COMMENTARY / OPINION
Trump White House makes TWO HUGE ANNOUNCEMENTS! [25:16] Stephen Gardner
August 4, 2025
This move has sparked debate, with some praising it as a *tax relief* lifeline, while others, including Democrats, criticize the potential inflationary impact. The proposal builds on Trump’s first-term success with China tariffs, which generated significant revenue before the pandemic. Now, with *tariff revenue* at 5% of federal income—up from 2% historically—this plan could *revive consumer spending* power. #### Texas Democrats’ Redistricting Drama Meanwhile, political tension is heating up in Texas, where over 50 House Democrats fled the state on August 3, 2025, to block a GOP-led redistricting plan. This strategy, backed by the DNC, aims to prevent the loss of up to five congressional seats in 2026. Governor Greg Abbott issued a stern ultimatum, demanding their return by 3 p.m. on August 4 or face arrest and replacement, accusing them of “abandoning their duty.” Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has offered sanctuary, escalating the *redistricting battle* into a national showdown. #### RFK Jr.’s Bold Health Moves Health Secretary RFK Jr. is also shaking up the landscape with two major decisions in the last 24 hours. He suspended a Biden-era program rewarding hospitals for staff vaccinations and banned a mercury-based substance from vaccines, moves hailed as a *health policy revival* by supporters like Alex Jones. Critics argue *Big Pharma* influence has clouded public perception, but these actions signal a significant shift in **public health policy**. #### U.S. Submarines Near Russia Internationally, Trump confirmed on August 3 that U.S. nuclear submarines are now positioned near Russia, a response to provocative statements from Dmitry Medvedev. This strategic move underscores Trump’s **foreign policy revival**, aiming to deter aggression while planning diplomatic talks via envoy Steve Witkoff. #### Why This Matters These developments—**tariff revenue rebates**, **redistricting battles**, **health policy shifts**, and **geopolitical strategy**—highlight a transformative moment. For Americans seeking **economic revival**, Trump’s rebate could provide relief, while Texas and health policy changes reflect deeper political and societal shifts. Stay informed and share this news to support independent reporting! *SEO Keywords:* revive, tariff revenue rebate, Trump rebate plan, middle-low income Americans, Texas Democrats redistricting, RFK Jr health moves, U.S. submarines Russia, economic revival, tax relief, public health policy, foreign policy revival.
Olivia Rodrigo ignores the suffering of Israeli children MOSHE PHILLIPS
The issue isn’t whether celebrities have the right to comment on international issues. But they should know what they are talking about.
Aug. 4, 2025 JNS
In mid-July, pop singer Olivia Rodrigo shared an Instagram post condemning the conditions in Gaza, writing: “There are no words to describe the heartbreak I feel witnessing the devastation that is being inflicted upon innocent people in Palestine.” The 22-year-old, known for her multiple Grammy Awards, also encouraged her followers to donate to UNICEF to support what she called “victims of this horrifying situation.”
Rodrigo did include a throwaway line meant to show balance: “There is no child in Israel, Palestine or anywhere in the world who deserves to suffer.”
But this single sentence doesn’t make up for what her post glaringly omits—the suffering of Israeli children, foreign nationals and other civilians who were targeted in in the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. It is Hamas that has caused “this horrifying situation,” but Rodrigo appears either ignorant of that fact or does not care. That Hamas uses Gazan children as human shields is well-documented.
Rodrigo’s father’s family is from the Philippines, and she identifies as a Filipino American. She may not realize that around the same time she was posting online about Palestinian suffering, a Filipina caregiver who was injured by an Iranian missile during its attack on Israel in mid-June died from her wounds. Her name wasn’t trending. She earned no post from Rodrigo. The caregiver was named as 49-year-old Leah Mosquera. She passed away on July 13, after lingering in the hospital from being wounded on June 15.
Rodrigo also chose to promote UNICEF as the beneficiary of donations. But UNICEF doesn’t provide direct aid to Israeli children at all. Unlike its operations in Gaza and other areas, the U.N. agency does not run active assistance programs for Israeli children. UNICEF has been loudly present in Gaza, releasing reports and funding psychosocial support, but utterly silent on the trauma experienced by children in Israel.
UNICEF’s double standard is even more troubling. The organization may advocate for children in Gaza, but its failure to provide one ounce of support or even a word for Israeli child victims of Hamas and Hezbollah undermines its stated mission. UNICEF, like the United Nations, has lost its moral compass.
Its silence when it comes to the trauma and violence Israeli children have suffered from is scandalous, given the staggering toll. Since Oct. 7, more than 23,000 Israeli children and teenagers have been seriously physically or psychologically harmed. More than 56 have been murdered. Mila Cohen, just 9 months old, was shot dead with her father in Kibbutz Be’eri on Oct. 7. Mila was shot while in the arms of her mother, Sandra. In Kibbutz Nir Oz, the burned bodies of 2-year-old Omer Kedem Siman Tov, his 5-year-old twin sisters, and their parents were found together. Israeli children living in communities near Gaza have all been displaced from their homes.
Across the north, near the Lebanese border, another 18,000 Israeli children were displaced for about a year due to Hezbollah rocket fire. Nearly 1,000 Israeli children have been orphaned. Tens of thousands suffer from trauma and displacement, yet they remain largely invisible to UNICEF and the many celebrities who are quick to speak out when they can demonize Israel.
On July 27, 2024, a Hezbollah rocket hit a soccer field in Majdal Shams, a non-Jewish, Druze town in the Golan Heights. The explosion killed 12 children from the Druze community and injured at least 42 others. Most of the victims were between 10 and 16 years old. Rodrigo didn’t take to Instagram when these kids were murdered or remember them with a post on the occasion of the first anniversary of their deaths this year.
And what of the non-Israelis killed or kidnapped by Hamas? Among them were dozens of agricultural workers from Thailand. Twenty-three were released in one deal. Five more in January 2025. Two died in captivity. One, Nattapong Pinta, was only confirmed dead when his body was recovered in June. These individuals weren’t combatants. They were foreign laborers. Their lives mattered, too. Rodrigo hasn’t mentioned them on Instagram.
The deeper issue isn’t whether celebrities have the right to comment on international issues; they most definitely do. But with that platform comes responsibility. If you’re going to speak out in the name of children, be consistent and know what you’re talking about.
Rodrigo’s post may have been well-meaning, but it’s pretty difficult to believe that, especially when she writes “Palestine” and not “Gaza.”
MOSHE PHILLIPS Moshe Phillips, a veteran pro-Israel activist and author, is the national chairman of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI). A former board member of the American Zionist Movement, he previously served as national director of the U.S. division of Herut and worked with CAMERA in Philadelphia. He was also a delegate to the 2020 World Zionist Congress and served as editor of The Challenger, the publication of the Tagar Zionist Youth Movement. His op-eds and letters have been widely published in the United States and Israel.
How to Dismantle the Israel Genocide Lie — A Guide TED GOLDSTEIN
For those who courageously stand with Israel, here is a step-by-step strategy to shut down the false genocide narrative levied at the Jewish state and expose the dangerous double standards fueling it.
AUG 04, 2025
“So, prove to me that Israel isn’t committing a genocide — while standing on one foot.”
If you’ve ever defended Israel since October 7, 2023, you’ve heard this line, maybe not verbatim, but in spirit, and probably not just once. Probably hundreds of times.
And it is one of the most frustrating and futile conversations you can have.
It is painfully obvious that Israel is not committing a genocide. What is happening is painful and tragic, but it is not a genocide. Yet the “anti-Zionist” narrative has been so strong that it seems almost impossible to prove.
The whole situation places the defender of Israel in a hopelessly ironic position: to be both completely on the side of truth and completely incapable of convincing anyone.
Most people I know, myself included, have become exhausted by this constant question. More often than not, we just ignore it. But there are times when you simply cannot ignore it, and, more importantly, it is really not something we can ignore. Sometimes we find ourselves fighting in this futile battle anyways.
If you ever find yourself in that position, here is a strategy for how to conduct the conversation more productively.
Firstly, we have to understand the premise of the question. When someone says that Israel is committing a genocide, they are provoking you. The word genocide is extremely provocative, which is why they use it. The whole dispute hinges on the provocative nature of that one word. Their claim is essentially two-fold: Genocide is the worst thing humanly possible, and Israel is committing it.
If this were a good-faith debate, it would be settled by defining the word genocide, describing Israel’s actions, and evaluating whether or not those actions conform to our definition.
It is the same structure as the debate: “Is a hot dog a sandwich?” Well, first let’s define what a sandwich is, then let’s describe a hot dog, and then let’s evaluate if the characteristics of a hot dog match those of a sandwich.
It is a simple debate structure, one of the simplest that one could ever imagine. We have all tried to have that debate; it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because their argument is in bad faith. Their intention is not to prove that Israel is actually committing a genocide; their intention is to provoke you to anger and then change their terms to prove that, even if Israel isn’t committing an actual genocide, it is still doing horrible things.
Normally, someone making a claim must defend that claim, and, if that defense is defeated, the claim is declared false and the claimant is shamed for being wrong. But there is no shame in accusing Israel of genocide, being proven wrong, and then saying, “Well, fine, Israel maybe isn’t technically committing genocide, but they’re still killing lots of people.”
So the stakes of the argument are all wrong too. If they win, Israel is committing genocide; if you win, Israel is only committing the equivalent of third-degree genocide. Genocide Lite, as it were.
You cannot win an argument if both possible outcomes mean you lose, so you have to change one of the outcomes. You have to make losing this argument actually mean something. Because it does.
These people believe that it is morally righteous to accuse Israel of genocide, even if their accusation is a baseless calumny. “Why does it matter if I use the wrong word?” they say. “Does it matter if I say something is delicious when really I only meant that it was very good?” That is the premise underlying their blase approach to the question — that their words, even if they are wrong, are not hurting anybody.
So, before you even begin this conversation, ask your interlocutor, “How much do words matter?” This will catch them off-guard. Usually, this conversation gets very heated very quickly, so they will not be expecting a calm and collected response. You will probably have to work them around on this a little bit, but your goal is to make them establish that words do matter and using the wrong words can cause a lot of damage.
The example I usually use is AIDS. It goes something like this: “How much do words matter?” “I don’t know, a lot.” “What happens if people use the wrong words when talking about something, can people get hurt?” Here, they will say one of three things: yes, maybe, or no. It doesn’t matter how they answer because you will use the example the exact same way. “Is it wrong for me to say that gay people spread AIDS?”
Usually, they object immediately. (Note: This example has only been used on “progressives,” so you may need a different one for a different crowd.) “Of course it’s wrong to say that, gay people don’t spread AIDS. AIDS is spread by blah blah blah.”
If you are really lucky, and they are really “woke,” they very might well finish up by saying, “and it’s dangerous to say things like that because such misplaced stereotypes can lead to homophobic violence.”
If they don’t see it for themselves, you can just walk them there: “In the 1970s and 1980s, before people understood how AIDS spread, many people just thought it was a disease caused and spread by being gay. How many people do you think got attacked because of those stereotypes and rumors? Words make a huge difference and lives are at stake. Saying AIDS is spread by gay people will lead to homophobic violence while saying that AIDS is spread by unprotected sex will not.”
I like to use the AIDS example because it fits right into the “progressive” wheelhouse; it’s a narrative they know very well. Bad things start happening, gay people get blamed, homophobes attack them, the oppressive ruling class does nothing and maybe even stokes anti-gay sentiments, and gay people suffer the consequences for decades to follow.
They will accept this premise because they believe in the narrative, even if they start to sense that the conversation is shifting. So much of “progressivism” is built on the idea that “language constitutes violence” — that to reject this premise would be to reject the whole of “progressivism.”
Now, you’ve got them. They have accepted the premise that words matter and that the incorrect use of words can lead to violence. So turn the screws. “If that is the case,” you say, “then using the word genocide incorrectly is dangerous and could directly lead to violence against Jews.”
They will probably push back on this, so just ask them, has there been more antisemitic violence since the genocide narrative began, or less? Do not try to prove causation; that is a waste of time. If they push back, just name a few of the major antisemitic attacks that have happened, and ask them if there is more violence now than before. Just get correlation going.
There is a very clear correlation between how many times people accuse Israel of genocide and how many times Jews get attacked in the street. Once they start to see the argument coming together, they’ll start to get a little green around the gills because they have not experienced this before.
There is a smugness that comes from having rigged arguments too often. They get accustomed to winning without trying, and, when they realize that you’ve changed the game on them, their mood will change. But that doesn’t matter; they started this conversation, they made a claim, and it is their obligation to defend it.
Once you have their own claim wrapped around their neck, and you have made sure that the noose is good and tight (they will try to wriggle out of it), it is time to read out their sentence:
“You began this conversation by claiming that Israel is committing a genocide. You just admitted that using misleading language and making false claims can cause tremendous violence. I am about to prove to you why Israel is not committing a genocide, and, if I do, then, based on what you just said, it follows that falsely claiming Israel is committing genocide can cause tremendous violence to the Jewish community, and you and anyone else who continues to use this language will be knowingly putting Jewish people in danger.”
(Typically, this is where I ask them if they have any last words they would like to say.)
Proving the genocide is a lie is easy; getting an “anti-Zionist” to accept that proof means anything is not. You can use any particular proof that you want; it does not matter. Population statistics, historical comparisons, IDF protocols, and so forth.
They will probably continue to fight you and continue to try to prove that if you turn the definition upside down and only read every third word, then technically it is maybe not a genocide — it’s just sparkling ethnic cleansing — but you do not need to engage with that anymore.
You can just say, “Look, it is not a genocide. If you want to claim that it is a genocide, you have to prove that it is a genocide; not the other way around. If you cannot definitely prove that it is a genocide, then you cannot call it one, otherwise, you are knowingly putting Jewish people in danger. Of course, it is not antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government, but it is antisemitic to knowingly making false and misleading claims about Israel that will cause antisemitic violence.”
And remind them that the choice is theirs; no one is forcing them to use the word genocide. The beauty of this argument is that it is entirely their own. They chose the terms of the argument, they fired the first salvo, and they established the ideological premise. You merely took their terms and premises to their logical conclusion.
The “progressive” world has declared that dangerous speech and violence are functionally synonymous, and you have proven to them that genocide-baiting is dangerous speech, which is equivalent to violence. Will they see the beauty of your reason and become a Zionist? Probably not. Will they excise the word genocide from their anti-Israel vocabulary? Probably not.
But they will at least know they cannot use that word around you because you will hold them accountable. They will at least feel some shame everytime they use the word genocide because your voice will be ringing in their head. They will at least walk away without the same smug smile they always walk away from these conversations with.
And you will have won.
Winning a debate is not about convincing the other person they are wrong; it is about proving to yourself and your G-d that you are right. The entire purpose of this genocide-baiting is to sow doubt in our minds about Israel, to make us question if maybe Israel really is committing a genocide. After all, there are 500 million people saying that, 500 million at least.
Can they really all be wrong?
Well, there were well over 500 million people who thought AIDS was caused by gay people. There probably still are, and they were all wrong too.
At the end of the day, truth is truth. You either believe it is worth defending for its own sake, or you don’t. A person of truth can live in a world with falsehood, but he cannot live in a world where people pretend that falsehood is truth.
I would not expect to get most “anti-Zionists” to accept the truth, but I will not let them go on convincing others that their lies are true. So go forth and defend the truth, because, if we don’t, no one else will.
BREAKING: Trump Prepares US Troops To Occupy Gaza – Final Warning To Hamxs Leaders [40:41] Mahyar Tousi
August 2, 2025 Tousi TV
The Most Favored Descendants of Abraham? by Nils A. Haug
August 3, 2025
- At the Islamic Centre of Rhode Island, on May 30, an imam delivered a sermon that, according to Andrew Bostom, “invoked Islam’s supersessionism, its notion of being the true primordial monotheism of Jewish patriarch Abraham.”
- Of course, the main problem in discussing religion is that it is often impossible to prove anything, so that all controversies continue indefinitely.
- It is a contest of legitimacy with Muslims asserting Ishmael to be the rightful, favored heir to Abraham, rather than his only legitimate son and heir, Isaac.
- Islamist claims of legitimacy — and their determination to rid Israel of Jews — are a core element in explaining the perpetual conflict between Islamists and Israel. Consequently, any peace agreement may well be fragile and temporary.
Islamist claims of legitimacy — and their determination to rid Israel of Jews — are a core element in explaining the perpetual conflict between Islamists and Israel. Consequently, any peace agreement may well be fragile and temporary. Pictured: Supporters of the Houthis carry signs showing the group’s motto of “God is Great, death to America, death to Israel, curse upon the Jews, victory to Islam”, during a rally commemorating the Shiite holiday of Ashura in Sanaa, Yemen on September 10, 2019. (Photo by Mohammed Huwais/AFP via Getty Images)
It has been claimed that the recent Iran-Israel war was simply a “violent prelude to a far grander and more terrifying prophetic chapter” in the effort to eliminate Israel and Jews from the face of the earth.
This objective comprises diverse but interconnected strategies, such as pro-Islamic and anti-Zionist propaganda; military attacks on Israel by Iran and its jihadist proxies; and, not least, theological contortions designed to negate legitimate Jewish claims to their ancient divine blessings, including the promised homeland of Israel — Eretz Yisrael — itself.
At the Islamic Centre of Rhode Island, on May 30, an imam delivered a sermon that, according to Andrew Bostom, “invoked Islam’s supersessionism, its notion of being the true primordial monotheism of Jewish patriarch Abraham.” In short, the imam was saying that Islam, not Judaism, is the sole authentic religion emanating from Abraham’s line of descent.
Of course, the main problem in discussing religion is that it is often impossible to prove anything, so that all controversies continue indefinitely.
In support, the imam quoted certain verses of the Quran, particularly 3:67:
“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists.”
(Sahih International)
and 3:68:
“Indeed, the most worthy of Abraham among the people are those who followed him [in submission to Allah ] and this prophet, and those who believe [in his message]. And Allah is the ally of the believers.”
(Sahih International)
The Quran is claiming that Muslims are “the most worthy” of the status as the heirs of Abraham — the true believers — not the Christians or the Jews.
The imam scorned Jewish and Christian claims to Abraham as their spiritual ancestor:
“[T]he Christians, can’t articulate what they really believe, what their tawhid [monotheism] means. And the other group [the Jews] has reduced their religion to an ethnic identity that they use to justify a slaughter of innocent people.”
Therefore, not only minor sectarian elements of the Christian Church desire to appropriate blessings due to Jews, but Islam is similarly promoting a doctrinal version of the “Great Replacement,” in which Islam supposedly supersedes both Christianity and Judaism. According to this dogma, Muslims, not the Jews, are rightful inheritors of the divine dedications assigned to Abraham.
Unlike the Christian version of supersessionism, whereby the church is purportedly the “New Israel,” Islamic doctrines do not claim to replace the Jews. According to Sarah Gon, of the Institute of Race Relations, Islamic theology instead “recasts the Jewish prophets as Muslims by creating a direct link with Ishmael, the son of Abraham — the ‘first Muslim,’ according to the Qur’an.” It is a contest of legitimacy with Muslims asserting Ishmael to be the rightful, favored heir to Abraham, rather than his only legitimate son and heir, Isaac.
The narrative of Abraham and Isaac is important in understanding the ongoing Middle East conflict. According to Genesis 16:15-16 and 21:1-7, both Isaac (born to his wife, Sarah) and Ishmael (born to Sarah’s handmaiden, Hagar) were born in Canaan – in greater Israel. The Quran, verse 14:37, reads:
“Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them and provide for them from the fruits that they might be grateful.”
(Sahih International)
This means, according to Roy Hirsch, that “God instructed Abraham to leave Hagar and Ishmael in the barren valley of Mecca, while Isaac stayed in Canaan.” The latter construal appears, if the Bible is viewed as the benchmark, to be a fiction that is meant to justify Ishmael’s claim to religious legitimacy.
In the New Testament’s Epistle to the Galatians, Saul of Tarsus writes in a letter to the church at Galatia:
“But what does Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son [Ishmael], for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son [Isaac].'”
Christian doctrine convincingly upholds the Torah on this controversy; and according to this, the descendants of Ishmael (Muslims) have no part of the divine promises made to Abraham and Isaac.
In addition to Islamic claims to divine promises, these assertions are further extended to the Holy City of Jerusalem itself – the centerpiece of Judaism and the intended great prize of Islam. The Qur’an (Al-Isra 17:1) states:
“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”
(Sahih International)
The verse alleges, according to Roy Hirsch, that Muhammad made a “brief, one-time stop at the farthest Temple Mount during his nocturnal journey to Heaven in 620 CE.” The irony is that all Muslims pray while facing Mecca – their holiest city — not facing Jerusalem.
Whatever the mode of replacement designed to deprive Jews of their status as the “chosen people” and a “people after God’s own heart,” the intended effect is the same — the denial of legitimacy. This is an old heresy, like the subversive question from the serpent in the Garden of Eden: “Did G-d really say…”
Another essential concept that differentiates Islamic attempts at replacing the Jews from Christian attempts is, according to Sarah Gon:
“Vilifying or killing Jews has become a recurring motif in Muslim supersessionism. The Qur’an repeatedly accuses the Jews of falsehood, distortion, and of being ‘corrupters of the scriptures’. It argues that the Jews did not deserve to be the Chosen People, and because of their sins are condemned to ‘degradation in this world.'”
Muslims seemingly aim to be considered the primary chosen people descending from Abraham. The Christian version of replacement theology, shown to be a heresy with no scriptural warrant, has fallen from favor.
A related replacement ideology was adopted by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi propagandists through a theory of their “master race,” Aryans supposedly being superior to the Jews. Hitler was influenced by Martin Luther, the important, vehemently anti-Semitic German church reformer from the 16th century. Nazi replacement ideology and it’s virulent Jew-hatred resulted in the horrors of the holocaust.
Islamist claims of legitimacy — and their determination to rid Israel of Jews — are a core element in explaining the perpetual conflict between Islamists and Israel. Consequently, any peace agreement may well be fragile and temporary.
“Muslim greatness under Allah depends on the subjugation and annihilation of the Jews,” suggests Sarah Gon.
That is something that will never happen.
Nils A. Haug is an author and columnist. A Lawyer by profession, he is member of the International Bar Association, the National Association of Scholars, the Academy of Philosophy and Letters. Dr. Haug holds a Ph.D. in Apologetical Theology and is author of ‘Politics, Law, and Disorder in the Garden of Eden – the Quest for Identity’; and ‘Enemies of the Innocent – Life, Truth, and Meaning in a Dark Age.’ His work has been published by First Things Journal, The American Mind, Quadrant, Minding the Campus, Gatestone Institute, National Association of Scholars, Jewish Journal, James Wilson Institute (Anchoring Truths), Jewish News Syndicate, Tribune Juive, Document Danmark, Zwiedzaj Polske, and many others.
[Ed.: The moment he is corrected: ‘No Mahmoodi, it’s JEWS, not JUICE!’
“Jonathan Pollard: Are Allies of Israel being Targeted?” [VIDEO 1:08:23] DR NAOMI WOLF
AUG 01, 2025
“Many are unfamiliar with the situation of the Druze in Israel. The Druze are an ancient people who practice a form of Islam that is seen as unorthodox by other Muslim sects. They have chosen to ally themselves with the State of Israel, and even serve in the IDF.
Recently, Jonathan Pollard states, the Druze have come under violent attack, but the world’s attention is elsewhere.
Is a war crime underway that the global media are ignoring?”
Trump’s “America First” rejects Marjorie Greene and Charles Lindbergh’s antisemitism. Dr. Robert Scott Kellner
“America First” is not America Only in Trump’s patriotic, reasoned outlook. Op-ed.
Aug 1, 2025, 8:47 AM (GMT+3) Israel National News
Before Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene came right out this week and slandered Israel by saying the Jewish nation was committing genocide in Gaza, Greene strongly insinuated it ten days earlier when attempting to undermine America’s strongest ally to defend itself.
Thankfully, a special wisdom was displayed in the House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, when the members voted against Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment to reduce funding for Israel in the Department of Defense appropriations package for 2026.
When introducing her amendment, Greene repeatedly referred to Israel as “nuclear-armed Israel” and said, “That’s a pretty big deterrent for any of their enemies. Any nation that has a nuclear bomb has the greatest threat against their enemies.”
Greene emphatically added that her amendment to strike $500 million in foreign aid would “ensure an ‘America First’ Department of Defense.”
Ironically, Greene’s action was contrary to President Donald Trump’s new kind of an “America First” policy. Neither an isolationist nor neutral, Trump does not forsake allies. Despite referring to himself as a non-interventionist during his campaign rallies, Trump sensibly supports foreign actions that align with America’s security and strategic goals, such as backing Israel in its conflict with Iran.
During the short debate before the vote was taken, Marjorie Taylor Greene went even further and invoked an image of an out-of-control and even genocidal Israel: “I also want to point out that Israel bombed a Catholic church in Gaza,” she said, knowing that this was unintentional, “and an entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza,” ignoring Israel’s unmatched civilian-soldier casualty statistics despite Hamas’ use of civilian shields.
Only five Representatives voted with Greene: Republican Thomas Massie, Democrat Al Green, and three Democrat “squad” members, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Summer Lee–all on record agreeing with Marjorie Taylor Greene’s insinuation that Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs (an allegation initiated by the Gaza Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas).
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s denial of aid to an ally and defaming that ally with propaganda generated by brutal killers—and then claiming it was necessary to further a policy of “America First”—parallels one of the worst misjudgments in American history.
A misjudgment made by one of America’s greatest heroes.
In 1936, the famed aviator Charles Lindbergh visited Germany and was deeply impressed by Germany’s air force and how Adolf Hitler had restored his nation to its former eminence after its defeat in WWI. “Hitler must have far more character and vision,” he wrote, than what the leaders in America and Britain were saying about him.
Three years later, Hitler began WWII with a rapid and fierce invasion of Poland. Lindbergh felt certain Germany’s formidable military forces would overpower Poland’s allies, France and Britain. With America unprepared for war, Lindbergh called for strict neutrality and even argued against supporting England because it would only prolong the conflict and put America on the wrong side when Hitler conquered all of Europe.
Lindbergh became the spokesman for the then America First Committee, a loosely knit organization with close to a million members that advocated strict American neutrality and isolationism.
“If we concentrate on our own defenses and build the strength that this nation should maintain,” declared Lindbergh, “no foreign army will ever attempt to land on American shores.”
A majority of Americans agreed with him and wanted to remain neutral, but they were soon taken aback by a dark side of Charles Lindbergh, an antisemitism that kept cropping up in his speeches.
In September 1941, three months before Japan’s airplanes darkened the sky above Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh still believed in America First and neutrality. “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” he stated. And of the Jews, he said, “their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.”
Americans were already aware of the terrors being afflicted upon the helpless Jews of Europe, and the newspapers took Lindbergh to task. There was no secret, powerful group of Jews orchestrating world affairs. No “Jewish cabal.” Jews were but scapegoats for other people’s insecurities.
On December 7, 1941, two years after the dictators of Germany, Italy, and Japan began the savage conquest of their neighbors, Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor sunk many of America’s best ships and killed over two thousand sailors. Finally, neutral America was in the war.
By then, Germany brutally reigned over most of continental Europe, from the western coast of France to the outskirts of Moscow. Hitler’s lust for power was fixated on the still undefeated Britain, which President Roosevelt–despite Lindbergh’s harangues and the America First Committee–had been wisely and generously helping all along with war supplies.
The America First Committee disbanded and a disgraced Lindbergh worked hard throughout the war to redeem himself by volunteering to advise army air force units, helping to develop the B-24 bomber, and even going on some combat missions in the Pacific.
It is not clear if Lindbergh’s antisemitic views changed after he saw the concentration camps after the war. He made no public apologies. His widow, though, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, said he “regretted being perceived as antisemitic.” Some scholars believe his underlying white supremacist ideology, evident in his pre-war writings, likely persisted, even if they were no longer so overtly expressed.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has not yet learned a lesson from this. But the vast majority of her colleagues understand the vital distinction between Donald Trump’s “America First” and the original America First Committee that was rooted in strict isolationism and often laced with antisemitic rhetoric. America’s strong alliance with the Jewish nation of Israel, and Donald Trump’s willingness to preemptively strike their common enemies, emphasizes how “America First” is not America Only.
Robert Scott Kellner is a U.S. Navy veteran and retired English professor. Kellner taught at the University of Massachusetts and Texas A&M University. The grandson of German justice inspector and diarist Friedrich Kellner, he published his grandfather’s anti-Nazi diary in its original language in Germany in 2011 and is the editor and translator of the English edition, My Opposition: The Diary of Friedrich Kellner–A German against the Third Reich, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2020
