with earpieces and sunglasses pace in front of an old building with high walls. An American flag flies on the roof. What is this place?

Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, so this building must be the US embassy, right? Think again. The US has no embassy in the capital.

To find the official American embassy, head to the beach in Tel Aviv. The fortified embassy sits along the waterfront next to Mike’s Place bar.

What’s wrong with this diplomatic geography?

Under international law, every country has the right to designate its own capital. Jerusalem is the only designated capital not recognized by the US Government.

The Obama Administration refused to move the embassy during the past four years. President Obama believes moving the embassy would legitimize Israel’s claim to Jerusalem and thereby taint America’s “honest broker” status with the Palestinians. He’s preserving Jerusalem as a bargaining chip for “final status” negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Clinton also deferred the move, prompting the US Congress to step in. In 1995, it passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act to force the US State Department to relocate the embassy.

The deadline to relocate was May 31, 1999. Israel is still waiting.

Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton all used a legal loophole enabling them to suspend relocation every six months “in the interest of national security.” However, President Obama left out a symbolic statement included in the Bush and Clinton memoranda. He deleted the line: “My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.”

A similar clause was also dropped from the 2012 Democratic Party platform. A surprise vote during the convention to restore the language was met with loud boos from many delegates.

“It’s unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” stated Mitt Romney at the time.

Romney made headlines by doing something the Obama Administration refuses to do — acknowledge Jerusalem’s status as the capital. “A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” Romney declared during his Israel trip in July.

Romney realizes that Palestinians don’t just want East Jerusalem. They want all of Jerusalem. In fact, they want all of Israel.

Israel’s crown jewel is Jerusalem’s Old City, a spiritual epicenter for all three major religions. The Old City contains the holiest site in Judaism (the Kotel), the holiest site in Christianity, and the third holiest site in Islam (Dome of the Rock).

When Jordan controlled the Old City from 1948 to 1967, it destroyed religious freedom. More than fifty synagogues were destroyed or ransacked. Christians were only allowed to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on X-Mas. The Quran was required reading in Christian schools.

After the Six Day War in 1967, Israel regained control of the Old City and began a policy of religious tolerance that continues to this day. In fact, Israel voluntarily ceded control the Temple Mount back to the Muslims due to the importance of the Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. Millions of Christians and Muslims (many from Arab countries seeking Israel’s destruction) have come to Jerusalem to visit their holy sites whenever they want. Under Israeli law, a violation of any sacred religious space is a crime. Perhaps the best example of Israel’s inclusiveness is 20% of Israel’s population are Arabs (mostly Palestinian) with full citizenship rights and elected representatives in the Knesset.

In Palestinian controlled Gaza, in contrast, Islamic extremists are terrorizing Christians. In 2010, they targeted churches in a terror campaign. Bibles and holy relics were destroyed. This year, several Christians were kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. Gaza’s Christians say they live in fear for their lives.

Whoever sits in the Oval Office over the next four years will influence the future of Jerusalem. Will a peace settlement split the Holy City once again into conflict zones? Or will Jerusalem remain whole, a place where religious freedom is protected?

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

[By Dick Morris]

Natural disasters usually follow the same political trajectory: First the incumbent experiences a bounce as he tours the impacted area, shows his concern, and pledges help to his beleaguered constituents. But then reality sets in and the shortages, delays, mishaps, deaths, and devastation becomes apparent and people turn against the incumbent.

George W. Bush had his Katrina.

And now Barack Obama has his Sandy.

Last week, Obama asserted a kind of ownership of the storm by touring New Jersey in the now infamous embrace of Republican stalwart Governor Chris Christie. Now that we are all appalled by the lack of food, gas, water, heat, and the basic essentials of life throughout the storm zone, Obama’s government doesn’t look so good anymore.

Why didn’t FEMA stockpile food, water, and gasoline? We had a week’s notice to prepare for Sandy. There was no shortage of time. Did the government not realize that people needed to eat, drink, and drive?

All throughout America, we are asking these questions of our television sets as we watch the evolving story of human misery.

Meanwhile, Obama has resumed the campaign trail, pounding the opposition in the same relentless and partisan style which he used before the storm. When Obama said that voting was “the best revenge,” he threw away whatever presidentiality he displayed in touring storm damage earlier in the week.

As he entered the last week before the Congressional election of 1994, President Clinton returned to the U.S. after having presided over the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. He called me on his return and asked where he should campaign? Which incumbent Democrats should he try to help get re-elected?

I told him he should not campaign for any of them.

“No, you don’t understand,” he explained. I just came back from the Middle East and my ratings are up ten points. Before, I would have hurt the candidates I campaigned for, but not now. Now I can help them.”

“Your ratings are up because your trip hyped your presidentiality. Now, if you start campaigning, you’ll look like a politician and your ratings will come down again. You’ll end up doing more harm than good to those you are trying to help.”

He disregarded the advice and lost both houses of Congress in the elections.

Now Obama is making the same mistake. By campaigning, particularly by using the same harsh partisan rhetoric which has characterized his campaign, Obama is dragging down his ratings and with it his chances of victory.

Particularly when we see the juxtaposition of the mounting disaster in New York and New Jersey and the President out on the campaign trail attacking his opponents, we realize that Obama is a candidate before he is president, more worried about his second term than the welfare of his constituents.

In yesterday’s polling numbers, I saw a rise in Obama’s ratings and warned that the race was far from over. Now, we see him throwing it all away and resuming his crash into a single term presidency.

(Source: DickMorris.com)

THE FOLLOWING IS A NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL:

On Monday, in their final debate, Mitt Romney denounced President Obama for creating “tension” and “turmoil” with Israel and chided him for having “skipped Israel” during his travels in the Middle East. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Romney has repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of having “thrown allies like Israel under the bus.”

But history tells a different story. Indeed, whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on Israel’s leaders — from the 1950s on — it has come from Republican presidents, not Democratic ones. This was particularly true under Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

Just one week before the Iraq war began in March 2003, Mr. Bush was still struggling to form a broad international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein. Unlike in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, decided to opt out, meaning that the United Nations could not provide formal legitimacy for a war against Mr. Hussein. Britain was almost alone in aligning itself with America, and Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support was deemed crucial in Washington.

Just as the British Parliament was about to approve the joint venture, a group of Mr. Blair’s Labour Party colleagues threatened to revolt, demanding Israeli concessions to the Palestinians in exchange for their support for the Iraq invasion. This demand could have scuttled the war effort, and there was only one way that British support could be maintained: Mr. Bush would have to declare that the “road map” for Middle East peace, a proposal drafted early in his administration, was the formal policy of the United States.

Israel’s prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, had been vehemently opposed to the road map, which contained several “red lines” that he refused to accept, including a stipulationthat the future status of Jerusalem would be determined by “a negotiated resolution” taking into account “the political and religious concerns of both sides.” This wording implied a possible end to Israel’s sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, which has been under Israeli control since 1967.

On March 13, 2003, senior Israeli officials were summarily informed that the United States would publicly adopt the draft road map as its policy. Washington made it clear to us that on the eve of a war, Israel was expected to refrain from criticizing the American policy and also to ensure that its sympathizers got the message.

The United States insisted that the road map be approved without any changes, saying Israel’s concerns would be addressed later. At a long and tense cabinet debate I attended in May 2003, Mr. Sharon reluctantly asked his ministers to accept Washington’s demand. Benjamin Netanyahu, then the finance minister, disagreed, and he abstained during the vote on the cabinet resolution, which eventually passed.

From that point on, the road map, including the language on Jerusalem, became the policy bible for America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. Not only was Israel strong-armed by a Republican president, but it was also compelled to simply acquiesce and swallow the bitterest of pills.

Three years later, the Bush administration again pressured Israel into supporting a policy that ran counter to its interests. In early 2006, the terrorist group Hamas ran candidates in the Palestinian legislative elections. Israel had been adamant that no leader could campaign with a gun in his belt; the Palestinian party Fatah opposed Hamas’s participation, too. But the White House would have none of this; it pushed Fatah to allow Hamas candidates to run, and pressured Israel into allowing voting for Hamas — even in parts of East Jerusalem.

After Hamas won a clear majority, Washington sought to train Fatah forces to crush it militarily in the Gaza Strip. But Hamas pre-empted this scheme by taking control of Gaza in 2007, and the Palestinians have been ideologically and territorially divided ever since.

Despite the Republican Party’s shrill campaign rhetoric on Israel, no Democratic president has ever strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue. In the 1956 Suez Crisis, it was a Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who joined the Soviet Union in forcing Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula after a joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt.

In 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on Tel Aviv, the administration of the first President Bush urged Israel not to strike back so as to preserve the coalition of Arab states fighting Iraq. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir resisted his security chiefs’ recommendation to retaliate and bowed to American demands as his citizens reached for their gas masks.

After the war, Mr. Shamir agreed to go to Madrid for a Middle East peace conference set up by Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Fearful that Mr. Shamir would be intransigent at the negotiating table, the White House pressured him by withholding $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel, causing us serious economic problems. The eventual result was Mr. Shamir’s political downfall. The man who had saved Mr. Bush’s grand coalition against Saddam Hussein in 1991 was “thrown under the bus.”

In all of these instances, a Republican White House acted in a cold and determined manner, with no regard for Israel’s national pride, strategic interests or sensitivities. That’s food for thought in October 2012.

A group was assembled in front of the Shomrei Shabbos Shul in Borough Park, Brooklyn. The debate was heated and intriguing; at talk was the formation of a new third party. “School Choice Party” read the top of the petition a young man entreated me to sign. “Third parties in the United States are not that popular”, I thought to myself as I waved my hand in disapproval. Coincidentally  my mailbox that day contained the tuition bill for the school year of 2012-2013; I was raised again. The next day my name was added to the thousands of signatures on the “School Choice Party” petition.

The debate over school choice has been raging ever since Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, floated the idea in 1955. In an article titled The Role of Government in Education, Friedman theorized that “competition is a way in which both public and private schools can be required to satisfy their customers”. Thus, he advocated for a system where “government, preferably local governmental units, [should] give each child, through his parents, a specified sum to be used solely in paying for his general education; the parents [should] be free to spend this sum at a school of their own choice, provided it met certain minimum standards laid down by the appropriate governmental unit.”

Education is essential for one’s future. Quality education leads to a good job, which enables a better social and productive life. At a speech at Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, Tennessee, President Obama made some fundamental arguments on the importance of education. “I’m standing here as President because of the education that I received,” he declared. He elaborately pointed out that education facilitates the success of the United States of America, teaches one how to think critically and find solutions, and teaches discipline among other qualities. Indeed, recent unemployment data confirm that educated individuals fare better than their peers without advanced education. They are better protected at times of economic uncertainty and generally perform better in unemployment reports. Additionally, comprehensive schooling results in higher earnings and better income opportunities. However, as Albert Einstein once said, “education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.” Thus, schools should yield maximum efficiency and productivity by applying the best methods possible; yet, it cannot jeopardize the public education or increase costs.

The public schools in the United States are failing, and change ought to be enacted. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called for critical reforms to the nation’s public education system at a talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Where we are at today is not good enough for our nation’s children, it’s not good enough for our cities and states, and it’s not good enough for our nation’s economy,” said Duncan. In fact, according to the Obama administration, an estimated 82% of the nation’s public schools fell short of federal standards last year. Choices like as charter schools and vouchers will lower the public expenditure and drive reform of public schools.

Students attending private and charter schools perform better academically than their counterparts in US public schools. Paul E. Peterson and Elena Llaudet published an article which concludes: “Based on the 2003 NAEP data, when student characteristics are estimated consistently across school sectors, a private-school advantage relative to public schools is evident at all grade levels in both math and reading in all estimations but one”. Caroline M. Hoxby, a professor at Sanford University and former faculty member of Harvard University, has done extensive research on school choice. She exclaims: “I found that charter students were 3.8% more likely to be proficient on their state’s reading exam and 1.2% more likely to be proficient on their state’s math exam than students in the nearest regular public school. These differences rise to 5% in reading and 2.8% in math if we compare charter schools to the nearest public school with a similar racial composition. In fact, the more similar the schools are, the more positive the differences.” Additionally, studies show that students who attend private or charter schools are more likely to graduate high school and enroll into college.

Critics allege that private and charter school will erode public schools; yet, statistics show that public schools flourish when competing with private schools. An evaluation of student-level data in Florida compared the results of disabled children in public schools and those enrolled in the McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities. It confirms: “our results from evaluating Florida’s McKay program provide additional evidence that rather than being harmed, public schools respond to the challenge of exposure to school choice by improving the education they provide”. “Milwaukee public students themselves are performing at somewhat higher levels as a result of competitive pressure from the school voucher program,” states an assessment report of the Milwaukee Parental Choice program conducted by Patrick J. Wolf.

With the national debt at record high levels, politicians seek to cut government spending. Funding for education, however, is necessary for the country’s future and economy; yet, school choice can help the government save money. A survey conducted by the Fraser Institute attested that “the average cost of tuition at inexpensive private schools was $4,398 per year, while the cost of providing public schooling per year was more than $8,000 per child in Ontario”. Consequently, Wolf also concludes that “the Choice program saves the government money — nearly $52 million in fiscal year 2011.” A study conducted by David F. Salisbury, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, found that “the majority of private elementary schools charged $5,000 or less per student per year.” He affirms that “a voucher amount of $5,000 would give students access to most private schools. Since average per pupil spending for public schools is now $8,830, most states could offer a voucher amount even greater than $5,000 and still realize substantial savings”.

An important step to fix the economy is to improve education. While the No Child Left Behind Act largely overhauled the educational system in the United States, much improvement is still needed. Charter schools, vouchers and tax credits will fundamentally change American schools and make them productive. Giving more choice to parents will increase the effectiveness of education and lower the staggering deficit. Parents should have the choice to choose the school that their children will attend. The government spends more money on a child attending public school than one pays for tuition in a private school that yields better results. While parents must ensure that their children receive adequate education, it should be their choice. Incentives should be given to schools with a higher curriculum and tax credits should be given to those children that fare better and achieve satisfactory grades. Vouchers would encourage competitiveness between private and public schools and America will regain its former reputation.

Orthodox Jews struggle to pay tuition Yeshiva and Beis Yaakov administrators work tirelessly to gather the payroll, yet our politicians in Albany sit idly. They use the Blaine Amendment as a pretext for their failure to appropriately represent their constituents. However, Marion Superior Court Judge Michael Keele ruled that Indiana’s sweeping voucher program was constitutional despite the Blaine Amendment in the state’s constitution. As a result, I will be pulling the lever for the “School Choice” candidates this November and plea from you to do the same. Thousands of votes for a relatively new third party will send a strong message that will reverberate across Albany.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached atdavehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.

[By Sheldon Adelson]

“Americans who support Israel should take the president at his word,” wrote Haim Saban recently in the New York Times, claiming President Barack Obama is fully committed to the Jewish state.

But is that true? Should we take him at his word?

No, not when Israel confronts the threat of nuclear annihilation by Iran.

Time and again President Obama has signaled a lack of sympathy-or even outright hostility-toward Israel. Not long ago he was caught on an open microphone agreeing with French President Sarkozy’s slurring of the Israeli prime minister. And then there was his public snubbing of the Israeli leader’s request to discuss Iran during a recent U.S. visit, a measure Reuters termed “a highly unusual rebuff to a close ally.”

Even more worrying, last month former U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who attended several of Obama’s meetings with Netanyahu, admitted “there are serious differences between our interests and Israel’s own security interests.”

All this certainly raises questions about Obama’s sincerity when he publicly says he’ll “always have Israel’s back.”

Nor are these the only times the president has left American voters wondering where he really stands on foreign relations.

Remember, earlier this year, when he was inadvertently recorded asking former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for “space” until his reelection, when he’d have more “flexibility” on missile defense? What did he mean? Obama was clearly not being forthright with the American people.

What else hasn’t he told us?

Think about Obama’s anti-Israel friends and mentors-radicals like Rashid Khalidi, Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, or the late Edward Said, the virulently anti-Israel professor under whom Obama studied. Has he made anti-Israel promises to them? Is Obama’s campaign rhetoric in support of Israel only creating “space” till after the election?

These questions cause genuine worry in Israel.

Even some liberals now complain the president has lost so much Israeli trust that, in the words of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, “there is almost no chance of progress [for peace] if Obama wins re-election.”

Given that Obama’s public expressions are not something Israelis can rely upon, we need to take seriously the question: What are his second term plans when he no longer needs the Jewish vote?

Obama’s supporters tell us there’s nothing to worry about. He can be trusted, they say, because of his record of military aid to Israel and his support for sanctions against Iran.

But the aid was committed in programs that began decades before his presidency under previous administrations. He cannot rightly take credit for this aid in the sense of initiating it, just as he cannot take credit for merely signing pro-Israel legislation that had bipartisan congressional support.

Moreover, Obama’s campaign never mentions that in the past few years his budgets have proposed significant cuts in US-Israel missile defense funds-from $121.7mil to $99.8mil, a substantial slash. And just ask Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak or Poland’s Lech Walesa about Obama’s reliability because of past military aid.

Even worse, the Iranian sanctions contain loopholes that, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, “you could drive a warhead through.” All 20 of Iran’s major trading partners enjoy sanction exemptions. They won’t stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Let’s also not forget, when Obama took office, he admitted his administration sought to put “daylight” between America and Israel. He lectured that the Jewish state needed “to engage in serious self-reflection” about peace-as if tiny Israel has not spent decades pursuing peace with its belligerent neighbors. And unbelievably, in his 2009 address to the Muslim world, he implied a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and Palestinian dislocation.

With a second term the president won’t have fears of electoral accountability and will act upon his true feelings toward Israel.

This is worrying-especially at a time when the Jewish state as well as Americans sorely need a president whose words and policies they can rely on.

Not since 1967 has Israel’s safety been more precarious. Iran is now racing for a nuclear bomb while bragging they only need “24 hours and an excuse” to destroy the Jewish state. Egypt is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hezbollah is armed to the teeth in Lebanon.

Turkey’s government is more foe than friend. The Gulf States use enormous petroleum wealth to fund global anti-Israel propaganda. The “Arab Spring” continues to usher extremists into power. And Hamas rules Gaza.

All the while, the United Nations never misses a chance to denounce the Jewish state; Western universities support boycotts of Israel; and a sizable portion of the Democratic Party protests the inclusion of Jerusalem in their party platform. The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, can’t even name Israel’s capital.

In these times of unrest and violence, it is necessary to elect a commander-in-chief whose words we can trust. Mitt Romney, to my mind, is a much safer choice. Unlike Obama, he not only understands Israel’s predicament, he actually likes the country.

To be sure, no one should argue that Jews must support Romney just because he is more reliable on Israel.
But neither should they dismiss him because they don’t agree with his every position. When the Jewish homeland is at stake, we must not let ourselves be fooled by Obama’s oration skills. Nor can we afford to ignore his troubling track record on Israel.

Those who support Obama are asking the rest of us to trust a president who has yet to recognize Israel’s ancient capital, a promise he made in the last election.

So keep in mind Obama’s open microphone comments next time someone says you must take the president at his word. And ask yourself: Should we risk Israel’s security on his campaign rhetoric?

For Obama, the issue is only political; for Israel, it’s existential-a matter of survival.

Mr. Sheldon G. Adelson is an internationally renowned entrepreneur and philanthropist. He is the world’s leading private donor to Jewish education, the Birthright Israel program, and the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.

Editor’s note: Sheldon Adelson owns Israel Hayom, the largest-circulation daily newspaper in Israel. JNS.org is the U.S. distributor for Israel Hayom’s English-language content. This op-ed was written exclusively for JNS.org.

Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter, President Obama flailed all around the debate stage last night. He was stuttering, nervous and petulant. It was like he had been called in front of the principal after goofing around for four years and blowing off all his homework.

Not since Jimmy Carter faced Ronald Reagan has the U.S. presidency been so embarrassingly represented in public. Actually, that’s an insult to Jimmy Carter.

The split screen was most devastating. Mitt Romney spoke forthrightly, with carefully studied facts and details at the ready. He looked right at the president and accused him of being miles out of his depth.

Mr. Obama? His eyes were glued to his lectern, looking guilty and angry and impatient with all the vagaries of Democracy. This debate was seriously chaffing him.

What exactly was Mr. Obama’s strategy here? Did he figure with so many people unemployed in this abomination of an economy he should go for the sympathy vote? Like voters could relate to a guy who is just scared pantsless that he is about to lose his job?

In the middle of the blood-letting segment about jobs, Mr. Romney said good-naturedly: “This is fun.”

Almost pleading, Mr. Obama reached out to the moderator for a lifeline: “You may want to move onto another topic.”

When an unexpected noise went off behind him, Mr. Obama wheeled around to look as if to ask, “Time to go?”

Hopefully.

Turns out, it was the first honest thing we have heard from Mr. Obama’s campaign: The president really was absolutely terrible on the debate stage.

Maybe the next debate will be on something other than the economy that won’t be so bad for Mr. Obama. Perhaps they could hold a debate on street organizing.

Who knew anyone on the planet could make Mitt Romney look easy, relaxed, smooth and human?

But Mr. Romney was absolutely on fire Wednesday night. He had command of countless specifics from voters and business owners from all across country.

He explained complex issues clearly, concisely and with good humor. He was not angry. But he was direct and pointed.

“I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about,” Romney said in the most devastating understatement of the night. “I maybe need to get a new accountant.”

Like a prosecutor in court, Mr. Romney went after Mr. Obama’s record and eviscerated him about the terrible economy and Mr. Obama’s belief in “trickle down government.”

Mr. Romney also came off as genuine by looking Mr. Obama in the eye with every criticism. He also looked moderator Jim Lehrer in the eye when he told him that if he became president he would cut funding to public broadcasting, possibly eliminating his job.

Mr. Obama weakly offered Mr. Lehrer: “You’ve done a great job.”

OK, that’s one vote for Mr. Obama in the sympathy strategy. Just 55 million votes to go.

(Source: Washington Times)

By Rav Aryeh Z. Ginzberg
Chofetz Chaim Torah Center

While the “Neilah” experience for most people is an important one, climaxing the entire Yom Kippur Avodah,; for Rabbonim it’s that much more.

For most people, though  uplifted and inspired by Neilah, I don’t believe that much thought goes into it, until it actually  happens. However Rabbonim knowing the importance of this Tefillah , think for days, some  for weeks, on how to find  just the right words to use to lift up the Olam after a whole day of Tefillah to just one more level of experiencing Kedushas Hayom. For myself, I spend the better part of the year with my eyes and ears wide open, looking for just the right Neilah inspirational story. This year, I found it several months ago, and it left me with a much deeper understanding of what Neilah is all about.

Here is my Neilah story.

Last Yom Kippur, a very prominent and popular Baal Chessed named Shloimie Gross (Z”L) decided to leave his home in Flatbush to  spend Yom Kippur davening in the famed Yeshivas Mir in Yerushalayim. Immediately after Maariv, Shlomie, who was a major supporter of the Mir was escorted up to the front of the large Bais Medrash to give and receive a warm Bracha from the Rosh Hayeshiva of Mir, Harav Nosson Tzvi Finkel (Z”TL). The Rosh Hayeshiva  gave his dear friend Shlomie a warm handshake and an even  warmer Brocha.  Someone from the Yeshiva administration got hold of a camera and took a picture of both the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Nosson Tzvi and Shlomie still dressed in their Talis and Kittel with their magnificent smiles. (see attached picture).

It was just a few short weeks later, that the terrible news spread throughout the Torah world, the Rosh Hayeshiva of the largest yeshiva in the world had left this world. Over the next week, the magazines and newspapers were filled with stories and pictures of the Rosh Hayeshiva’s saintly life. One of the pictures printed, was the one with Rav Nosson Tzvi and Reb Shlomie, taken just a few weeks earlier on Motzai Yom Kippur.

When this picture was printed, a close friend of Reb Shlomie, Rav Binyomin Povarsky, Shlita (son of Rav Berel Povarsky, the Rosh Yeshiva of Ponovez) immediately faxed this picture to Reb Shlomie at his office in Flatbush and followed up a few moments later with a phone call. He said the following: “ Shlomie, can you imagine that not more than half an hour prior to this picture, unknown to anyone in this world, the Rosh Hayeshiva was nigzar by the Rebono Shel Olam, LAMISAH (for death)” and then his voice faded off.

The story picks up just a few short months later, when a great tragedy occurred that left hundreds of people shocked and bereft, on an Erev Shabbos, when  Reb Shlomie was stricken with a massive heart attack and he was niftar  suddenly.

A dear friend, Moshe Feuer, who is a mechutan with Reb Shlomie Gross (Z”L) shared with me the last part of the story. He, along with many relatives and friends flew to Eretz Yisroel after Shabbos to escort this special unforgettable Baal Chessed and Baal Tzedakah to his kevurah. In the van that picked up the family and drove them from the airport to Shamgar for the Hespedim and kevurah, Rav Povarsky painfully reminded them of the picture that he had sent Reb Shlomie months earlier and the comment that he made then  about the picture and then he added; “who could have ever imagined that the Gzar Din handed down in Shamayim just a half an hour before that picture was taken was that both these unique and special people would be leaving the world in the coming year of 5772.

When I heard this story and I saw this picture,that was my Neilah moment, though it happened months before Yom Kippur.

If we would truly grasp the significance of what takes place in Shamayim by Neilah, by the Chasimas Hadin, we would not only enter Neilah a little inspired, a little hungry and a lot tired, we would be shaken to the very core of our being. Klal Yisroel suffered so many losses this past year and the perspective we need to have is that everything that happened was decided and finalized at Neilah.

One Erev Yom Kippur, when the Telzer Rosh Yeshiva Rav Chaim Stein Z”TL was already in his 90’s, he was walking to the Yeshiva with his grandson. Having suffered a devastating loss several months earlier with the loss of his granddaughter Goldy(Z”L) he turned to his grandson and said, “ had I cried more last Yom Kipper when they read about the deaths of the sons of Ahron Hakohein, I could have prevented the Gezeira of Goldy’s death.” This was the depth of the Rosh Yeshiva’s understanding of what Yom Kipper is all about.

The Brisker Rov ZT”L used a Moshol  to describe the different attitudes to the Yemei Hadin. During the war, merchants would smuggle goods across the border illegally. The penalty for this crime was death. One would hire a wagon driver for a high fare to transport him and his merchandise to his destination. As they would get closer to the border, the merchant would start trembling from fear.  He knew the consequence in case he was caught. The wagon driver was nervous, but not as afraid since he merely faced a fine. The horses weren’t nervous at all. As far as they were concerned, it made no difference where they were.

We need to stand by Neilah like the wagon driver, with the clarity of thought and the depth of understanding that “Hiney Yom Hadin,” and we and our family and all of Klal Yisroel ‘s futures are in Hashem’s hands at that moment.  And if we can truly do it, then hopefully we will all be zoche for a year of health, Nachas, Parnosoh and all the Brachos that this  world has to offer.

Kesiva  Vachasima  Tova.

(This author has received permission from the Finkel and Gross families to use their names and this picture. Any Chizuk or inspiration that hopefully will come from this article, should be a zechus for their holy Neshomos.)

The following appeared in Thursday’s NY Daily News:

Every grade school student knows that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Yet if all goes as planned Thursday, the city’s Board of Health will adopt regulations that violate both of those freedoms.

What is at issue is a ritual practice known as metzitzah b’peh , during which oral suction by a mohel is used to draw blood from a circumcision wound. The city contends that over the past 12 years, 11 children so circumcised have contracted the herpes virus, and that as a result, two of them died and two suffered brain damage.

By comparing these figures with the incidence of herpes infection among infant girls and other boys, the city estimates that there should have been only a handful of such cases over these 12 years, not 11. Others, most prominently Dr. Daniel Berman of Westchester Square Medical Center in the Bronx, contest the city’s methodology and estimates, as well as the causal connection they suggest.

In an affidavit Berman submitted to the Health Department, he concluded that “based on my review, the data do not support the conclusion that metzitzah b’peh increases the risk of infection.”

The regulations being considered Thursday have two components. They would require every mohel to distribute to parents a form drafted by the city that sets forth the Health Department’s views about the procedure. They would also require a mohel to obtain the written consent of both parents before performing such a circumcision.

There are thousands of circumcisions with metzitzah b’peh performed safely in New York each year. Nevertheless, even one avoidable death or serious injury is one too many.

The problem with the proposed regulations is that they are far more likely to offend the Constitution than protect children. Metzitzah b’peh is practiced primarily by Hasidic Jews, who believe it to be a necessary element of circumcision. Since a government form will not alter that belief, the regulations will not affect public health.

I do not question the motivation of those promoting these regulations. But being well-intentioned only takes you so far. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, it is no excuse “that a legislature consists entirely of the purehearted, if the law it enacts in fact singles out a religious practice for special burdens.”

Even worse is the city’s stated desire to persuade parents to follow the guidance of rabbis who permit circumcision without metzitzah b’peh . Whatever my own views, I do not want the government advocating for particular interpretations of Jewish law.

The regulations are even more problematic on free speech grounds. The city is trying to compel every mohel to distribute the Health Department’s views. But compelling speech is as much a constitutional violation as censoring it.

Just last month, a federal appeals court in Washington struck down Food and Drug Administration regulations requiring cigarette manufacturers to place certain graphic warnings on every pack of cigarettes.

The court acknowledged that the government can “use shock, shame and moral opprobrium” to discourage people from becoming smokers, but it drew the line at making “every pack of cigarettes in the country a minibillboard for the government’s anti-smoking message.”

The same reasoning is likely to invalidate the proposed circumcision regulations. The form of circumcision the government is trying to discourage is entirely legal. And since the regulations compel individual speech, not the commercial speech at issue in the cigarette case, they will be subject to even stricter legal scrutiny.

To be sure, the city is free to inform people of its belief that there are health risks associated with this particular form of circumcision. What it can’t do is forcibly conscript every mohel to serve as a foot soldier in that campaign.

If we are honest, we will acknowledge that these regulations have come about at least in part because this particular practice seems anachronistic and odd. As others have noted, it is hard to imagine the city forcing priests to issue health warnings and obtain informed consent waivers prior to delivering Communion, on the theory that communal sharing of a single cup presents a heightened risk of transmission of disease.

Our nation’s first Congress met in lower Manhattan, just blocks from City Hall. It was the genius of our constitutional draftsmen to foresee and forestall the burdens that government might seek to place on those whose practices and beliefs are at odds with the mainstream. The members of the Board of Health ought to remember and respect their work and wisdom.

Schick is a lawyer in private practice. From 1999 to 2009, he served in New York State government as a deputy attorney general and as president of the Empire State Development Corp.

(Article submitted to YWN by the author)

The twelfth Siyum HaShas earlier this month marked the second time in less than 11 weeks that tens of thousands of Jews took to a major American stadium to make a statement about what’s important to them. Though the Siyum was significant in its own right and celebrated an achievement whose significance virtually all Jews recognize, the other gathering, the Asifah of the Ichud Hakehillos Letohar Hamachane, held on May 20, engaged a smaller segment of the American Jewish community on a more nuanced topic. But it was arguably just as important.

That 40,000-plus Jewish men galvanized to attend an event aimed at acknowledging challenges to avodas Hashem is itself an important achievement. That huge groups representing so many — albeit, unfortunately, not all — Torah communities came together speaks to a fantastic level of commitment to heeding their sages’ call. Indeed, can anyone identify any other segments of modern Jewry willing and able to coalesce in such numbers at the simple beckoning of their leadership?

But nearly 100 days later, reflection is very much in order.

Unlike the Siyum HaShas, where a progression from the celebration is defined and clear — open up a Gemara Brachos and dive in, moving forward one daf at a time — there is no natural “next step” following the Asifah. While there have since been a flurry of follow-up events and seminars and beautiful stories about people working to overcome the challenges technology can pose to advancing spiritually, the legacy of the Asifah has yet to take shape. And without serious action by serious people, it may never do so.

Without an extensive follow-up effort, the Asifah seems on course to become just another file in the voluminous archive of powerfully expressed Jewish hopes never materialized. What’s needed, then, is a positive campaign to build on the energy of the Asifah by offering practical solutions to the challenges discussed there.

One particularly excellent idea was expressed months before the Asifah was even being widely publicized. At the Agudath Israel convention in November, Rav Avrohom Schorr made an impassioned speech in which he proposed a move that has since received little publicity or support.

“If we need Internet for whatever reason,” he said, “why can’t we have in our neighborhoods a center open 24 hours, six days a week, with as many computers as needed, the best technology needed, with shemirah, and everybody should be able to use it who needs it? And then there won’t be any terutz to have it at home.”

Rav Schorr’s suggestion was one of the few that has been made, before or since, with an eye toward establishing healthy, viable alternatives to the status quo. Community Internet centers could be very effective in helping inoculate sincere people against insincere online use and meaningfully speak to the stark reality that even very pious people have come to rely on it for regular communication, everyday transactions, and basic reference. (The thousands of smartphones in the hands of Asifah attendees alone certainly helps attest to this.)

Establishing locations in relevant neighborhoods would certainly require substantial funding. But the same types of people who paid for the merit of renting two stadiums in one of the largest and most expensive metropolitan areas in the world for the Asifah should be recruited to help that exact same cause in an even more enduring fashion.

It would seem plausible that Internet centers could include orientation classes to the useful parts of the Internet, as well as designated stations for accessing Torah content and listening to shiurim. Locations might even be outfitted with community bulletin boards including contact data for important and often underpublicized social services.

Once safe and conveniently established areas for online access are widely available, even more serious follow-up efforts could develop. Encouraging Internet-free homes and promoting responsible use of online tools in general would be measures more easily promoted. Such calls, backed by the widespread availability of access to the functional necessities of the online world, could thereby harness the inspiration many felt at the Asifah to realistic modes of daily living.

To be sure, building a network of safe and efficient online centers will take a lot of time, money and energy. It will require tenacious leadership by askanim with solid technical know-how. Those who assume responsibility at large, perhaps including individuals from national groups such as the Ichud and Agudath Israel, will need to collaborate with local organizations and rabbanim, as the methods of successfully creating such spaces will likely vary from community to community.

Such an undertaking holds much promise for reshaping behavioral norms but, as with any such goal, will require extraordinary persistence. The sooner askanim step forward to begin forming an environment in which it is not only possible but comfortable for people to reconsider their attitudes about Internet access and usage, the more likely the Asifah of the Ichud Hakehillos will be remembered not only as a grand kiddush Hashem under a clear evening sky, but a beachhead initiative for more kedushah in our daily living, spreading an air of taharah to the machaneh all over.

Binyamin Ehrenkranz is a freelance writer based in New York. He may be reached at be25@outlook.com. This article was originally published in the August 22, 2012 edition of Hamodia newspaper.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

[The following is by David E. Harris, President and CEO, National Jewish Democratic Council]

In the last two weeks, the Republican Party has demonstrated that it is simply out of touch with the majority of American Jews. First, its standard bearer selected a running mate who has been criticized by the Jewish community for his plans to end Medicare as we know it and gut the social safety net. Then, its 2012 official party platform took policy stands that are the opposite of those held by most Jews. When you add on RNC Platform Chair Gov. Bob McDonnell mixing up former President Ronald Reagan with Rabbi Hillel – well, the GOP has proven that there isn’t much room in their tent for most Jews.

But if that weren’t enough proof of the wide chasm separating the Republican Party from most American Jews, two of their representatives emerged in recent days as poster children for why Jewish voters do not trust or support the GOP. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) made his outrageously offensive statements on rape – the policies of which are now enshrined in the GOP’s official platform. Akin then bucked party leadership – including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan – to remain a candidate for the Missouri Senate seat. And, according to a news report broken by POLITICO, Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) and several of his colleagues took a less-than-kosher nighttime dip in the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) during their Israel trip last summer – behavior that reportedly enraged House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress.

As Americans begin to tune back in to politics in the coming weeks, they’re going to see a Republican Party that is more extreme than the one they last saw two and four years ago. To put it plainly, the GOP of 2012 will help reinforce why most American Jews will be backing President Obama.

[David A. Harris serves as the President and CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council. David previously worked as NJDC's deputy executive director for seven years, and as the executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition for three years. David has also served as the director of governmmental and public affairs for the American Jewish Congress and as the Washington representative for the Israel Policy Forum; in Democratic politics, David was a congressional fellow for the late Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and a congressional campaign manager as well. David is a native of West Lafayette, Ind., and now lives in Washington, DC with his wife, Megan.]

(Source: Politico)

By Niall Ferguson for Newsweek Magazine:

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

READ MORE: DAILY BEAST

[Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee]

I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.

It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.