Search This Blog


Sunday, March 29, 2015

MTA must defend itself in court for refusing to put Ads on buses that state that Hamas kills Jews

by Pamela Geller

Last Tuesday, my ace lawyer David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) argued before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on our motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to enter an order requiring New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to run our AFDI anti-Hamas, anti-jihad ad on MTA buses.

I was there, and let me tell you, the foes of free speech made some telling and fascinating admissions.
The foremost of these concerned the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). 

Yerushalmi asked Jeff Rosen, the Director of Real Estate for the MTA — that is, the wonk who decides what ads to take and what ads not to take — this question: 

“The MTA does have a standard that prohibits libel, does it not?” 

Rosen acknowledged that it did. 

Yerushalmi then asked Rosen about our ads comparing CAIR to Hamas and identifying CAIR leaders who have been convicted of jihad terror-related crimes.
Then came the bombshell. Yerushalmi asked: 
“Now, after this ad ran CAIR contacted the MTA and asked it to remove it on the basis that it violated the libel standard, correct?”
Rosen answered, “On the basis that it was defamatory, yes.” 

Yerushalmi noted that the records that the MTA turned over to the court for this hearing indicated that the MTA declined CAIR’s request. 

Asked why, Rosen explained: “My understanding was that their stated objection was that — was not with respect to the naming of the individuals but with respect to the equating of CAIR and Hamas and we did not understand that — based on review with counsel, we did not understand that to be defamatory.”
Yerushalmi drove the point home — that “even when criticized or when challenged by the organization CAIR itself, the MTA allowed my client to criticize Hamas publicly.” 

He asked Rosen: “And would you understand as a lawyer that linking an organization such as CAIR to Hamas would be defamation, per se?” That is, if our claim had been false, but it wasn’t: 

Yerushalmi then reminded Rosen that the MTA had asked us for documentation of CAIR’s ties to Hamas, as well as records about the terror convictions of its officials pictured in the ad.
The bottom line: the MTA refused Hamas-CAIR’s demand that it take down an ad exposing its links to Hamas because the MTA knew our ad was accurate:

 CAIR really does have ties to Hamas.
The ad we won the right to put up at this hearing also involves Hamas; it features a quote from a Hamas music video: 
“Killing Jews is worship that brings us closer to Allah.” 

We’re trying to call attention to Islamic anti-Semitism, and the MTA is determined that we don’t do that.
Yet Rosen admitted that he had no knowledge of First Amendment issues. So when he rejected our ad, he was making these decisions not with any awareness of our First Amendment rights, and not with an understanding of the legal implications of what he was doing.
Rosen and the MTA had rejected this ad, they have said, because they were afraid that it would lead to violence from Muslims who would mistake it for a pro-Hamas ad. 

That’s absurd enough on its face. But in his testimony that day, Rosen contradicted the previous declaration he had submitted to the court. 
The MTA acknowledges that this same ad ran in Chicago and San Francisco without incident.
Raymond Diaz, the MTA’s Director of Security, insisted under oath that our ads have been consistently subject to graffiti and vandalized. It is interesting that the MTA has never reported this salient fact to me. I don’t think what he was saying was accurate, and neither does David Yerushalmi, as there is nothing in the written record to suggest this, but he was certainly adamant. 

The Court asked Diaz if the graffiti was actually specific to my ads or was just the graffiti that is increasingly common once again in the New York subway system, as the city steadily abandons the law-and-order policies that Rudolph Giuliani adopted to turn New York around in the 1990s. Diaz never gave a clear answer to that question.
It’s clear that the MTA chose to challenge this ad out of all of our ads in order to establish that it constituted a true threat, or incitement, or fighting words — all legal grounds to keep from running it. They picked this particular ad hoping that they would get the ruling they wanted and establish a precedent against all of our ads, even though their discriminatory policies against our ads are purely content-driven and hence unconstitutional.
They tried to make the rejection of this ad a security issue. Having lost on first amendment issues, NYC now tried to come at free speech from a different angle: “security.” 

The MTA’s guidelines said that ads should only be rejected after a security assessment had been made, and it was “reasonably foreseeable that the display of the proposed advertisement would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transportation operations.” 

But under questioning, Diaz admitted that he had contacted the New York Police Department twice for an opinion on whether our ad would provoke violence, and they refused to provide one.
That speaks volumes. This proves that there was no security concern. And the San Francisco transit authority, which clearly despises our ads, stated most emphatically that it had absolutely no problem whatsoever when the ad ran — despite the cajoling, the nudging, the leading of the witness by Diaz.
Diaz had his underling Phillip Hoffman, who works for the MTA’s Department of Security, write to Scarlett Lam, the Terrorism Liaison Officer and Coordinator and Manager of Emergency Management, Systems Security, and Special Events for the San Francisco Transit Authority. Diaz had Hoffman ask Lam if the “volatile language” of our ad led to a public outcry and violence. Lam answered “No” to all his questions; there was no violence resulting from our ad.
Then Yerushalmi asked the obvious question: 

“On what basis, what empirical factual basis did you assess that that ad would lead to reasonable foreseeability of violence or lawlessness?” 

Diaz answered that our ad “advocates violence.” 

He explained: “Well, you are telling us in the top of that ad that killing Jews is worship that draws us to Allah. So, in a radical’s mind, that killing Jews is going to bring us closer to God and that is this person who, I guess, that we are attributing that comment to, who, I guess, is a jihadist; that is his jihad, killing Jews.” 

He referred to “people who are easily radicalized.” He admitted that this would include “some Muslims.” Diaz unwittingly went off the politically correct reservation when he admitted: “I think most New Yorkers — and again, and I think there could be misinterpretation of the phrase, but I think the common interpretation of the phrase jihad is a call to violence.”
Yerushalmi then asked, “Is it important to you in your security assessment that this quote was from Hamas MTV?” 

Diaz answered that it was. 

He identified Hamas incorrectly as “the military wing of the PLO,” but acknowledged that it is “a designated foreign terrorist organization,” and that “if an individual provides material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization that that individual has committed a felony under federal law.”

 In other words, he admitted that the MTA’s claim that jihadis would see this ad and act on it as if it were a pro-Hamas ad was absurd on its face: no one would think that the MTA was running ads on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization.
Yet that was Diaz’s claim. 

He testified: “When I first saw this ad I said, well, I am reading something wrong here, because AFDI is a pro-Jewish organization, so why would they be sponsoring an ad such as this. And then, thinking about it more, I said, well, this ad could be taking both sides as a call to violence. Whether you are pro-Hamas or whether you are pro-Jewish, I think it would be the same interpretation because — and my thoughts were, if I saw this on a wall of a terrorist camp or if I saw this on the wall of an Israeli Army company, it would be getting the same advocating of violence. His jihad is killing Jews.Well, if it was in the Jewish camp, that’s his jihad, killing Jews, to the soldiers in the Israeli camp. What is your jihad? What are you going to do about that? What call to violence are you going to do?
Yerushalmi asked: “Now, is it really your security assessment, Mr. Diaz, that most reasonable New Yorkers would think that the MTA would take funds from Hamas or some group affiliated with Hamas and run an ad advocating the death of Jews?”
Diaz answered: “I don’t think most New Yorkers would want this ad to be run, if that’s the question.” 

Yerushalmi persisted: “Is it really your security assessment that the MTA would take funds from a designated terrorist organization — Hamas — or someone affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and post an ad calling for the death of Jews?” Diaz finally said, “We would not take money to do that, no.”
Then Yerushalmi asked him: “And, in fact, in this case, even knowing that my clients had no intent to advocate for jihad, in fact criticized jihad, your entire focus in your security assessment was how Muslims or Jews might react to this ad, correct?” Diaz agreed. 

Yerushalmi continued:

 “Part of your security assessment includes an assessment of the reasonable foreseeability risk that an individual is going to feel insulted by an ad — not advocated but insulted by an ad, and jump up and commit imminent violence, correct?”
To that, Diaz answered no. 

“Then why,” responded Yerushalmi, “did you include Jews in your security assessment?” 

Diaz explained again: “Once I read the AFDI and realized that this is not an ad that was proposed by Hamas but by pro-Jewish organization, I read it then conversely, that killing Jews is worship that draws us to Allah and saying this to the Jewish community, his worship is killing Jews, that’s his jihad, that’s his call to violence to further his religion, what is yours — asking the person of the Jewish faith, well, what is your jihad? What is your call to violence to counter his killing of Jews?”
Yerushalmi pointed out that Diaz had written: “Whether that violence or breach of the peace would be the work of a violent, self-radicalized, would-be jihadist like the man in Queens who attacked NYPD officers with a hatchet, or the apparently deranged man who, in early December, fatally stabbed an Israeli student in the head at the Chabad-Lubavitch headquarters in Brooklyn while screaming ‘I want to kill the Jew,’ or of a Jew driven to retaliation by anger and fear, I had no way knowing for certain, of course.”
Yerushalmi pressed Diaz on his moral equivalence: “Was the reasonable foreseeability of violence by the radicalized Muslim greater or lesser than the threat that a Jew would take umbrage at this ad and engage in violence?” 

Then Diaz admitted: “I would say that reading the first lines, the banner part of the ad, that of course that it would — I would lean towards the radicalized Muslim before someone of the Jewish faith.” 

However, he stuck to his ground: “I think they both, whether you read it from both sides, I think they both advocate violence… I think both sides — I think reading this ad from both sides, I think it proposes violence on both sides, yes. It would be tough to say equally.”
He said he was worried about Jews reacting violently to the ad, but if he was really worried about Jews acting out, how could he have allowed any ad critical of Islam, given how some Muslims react violently to the slightest thing they consider offensive? 

Yerushalmi then asked him, 
“So, based upon that testimony and your declaration, I understand that part of your assessment is to examine the risk that individuals will be angered by an ad, not agree with it, but be angered by it and commit violence, correct?”
Diaz answered: “Part of the assessment, yes. As part of my recommendation to the chairman I would add something else to it.” 

When Yerushalmi asked him what he would add, Diaz made a bombshell admission:

 “That this ad and we knew in the future that nobody was ever going to do that — if we could read into the future — but the fact is that 
it advocates violence.
 If nobody ever committed a violent act as a result of that, I thought that it advocated violence. I still don’t think it is an ad that we should have run.”
By this standard, anyone can threaten violence and get a denial of the free speech of anyone he dislikes.
Yerushalmi reminded Diaz about “all the other ads that my clients ran that were critical of Hamas, critical jihad, critical of Palestinians who engage in jihad against Israel and calling them savages.” 

He asked: “In your security assessment of the ads that you have described in your declaration, in some detail you indicated that there was no security assessment to be concerned about relative to all of those other ads that criticize Hamas, jihad, Islam, savages, what have you; correct?” 

Diaz denied this: “There were concerns — that is not correct. There were concerns but no concern that I thought that there would have been violation of the ad.”
Again Yerushalmi pressed him on his contradictions: 

“You mention these angry Jews relative to the Hamas ad because they would think the MTA authority was running a Hamas ad and they would get angry. Did you not think that all these radicalized Muslims, these mujahideen that are out there working in the city, would not see these ads that you approve that criticize Hamas, criticized jihad, call individuals savages?” 

Diaz admitted: “I would think there would be concern on that side too, yes” — yet he approved those ads.
Yerushalmi also pointed out: “The disclaimer at the bottom is fairly large print, correct?… It is fairly large, to be visible so that the MTA won’t be blamed in the ad.” In fact, it is fully 25% of the ad space.
Yerushalmi asked him: “The fact that there was no violence when those ads ran did not affect your assessment?”
Diaz answered: “No, it did not.” Incredible.
David Yerushalmi argued brilliantly, asking the court to enjoin the MTA’s speech restriction on First Amendment grounds. And we will win. If we don’t, it isn’t just us who lose — it’s anyone who values the freedom of speech.
What leftists who oppose us don’t get is that our free speech victories are their free speech victories. But today’s “journalists” don’t seem to have any understanding of the value of free speech.
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

37 lawyers force Virginia State Bar to Boycott Israel

37 Jew Hater lawyers  managed to influence 30,000 lawyers of the Virginia State Bar to boycott Israel!
They started an online petition to force the Virginia State Bar to cancel its conference in Jerusalem, that was already booked!

Who are those 37 bastards? 

Well, we are going to find out and post their cursed names for the world to see!

The Virginia State Bar (VSB) is the latest organization to capitulate to leftist and anti-Israel pressure, the Washington Post reported Saturday night - and has cancelled a planned trip to Jerusalem for November. 

"Certain members of the Virginia State Bar and other individuals have expressed objections to the VSB’s plan to take the Midyear Legal Seminar trip in November to Jerusalem," the Association stated in a letter to its members.

 "It was stated that there are some unacceptable discriminatory policies and practices pertaining to border security that affect travelers to the nation."

"Upon review of U.S. State Department advisories and other research, and after consultation with our leaders, it has been determined that there is enough legitimate concern to warrant cancellation of the Israel trip and exploration of alternative locations," it added. 

The US State Department has become hostile toward Israel over the past year, and has made increasingly inflammatory statements against the Jewish state.
Recently, it rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's apologies to Israeli Arabs and implied that it is re-evaluating the US-Israel relationship; it also called on Israel to "end the Occupation." Travel advisories released to US citizens have also implied that Jerusalem and other areas are dangerous, with warnings against visiting eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem and even public parks after dark. 

VSB President Kevin Martingayle insisted to the Washington Times late Saturday night that the decision was not due to anti-Semitic views. 
“We are absolutely not making a political point we are making the point that we have to care about every single one of our members,” 

Mr. Martingayle said. “We are a large bar, we have over 30,000 members within the state bar and we have to meet the needs of all of them.”

However, the Times suggests that the decision may have been made following an online petition against holding the conference in Jerusalem by a mere 37 lawyers - a charge Martingayle similarly denies. 

Washington Post reporter David Bernstein also notes that the letter was submitted to the anti-Israel "Electronic Intifada" over two hours before it was sent to Bar members, and adds that it raises questions over who ultimately made the decision to cancel the already-booked conference. 

Obama’s race to chaos

by Michael Goodwin
If you’re confused about the Saudi Arabia-led air attacks against Islamist rebels in Yemen and can’t tell one group of head-choppers in Iraq and Syria from another, don’t despair. All you need is imagination.
Close your eyes and imagine that those countries and terrorists have nuclear weapons. Imagine their barbarism going nuclear as they blow up cities, wipe out ethnic and religious groups and turn the region into cinders.
Now open your eyes and realize you've seen the future, thanks to President Obama’s policies. It is a future that will be defined by Obama’s Wars. Yes, plural.
I've written frequently about the likelihood of a dystopian “Mad Max” scenario if Iran gets nukes. My thinking is guided by a belief among American military and intelligence officials
that a nuclear exchange would take place in the Mideast within five years of Iran getting the bomb. To judge from events, the future is arriving ahead of schedule.
The fact that a top Saudi official wouldn't answer a question about the kingdom’s plan to get nukes is an answer in itself. Proliferation in the world’s hottest spot was guaranteed once Obama abdicated American leadership, a decision that led our adversaries to conclude we would not stop them and our allies to conclude we would not protect them.
A future where it would be every nation for itself was trouble enough, but something far worse is unfolding now. Obama’s courtship of Iran and his willingness to let it go nuclear is speeding up the race to chaos.
Iran wants it both ways — nukes and a free hand to impose its Islamic Revolution throughout the region. Against all good sense and the lessons of history, Obama is saying yes and yes.
Sightings of the Revolutionary Guard leader, Maj. Gen. Qasem Suleimani, leading Iranian-sponsored militias against Islamic State in Iraq has spread alarm throughout the region. The fears reached a fever pitch when Iranian-allied Houthi rebels took over Yemen, chasing out our soldiers and allies with chants of “Death to America, death to Israel.”
Iran long held designs on a Shia Crescent and control over Arab lands, which helps explain why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others counted themselves as our allies. They are furious as they watch Iran get a nuclear pass from Obama and a green light to expand its power.
The nuclear program will have the United Nations stamp of approval, as will Iranian control of four Arab capitals — Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and now Sanaa, Yemen. Indeed, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry suggest Iran even could be an ally in the fight against Islamic State and al Qaeda. Already there has been coordination there, leading critics to say America is acting as the Iranian air force.
Israel, of course, sees the pattern as insane and a threat because Iran has threatened to wipe it off the face of the earth. In retaliation for complaining about the nuke deal, Obama denounces our ally and threatens to “re-evaluate” our support for the Jewish state.
But Israel is not alone, with our Sunni Arab allies also viewing Iran as their mortal enemy. Sen. John McCain quoted one of those Arab leaders as concluding, “We believe it is more dangerous to be a friend of America’s than an enemy.”
These are unprecedented developments, veering so far from the norm and happening so fast that consequences are piling up faster than they can be comprehended. Alliances built over decades are shattered in a relative flash, inviting aggression and endless conflict. The toxic brew of Islamic fanaticism and nuclear proliferation could ignite a world conflagration.
These are grim thoughts, expressed because it is impossible to imagine any other outcome of Iran’s rise. It remains the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism and supports Hezbollah and Hamas and now the Houthis in Yemen. As for Iranian influence in Iraq, one analyst is calling Suleimani, the Revolutionary Guard commander, Iraq’s new “viceroy.”
Remember, too, Iran muscle and munitions are keeping Bashar Assad still standing in Syria. The wholesale death and destruction there — an estimated 200,000 people killed and millions displaced within the country and out of it — could be a prototype of its new empire.
While there are many dark and complex forces in play and blame to spread around, the most important catalyst of the violent disorder has been the reversal of America’s policies. Under Obama, we have switched sides, an abomination that ensures a legacy of infamy.

Soaps and Cosmetics Kosher for Passover?

by Rabbi Eliezer Melamud

Soaps and Cosmetics
The Poskim (Jewish law arbiters) disagree whether body lotions that contain ĥametz (leavened products) may be used on Pesaĥ. While soaps, shampoos, and creams are not made from ĥametz, but
they sometimes contain grain alcohol or other ĥametz derivatives, leading to queries about their status on Pesaĥ.

Some say that applying an ointment is equivalent, by rabbinic enactment, to drinking. Consequently, even if the ĥametz in these products is not fit for a dog’s consumption, it retains the status of ĥametz because it is suitable for anointing, and thus it is forbidden to use them on Pesaĥ. Accordingly, one must use soaps, shampoos, and creams that are kosher for Pesaĥ.
Others maintain that the Sages only equated the application of ointment to drinking with regard to Yom Kippur and anointing with oil consecrated as teruma (priestly gift). All other Torah prohibitions relate to eating alone, not anointing. Although it is forbidden to derive benefit from ĥametz, the ĥametz in these products was rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption even before Pesaĥ began and thus lost the status of ĥametz. It is therefore permissible to derive benefit from them and apply them to the body during Pesaĥ.

The Practical Ruling

Since this dispute relates to rabbinic law, the halakha accords with the lenient opinion. Therefore, creams that are absorbed into the skin, flavorless lipstick, and perfumes that contain alcohol need not be certified kosher for Pesaĥ, in keeping with the lenient opinion, since they are not fit for consumption and generally do not contain ĥametz ingredients.  Moreover, the vast majority of cosmetic products produced in Israel do not contain wheat-derived alcohol. Even the majority of products produced abroad do not contain wheat-derived alcohol, since it is more expensive than potato-derived alcohol.
Still, when one has a product and is not sure whether it contains wheat-derived alcohol, even if he is normally stringent he may be lenient, based on a combination of several uncertainties and doubts (See, ‘Peninei Halakha: Pesach’ 8:9).
Usually, after teaching this halakha, I am asked: “Rabbi, what do you do personally?” My reply is: If there is soap or cream Kosher for Passover, we prefer to use it. But if there was no suitable cream in the store, or it was significantly more expensive, or if someone is sensitive to a special soap or shampoo, we use the products regularly used during the year.

Toothpaste and Lipstick

Toothpaste and lipstick must be certified kosher for Pesaĥ because they are flavored, and as a result, are like any other food product.

Does Dishwashing Soap have to be Kosher for Passover?

Dishwashing soap does not need to be certified Kosher for Passover. And even though it comes in contact with dishes, since the taste is completely unfit for consumption – even if these substances were mixed with ĥametz, its taste was befouled before Pesaĥ and it is no longer considered ĥametz. Indeed, if a person had the intention of eating hametz unfit for consumption, since he considered it as food, he transgresses a rabbinic prohibition. But in this case, no one is interested in tasting the dishwashing soap on the dishes, and even if the dishes were not rinsed well and the taste of soap was left on them, there is no prohibition whatsoever.
Q: Why are there kashrut organizations that give certification for dishwashing soap?
A: This is a marketing gimmick of dishwashing soap manufacturers, who think that by doing so they gain an edge on their competitors, and it is extremely puzzling that the kashrut organizations collaborate with them by providing certification, thus using the Torah as a “spade to dig with” i.e. a source of profit.

Medicines on Pesaĥ

Medicines are the subject of some of the most common questions on Pesaĥ. There is concern that pills contain wheat-based starch. The purpose of the starch is to solidify and harden the pills. Had the starch been produced from potatoes or kitniyot, there would be no problem even for Ashkenazim, as for medicinal purposes one may swallow pills containing kitniyot. But what about starch extracted from a type of grain that can become ĥametz?

Flavored Medicines must have Kosher for Pesach Certification

The answer depends on the taste of the medicine: if it is flavored, like syrup, lozenges, or chewables, then one must ascertain that it is kosher for Pesacĥ. In case of doubt, its use is forbidden. Only a dangerously ill person whose medicine does not have a substitute is permitted to take medicine containing ĥametz, because saving a life overrides the prohibition of eating ĥametz. 

The Custom of the Stringent not to Take Even Bitter Medicine Containing Hametz

Some meticulously observant people try to avoid even bitter medicines that contain ĥametz. They show concern for the opinion of the few poskim who maintain that medicine is not considered unfit for animalconsumption since we deem it significant, and it is thus rabbinically prohibited. Other poskim permit bitter medicines that contain ĥametz starch for one who is bedridden or whose entire body is in pain, but rule stringently for one suffering from mild aches and pains.

The Majority of Poskim Rule Bitter Medicine is Permitted

However, most poskim maintain that bitter medicines containing ĥametz may be taken by any ill person, even only to reduce mild pain, as a prophylactic, or to fortify the body.
Practically speaking, if one is uncertain whether certain bitter or tasteless medicines contain wheat starch, he may swallow them without ensuring that they are free of wheat starch. As we have seen, most poskim maintain that medicines rendered unfit for animalconsumption before Pesaĥ may be consumed during Pesaĥ even if they are known to contain ĥametz. Even one who prefers to comply with the stringent opinion on this issue need not be strict if he is uncertain whether the medicine contains ĥametz. This is especially true nowadays, when we know that potato and corn starch are used more widely than wheat starch. Thus, in practice, one may consume bitter or tasteless medicines on Pesaĥ without ascertaining whether they contain ĥametz.
Therefore, it is permitted to take bitter medicines containing wheat starch even for the purpose of easing mild pain, preventing illness, or strengthening the body.

Tasteless Medicines Do Not Require Inspection

From what we have learned, all drugs that are tasteless, even though they are listed as not kosher for Passover, according to the majority of poskim, are halakhically kosher. Practically speaking this is also true, for even the machmerim (stringent) admit that since they are tasteless, the prohibition is of rabbinic status, and as is well-known, in rabbinic controversies halakha goes according to the mekelim(lenient), in particular when they are the majority.
Moreover, this is especially true nowadays, when we know that potato and corn starch are used more widely than wheat starch.

So in effect, on Pesach, one can take bitter or tasteless medication designed to be swallowed, without checking lists to see if they kosher for Passover (‘Peninei Halakha:Pesach’, 8:7).

This article appeared in the ‘Besheva’ newspaper, and was translated from Hebrew. For an overview of the holiday, click here. For the issue of kitniyot (and quinoa), click here. For how to kosher the kitchen for Passover, clickhere.

Sholom DovBer Levitansky Sexual Predator, His Frum Victim Tells Her Story, video

Here watch this heart breaking account of a young girl, Sima Yarmush, being molested by her "Rabbi" Sholom Dovber Levitansky, and he now moved to another community to continue molesting...

Ami's Yitzchok Frankfurter can't find kosher food in Tel Aviv!

The clown, Yitchok Frankfurter interviews MK Yisroel Eichler in this weeks Ami, and tells him that he cannot find  kosher food in Tel Aviv....
This lying skunk, like the Meraglim, must push his anti-Zionist agenda, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the interview, and even if its a ridiculous lie!

The following does not include Kosher super sol and other kosher supermarkets,Kosher Cafe's, Fast Food Restaurants,  Pizza Stores, Falafel Stores:
Fancy, Mediterranean, Meat
Weitzman 4
The 11th Floor
Fancy, Steak, Meat
Azrieli Towers
Fancy, French, Meat
Kaufman 5
Fancy, Steak, Meat
Ahad Ha'am 28
Fancy, Turkish, Meat
Ha'Arba'a 8
Fancy, French, Meat
Nachalat Binyamin 30
Olive Leaf
Fancy, Mediterranean, Meat
Sheraton Hotel
Hayarkon 115
Fancy, French, Meat
Lilienblum 24
Prime Grill
Fancy, Steak, Meat
Herbert Samuel 60
Fancy, Israeli, Meat
Meat & Wine
Fancy, Steak, Meat
Shenkar 16, Herzliya
Vino Socca
Fancy, Steak, Meat
Galgalei Haplada 7, Herzliya
E- Zugi
Fancy, Continental, Meat
HaBarzel 17
Fancy, Grill, Meat
Nachalat Binyamin 37
Fancy, Steak, Meat
Weitzmann 2
Le Relais Jaffa
Fancy, French, Meat
Bat Ami 7
Lechem Basar
Mid, Israeli, Meat
Namal Tel Aviv
Shmulik Cohen
Mid, Eastern European, Meat
Herzl 146
Mid, Libian, Meat
Yerushalyim 6
Mid, Israeli, Meat
Rabbi Meir 26
Mifgash HaSteak
Mid, Grill, Meat
Menachem Begin 37
Mid, Israeli, Meat
Rothschild 47
Cabina Beach Bar
Mid, Israeli, Meat
Gordon Beach

Fancy, Italian, Dairy
Weitzman 2
Mid, Italian, Dairy
Mikveh Yisrael 1
Mid, Mix, Dairy
Namal Tel Aviv
La Lasagna
Chill, Italian, Dairy
Ben Yehuda 177
Hungarian Blintzes
Chill, Hungarian, Dairy
Yirmiyahu 35
Fancy, Fish, Dairy
HaTasia 10
Blue Sky
Fancy, Fish, Dairy
Carlton Hotel Roof
Eliezer Peri 10
The 11th Floor
Fancy, Sushi, Dairy
Azrieli Towers
Fancy, Fish/Pasta, Dairy
Yafo Namal
Pacific Bistro & Sushi
Fancy, Asian Fish, Meat
Crowne Plaza Hotel
HaYarkon 145
Yakimono Sushi
Fancy, Sushi, Dairy
Hilton Hotel
Derby Bar
Mid,Fish, Dairy
Yigal Alon 96
Mid, Fish, Meat
Herbert Samuel 88
Kanki Sushi Bar
Mid, Sushi, Dairy
Bograshov 23
Mid, Sushi, Dairy
Bograshov 28
Oshi Oshi
Mid, Sushi, Dairy
Namal Tel Aviv
Super Sushi
Chill, Sushi, Dairy
Dizengoff 79
Ibn Givrol 72

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Iranian Defector: ‘US Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf’

An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. 
In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. 
He also has a damning indictment of America's role in the nuclear negotiations.
“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal," Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.
A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.
Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).
He then appeared on an opposition television channel based in London to say he no longer saw any “sense” in his profession as a journalist as he could only write what he was told.
“There are a number of people attending on the Iranian side at the negotiations who are said to be journalists reporting on the negotiations,” he told Irane Farda television. “But they are not journalists and their main job is to make sure that all the news fed back to Iran goes through their channels.
“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more.” Mr Mottaghi was a journalist and commentator who went on to use social media successfully to promote Mr Rouhani to a youthful audience that overwhelmingly elected him to power.

Anti-Semitism flourishes like a poisonous plant in the Ivy League Colleges debunking the Forward's Lying Editorial

Last week the communist anti-Israel newspaper the Forward wrote an editorial saying in effect that there is very little anti-Semitism on US Campuses... the point was to downplay anti-Semitism so that those fighting Antisemitism on the campuses would relax their guard!

At the University of California, swastikas have been found on Jewish buildings, as they have at Vanderbilt University, University of Oregon and Emory University. These incidents are increasing and are always linked to an anti-Israel campaign. 

Anti-Semitism flourishes like a poisonous plant in the Ivy League colleges, the laboratories of "equal opportunity", in the large green areas of sun, gymnastics, jogging, squares with concerts, demonstrations of students, a network of streets dotted with libraries, cafes,restaurants, pizzerias. 
54 percent of Jewish students at US colleges suffered anti-Semitic attacks or witnessed them, according to research published by the "Center for Human Rights Under Law" at Trinity College.

Jewish students are attacked by groups such as the "Students for Justice in Palestine", and after the conflict in Gaza last summer, phrases such as "Death to Israel" and "Kill all Jews" appeared on the walls of Berkeley. More recently, it was the turn of "The Zionists should be sent to the gas chambers."

The godmother of Berkeley's campaign against Israel is 
Professor Judith Butler, who invented the "gender studies" so popular today in Europe. Butler came under fire for an interview in which she denounced the memorials for the victims of 9/11. 

In US classrooms, professors portray the Palestinian Arabs as victims of Israeli "occupation" and the Jewish State as "racist", an "apartheid state", "genocidal". In buildings on campus, the anti-Israeli groups organize pickets against Israel, conferences on BDS, and supporters of Israel are routinely attacked and prevented from speaking.

Do not forget that the symbol of the anti-Israeli "pacifism" in the world is Rachel Corrie, an American college student, killed under an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in an attempt to block the demolition of a house of terrorists when its driver could not possibly have seen her. The myth of Corrie inspired literary works, boycotts, and articles all over the world. Her story has helped to defame Israel in a way that is even worse than the faked killing of Mohammed al Dura.

At Evergreen State University, former professors of Corrie, at graduation ceremonies, wear khaki pants and a keffiyeh, in tribute to their former student.

In recent days, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative think tank in California, released the black list of the worst campuses of America with regard to anti-Semitism. 

Heading the list is Columbia University. "How many Palestinians have you killed?" asked Professor Joseph Massad of an Israeli student. And professor George Shaliba said to a Jewish girl that she could not claim rights on Palestine because she hadn't eyes that were Semitic enough.

Columbia is the University of Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute there, who called "legitimate resistance" suicide terrorism against Israel and the Israeli army "a weapon of mass destruction."
Columbia is a strategic center because it is the faculty where Edward Said, the most prestigious intellectual exponent of the Palestinian Intifada, taught. He was shown on the border with southern Lebanon, while he threw stones at Israeli soldiers who were leaving the area. His definition of the Palestinians as "victims of the victims" had an extraordinary and lethal resonance in the West. 

Berkeley taught a course on "Politics and Poetic of Palestinian Resistance", while at Yale the Initiative for Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, the first academic center in the world completely devoted to the study of anti-Semitism, lasted just four years. It was closed due to charges of "subservience to Israel", the pressure of Palestinian ambassadors in the United States, political correctness - and lavish donations from Arab countries

There was no controversy, however, when the students of the Jackson Center for Global Affairs at Yale were brought by their lecturers to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was visiting New York at the UN (at that time the Iranian leader again denied the Holocaust).

Last October, hundreds of anthropologists around the world signed a petition for the boycott of Israel. 

There are famous names from Columbia University (13 signatures), 9 from Harvard and 8 from Yale. 

These include Professors Jean and John Comaroff Harvard, Deans of Studies of Post Colonial Africa, and Michael Taussig of Columbia University,  mimes is and Latin America scholar. The American Studies Association has joined the international campaign to boycott Israeli universities. It comes from Harvard, home to Professor Stephen Walt, one of the authorsof "Israel Lobby", the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as applied to Israel.

Funds that come from Islamic countries manipulate the nature of Middle East Studies. 

Just scroll through the list of donations from Arab Gulf states since 1995: Boston University ($1.5 million), Columbia University ($500,000), George Washington University ($12 million), Georgetown University ($16 million), Harvard ($12 million), MIT ($10 million), University of Arkansas ($18 million).

Meanwhile, anti-Semitism is rampant everywhere. From Hampshire College, where a pro-Israel student was attacked by individuals with veiled faces, shouting "Baby Killer", to Rutgers University, where an event compared the Palestinians to Holocaust victims. 

This wave of anti-Semitic irrationality and anti-Israel hysteria on campus is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Allan Bloom, a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, who deprecated the fall of these sanctuaries of knowledge with a book titled "The Closing of the American Mind ". Where everything must be instantly gratifying, including the hatred for Israel. The new opium of the elite. 

Thursday, March 26, 2015

R' Shmuel Auerbach's Newspaper "Hapeles" a bunch of Mafia Extortionists

Following months of investigation, Israel Police on Wednesday night 4-5 Nissan arrested 21 people suspected of involvement in a blackmail ring. The suspects are reportedly all affiliated with the so-called Yerushalmi branch, the Bnei Torah party headed by Rav Shmuel Auerbach.

It is alleged that during the last year they harassed, threatened, and extorted senior managers and executives from large companies and government companies in an effort to persuade them to advertise in the party-affiliated ‘HaPeles’ newspaper.

Twenty-one people were arrested after police investigated complaints of threats and harassment via telephone, email and fax. Arrests were made in the capital, Bnei Brak, Ashdod, Yerucham, and Modi’in Illit. 

The police message to the media read “Following an undercover investigation for the past half year the Fraud Division of the Jerusalem District arrested 21 suspects around Israel. The suspects during the past year allegedly harassed, intimidated and threatened senior executives in companies and government companies in an effort to compel them to advertise in HaPeles”.
According to the evidence gathered by police, the efforts to compel others to advertise in the newspaper go back as far as two years. Some of the people who turned to police are active in Yahadut Hatorah.

Police officials explain that those in custody would call the “struggle hotline” daily and identify themselves with a code name, password and caller ID from their phone number, and only then would they receive the day’s assignment.

 They were instructed to harass and intimidate. 

The recipients received hundreds of calls, faxes and emails, so much so that it interfered with their ability to conduct business as usual.
The harassment in some cases led to the companies canceling ads elsewhere in the hope of turning off the calls, faxes and emails.

Police add that 200 policepersons were involved in the arrests, including detectives, Yassam commando police, border police and undercover agents. 

The suspects were taken to the Lahav 433 (FBI) headquarters.
Two of the suspects, both residents of the capital, are viewed as the main players in the operation. They are both from the chareidi sector. Among those in custody is a leading personality in the Yerushalmi camp, A.T. (name on file), is believed to be the mastermind behind the operation. Police raided his home in the Ramot neighborhood of the capital, he was arrested and taken into custody.

Chareidi media reports state officials affiliated with Degel Hatorah are pleased arrests have finally been made and they hope police take the severity of the actions of those involved seriously and act appropriately.

But you can't have an Iphone!