COMMENTARY / OPINION
The U.S. plan for Gaza: Good idea? [13:45] Rabbi Manis Friedman
Feb 16, 2025 – Watch the full video at • “Told you so!” – How to be right grac…
Analyzing President Donald Trump’s plan for the United States to take over Gaza.
Election Integrity Update [1:57] JEROME R. CORSI, PH.D.
Investigations Are Uncovering Additional Facts Proving the Stealing of Elections
FEB 16, 2025
Dr. Andrew Paquette continues to perform deep dives into the voter registration databases of several states. In each one, he has found alogrithms (Software code) that has been inserted to enable cloned voters, and thereby false votes, which can be used by the criminals to inserts into election results at all levels to change the outcome. In 2024, Dr. Jerome Corsi exposed the Democrat plan to steal yet another presidential election, and by the grace of God, that was averted. However, the criminals merely diverted their efforts into stealing “down ballot” elections (Senate, Congress, etc.).
The Black Box TIERNEY’S REAL NEWS
FEB 16, 2025 – Did you know that the big bankers have been using the cargo holds of commercial airplanes to haul pallets of gold to America from overseas due to fear of Trump’s tariffs?
I’ll write more about why they are doing that and why President Trump WANTS the gold here in America in my next newsletter – but I want you to think big picture about the many reasons our enemies might want to down a commercial plane. It’s not just WHO is on board – it’s also WHAT is on board.
This is part 4 of my report on the DC crash. If you haven’t read the 1st three parts you might want to do that first.
DC Crash – Part 1
DC Crash – Part 2
DC Crash – Part 3
DC Crash – Part 4
I will examine the Black Box, the REAL audio conversation between the so-called pilots, the recent threats against Trump and the REAL reason that the helicopter (or helicopters) were flying in DC – where they weren’t supposed to be – in the first place.
In my analysis, I have found many discrepancies (and holes) between what the media and ‘expert’ pundits are telling the public and what actually happened.
I’ve listened to several different audio clips of alleged conversations between the airplane pilots and the helicopter pilots and ATC that evening – but there is a complete 30-minute version of that posted on LiveATC.net. It’s worth your time to listen to the entire conversation.
I also examined flight information from the Reagan DC airport from Flight Aware. You can see how easy it is for ANYBODY to track any plane arriving or departing this way in real time. If you and I can do it, so can ATC & the pilots and our enemies.
In the last chapter of my report, I suggested to you that the evidence showed that the helicopter did NOT respond to ATC and that the conversation seemed EDITED OR ALTERED to make it look like they did – and that the helicopter was flying dark and the altimeter might have also been tampered with.
I showed you evidence that two airport employees were arrested for sending video of the crash to CNN – a sure sign that something was up that they didn’t want us to see.
NTSB came out yesterday with an update that confirmed I was correct. THE HELICOPTER DID NOT APPROPRIATELY RESPOND TO ATC AND THE ALTIMETER READINGS WERE NOT CONSISTENT OR CORRECT.
NATO’s super-expensive proxy war against Russia has finally run its course, ending in total failure. This may result in the obliteration of post-World War II norms in which U.S. fights Europe’s wars.
FEB 16, 2025
European leaders are screeching and hollering over being left out of President Trump’s peace talks seeking an end to the bloody Russia-Ukraine border war.
Despite all of the financial and military assistance from the West, Ukraine has not been able to defeat Russia. And let’s be frank, it never will.
This is the opinion of the former chairman of the NATO military committee, Harald Kujat.
The retired German Air Force general surmised that after three years of conflict, the Ukrainian army lies in ruins, despite the billions invested in it, the weapons supplied, the training of personnel and the unprecedented assistance from the West. The U.S. alone has invested some $200 billion in the failed effort to deal Russia a black eye via the Ukrainian proxy.
General Kujat emphasized that Zelensky failed to take advantage of the opportunity that presented itself, and he will not have another chance. But really, it was the U.S. and Europe who failed in the war, not Ukraine, which was never Russia’s equal on the battlefield and never will be.
The German general believes the continuation of military action with the aim of “finishing off Russia” as proposed by some delusional Western politicians who still clamor for Russia’s defeat, will only lead to an even greater humiliation for Ukraine.
Kujat was quoted by European media as saying:
“It is time for our politicians and media to take note of the bitter truth that for three years, despite enormous financial and material support from the U.S. and European allies, as well as training and modern weapons systems, Ukraine has not been able to achieve military success. And that such a possibility, if it ever existed, no longer exists.”
The Russian online journal, Military Review, stated:
“For our part, we note that there is a group of countries in Europe that want Russia to be defeated. It is headed, as you might guess, by Great Britain and France. There is also a bunch of countries yapping along, but of a lower status. The most important question now is whether they will dare to go against the USA.”
That, of course, was a reference to the new American administration of Donald J. Trump, who campaigned on a promise to end the war in Ukraine and seems to have stepped up his efforts in recent days to do exactly that.
But now the war-mongering Europeans are barking about wanting a seat at the table to negotiate the terms of peace between Russia and Ukraine. Trump seems to sense that allowing the Europeans in on these peace talks would enable them to throw down deal-breakers at every opportunity, for London and Paris really don’t want peace with Russia. They want an extension of the war for as long as it takes to ramp up their own forces to invade what they hope will be a weakened Russia.
Why should they get any say in the peace process when they have expressed zero interest in peace until now, when Trump comes into the picture demanding it?
London, Paris, and to a lesser extent Berlin, want a say in how the terms of peace will be drawn between Russia and Ukraine. These countries want equal footing with the U.S. but they want the U.S. to foot the majority of their defense bills.
In short, they want to use U.S. military power for their own geo-political advantage while shouldering only a fraction of the financial burden.
With the ascension of the Trump administration, that day is over. Even Ukrainian President Zelensky is prodding the Europeans to step up and put their money where their mouth is.
Addressing the Munich conference, Zelensky called for the creation of a new “Army of Europe” amid rising concern that Washington may no longer be willing to play the fool.
Zelensky stated: “We can’t rule out the possibility that America might say no to Europe on issues that threaten it.”
WATCH [1:52]
The Ukraine leader said per the AP that “three years of full-scale war have proven that we already have the foundation for a united European military force. And now, as we fight this war and lay the groundwork for peace and security, we must build the armed forces of Europe.”
Good luck. I say go for it.
Zelensky claimed that such an army would not represent “replacing” the NATO alliance but it’s rather “about making Europe’s contribution to our partnership equal to America’s.”
He added that:
“A few days ago, President Trump told me about his conversation with Putin. Not once did he mention that America needs Europe at the table. That says a lot. The old days are over when America supported Europe just because it always had.”
Of course, we all knew this day would come, when Europe seeks to raise its own continent-wide army. French President Emmanuel Macron has called for that for years. Maybe the time is finally ripe for such a move. Why should the U.S. shoulder the burden for Europe’s defense?
And here’s the bigger question: What if Europe isn’t looking for “defense,” but rather something more akin to an aggressive “offense?”
Europe is filled with wealthy countries. They need to man up. And when they do start to foot their own defense bill, their taxpayers will likely realize that their politicians have been lying to them. Russia is not interested in taking them over. Russia just wants to be respected as the sovereign nation and global superpower that it is and will no longer be bullied by the West, dictated to in terms of where and how much of its own natural resources it can sell on the global market and at what price.
Russia wants open markets for its oil and gas and other resources. It does not want the responsibility of governing European countries.
Throughout its history, whenever Russia experimented with imperialism, it did not turn out well for them. Putin understands this. Besides, he has been in office for 24 years and has not once tried to storm his troops into any NATO country. The entire basis for the Western European case against Putin lies in his intolerance of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance.
Having a militarized Ukraine on Russia’s border has always been unacceptable in Moscow’s eyes, and the West knows it. Characterizing him as a military threat to the Poland, the Baltics, and Western Europe seems irrational at best, fear-mongering propaganda at worst.
And if Europe is so intent on stirring up fear among its people of the Russian bear, you have to wonder if maybe it’s not Europe that would like to make war against the bear, rather than the other way around.
Perhaps that’s what this European Army is really all about. Not defense, but offense.
Whatever the purpose, the cost of building up a capable European army would bring an end to many of the social programs, early retirements and cushy work schedules so many Europeans have grown accustomed to, and see it as part of their birthright.
If President Trump is smart, he’ll call the Europeans’ bluff and let’s see where they take this idea of a European Army.
Parents, Teachers, and the Image of G-d By Rabbi Francis Nataf
Author’s Note: This essay is in memory of my mother, whose yahrzeit is on 19 Shevat
5 Shevat 5785 – February 13, 2025
The great American writer James Baldwin once wrote how it was actually his public school math teacher who planted the seeds of his creative work.
Mr. Porter… soon gave up any attempt to teach me math. I had been born, apparently, with some kind of deformity that resulted in a total inability to count. From arithmetic to geometry, I never passed a single test. Porter took his failure very well and compensated for it by helping me run the school magazine. He assigned me a story about Harlem for this magazine, a story that he insisted demanded serious research. Porter took me downtown to the main branch of the public library at Forty-second Street and waited for me while I began my research. He was very proud of the story I eventually turned in. But I was so terrified that afternoon that I vomited all over his shoes in the subway.
One thing that strikes me immediately is the completely extracurricular connection that this extraordinary teacher made with Baldwin. Today, a teacher might be called to task for such “unprofessional” behavior. But one need not worry, since nowadays even the most committed teachers can’t seem to find the time to endeavor such a connection. And while it is true that our lives are perhaps more busy than teachers in the 1920’s and 30’s, the greatest reason that teachers don’t have time to help students outside of school is that it is not important enough to them. Put succinctly, we are less willing to have children vomit on our shoes. We are even less willing to go with them from Harlem to 42nd Street and spend a whole afternoon at a library when we have so many other things that we “need” to do. I am aware that there are still rare exceptions to this but one gets the sense that they are a vanishing breed.
It gets worse. It is not just for teachers that children have less importance. On some level, teachers are really surrogate parents. The rabbis teach us that someone who teaches a child Torah is as if he brought them into the world. And yet even natural parents to whom teachers are only compared also seem to be able to find less and less time to devote to their children. I wonder if we don’t actually welcome the incredible amount of music, sport and other after-school programming that we allow our children mostly because it buys us more time away from them. No doubt, much of it can be very valuable but only if doesn’t prevent us from being our children’s mentors.
It works the other way as well. If teachers are surrogate parents, a good parent is also a surrogate teacher. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch tells us that in the ideal, the parent is to be his child’s teacher. The reason for this is that Jewish tradition expects the teacher to be a mentor – to guide and to truly shape the child, and to be with them both inside and outside of the proverbial classroom.
Being such a tall order, it is only the very few who will be willing to truly mentor other people’s children. There is another unfortunately topical advantage to the mentorship of a parent over that of a stranger. The true intimacy created between the mentor and his protégé creates emotional ambiguity that is far less of an issue between parent and child. Intimacy can be confusing when not clearly defined by certain standardized roles.
I was fortunate in that my first teacher was my mother z’l. Since she was vocationally a teacher, among many other things, she provided me with mentorship about mentorship itself. All children love to go to their parents’ work place, but seeing my mother in action was a particular treat. There were two things one immediately felt in her classroom. The first was the aspirations that she had for her students. Anyone who signed up for her classes knew that you were expected to achieve. It was clear that she would not settle for mediocrity and that no one else should either. Taking work seriously was a manifestation of being created in the image of G-d, a G-d which she would often mention to us, her children. But to her students, she didn’t have to mention Him. Saying things is often less educational than the creation of a reality. In her case, her clearly internalized reality was passed on to her students by a type of educational osmosis.
The other thing one felt in my mother’s classroom was her “connectedness” with her students. Though she exposed her students to the dignity of being human, she also knew when to laugh. Academic tension was mixed in with a light touch that most clearly conveyed her interest in the young people in front of her. As a result, bonds were created that often lasted for years after her students graduated.
Contemporary educational thinker Parker Palmer makes the related observation:
One young woman told me she couldn’t possibly describe her good teachers because they were all so different from each other, but she could easily describe her bad teachers because they were all the same.
I said, “What do you mean?” And she said, “With my bad teachers, their words float somewhere in front of their faces like the balloon speech in cartoons.”
I thought this was an extraordinary image, and I said, “Do you mean that somehow with bad teaching, there is a disconnect between the stuff being taught and the self who is teaching it?” And she said, “Absolutely.”
There is a distance, a coldness, a lack of community because in a secularized academy, we don’t have the connective tissue of the sacred to hold this apparent fragmentation and chaos together…. But if you go deep, the way you go when you seek that which is sacred, you find …. the community that a good teacher evokes and invites students into, that somehow weaves and reweaves life together.
Palmer is right that it is awareness of the sacred that allows for mentorship. Whether the community is made up of two or thirty is not critical. Rather, critical is the sense that anyone created in the image of G-d is wholly worthwhile. Though time, ability and other limitations prevent us from doing everything we would like to do for them, we should never be limited by the sense that our charges are not important. Again Jewish tradition informs us that each individual is worthy of the creation of the entire world. At first glance, the seems to be extreme hyperbole. Perhaps it is so hard for us to really accept because the vast majority of people are so far from fulfilling their potential. But is that not because they weren’t inspired by their parents and teachers to believe in that potential?
There is one great payback to mentoring. It brings one a certain type of immortality even in this world. Mentors replicate themselves. Not in the sense of cloning individuals that will think and act exactly as they do. Rather, depending on how close we are with our children and students, our vision often become theirs as well.
In this sense, my mother lives on in my own appreciation of the responsibility that comes with being human, a responsibility so sensitively translated by the Jewish tradition that she so proudly bequeathed to us. Her memory will be a blessing.
Rabbi Francis Nataf Rabbi Francis Nataf (www.francisnataf.com) is a veteran Tanach educator who has written an acclaimed contemporary commentary on the Torah entitled “Redeeming Relevance.” He teaches Tanach at Midreshet Rachel v’Chaya and is Associate Editor of the Jewish Bible Quarterly. He is also Translations and Research Specialist at Sefaria, where he has authored most of Sefaria’s in-house translations, including such classics as Sefer HaChinuch, Shaarei Teshuva, Derech Hashem, Chovat HaTalmidim and many others. He is a prolific writer and his articles on parsha, current events and Jewish thought appear regularly in many Jewish publications such as The Jewish Press, Tradition, Hakira, the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Action and Haaretz.
“Wishful Thinking with No Connection to Reality” By Alex Grobman PhD.
18 Shevat 5785 – February 16, 2025
“In Palestine I had been met every day by evidence of the Jewish blindness to the Arab problem,” asserted Richard Crossman, British Labor M.P., who served as a member of the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.
Arab failure to annihilate Israel by force has convinced them to embrace the Marxist-Leninist “people’s war” strategy used with much success in China and Vietnam asserts historian Joel Fishman. He quotes Stefan Possony, an American military strategist, who explains that a people’s war “is a conflict between societies,” involving political and military elements.
A “people’s war” employs asymmetrical warfare enabling a revolutionary movement to wage war against a militarily superior enemy. “Since the late 1960s,” Possony said, “the political campaign has sought to divide Israeli society and delegitimize the country through incitement in Arab textbooks and media describing them as Satan, sons of apes and pigs, a cancer and demonize her at the UN by branding Israel a racist and pariah state.”
Part of this strategy Fishman notes is that after the Six-Day War, Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962), advised Palestinian Arab propagandists to adopt to the following principles:” Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others.
Wipe out the impression…that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.”
Oslo Accords
Another part of this strategy Fishman asserts was to sign the Oslo Accords to secure land from which to launch a guerilla war to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with an Arab one. The late Faisal Husseini, Palestinian Authority minister for Jerusalem Affairs, called this ruse a “Trojan Horse.” Husseini urged the Arabs “to look at the Oslo Agreement and at other agreements as ‘temporary procedures, or phased goals’: This means we are ambushing the Israelis and cheating them. Our ultimate goal is [still] the liberation of all historical Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.” The negotiations were a means toward “an extension of continuing conflict and not an opportunity for two peoples to reach a new rapprochement.”
Temporary Concessions
Agreeing to temporary concessions to achieve their primary goal was suggested to Yasser Arafat and Abu Iyad, his top lieutenant, at a meeting with the North Vietnamese in early 1970. In his book My Home, My Land: A Narrative of The Palestinian Struggle, Iyad avowed: “Our ultimate strategic objective was to set up a unitary democratic state on all Palestine, but we hadn’t provided for any intermediary stage, or any provisional compromise.” Members of the Vietnamese Politburo explained to Arafat and Iyad how in their struggle for independence they had made difficult compromises, including dividing the country into two separate independent states, while waiting for a more positive shift in the balance of power.
Fatah (the largest Palestinian political party) accepted this strategy, which Iyad later justified by pointing out that David Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders had accepted partition in 1947, although they claimed all of Palestine. The same applied for North and South Korea. Even Lenin had forfeited a large section of Soviet territory in the Brest-Litovsk treaty, to ensure the survival of the Bolshevik government. Weren’t the Arabs entitled to the same “margin of flexibility and maneuver” the Zionists had afforded themselves, Iyad asked, especially since Israel would “remain invincible in the foreseeable future?” There is a difference, he noted, between surrender and compromise.
Fishman points out that if the Arabs were prepared to accept an interim solution such a two-state solution or a series of solutions, without acknowledging that this was only an interim phase, this would defuse criticism of the PLO in the West while playing for time to achieve their objective. Iyad observed that their Vietnamese comrades do not “hesitate to sacrifice the details so as to preserve the essential.”
Failure to Recognize the Blatantly Obvious
Why has it been difficult for so many Israeli and American Jews to recognize that the attacks against Israel by Arab religious and political leaders constitute a threat to our very existence as a people and as a nation?
How many Israelis have to be killed or maimed by homicide bombings, how often do Jews have to be portrayed in the Arab media and in sermons as Satan, sons of apes and pigs, and as a cancer, how often do Israelis have to have their connection to the Jewish holy sites refuted and the Holocaust denied, before we acknowledge the true extent of Arab enmity and their real objectives in dealing with the Jewish Question?
The Oslo Syndrome
In The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege Kenneth Levin, a clinical psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, offers a plausible answer as to why, in the face of continuous killing of Jews, open declarations to destroy Israel and blatant violations of agreements made with the Jewish state, many Jews still disregard this evidence and cling to the notion that Arabs want peace. Israelis, Levin says are in “state of chronic siege” which causes them to seek ways to extricate themselves from this predicament. This has produced “the Oslo approach,” which is based on “wishful thinking divorced from reality.” Maintaining this position regardless of countervailing evidence and tolerating no debate is textbook “delusional,” according to Levin.
This self-delusion, he says, manifests itself in a number of other ways as well. One is to believe that they can actually maintain some kind of control of the situation. By accepting the condemnation of their enemies and appeasing the terrorists, Israelis think they will themselves bring an end to hostilities. If only the Jews would make enough concessions to the Arabs, and stop obsessing about defensible borders and other strategic issues, peace would soon be at hand and such concerns would become irrelevant.
Why do some Israelis respond in this way? Levin suggests that since Jews were historically subjected to so much abuse, elements within the community are so eager to escape this painful experience that they interpret the ostensibly improved conditions under Oslo as proof that the past is behind them.
There is also an element of arrogance to “this self-delusion.” Jews assume a responsibility for something over which they have no control, in order to ward off despair. Levin suggests that this is similar to an abused child who feels responsible for his plight and views himself as “bad.” The child maintains, “the fantasy that if he becomes good enough,” his father will cease hitting him, his mother will give him attention and whatever other form of abuse he suffered will stop. In the same way, some Israelis are delusional when they assume they can control Arab behavior.
Another myth is to describe Arab intentions as “moderate,” even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A third assumption is the “fellowship fallacy”-that the Palestinians share Jewish values, goals and positions. Some Israelis have met informally or in public forums with high-level individuals from Judea and Samaria who are connected to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Israelis hear more nuanced statements about the conflict in these discussions than are usually heard from the Palestinian Arab leadership.
The October 7th massacre has changed the thinking of a number of Israelis about the existential danger the Arab terrorist organizations pose to the Jewish State. Whether this awareness will translate into a more realistic approach by the Israeli government and the IDF to dealing with this threat remains to be seen.
President Trump’s policy toward Israel – underlying assumptions Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
February 16, 2025
1. President Trump is not an impartial leader. As expected, he is driven by US interests, determining that Israel’s capabilities and track record have been a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US, commercially and militarily, technologically and operationally.
2. President Trump views Islamic terrorism as a threat to Western democracies, including the US (“The Great American Satan”) – a mutual threat to both the US and Israel. He is aware of NATO’s vacillation (No Action Talk Only), and its unwillingness to flex any effective military and political muscle against Islamic terrorism. Also, all pro-US Arab regimes have the machetes of Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood at their throats. Thus, Israel is the most potent, reliable and experienced ally in the US’ battle against Islamic terrorism. Trump views Israel as an essential ally in his attempt to end wars and terrorism, which requires the obliteration – not containment – of the epicenters of war and terrorism (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs, Hamas and Hezbollah).
3. President Trump aspires to minimize US military presence in the Middle East. However, he does not ignore the critical role played by the Middle East as the main epicenter of global anti-US Islamic terrorism and drug trafficking, and the site of 48% of global oil reserves. Also, the Middle East is a junction of critical trade routes between Asia and West Europe, stretching between the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf and between Europe, Asia and Africa. President Trump considers Israel as the only effective ally to fill in the vacuum created by a US military withdrawal, serving as a US strategic beachhead, while not requiring US military personnel, only US military hardware – the largest US aircraft carrier with no Americans on board.
4. President Trump (just like most Americans, most Capitol Hill legislators and his entire foreign policy and national security team) identifies Israel as part of the forces of Good in their battle against the forces of Evil, which underscores Islamic terrorism.
5. President Trump realizes that Islamic (and Palestinian) terrorism is driven by a fanatic anti-Western ideology, not by despair. He has concluded that terrorism must be defeated, not contained.
6. President Trump supports Israel’s obligation to defeat terrorism, not just Israel’s right to defend itself. He is aware that Israel’s victory over Islamic terrorism is also a US’ victory.
7. President Trump realizes that Israel’s capabilities have played a key role in the defense of all pro-US Arab regimes (e.g., Jordan), which are targeted by Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and other forms of Islamic terrorism.
8. During his first Administration, President Trump evicted the establishment of the State Department from the center stage of policy-making, because Foggy Bottom has systematically failed in its Middle East policy. Thus, it was the defiance of the State Department’s Palestinian-centered worldview, which paved the road to four additional Israel-Arab peace treaties (the Abraham Accords).
9. Unlike the State Department’s worldview, President Trump does not consider Israel to be part of the problem, but a major part of the solution. He does not believe in soothing – but defeating – terrorism, and considers Gaza as a terror-state, where the population idolizes terrorism.
10. Contrary to the multilateral and cosmopolitan worldview of the of the State Department’s establishment, President Trump does not aspire to establish a policy-common-denominator with the traditionally anti-US and anti-Israel UN and UN-related international organizations. President Trump prefers independent US national security action in collaboration with effective allies, such as Israel, rather than mortgaging US policy to the UN and ineffective Western allies.
11. President Trump is aware that Israel’s posture of deterrence has made it a unique ally, enhancing the US’ regional and global strategic posture. He appreciates Israel as a site of an innovation center for some 250 US high tech giants, which has contributed to the US global technological edge. Moreover, he knows that Israel has been the triple-A-store and cost-effective battle-tested laboratory of the US defense and aerospace industries, yielding a mega-billion-dollar bonanza to the US taxpayer through research and development savings, enhanced US competitiveness in the global market, increased US exports and expanded US employment.
From JFK, to Trump’s “new frontier” Jack Engelhard
Go ahead say it…history repeats itself, only this one took some 60 years to happen again. Op-ed.
Feb 16, 2025, 7:40 AM (GMT+2) Israel National News – After all these years, we still don’t know for sure who killed President John F. Kennedy, though I have my own view.
Can’t say who fired the shots, but I can say who, in my opinion, ordered the hit.
We will know more any day, now that Trump wants those documents declassified.
When it comes to JFK and the 1960s altogether, humbly I propose that the best source material comes from “The Days of the Bitter End,” a book that I wrote…and it starts like this:
“This was morning in America. America was a nation on the move, happy to leave behind the torpor of the Eisenhower years to heed this new president’s call for sacrifice and greatness.
“Not since Washington and Jefferson had America felt such a surge of renewal as embodied in this president and even more glamorous First Lady, Jackie.
“Together they gave us style, romance, adventure, a vision of glittering greatness without end.
“Even rational minds presumed that no mere bullet was strong enough to bring down the most powerful man on earth, certainly not this president, so youthful, so handsome and so virile, for JFK was more than a mortal in terms of America. He was a star! As such he was impregnable and as for power, wasn’t he second only to God?”
Re-read that, interpose one name for another, and up to a point, that would be Trump I was writing about.
But I wrote the book in 1974.
Back then, of course I did not foresee another “morning in America,” nor another “surge of renewal” as today we have it under Trump.
Go ahead say it…history repeats itself, only this one took some 60 years to happen again.
From JFK’s inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1961, with surely the Soviets in mind: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Sounds like Trump.
From the point of view of the book, the Kennedy years were the best years of our lives, yes, Camelot, and we did not know or care about his Nazi-doting father.
Nor did we know about his love life. Jackie wasn’t enough?
We did indeed celebrate ourselves, before it all came crashing down. It was a time to celebrate poets and musicians and writers.
Mostly, it was a time to be young…regardless how old you really were. JFK set the tempo.
JFK was a class act. The flaws would show up later. Meantime we frolicked. Bob Dylan was here, and the Beatles were coming.
The folk tunes celebrated peace and love, as meanwhile the Soviets threatened us with annihilation.
We were blessed, and we were doomed.
JFK got the Peace Corps started…a call to the young to share our bounty with the rest of the world.
Vietnam was looming over the horizon.
We were high on our sense of greatness, and some were high on drugs.
If you don’t know Lenny Bruce, then you don’t know the 1960s, and if you don’t know the 1960s, you don’t know America.
Together with JFK, it was hip to be anti-Establishment, and it was cool to be pro-Israel.
Ditto Trump.
The bungled Bay of Pigs invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis were there to remind us that great as we were, we did not have the world to ourselves.
JFK’s new frontier included the moon, and by the end of the decade, mission accomplished.
JFK, and the rest of us still had promises to keep, but then came November 22, 1963, and as I have it in the book: “By the time they reached their Sullivan Street hideaway, the President of the United States was indeed Lyndon Johnson, seen taking the oath of office on television next to a stricken and blood-soaked Jackie Kennedy. Johnson was sworn in at 3:38 p.m. aboard Air Force One.”
No doubt in my mind that it was LBJ.
He despised JFK. By hook or by crook, he finally got what he wanted.
New York-based bestselling American novelist Jack Engelhard writes regularly for Arutz Sheva.
The Darkness Hidden Under Silicon Valley’s Cloak – Part 2 [49:23] Jerome Corsi
FEB 15, 2025 – Underneath the sea of suits, Starbucks and pocket protectors of Silicon Valley is a level of Darkness one might think is far-fetched and unbelievable until one reads “Silicon Satan” by Cregg Lund, a former member of the Silicon Valley Elite coerced into joining their underground world of Satanism, ritual and manipulation. Lund discusses what happens in his book, published by Post Hill Press, to reveal what really happens beneath the slick Hollywood-esque veneer.
Corrine Lund, wife of Cregg Lund, former of the Silicon Valley powerful and author of the new book, Silicon Satan, joins Dr. Jerome Corsi for the 2nd in a series of conversations about what really happens underneath the glamour, slickness and tech savvy of the Silicon Valley Elite’s world.
The Jihad Against Israel [39:41] Dr. Mordechai Kedar
Feb 13, 2025 International Christian Embassy Jerusalem – Watch this informative and insightful Current Affairs update by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Israeli scholar on Islam. Gain a deeper understanding of the complex challenges Israel faces in today’s geopolitical landscape.
