Archive for the ‘American Jewry’ Category

A Chink in the Democrats’ Jewish Voting Bloc — A Taste of More to Come?

September 23, 2011

In early 2008, I asked, “Who will leave the Democrats first: Blacks or Jews?”.  The congressional election in New York’s 9th Congressional District in New York City, won this month by Republican Bob Turner, provides a preliminary answer.  The election represents a significant chink in Jews’ solidly Democrat voting record.  That district has been termed the most heavily Jewish of any CD, and is estimated at 30% Jewish.

The election result is considered to stem from the Democrats’ abysmal handling of the economy and Obama’s visceral and manifest hostility to Israel.  That Obama would be no true friend of Israel was manifest to many of us four years ago, but others are slowly realizing that in fact he is not.  But for the Jewish vote to truly be competitive in future elections, many more voters will have to come to that conclusion, and further, that Obama’s Islamophiliac and anti-Israel attitudes are rather consonant with much of today’s Democrat party.

On the other hand, the Democrats’ nomination of a black presidential candidate, and a successful one at that, has since further cemented the Democrats as the black community’s overwhelming choice.  That remains true despite the tremendous damage, economic and otherwise, that the combination of that party and that president has inflicted on both the black community and the country as a whole.

The only contingency that might tend to pry black allegiance from the Dems lies in the remote chance that further stark Obama failure, and a concomitant threat to other Dem officeholders up for reelection, causes the party to drop him from its 2012 ticket.

Indeed, both groups, Jews and blacks, are now bound to the Democrats by tradition. It has been claimed that people change their spouses more often than their political parties, and it certainly appears that the tradition issue is a powerful factor in the Jews’ and blacks’ allegiance to the Democrats.

Republicans and conservatives assert that, in fact, their policies better benefit the lower economic classes, including blacks, and all Americans, by providing the means and incentives for individuals to succeed on their own, and creating more wealth and prosperity for the society as a whole.

Jews, on the other hand, are more represented in the upper economic classes, yet still vote Democrat virtually on a par with blacks, essentially against their economic interests. That is the basis for the old saying, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans,” and the concept remains essentially valid decades after the saying was coined.

Of course, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants to the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were exceedingly poor. Thus their Democratic affiliation may have made sense at that time. However, their emphasis on education, entrepreneurship, and entry into the professions has resulted in a great American success story. This, in turn, has resulted in the rise of many of them to economic success in this country.

But they still vote overwhelmingly Democrat. A minority can be found among prominent Republicans and conservatives in government and politics, as well as other fields.

In addition to the tradition issue, Jews’ allegiance to the Democrats stems from their liberal/left wing views, particularly on social issues, such as abortion and concern for the poor.

Although some Jews have a concern for the well being of Israel, many do not, and the number who do is probably decreasing. And among many of those who do care about Israel, their level of concern is not great. But, given those limitations, the dissonance between the positions of those Jews who do care about Israel and the Democrat party is increasing significantly.

The Democrats have become a haven for the anti-Israel sentiment prominent among the left wing, and at least some Jews realize that the Democrats’ philosophy of a more flaccid projection of U.S. power internationally – as evidenced by their desire for disproportionate reductions in the defense budget — may gravely redound to the detriment of Israel and the United States, too.

So, who will leave the Democrats first: Blacks or Jews? Although many in both groups have good reason to, a rational outside observer would probably conclude that the Jews have more reason to.

But it’s still a toss-up. Increasing numbers of blacks may realize over time that the Democrats don’t serve their group or individual interests; most Jews may already realize that the party does not serve theirs in any tangible way, but their Democrat affiliation serves them on a psychological level, as they see themselves as on “the right side,” or with the party that “does good.”

Advertisements

Jews Hope their Prayers Won’t Be Answered

September 6, 2011

Or, What’s the Matter with the Jews?

Last year, in Is Rabbi Ovadia the Only Jew Who Reads the Prayer Book?, I noted the absurdity of the situation where so-called Jewish leaders inveighed against Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments that were entirely consistent with traditional Jewish prayers.

Unfortunately, though, the problem is broader than simply Rabbi Ovadia’s comments and his critics.  In fact, when it comes to Israel, the dominant attitudes of the American Jewish community are stark variance with the Jewish liturgy.

The Siddur Sim Shalom includes the language in the Birkat HaMazon, “Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, soon, in our day.” It does not say “Rebuild West Jerusalem.”

A side note – is it not interesting how the media routinely refers to all sorts of cities in Iraq and elsewhere in the Moslem world as “holy cities”, but somehow you have never heard them refer to Jerusalem as a holy city?)

In the Musaf Amidah we pray, “May it be your will… to lead us in joy to our land and to settle us within our borders.” I have also seen the language “Restore us to our homeland.”  None of the liturgy says “settle us within the 1949 armistice lines” or the non-existent “1967 borders.”

I do not know which is more rote, the recital of these traditional prayers that the mendicants actually hope will not be fulfilled, or their votes come election day for the Democrat lever.  (Granted, of course, that many of these “liberal” paragons of Jewish values never set foot in a shul.)

Several years ago, the book What’s the matter with Kansas? received wide note for asking why Kansans seemed to vote against their interests by voting Republican.  The answer was that the Kansans really were voting in line with their interests.  (If that was not obvious when the book was published, it certainly should be now!)

The  analogous yet more trenchant question is  “what’s the matter with the Jews?”  Large majority of American Jews continue to vote Democrat in the face of the continuing overwhelming evidence that the Democrats are in step with the Islamo-leftist axis, constantly working against the interests of American Jews and Israel.   (That it is also working against the interests of America as a whole and the western world is also true, but that is a somewhat different point to defend.)

Two additional recent datums illustrating the point are that every Democrat in the Congress opposed the recent UN Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act bill to restrict UN funding of anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-semitic activities.  The Obama/Hillary Clinton administration also opposed another recent bill that would stop it from giving money to the Palestinian Authority that could be used for terrorism, as Hillary said that would keep her from being able to do her job.

In sum, when leftist Jews berate Jewish conservatives or the Israeli government as betraying Jewish values, be assured they are simply displaying their own confusion between Jewish values, which their nemeses are likely upholding, but which they do not share, and their own, very different, leftist ideology.

In fact, it is an arrogant and erroneous display of chutzpah to assume that Jewish values are represented by American liberals or the Democrat party.  The primary area in which these people display any kind of liberalism is in their acceptance of the hatred displayed by their fellow “liberals”/leftists towards Israel, Jews, and Republicans and conservatives.

You Heard it Here First!

September 1, 2011

Some of the statements I made in my articles posted on these pages in recent years undoubtedly struck some readers, and especially non-readers, as outlandish.  But, sad to say, the intervening time has confirmed the truth of more of them than any of us would have liked.  Some examples follow:

With Some of the Friends We Have, We Barely Need Enemies, posted  November 30, 2009, which itself referred to previous articles I posted, discussed how Jewish and ostensibly pro-Israel organizations were actually working against those interests.  Subsequently, facts about the true nature of groups such as J-Street were revealed, prompting some, such as New York Congressman Gary Ackerman, to disavow their ties to it.

What is a “Supporter of Israel”?, originally published in 2006, was one of those articles referenced in the 2009 column.  It called to task America’s largest synagogue movement, the Union for Reform Judaism for its anti-Israel activities.  There, things have gone from bad to worse, as Eric Yoffie, its at best lukewarm to Israel leader, has been replaced by J-Streeter Jacobs.

Earlier this year, Caroline Glick wrote documenting Jewish groups aiding the enemy, and noted the formation of the Committee Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art, established specifically to end Jewish Federation funding for anti-Israel activities.  The Washington DC Jewish Community Center’s Federation-funded Theater J was a prime offender.

On October 4, 2009 I raised the provocative question, Who Is More Pro-Israel, Your Rabbi Or Rush Limbaugh?, using Limbaugh as shorthand for the genre of conservative talk radio hosts.  Since then, on the one hand we have seen the brave and staunch support for Israel shown by talker Glenn Beck, and on the other, the revelation of the sad yet successful leftist/anti-Israel indoctrination of rabbinical students in some seminaries.

Further, I discovered an old file of material from a “Zionism” course I took in the mid-1970’s at the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary.  So what did I find that our “leaders” indoctrinated us with, even back then?  Yes, the Israel-hatred of Chomsky!

The New American Jewish Bible, August 23, 2009, stated that the New York Times and other analogous left-wing  media outlets had supplanted the Torah in large parts of the Jewish community.  So I was not totally shocked when in June of this year, the newly named editor of that newspaper, born-Jewish Jill Abramson proclaimed “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion.”  But somehow, I have a feeling that I should be able to collect from her for plagiarism.

[Apparently, saying the Times substitutes for religion is still not PC enough for them to publicly admit, so the “Newspaper of Record” removed it from the on-line record.  Or is it their fear of being called on her plagiarism?]

Were Jewish Obama Voters Fooled?, dated August 23, 2009, asked a question that has become much more common since.  I concluded many were not fooled, but some now say they were.

Is Obama Stupid?, September 22, 2009, came to the affirmative conclusion.  His sheen of intellectual brilliance has by now worn off among some of his erstwhile worshippers.  [Perhaps his refusal to release his academic records now seems wiser every day.]  As documented in instances far too numerous to note here, what his admirers derided as the “cowboy diplomacy” of his predecessor has been replaced by Obama’s Cretin Diplomacy.

J’Accuse! of August 28, 2009 stated that much of the anti-Israel invective found around the world was actually anti-semitic in nature.  In the last two years, many more thinkers and authors have realized that and said so.

Posted last year, Goodbye, America asked whether America was at a turning point, beyond which recovery from the critical mass of leftist momentum which has infested it would be close to impossible.  Since then, millions of Americans, led by Tea Party adherents, have realized this danger.  One obvious manifestation is the now widely apparent looming menace of the ever-increasing national debt.

Perhaps the most prescient of my earlier writings was Israel (and America) Will Rue the Day that George W. Bush Leaves Office, published in mid-2008 on the now defunct israelenews.com.  The column made clear that none of the leading US presidential candidates was either truly good for America or Israel.  And by any measure, Obama was without question the worst of the lot.  So it did not take long before, as his mentor Pastor Jeremiah Wright had said, “the chickens were coming home to roost.”

My assertions here that these astonishing developments are now more widely acknowledged and documented may warrant even more incredulity than when I raised them originally as simply my conclusions.  But they are now easily verified to anyone’s satisfaction simply with some Google searching.

As a final note, I am aware that displaying a jaundiced eye is not particularly conducive to popularity; neither is being right.

Is Rabbi Ovadia the Only Jew Who Reads the Prayer Book?

September 7, 2010

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s ill wishes towards Israel’s Palestinian Arab enemies, including the Palestinian Authority and its Holocaust–denier President, elicited disdain and disavowals from much of the leadership of Israel and the Jewish world.

Rabbi Ovadia’s “words do not reflect the approach of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, nor the position of the government of Israel,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement.

The Rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Jewish Theological Seminary and related groups said, “As leaders of the Conservative/Masorti movement, we deplore these recent comments of Former Chief Sephardic Rabbi Ovadia Yosef”.

ADL leader Abe Foxman said, “We are outraged by the offensive and incendiary comments made by Rav Ovadia Yosef.”  And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations added, “We are disturbed by the reported comments of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.”

Why these entities have reacted this way is an interesting question.

This is even putting aside the paternalistic attitude of superiority so commonly used to justify ignoring the constant barrage of hate and incitement to genocide that emanates from many of Israel and Judaism’s enemies, both from Palestinian Arabs and others (most notoriously, Iran).   And that vitriol is not voiced just by an individual — but is promulgated by their governments and their leaders, including Israel’s purported “partners for peace.”

But I was gratified to learn that I was not the only one who found the situation peculiar.  In a letter published on the Jerusalem Post’s website, Chana Pinto accurately and articulately pointed out that in our prayers, Jews beseech G_d to defeat our enemies.  For example, the Amida includes “Frustrate the hopes of those who malign us,” and “Let all your enemies be speedily destroyed.”

So is Rabbi Ovadia the only prominent Jew who reads the prayer book?  Are the other Jewish leaders ignorant of our prayers in the prayer books they themselves publish? Are they akin to America’s legislators who now routinely pass multi-thousand page bills without reading them or knowing what is in them, much less understanding and reflecting on their implications?

Or is it that these other Jewish leaders are aware of their prayers, but Rabbi Ovadia is the only one who means it when he says them?

Perhaps if the Conservative leaders and their Reform counterparts (who,  of course, also attacked Rabbi Ovadia) are so offended by their own prayers, they should change them.  If Obama and his Democrats can ram their unwanted legislation down the throats of Americans, perhaps these Jewish leaders can change our prayers to be more consonant with their political and worldly sensibilities.

This controversy over the Rabbi’s remarks reminded me of a similar hypocrisy that occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency.  Bush was well known to have been inspired by his faith and G_d during his time in office.  And he was routinely and vitriolically mocked and criticized for doing so.  Many Jews  were among those so criticizing him.

But reference the “Prayer for Our Country,” a commonly recited Shabbat and Festival prayer in Conservative (and other) American congregations.  The prayer includes the plea to G_d, “teach them (our ‘leader and advisors and all who exercise just and rightful authority’) insights of Your Torah so they may administer all affairs of state fairly, that peace and security…may forever abide in our midst”.

So these Jews who criticized Bush for being inspired by the Bible were criticizing him for doing precisely what they were praying for him to do!  Just as today Rabbi Ovadia is pilloried for asking for just what we ask for in prayer.  In both cases, of course, the prayers may have been so rote as to be less than sincere.

But the key answer to the question as to why so many people claimed offense at the Rabbi’s remarks is two-fold.  One is that throughout the world, most people don’t want Israel to prevail in its struggle, and Israeli and Jewish leaders are sensitive to that sentiment.

Second, and more important, is the widespread and tragic refusal by Israelis, Jews, and westerners in general, to acknowledge that Israel is at war.   Israel is at war with Palestinian Arabs, not just the Gazans. (Hey, if it’s not a state of war, why do we need peace talks?  Does this enemy to whose defense the Israeli government and Jews throughout the world are rushing even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state?  Last time I checked, no.  And the enemy even says that it never will.)

Related to the refusal to acknowledge the state of war is, on the part of many, a lack of understanding of what war actually entails.  That results in horror when the enemy is killed, injured, or even inconvenienced (e.g. think “checkpoints” and “blockade”).

As has been learned over the course of  human history, Israel will never achieve the security of peace until it defeats its enemies.  And as has also been true throughout human history, Israel will never be able to defeat its enemies by being nice to them, or even by loving them.  Love bombs don’t work.  Real ordnance is needed.

And if G_d provides help, all the better.

The Top Ten Reasons Jews Voted for Obama

August 31, 2010

With the November U.S. Congressional elections approaching, it may be instructive to examine why the approximately 80% of Jewish Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 did so.  Thus, below are ten major reasons.  They are not in any particular order, but the reader is invited to assign rankings based on his experience with these voters.

Some of the reasons are obviously related to each other, and most of these voters chose him for a combination of these arguments:

  1. “Obama will support Israel and be good for Israel.”
  2. “He will screw Israel, but that will be good for Israel.”
  3. “I don’t care about Israel.”
  4. “If McCain wins, he will pack the courts with right wing extremists like himself (the Democrat Senate, whose approval would be required for confirmation notwithstanding).  And that would be a grave blow to “Jewish values” such as homosexual marriage and abortion on demand.”
  5. “Obama is so cool; everybody I know is voting for him.”  (He can read a teleprompter.)
  6. “He is the Democrat.  I have always voted Democrat.  What, change now?”
  7. “He is black!”
  8. “Not voting for him would be racist!”
  9. “It’s a vote towards tikkun olam.  That stems from my inherited yet possibly subconscious socialistic proclivities, so obviously shared by Obama (e.g. more ‘spread the wealth around’).”
  10. “The media I follow (major newspapers and radio and TV networks) blessed him.  (See The New American Jewish Bible.) They said he’s kosher.  In fact, even better than kosher – he’s great! They revealed no skeletons in his closet of any kind.”

Voters throughout the world often make choices for fatuous and superficial reasons. (Isn’t it interesting how often the candidate with the best hair wins?)  The 2008 U.S. elections were a good example of superficial decision-making by voters.  Perhaps enough of them have seen the tragic results for American liberty and prosperity (not to mention Israel’s security — e.g. think “Iran”) to help stem that negative tide with their next votes come November.

Last War Wiesenthal

April 19, 2010

This column was going to be about a few of the most flagrant, unreported myths of our time – like “CNN, the most trusted name in news.”   Well, at least that’s good for a laugh!

Another of the myths I was going to tackle was some variation of “Jews are smart”, “Jewish leaders are smart,” and “Jewish organizations are looking out for you.”

But then I received the latest fundraising letter from the Simon Weisenthal Center.  Just analyzing this letter provides an excellent opportunity to address the latter group of myths.

Today’s Weisenthal Center still uses the name of its storied, intrepid Nazi-hunter namesake, but I surmise that Simon Weisenthal would be rolling over in his grave if he knew how craven the organization that bears his name is today.

The fundraising letter lists a number of the recent attacks and threats to Jews and Israel.  It tells us that there are lots of people out there who hate Jews and Israel and seek to kill us.  But no where does it tell us why. Nor does it tell us where the hatred is emanating from.  No where does the Weisenthal Center let on to having any knowledge of Islam being a factor in the hatred and attacks.  No where does the letter mention the words Islam, Muslim, or jihad. 

Could the Weisenthal Center be ignorant that religion is a factor?  In fact, of course, it is the major factor.  Or is the problem that Obama told them that the hatred is due to Jews living in Jerusalem? And that it is not Muslims who have the problem with that and have brought most of the world on board with them in their hatred?  Did Obama tell his friends at the Weisenthal Center not to mention that it is Muslims who are behind the hatred and anti-semitism?  Or was it just some big left-wing donor who doesn’t want it mentioned?  (Even I would be surprised if it turns out to be because the Weisenthal Center is taking Arab money, but J Street does it, so why is that inconceivable?)

The letter rightly mentions the Presbyterian Church, and it rightly mentions Iran.  But you could just as soon conclude from the Weisenthal Center’s letter that Iran is a Christian country.

So the Weisenthal Center won’t, or can’t, even identify the root source of the hatred we face.  And, of course, being unwilling or unable to name the enemy hardly bodes well for defeating it.  Maybe they don’t want to.  But at least they are politically correct for the left-wing circles they travel in.

Unfortunately, the Weisenthal Center is not alone in this syndrome among U.S. Jewish organizations.  For one other example, I recall a very similar fundraising letter from the American Jewish Congress.

I previously discussed the problem of Jewish organizations more generally in Time to Retire (Most of) the Old-Line American Jewish Organizations.

One final thought – if American Jews are really so smart, would they have voted for Obama to the tune of almost 80%?  And they even voted for him in large numbers in the primaries, when they had other Democrats (the most important criterion) to choose from.  (Answer:  No, they are no so smart at all!)



With Some of the Friends We Have, We Barely Need Enemies

November 30, 2009

I have previously written columns entitled What is a “Supporter of Israel”? and Time to Retire (Most of) the Old-Line American Jewish Organizations.  Sadly, they seem ever more relevant.  Two recent events highlight the confluence of my points — American Jewish organizations just not supporting Israel.  Of course, rank and file American Jews are hardly innocent of the charge of not supporting Israel — after all, to use an in-vogue word, they disproportionately voted for Obama, who has strong-armed Israel into making unprecedented concessions and compromising its sovereignty in return for nothing.

From San Francisco comes word that

The board of this city’s local Jewish federation overwhelmingly rejected a resolution to prohibit support of events and groups that defame Israel or partner with those who call for boycotts, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

So we have a Jewish Federation all too happy to work with our worst enemies – and to use Jewish charitable contributions to do it.  The San Francisco Federation is not the only one so disposed; they are just the ones who have been called on it – but they have no shame and continue on their merry ways (and it wasn’t even a close decision for them).  See SF federation board rejects controversial proposal for all the gory details.

And from one of our greatest bastions of “higher learning,” Princeton University, we have what claims to be a pro-Israel group (not even a “J Street” type outfit), disinviting a pro-Israel speaker after they found out that she truly is pro-Israel.  From Egyptian activist’s invitation withdrawn – The Daily Princetonian,

A planned talk by Nonie Darwish was cancelled when both of the event’s sponsors, Tigers for Israel and the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, withdrew their sponsorship.

As I previously wrote in What is a “Supporter of Israel”? ,

Many organizations that promote themselves as “supporters of Israel” or “Israel advocates” in fact operate more as largely neutral forums for Israel-related programs. They apparently feel compelled to provide a balance of speakers with some providing an obligatory bashing of Israel, to offset pro-Israel aspects of their programs. Apparently, for these groups, it is too politically incorrect to include only pro-Israel voices. (Or, in this case, even some truly pro-Israel voices?)

Anybody have any answers for this sad state of affairs?

Were Jewish Obama Voters Fooled?

August 23, 2009
Barack Obama won the votes of a large majority of American Jews, despite the strident warnings of a small minority that he was no friend of Israel – and in fact would be a danger to her.

In a July 19 op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Tobin, executive editor of Commentary magazine, and one of today’s most astute observers of the American Jewish community, stated that “there is no way that he would have won as much as three-quarters of the Jewish vote had not most believed him when he claimed he was a supporter of Israel.”

Obama’s actual position on Israel has become clear as he passed his six-month mark in office, and it certainly seems at variance with Obama the candidate’s assurances of his commitments to Israel and her security.

That might indicate that many of his Jewish voters were taken in. Yet it is hard to fathom how an ostensibly intelligent, engaged community could be so wrong in the face of so many clear warning signs. (To recount just one: Obama’s 20-year membership in the church of the anti-Israel and anti-semitic Reverend Wright, which was also the single largest beneficiary of his charitable giving.)

While Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain was rarely regarded as an ideal candidate, neither was he ever seriously considered a threat to Israel as was Obama. That leaves two alternative explanations to Obama’s Jewish voters being fooled by his campaign rhetoric.

One possibility is that these voters tend to support the position that Obama’s hard-nosed, strong arm tactics against Israel, and only Israel, coupled with his soft approach towards America’s and Israel’s enemies, really is in Israel’s interest. But it seems harder to justify that fatuous argument with every passing day.

The one remaining possibility as to how American Jews could have voted for Obama if the were not deceived by his campaign rhetoric regarding Israel seems to be the most plausible: While Tobin wrote, “Contrary to the boasts of the left and the fears of the right, most Jewish Democrats still care deeply about Israel,” that appears to be overly optimistic. The record of recent years just does not demonstrate much support for that argument.

The attachment to Israel of younger American Jews, in particular, is widely acknowledged to be problematic. And among much of the older generation, Jews may say they “care deeply about Israel,” but they don’t actually walk the walk very far to help her.

When I heard rumblings that some Americans were beginning to have “buyer’s remorse” about Obama, I began posing the question to my Jewish acquaintances. I could find no regrets among any of those who voted for him, nor did my Republican-leaning friends find any among their acquaintances. Nobody admitted to being deceived by Obama’s proclamations of support for Israel.

Recall that the obverse was also true: When it was patently clear that President George W. Bush was one of the best friends in that office Israel ever had, most American Jews continued to shun him nonetheless (although he did garner a slightly larger share of the Jewish vote than did the next Republican candidate, McCain). So Bush’s support for Israel did not win him the succor of legions of American Jews, just as Obama’s hostility to Israel today is not costing him his overwhelming Jewish backing.

This picture leads one reluctantly to conclude that most of Obama’s Jewish voters were not fooled by his campaign, but rather that, unfortunately, Israel is just not a major concern or issue to them. And that also explains why we are not seeing from his Jewish supporters the widespread and strong objections to his policies that Jonathan Tobin, and others, are looking for.

The New American Jewish Bible

August 23, 2009

The New American Jewish Bible

I regret to report on the ascendence of an American Jewish version of “Replacement Theology” and a corresponding new American Jewish Bible. These have been adopted primarily in the Reform and secular sectors, as well as in the overlapping wider societal groups of Democrat Party faithful, academia, and the media establishment.

The new American Jewish Bible is the newspaper, and to a lesser degree, broadcast media outlets such as National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System, and commercial television networks. But this new American Jewish Bible is actually a false prophet.

As there are different translations of both the Torah and the Christian Bible, the newspaper comes in different geographic versions (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.). And the broadcast networks each proselytize different versions of the same message.

This new American Jewish Bible pervasively influences, if not regulates, the life of those who have succumbed to its dominion. How often are you approached with the question, “did you see in The Paper…”, or “The Paper said…”? Undoubtedly much more often than “The Torah says…”.

How often do these people take their cues from The Paper, versus the Torah, or any other authoritative Judaic source? How much time do they spend reading The Paper versus any genuine Judaic source?

It has been claimed that Islam has been “hijacked” by extremists. While that may be true, it is clear that Judaism has been hijacked — by leftist interests, including the media. How else can you explain, for example, the widespread support in the Jewish community for same sex marriage, when the Torah dictates quite the opposite?

Readers of The Paper are influenced by it in all-encompassing areas of life, from public and political affairs to pop culture (e.g. this is a good play; that is a bad movie), science (“global warming” is real and bad), and even what to eat (recipes).

Indeed, some years ago, The Paper in all its geographic variants deliberately determined that it could best hook the most readers by diversifying from a focus on news to expound on a wide variety of lifestyle areas.

After faithfully subscribing to and reading the same newspaper every day of every week for decade after decade, it is only natural that most people would come to think what The Paper tells them to think, what to think about, and how to think, day after day, decade after decade.

Of course, some may religiously follow The Paper or their broadcaster because they found it to provide the views they thought to be valid, or because it provided what they wanted to hear. But these faithful probably do not represent a majority of readers and viewers – if only because historically there has been very real little choice in the range of views available in the media.

An irony that would be amusing if not for the severity of its implications relates to the view of society’s elites that religious fundamentalists tend to be uneducated and uninformed. The unfortunate fact is that it is the followers of the American media, The Paper and the broadcasters, who are remarkably ignorant and uninformed.

Just one example:  Polls reported that the majority of Obama voters did not even know that the Democrat Party had the majority control of Congress for the last two years. This misinformation did not stem from these voters studying the Torah; they were being “informed” by The Paper and the broadcasters. An obvious conclusion is that in informing the voting public of the fundamental issues in the election, The Paper (in all its geographic variants) and the broadcasters were miserable failures.

And these media to which so many American Jews look with reverence are the comfortable home for every variety of Israel-hater and anti-semite. For a taste of the prevalence of the Israel-haters and anti-semites getting their “information” from The Paper, take a look at the comments posted on the website of the Washington Post, for example, about any article relating to the Middle East, Israel or Jews.

While The Paper and the broadcasters have huge (although somewhat declining) followings, they are indeed false prophets. We must do all we can to counter them. That must include accepting what they or their followers say only with the greatest degree of skepticism, searching for and utilizing alternative sources of information, and working to “de-program” them and their followers at every opportunity.