| Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement. Love Yehuda Lave Join my blog by sending me an email to YehudaLave@gmail.com THE NEW RULES FOR NON-ISRAELIS ENTERING ISRAEL IN AN EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND FORMAT - PLEASE SHARE By Dov Lipman
The following are the new rules and procedures for non-Israelis to enter Israel as confirmed by the government authorities - April 7, 2021:
Very important! Applications should be sent in two weeks prior to the flight.
Aside from all the documents listed below, every traveller MUST:
*Take a PCR test within 72 hours of boarding the flight to Israel and must show the results at check-in or they won't be allowed on the flight.
*Fill out and print the declaration form at this link for each traveler before the flight:
https://govforms.gov.il/mw/forms/Quarantine@health.gov.il...
*Fill out and print the self isolation declaration for each traveler before the flight at this link: https://govforms.gov.il/.../HouseIsolation@health.gov.il...
These last two documents MUST be with you when you arrive at the airport and in Israel.
Finally, there is an option to submit the documentation in person in Israel if necessary. See the bottom of this post for how to do so.
THE NEW RULES AND PROCEDURES:
1)Non-Israelis who have been vaccinated or recovered from COVID may travel to Israel to visit a first degree relative living in Israel as a citizen or a permanent resident. They can travel with their spouse and children assuming that they are vaccinated or recovered from COVID (with the exception of children under one year old).
To apply, send an email to the local consulate (example: New York is consular.services@newyork.mfa.gov.il) along with the following documents in one pdf file no larger than 10mb:
a)Photocopy of a passport or ID number of the first-degree relative residing in Israel
b)Photocopy of passports of the applicants
c)Proof of family connection between the applicants and a relative residing in Israel (Official documents such as birth certificate, marriage license, etc with an apostille.)
d)Isolation affidavit - one for each applicant. Available at this link:
https://amudim.org/.../Updated-Decleration-April-6-2021.pdf
e)Proof of health insurance valid in Israel throughout the visit with a clause clearly stating coverage for COVID-19
f)Valid plane ticket to Israel
g)Certificate of recovery or vaccination certificate for all who wish to enter Israel, this applies to people of all ages
Upon arrival in Israel you must go into quarantine and take a serological test from an approved lab. This link has a list of approved labs: https://chaimvchessed.com/.../2021/01/Approved-Labs.pdf
Once you receive proof of antibodies from the test results, contact the Health Ministry using this link: https://govforms.gov.il/.../QuarantineExceptionExit... and wait for official approval to leave quarantine.
2)Non-Israelis who have not been vaccinated or have not recovered from COVID may enter Israel for the WEDDING of their child.
To apply, send an email to the local consulate (example: New York is consular.services@newyork.mfa.gov.il) along with the following documents in one pdf file not larger than 10mb:
a)Photocopy of a passport or ID number of the first-degree relative residing in Israel
b)Photocopy of passports of the applicants
c)Proof of family connection between the applicants and a relative residing in Israel (Official documents such as birth certificate, marriage license, etc. with an apostille)
d)Isolation affidavit - one for each applicant. Available at this link:
https://amudim.org/.../Updated-Decleration-April-6-2021.pdf
e)Proof of health insurance valid in Israel throughout the visit with a clause clearly stating coverage for COVID-19
f)Valid plane ticket to Israel
g) Proof of the wedding taking place such as the wedding invitation, the wedding file at the chief rabbinate or a joint affidavit from the bride and groom signed by a notary
Since you aren't vaccinated or have not recovered from corona you must go into quarantine for 14 days. This can be reduced to 10 days with two negative PCR tests.
3)Vaccinated and unvaccinated parents and siblings of lone soldiers and bnot sherut may enter Israel to visit.
To apply, send an email to the local consulate (example: New York is consular.services@newyork.mfa.gov.il) along with the following documents in one pdf file:
a)Photocopy of a passport or ID number of the soldier or bat sheirut
b)Photocopy of passports of the applicants
c)Proof of family connection between the applicants and a relative residing in Israel (Official documents such as birth certificate, marriage license, etc. with an apostille )
d)Isolation affidavit - one for each applicant. Available at this link:
https://amudim.org/.../Updated-Decleration-April-6-2021.pdf
e)Proof of health insurance valid in Israel throughout the visit with a clause clearly stating coverage for COVID-19
f)Valid plane ticket to Israel
g)Photocopy of the IDF service card and/or approval of a lone soldier signed by the authorities or approval of Sherut Leumi organization for the volunteer
For those who are vaccinated or recovered from corona: Upon arrival in Israel you must go into quarantine and take a serological test from an approved lab. This link has a list of approved labs: https://chaimvchessed.com/.../2021/01/Approved-Labs.pdf
Once you receive proof of antibodies from the test results, contact the Health Ministry using this link: https://govforms.gov.il/.../QuarantineExceptionExit... and wait for official approval to leave quarantine.
Those who aren't vaccinated or recovered from corona must go into quarantine for 14 days. This can be reduced to 10 days with two negative PCR tests.
4)Non-Israelis who are not vaccinated or recovered from COVID can enter Israel if:
a)they are married to an Israeli citizen or permanent resident (this includes marriages done out of Israel that have already been registered in Israel) OR
b)they are minor children (under 18) of an Israeli citizen of permanent resident OR
c)they are getting married to an Israeli citizen or permanent resident OR
d)they are a parent of an Israeli minor (under 18) with a custody agreement
To apply, send an email to the local consulate (example: New York is consular.services@newyork.mfa.gov.il) along with the following documents in one pdf file:
a)Photocopy of a passport or ID number of the relative being visited in Israel
b)Photocopy of passports of the applicants
c)Proof of family connection between the applicants and a relative residing in Israel (Official documents such as birth certificate, marriage license, etc. with an apostille )
d)Isolation affidavit - one for each applicant. Available at this link:
https://amudim.org/.../Updated-Decleration-April-6-2021.pdf
e)Proof of health insurance valid in Israel throughout the visit with a clause clearly stating coverage for COVID-19
f)Valid plane ticket to Israel
g)for a parent visiting a minor child: custody agreement for the minor
h)for a bride or groom: rabbinate wedding file
Since you aren't vaccinated or have not recovered from corona you must go into quarantine for 14 days. This can be reduced to 10 days with two negative PCR tests.
5)Funerals
Vaccinated and non-vaccinated first degree mourners and their spouses can attend for the funeral and must leave Israel within 24 hours of the arrival. (We are checking the option or remaining in Israel for sitting shiva and how that would work with quarantine requirements. We will update as soon as we know.)
To apply, send an email to the local consulate (example: New York is consular.services@newyork.mfa.gov.il) along with the following documents in one pdf file:
a)Photocopy of passport of all applicants
b)Photocopy of passport of the deceased
c)Proof of family connection (birth certificate or another document)
d)Certificate of death and/or burial approval in Israel
e) Valid plane ticket to Israel
6)Businessmen - the exact details have not been worked out yet and will be announced in the coming days
PLEASE NOTE: If it is difficult for the travelers to take care of this via the email to the consulates, relatives in Israel can go to a branch of the Population and Immigration Authority in Israel to submit all the paperwork and make the request. The following link includes over 300 branches of this authority throughout Israel:
https://www.gov.il/he/departments/Bureaus...
ANOTHER NOTE: We are working on trying to get some changes including removing the apostille requirement. I will post if we succeed in getting these changes made.
| | | | | The Three Musketeers at the Kotel | | | | | Dershowitz: Supreme Court MIGHT Reverse Chauvin Convictions because of Maxine Waters By Alan M. Dershowitz | | | | | | The convictions of Derek Chauvin might not mark the end of this racially divisive case. The US Supreme Court might ultimately decide whether to uphold the convictions. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) made a statement — while jurors in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin were not yet sequestered — which demanded street confrontations unless Chauvin were found guilty of murder. The trial judge correctly suggested that any conviction in the case might ultimately be thrown out on appeal, based on what Waters said. He condemned Waters' remarks in the strongest terms, but he did not have the courage to grant a defense motion for a mistrial. Had he done so, that almost certainly would have led to riots — which would have been blamed on the judge, not on Rep. Waters. So he left it to the court of appeals, months in the future, to grant a new trial — which he should have granted. The Minnesota appellate courts might not reverse the conviction but the United States Supreme Court well might, as they have done in other cases involving jury intimidation. In seeking to put her thumb on the scales of justice, Rep. Waters perhaps unwittingly borrowed a tactic right out of the Deep South of the early 20th century. Though her motives and intentions were far better than those of the white southerners, the tactic is essentially the same. In the Deep South during the 1920s and '30s, elected politicians would organize demonstrations by white voters in front of courthouses in which racially charged trials were being conducted. The politicians then threatened, explicitly or implicitly, that violence would follow the acquittal of a black defendant or the conviction of a white defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts reversed several convictions based on these tactics of intimidation. The judge in the Chauvin trial made a serious error in not sequestering the jury during the entire trial. Instead, he merely told them not to read or watch the news. That is not nearly enough; even if the jurors scrupulously followed the judge's narrow instruction, it is inconceivable that some of them did not learn what was going on outside the courtroom from friends, family, media and TV shows that were not "the news." It is safe to assume that many if not all of the jurors were fearful — either consciously or unconsciously —that a verdict other than the one desired by Waters and her followers would result in violence that threatens them, their homes, their businesses and their families. Already, we have seen blood sprayed over the former home of a witness who testified for Chauvin; the defendant's lawyers have received threats. An aura of violence is in the air. Jurors breathe that same air, and the guilty verdict in this case — whether deserved or undeserved — should be scrutinized carefully by the appellate courts. This is not the Deep South in the 1920s. It is the "Identity Politics" of the 21st century. But the motives of the protesters are not relevant to whether jurors in the Chauvin case could be expected to consider the evidence objectively without fear of the kind of intimidation threatened by Waters. Both the prosecution and the defense put on effective cases. The evidence, in my view, supports a verdict of manslaughter, but not of murder. Any verdict that did not include a conviction for murder was likely to be unacceptable to Waters and her followers, however, even if the facts and the law mandate that result. Waters is not interested in neutral justice. She wants vengeance for what she and her followers justifiably see as the unjustified killing of George Floyd. Yet, justice is not black and white. It requires calibration, common-sense nuance and a careful evaluation of all the evidence presented by both sides. There can be no assurance that this jury was capable of rendering justice without the threatening sword of Damocles — unsheathed by Waters — hanging over their heads. That is not the rule of law. That is the passion of the crowd. We must do a better job of insulating jurors from outside influences in racially charged cases. We must be certain that threats of intimidation do not influence jury verdicts. That certainty does not exist now in the Chauvin case, thanks largely to the ill-advised threats and demands of Maxine Waters and others. | | | | | | Who's REALLY for 'Replacement Theory?' White Supremacists or Liberals? By Jonathan S. Tobin Does speaking of immigrants "replacing" Americans amount to white supremacy? Is a desire to prevent the country's character from being irretrievably altered analogous to Israel's desire to preserve its status as a Jewish state? A dispute between the Anti-Defamation League and Fox News has shined a spotlight on both of these questions. But at a time when Americans are deeply divided along partisan and ideological lines in which both sides are prepared to demonize and delegitimize each other, is anyone really interested in honest answers to these questions? Advertisement
The controversy started with a discussion of the crisis whereby a surge of illegal immigrants crossing the border has overwhelmed the resources of the federal government. President Joe Biden's reversal of former President Donald Trump's border policies, as well as the plans of the administration and congressional Democrats for a "reform' of immigration law that will promise amnesty and the prospect of U.S. citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally, have provided an obvious incentive for those who wish to enter the country without permission. Fox News host Tucker Carlson reacted to this crisis by saying the following on his program on April 8: "Now, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening, actually." The following day, his prediction about the "gatekeepers" was vindicated when Anti-Defamation League national director and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt demanded that Carlson resign or be fired. According to Greenblatt, the mention of the word "replacement" denoted support for white-nationalist conspiracy theories that have been used to justify mass shootings. His claim resonated with those who recalled the video from the August 2017 torchlight parade of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., who chanted "Jews will not replace us." The accusations of racism that have been directed at Carlson are rooted in assumptions about him that predated this controversy. Liberals have been attacking Carlson because in the wake of the death last spring of George Floyd, he has used his platform on the nation's highest-rated cable-news show to oppose the Black Lives Matter movement's "mostly peaceful" protests that turned into riots, as well as related fashionable toxic ideas about critical race theory, white privilege and cancel culture. After Trump's defeat, liberal outlets like CNN switched their focus from attacks on the 45th president to Carlson as the network initiated a crusade to deplatform both him and their higher-rated rival Fox News. Their accusations of racism helped chase away advertisers from his show. Yet Carlson's hold on his viewers and his increasing importance as a tribune of conservative opinion have been largely unaffected, which explains why Fox refused to bow to the ADL's demand. Whatever you may think about Carlson, illegal immigration or BLM, the ADL's case is undermined by three key factors. One is the fact that it is a brazen attempt to divert the discussion from the crisis on the southern border, and how Biden's statements and actions have acted like a green light for anyone in Central America seeking to enter the United States. Carlson is hardly the only one pondering the long-term consequences of a situation where we may be seeing only the beginning of a huge increase in illegal immigration at a time when realistic estimates of those already here without legal permission—the commonly quoted total is 11 million—could be as high as 22 million or even close to 30 million. If the Democrats' proposed legislation passes—admittedly a long shot as long as the Senate filibuster remains in place—then a major shift in the demographics of the American electorate may well happen. Another problem is that the ADL's credibility has been shot as it has shifted from being a nonpartisan anti-Semitism monitoring organization to a Democratic auxiliary group since Greenblatt, a former Clinton and Obama White House staffer, took over. But the real weakness of the arguments against Carlson is that up until recently, the ones talking about immigrants replacing or overwhelming white voters have been liberals. Articles and studies published in recent years from The Atlantic, the liberal Brookings Institution, the pro-immigration Niskanen Center as well as the Pew Research Institute all centered on the idea that a rising tide of immigrants was changing the demographics of the United States and tipping the political balance of power to the Democrats. These themes were echoed repeatedly by left-wing pundits and Democratic politicians who find it hard to contain their triumphalism when discussing demography. In 2018, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg actually published a column under the headline, "We Can Replace Them," in which she argued that Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams was leading a tide of newly registered minority and immigrant voters to transform Georgia from a red state to a purple or blue one. The same year, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) was just one of many members of his party predicting that the growing number of Hispanic voters would mean Texas was turning purple. Carlson's claim that such changes disenfranchise existing voters is hyperbole and, as Trump proved by doing far better among Hispanic voters than more moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney, demography isn't destiny. Immigration has already altered American politics, especially in states like California. But if it's not inappropriate to cite such efforts to "replace" Republicans with immigrant Democrats as something to be welcomed, how can laments about the same thing be termed racist? That's especially true when the new administration and its congressional supporters—who seem to think that everyone in Central America who is dissatisfied with their lot ought to be allowed to become U.S. citizens, whether they followed the law in crossing the border or not—enact measures that are morally equivalent to open borders. It is hypocritical of liberals to bash Carlson for noting the obvious political consequences of such policies. Nor has it anything to do with the demented fantasies of neo-Nazis about Jews. In the course of his defense, Carlson also analogized his alarm over the potential impact of illegal immigration on elections to those, including the ADL, who have defended Israel's right to remain a Jewish state. That's especially true with respect to opposing a so-called Palestinian "right of return" in which Israel would be swamped by the descendants of Arab refugees who would endanger and essentially strip Jews of both their sovereign rights and existence as a nation. Carlson cited Israel's refusal to be voted out of existence by Palestinians as an example of "a country that doesn't hate itself." That had to make supporters of Israel cringe, especially since Carlson is known for not exactly being a fan of the Jewish state. But the analogy doesn't really work. The United States is a nation whose existence is rooted in universal values. Like most other nations on the planet, Israel is an expression of particularism. Its priority is to reconstitute and defend Jewish sovereignty in the ancient homeland of the Jews, and not to be the last and best hope of all mankind. Both are nations of immigrants and their descendants; however, Israel's immigration policies are very different from those of the United States. The tension between America's universalism and Israel's particularism has made many liberal Jews uncomfortable supporting an avowedly Jewish state. But whereas Israel wants Jewish immigrants to preserve a state that was created to defend Jews in a world where anti-Semitism runs rampant, America has traditionally welcomed people from all over the world. Even if Carlson's analogy doesn't work, that doesn't mean that it's racist for Americans to want to control their borders the way any other nation, including Israel, does as a matter of course. Carlson pointed out that he's not calling for excluding any specific race or group from the United States. To oppose illegal immigration is not the same thing as opposing legal immigration. He is just advocating, as are many Americans, for the defense of U.S. sovereignty. What is needed is an honest debate about immigration and open borders, not hyperbolic talk of replacement or white supremacy. Yet by engaging in naked partisanship disguised as advocacy against racism and anti-Semitism, the ADL has forfeited its right to be taken seriously on either subject. Where once it helped lift the national conversation about fractious issues to a higher plane, now Greenblatt is fueling greater polarization that actually makes Carlson's case about cancel culture. | | | | J Street Honors Jimmy Carter: Is More Proof Necessary? By Moshe Phillips While J Street's decision to feature Mahmoud Abbas at its virtual national conference this week rightfully generated much criticism from Israel supporters, a different decision even more seriously demonstrates just how far J Street is from the pro-Israel group it wants American Jews to believe it is: At the conference, J Street honored Jimmy Carter with its Tzedek v'Shalom "peacemaker" award. More than almost any of its other recent moves, this decision reveals that the group will partner with anyone who will help it grow stronger – no matter how much that person lies about Israel and strives to defame Zionism.
Carter has been Hamas's most significant ally and booster within the Democratic Party's power structure for nearly 15 years. In 2014 Carter said, "Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise. Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor…" There can be little doubt that without Carter's anti-Israel diatribe – Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in 2006 – the BDS movement would have struggled much harder to find fertile ground in the U.S. In other words, Carter did much to pioneer the path that the Squad and others in the Democratic Party have followed in bashing Israel and taking center stage in liberal politics at the same time. It must be stressed, though, that J Street's deplorable decision to bestow a prize on Carter can hardly be considered an isolated mistake. J Street has frequently featured the harshest critics of Israel at its annual meetings. One can go back as far as 10 years and find the same behavior from J Street. On February 28, 2011, for example, Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), was invited to speak about BDS at a J Street event. On the Zionism page of its website, the organization states, "Jewish Voice for Peace is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocally oppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals." How can J Street claim to be "pro-Israel" and connect itself to an anti-Zionist group that the ADL named in its "Ranking the Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups"? Among the charming statements that Vilkomerson made at the J Street conference was, "BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. It's a Palestinian led, globally active, nonviolent movement in support of equality and freedom for the Palestinian people." J Street never disavowed Vilkomerson's extremism or condemned her words. In fact, quite the opposite. In 2019, J Street praised Vilkomerson stating, "A group of activists led by Women's March co-chair Linda Sarsour and Jewish Voice for Peace Executive Director Rebecca Vilkomerson demonstrated Thursday in front of the New York offices of CNN, demanding they hold anchorman Jake Tapper accountable." In 2011, Vilkomerson also told the J Streeters that one "of the strengths of BDS is that it actually requires conversation and coordination." Also: "BDS is an opportunity for each of us, personally, to act on our values." Recently, J Street has tried to take advantage of the Jewish community's desire to have a big tent and gain power and legitimacy through participation in various so-called umbrella organizations – that is, the associations made up of independent organizations that govern much of organized Jewish establishment life in America. If the American Jewish community thinks boycotting Israel is a Jewish value, then, by all means, it should welcome J Street and JVP into leadership roles in the Jewish establishment. But J Street, in truth, has no place in such federations. No one is demanding that other far-left groups like Americans For Peace Now – a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations for decades – should be expelled from the tent. J Street, however, through its deeds and words has placed itself much closer to extremists like JVP, Neturei Karta, and IfNotNow than to Peace Now. Ninety-nine percent of American synagogues would never welcome speakers from Neturei Karta or IfNotNow, and they should similarly bar J Street presentations. I hope that the Jews of sanity and rationality will soon find their voice and speak out against J Street so that they remain beyond the tent and on the street where they belong: on the outside looking in. | | | | Why Are Whites Hated? By Dennis Prager In Why the Jews? – my book on anti-Semitism – there's a chapter on anti-Americanism. My co-author, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, and I long ago understood that many of the reasons for Jew-hatred and America-hatred were the same. Among them are envy of success – material, of course, but even more importantly success in terms of influence. Another is the religious foundation of both peoples: Both America and the Jews are rooted in a belief in G-d, a belief that they are a chosen people, and belief in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, from which they derive their values.
America-haters and Jew-haters resent the enormous influence both nations have had on the world, have contempt for their belief in being chosen, and dismiss the Bible as irrelevant and even malevolent. In his recent biography of Adolf Hitler, Brendan Simms, a professor of the history of international relations at Cambridge University, identified Hitler's hatred of America and capitalism as central to Hitler's worldview: "Hitler's principal preoccupation throughout his career was Anglo-America and global capitalism. … Hitler wanted to establish what he considered racial unity in Germany by overcoming the capitalist order and working for the construction of a new classless society." In other words, another commonality of America-hatred and modern Jew-hatred has been hatred of capitalism. The Nazis hated America and the Jews – both of whom they identified with capitalism. And the left (not the liberal, who traditionally loved America, but who has become the primary enabler of the left) hates America, which it regards as the paragon of capitalism. By becoming the most successful country in history, America – the quintessential capitalist country – remains a living rebuke to everything the left stands for. If America can be brought down, every left-wing egalitarian dream can be realized. The question for the America-hater, just as for the Jew-hater, has been: How do we destroy them? What has always rendered anti-Semitism unique among ethnic and religious hatreds was its goal of extermination. No other ethnic bigotry is exterminationist. The left does not seek to exterminate Americans; the idea is ludicrous since most of those on the left who loathe America are themselves American. What the left does very much seek to destroy, however, is America as we have known it – the capitalist and Judeo-Christian enclave of personal freedom. The Jews created something world-changing by introducing to society the Hebrew Bible, a universal and judging G-d, the Ten Commandments, the rejection of the heart as the guide to behavior, an emphasis on justice (not "social justice"), and the doctrine of Jewish chosenness. They were forever hated for this. So, too, is America hated for placing the Bible at the center of its value system, its belief in being a "second" chosen people, its freedoms, and its capitalism. America is not hated for its slavery. If it were, given the ubiquity of slavery throughout world history, every country and ethnic group on the earth would be hated. America is hated for its values and its success. The fact is that, just like the ancient Jews, Americans made something unique: the American experiment in freedom. And it succeeded beyond even its founders' dreams. With all its faults, America did become a shining "city on a hill" – the famous phrase first articulated in 1630 by John Winthrop. And who created this unique place of liberty, opportunity, and unequaled, widespread affluence? More than any other group, it was the WASP, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I say this as neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant. Catholics, Jews, non-believers, and members of every faith, ethnicity, and race (blacks, in particular) made major contributions; but it was the WASP, more than any other, who made America. And for that reason, America-hatred is WASP-hatred and, more broadly, white-hatred. The idea that whites' unique achievements – in making America, in music, art, literature, and the sciences – means that white people are intrinsically superior is absurd. Hitler was also white, as was Joseph Stalin, as are most American mass-murderers. Those facts are no more a commentary on whites than Johann Sebastian Bach or Leonardo da Vinci being white is a commentary on whites. Whites made the country and the greatest civilization – not because they were white, but because of the values they held. Hatred of the white is ultimately hatred of those values. Given what the WASP has achieved in the West and in America, it takes extraordinary levels of dishonesty and ingratitude to be anti-white. But neither truth nor gratitude is a left-wing value. | | | | | See you tomorrow bli neder We need Moshiach now! Love Yehuda Lave | | | | |
