General

“I wish my son Aidan Clark was killed by a 60-year-old White man”: Another example of the Amy Biehl Syndrome

/9 Comments/in /by

Once again the Amy Biehl syndrome surfaces, this time in Springfield, Ohio.

Re the Amy Biehl, see Rockaboatus’s article “Amy Biehl, Forgiveness, and the Nature of Hate“:

Amy’s parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, fully supported the release of the murderers and were quite vocal about it too. Peter, in fact, shook their hands and stated: “The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue. . . . We are here to reconcile a human life [that] was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms” (Wikipedia). Numerous articles were published praising Amy’s parents’ decision to forgive her daughter’s murderers appeared in both American and South African newspapers. One wonders how self-debased a father can get that he would shake the hands of those who stabbed and stoned to death his own daughter?!

A charity foundation was created in 1994, the ‘Amy Biehl Foundation Trust.’ Adding insult to injury, two of the men who had murdered Amy were hired to work for the foundation! Seventeen years after Amy’s death, a bronze plaque mounted on a stone was unveiled by the U.S. Ambassador, Donald Gips and Linda Biehl, at the Cape Town site where she was murdered.

None of this, of course, did a bit of any lasting good. Since Apartheid ended, South Africa has morphed into a cesspool of government corruption, staggering levels of violent crime, and a rabid anti-White ethos has gripped most of the nation. Racially naïve Whites like the Biehls will never attain the racial Utopia they want despite the best of intentions and endless funding they may receive because of the natural proclivities of Blacks and their dysfunctional cultures. Blacks cannot change who they fundamentally are, and neither can Whites. This is why every effort to make them like us and to erase our innate differences has failed repeatedly, wherever Blacks are found around the world.

Father Of Child Killed By Haitian Migrant Says He ‘Wishes His Son Had Been Killed By A White Man’ | ZeroHedge

Father Of Child Killed By Haitian Migrant Says He ‘Wishes His Son Had Been Killed By A White Man’

Springfield, OH has entered the media spotlight in recent weeks in large part due to the massive influx of Haitian aliens pouring into the town through Biden Administration relocation programs.  Springfield’s native born population of 60,000 has been overwhelmed by over 20,000 such migrants shipped to the area in the span of a couple years.  The cultural shock for the locals has been extensive.

One tragedy that has resulted from this great replacement was the death of 11-year-old Aidan Clark.  The man who killed Aiden Clark is a 36-year-old Haitian named Hermanio Joseph, and he entered the US illegally.

It happened on the first day of school in 2023 on state Route 41. Joseph’s vehicle reportedly went left-of-center, forcing the school bus driver to swerve onto the shoulder. The vehicles collided and the bus went off the road and down into an embankment, overturning.  Aiden was killed when he was ejected from the bus, authorities said. Another 26 students were hospitalized.

Joseph was ultimately convicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide.and sentenced to between 9 and13 years in prison.  However, the parents of Aidan Clark now say they wish their son had been ‘killed by a 60-year-old white man’ instead.

Aiden’s father Nathan Clark appeared before the Springfield City Commission on Tuesday at an event organized by local politicians designed to “debunk” (lie about) the rising complaints of migrants killing and eating local pets and wildlife. 

Nathan addressed what he perceives as “hate” directed toward the growing immigrant community:

“I wish that my son Aiden Clark was killed by a 60-year-old white man.  I bet you never thought anyone would say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would never leave us alone. The last thing we need is the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces.  But even that’s not good enough for them. They take it one step further.

They make it seem like our wonderful Aiden appreciates all your hate; that we should follow your hate. And look what it’s done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop. Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose. 

Speaking of morally bankrupt, politicians [Republican U.S. Senate candidate] Bernie Moreno, [Republican U.S. Rep.] Chip Roy, [Republican vice-presidential candidate] JD Vance and [former Republican president] Donald Trump — they have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain. This needs to stop now…”

Clark went on to deny the claims of migrant animal abuse and attacked Republicans on multiple occasions for making his son’s death “political”, even though his speech was clearly politically motivated. He also defended the image of Hermanio Joseph, saying that the event was an ‘accident.’

The commission press event was designed to mislead the American public about reports of migrant animal killings. Springfield Mayor Rob Rue said claims of geese or ducks from parks being killed and eaten are unsubstantiated.

The incidents are in fact real.

Multiple police reports have been made in the area with locals complaining about a rise in missing pets and identifying migrants killing and taking animals.

The Ohio Attorney General has backed Trump’s claims, stating that the reports of at least some migrant animal killings are indeed credible.

The attempted cover-up of these incidences seems familiar.  It is very similar to the attempted cover-up of Venezuelan gangs creating havoc and taking over apartment complexes in Aurora, CO.  A situation which was quickly proven to be a reality.

The establishment media and Democrats are trying to hide the negative effects of open border policies.  They would have Americans believe that these incidences and the death of Aiden Clark are unrelated.

They dig up the parents of Aiden Clark to attack Donald Trump and Republicans on the animal issue while they wish out loud that their son had been killed by a white man. 

Except, he wasn’t killed by a white man, he was killed by an illegal immigrant from Haiti who was convicted of vehicular homicide.  And if the Biden Administration wasn’t importing homicidal aliens from third world countries, the boy would still be alive today.  This is a fact.  The Clark press speech is not just an expression of the sad nature of progressive white guilt, it also reveals a stark desperation among Democrats.

The truth matters.  The truth on the destructive nature of multiculturalism and open borders certainly matters.  The third world and the western world do not mix. The progressive left realizes that this issue is an incredible weakness for their aspirations to political power and it only makes sense that they would try to hide the symptoms as much as possible until November.  The fact that they feel the need to lie shows that they know what they are doing is malicious.

The Debate about the Debate

/5 Comments/in /by
THE DEBATE ABOUT THE DEBATE

        Debate winner: CNN’s Candy Crowley. In 2012, she — the moderator — interjected herself into a Romney-Obama debate to fact-check Mitt Romney with a lie. But unlike ABC’s crack moderators on Tuesday night, at least she only did it once.

            I’m exhausted from fact-checking ABC’s fact-checkers, so I’m just going to tell you about a brilliant experiment that pretty clearly established who won the Trump-Clinton debates in 2016.

The media say Trump whiffed Tuesday night, but that’s what we were told in 2016, too. It also could be that Kamala Harris came across as a smirker — MSNBC’s signature move — just like Hillary Clinton did. You’ve probably forgotten this — if you ever knew it — but notwithstanding Clinton’s allegedly devastating debate performances with Trump, she bombed. There’s scientific proof.

Feminists were ecstatic when Trump called Clinton “a nasty woman” at one of the debates, rushing out with “nasty woman” T-shirts, pins, backpacks and other merchandise. With the feminists’ usual finger on the pulse of the nation, it never occurred to them that maybe she was nasty.

Trump was responding to Clinton’s snotty aside — while describing her Social Security plans, of all things:

Clinton: “My Social Security payroll contribution will go up, as will Donald’s — assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it — but what we want to do is —”

Trump: “Such a nasty woman.”

In order to test the feminist theory that Clinton, as a woman, was judged much more harshly than Trump, a couple of professors at New York University and INSEAD designed the perfect experiment. Two months after the election, they re-created the 2016 debates, but with a man playing Clinton and a woman playing Trump.

Professional actors were hired to reenact segments from each of the three debates, using the candidates’ exact words, gestures, intonation and stances. During rehearsals, they even had a screen with the actual debate running behind them to ensure a precise replica of the candidates’ performances, with only the genders inverted. (For you confused Gen Z’ers, back then there were only two genders.)

The professors and their (sold-out) audiences were stunned by the result. As NYU professor Joe Salvatore put it, instead of confirming their “liberal assumption” that “no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate,” audience members found themselves hating the male Clinton and being impressed by the female Trump.

This is how Salvatore described the reactions:

“We heard a lot of ‘now I understand how this happened’ — meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman — that was a theme. One person said, ‘I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.’ Another — a musical theater composer, actually — said that Trump created ‘hummable lyrics,’ while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she said was true and factual, but there was no ‘hook’ to it.” (Sadly, the Trump bump among the musical theater crowd was short-lived.)

One audience member said she found the [male] Clinton “really punchable.”

I suspect the Trump-Harris debate will elicit similar reactions. Trump is Trump, a known quantity. His scattershot delivery isn’t going to shock anyone. If you already detest the man, your view was confirmed. But if you don’t hate him, Trump put a lot of points on the board, while Harris said nothing, and said it smugly.

The debate sure didn’t give undecided voters what they wanted from Harris. As has been widely reported, they are waiting breathlessly for some hint of what she believes and what she would do as president. After the ABC debate, they’re still waiting. About all they learned is that Harris comes from a middle-class family. (That regular guy routine worked great for John Kasich!)

But they know that life was better under Trump. And they know that Harris, like Clinton, is a nasty woman.

“The Culture of Critique” on Revenge as a Jewish Motive

/22 Comments/in /by

Re Tobias Lang don’s  current TOO article on the nature and origins of Wokism, I went through Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique (the current state of the revision) using ‘revenge’ as a search term and copying and pasting the passages in which it appears. It leaves little doubt that the motives of the Jewish left had nothing to do with instituting a reign of equality.

***

While Stalin favored the Georgians, Jews had their own ethnic scores to settle. It seems likely that at least some of the Bolshevik mass murder and terror was motivated by revenge against peoples that had historically been anti-Jewish. Several historians have suggested that Jews were motivated to join the security forces to get revenge for their treatment under the Czar (Rapoport 1990, 31; Baron 1975, 170). Similarly, Jews were placed in charge of security in Ukraine, which had a long history of anti-Semitism (Lindemann 1997, 443) and became a scene of mass murder in the 1930s.

 

***

Shafarevich reviewed Jewish literary works during the Soviet and post-Soviet period indicating hatred toward Russia and its culture mixed with a powerful desire for revenge. Reflecting the cultural domination theme of anti-Semitism, Shafarevich claimed that Jews have had more influence on Russia than perhaps any other country, but that discussion of the role of Jews either in contemporary Russia or even in the theoretically more open United States results in intense hostility and reprisals. Indeed, in a comment that is quite similar to neoconservative claims that the interests of the U.S. and Israel dovetail completely (see Ch. 4), Shafarevich stated that any possibility that Jewish interests conflict with the interests of others cannot even be proposed as an hypothesis.

***

My personal experience at the University of Wisconsin during the 1960s was that the student protest movement was originated and dominated by Jews and that a great many of them were “red diaper babies” whose parents had been radicals. The intellectual atmosphere of the movement closely resembled the atmosphere in the Polish communist movement described by Schatz (1991, 117; see below)—intensely verbal pilpul-like discussions in which one’s reputation as a leftist was related to one’s ability in Marxist intellectual analysis and familiarity with Marxist scholarship, both of which required a great deal of study. There was also a great deal of hostility to Western cultural institutions as politically and sexually oppressive combined with an ever-present sense of danger and imminent destruction by the forces of repression—an ingroup bunker mentality discussed in MacDonald (1994/2002, Ch.7) that I now believe is a fundamental characteristic of Jewish social forms. There was an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority and even contempt toward traditional American culture, particularly rural America and most particularly the South—attitudes that are hallmarks of several of the intellectual movements reviewed here (e.g., the attitudes of Polish-Jewish communists toward traditional Polish culture; see also Chs. 6 and 7 on Jewish attitudes toward populism). There was also a strong desire for bloody, apocalyptic revenge against the entire social structure viewed as having victimized not only Jews but non-elite gentiles as well—reflecting the revenge theme of many commenters on Jewish motivation.

***

Antipathy toward the Gentile Social Order: Revenge, Displacement, and Domination. Again, there is the strong suggestion that social criticism and feelings of cultural estrangement among Jews have deep psychological roots that reach far beyond particular economic or political interests. As indicated in Chapter 1, a critical psychological component appears to involve a very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order, which is viewed as anti-Semitic—the desire for “malignant vengeance” that Disraeli asserted made many Jews “odious and so hostile to mankind.” Recall Lipset’s (1988, 393) description of the many Jewish “families which around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” These families clearly perceive themselves as separate from the wider culture of the United States; they also view conservative forces as attempting to maintain this malignant culture. As in the case of traditional Judaism vis-à-vis gentile society, the traditional culture of the United States—and particularly the political basis of cultural conservatism that has historically been associated with anti-Semitism—is perceived as a manifestation of a negatively evaluated outgroup—and as such it warrants a motive of revenge.

As noted above in the example of Jews in the communist security forces in post-World-War-II Poland, this antipathy toward gentile-dominated society was often accompanied by a powerful desire to avenge the evils of the old social order. Norman Cantor (1996. 364):

The Bolshevik Revolution and some of its aftermath represented, from one perspective, Jewish revenge. During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that — as 1930s anti-Semites claimed — Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back.

Leading Jewish communists, like founder of the Mensheviks Yuli Martov, who became a close associate of Lenin and Trotsky, made a point of recalling his childhood experiences of Russian and Ukrainian anti-Semitism. The 1881 Odessa pogrom was his “first taste of primitive Russian anti-Semitism,” and Martov was “shaken to the depths of his being by the pogromist barbarity of Tsarist Russia.” The event left a “permanent mark on his impressionable mind,” and he later underlined the connection between this experience and his subsequent revolutionary career, posing the question: “Would I have become what I became if the Russian reality had not imprinted her coarse fingers on my plastic, youthful soul in that memorable night and carefully planted under the cover of that burning pity which she aroused in my childlike heart, the seeds of a redeeming hatred?” (Wistrich 1976, 178)—a hatred that justified the murder of millions.

Similarly, for many Jewish New Leftists, “the revolution promises to avenge the sufferings and to right the wrongs which have, for so long, been inflicted on Jews with the permission or encouragement, or even at the command of, the authorities in prerevolutionary societies” (Cohen 1980, 208). Interviews with New Left Jewish radicals revealed that many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors” (Cohen 1980, 208) combined with the belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a nonoppressive social order—findings that are reminiscent of the motivating role of revenge for anti-Semitism among the Jewish-dominated security forces in communist Poland discussed above. These findings are also entirely consistent with my experience among Jewish New Left activists at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s (see above) and with Mark Rudd’s (2005) “Why Were There So Many Jews in the SDS? (Or the Ordeal of Civility”:

But World War II and the holocaust were our fixed reference points. This was only twenty years after the end of the war. We often talked about the moral imperative to not be Good Germans. Many of my older comrades had mobilized for the civil rights movement; we were all anti-racists. We saw American racism as akin to German racism toward the Jews. As we learned more about the war, we discovered that killing Vietnamese en masse was of no moral consequence to American war planners. So we started describing the war as racist genocide, reflecting the genocide of the holocaust. American imperialist goals around the world were to us little different from the Nazi goal of global conquest. If you really didn’t like somebody—and we loathed President Lyndon B. Johnson—you might call him a fascist.

Ultimately, Jewish radicalism, whether in the post-1917 Soviet Union or the English faculty at Columbia, there is a strong element of a desire for displacement and domination. The displacement of what Rudd called “the air of genteel civility” at Columbia—and the institutional structure of the United States­—since the 1960s is largely complete. Recall the Jewish radicals who fled the shtetls of Eastern Europe and, instead of going to Ellis Island, became dominant elite in the USSR after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. These Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors” mentioned above. Since the 2020 election we are seeing increasing calls for limiting speech, including calls for canceling mainstream conservative outlets like Fox News, and the Department of Homeland Security has declared that the most important threat facing America is “domestic extremism,” and in particular, “white supremacists” (Miroff, 2021).

***

Jewish ethnic background was particularly important in recruiting for the internal security service [in post-World War II Poland]: The generation of Jewish communists realized that their power derived entirely from the Soviet Union and that they would have to resort to coercion in order to control a fundamentally hostile noncommunist society (Schatz 1991, 262). The core members of the security service came from the Jewish communists who had been communists before the establishment of the Polish communist government, but these were joined by other Jews sympathetic to the government and alienated from the wider society. This in turn reinforced the popular image of Jews as servants of foreign interests and enemies of ethnic Poles (225).

Jewish members of the internal security force often appear to have been motivated by personal rage and a desire for revenge related to their Jewish identity:

Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary before a better world could be built. (Schatz 1991, 226)

The utopian end thus justified the means, no matter how vicious.

 

 

 

Another Lie: Biden Is Deporting MORE Illegals Than Trump

/1 Comment/in /by

Another Lie: Biden Is Deporting MORE Illegals Than Trump

     The media have always engaged in mass lying about immigration, but they’re really going the extra mile this election cycle. Lie No. 1 is the toughness of the “bipartisan” border bill, covered in last week’s column. (Quotes on “bipartisan” because not a single congressional Republican supports it, even the guy who co-sponsored it.)

     Immigration Lie No. 2 is even more comically, straw-graspingly wrong: The Biden-Harris administration is deporting MORE illegals than Trump! 

It’s been reported everywhere. I’ll include bylines so you know whose reporting never to trust:

— Reuters by Ben Kellerman, Mica Rosenberg and Ted Hesson: “Biden is now deporting more people than Trump”;

— Politico by Jack Herrera: “Even as Trump slams the president for open borders, the Biden-Harris administration has kicked out far more immigrants than Trump ever managed to”;

— The Washington Post by Nick Miroff, Maria Sacchetti and Sarah Frostenson: “Biden officials deported or returned roughly 740,000 people … exceed[ing] Trump’s totals, which averaged roughly 500,000 annually”;

— The Hill by Maria Cardona: “DHS under Biden is deporting 3.5 times as many people per month as DHS did under Trump”;

— Cato Institute by David J. Bier: “In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people per month as the Trump DHS did.”

This manifest absurdity originated with an illiterate misreading of a White House proclamation that said: “Total removals and returns in the 12 months following May 12, 2023, exceeded removals and returns in every full Fiscal Year since 2010.”

That is a meaningless formulation, as anyone who writes about immigration ought to know.

“Removals” and “returns” are totally different things. “Removal” means “deportation” — generally a yearslong process, involving the capture and arrest of the illegal, immigration courts, hearings, lawyers, flights back to the home country, and punishment if the deportee is ever caught trying to enter our country again. (It’s not surprising that a Biden administration official would be unfamiliar with this term.)

“Return” simply means “turned away at the border.” Not letting someone in is not a “deportation.” To combine “returns and removals” is like saying a judge issued 100 “capital and no-jail sentences.”

The same illegal alien can be “returned” 20 times a day. He’s free to keep trying and, once he gets in, he’ll face less than a 5% chance of being deported under the Biden-Harris regime. Plus an almost 100% chance of receiving government benefits and free travel to the major U.S. city of his choice. Limit one free trip per illegal. Not available in all states. Click on QR code for details. Void where prohibited.

With those odds, there are a lot more foreigners showing up at our border. More open borders, more turn-aways.

Needless to say, Biden isn’t remotely deporting as many illegals as Trump did, even though he’s created millions more to deport. Here are the official government figures:

Deportations under Trump:

2017: 226,119 illegals deported;

2018: 256,085 illegals deported;

2019: 267,258 illegals deported;

2020 185,884 illegals deported.

Deportations under Biden:

2021: 59,011 illegals deported;

2022: 72,177 illegals deported;

2023: 142,580 illegals deported.

The main takeaway is that people who write about immigration for a living — at Reuters, Politico, The Washington Post, CBS, The Hill, Cato Institute, etc. — have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.

Even if Biden were deporting more illegals than Trump — and he’s not — he’s got a lot more to deport. In the past three years, more than 10 million illegal aliens have come in, with his and Harris’ active encouragement.

While campaigning for president, both Biden and Harris promised to overturn any government policies intended to discourage illegal immigration, and Harris repeatedly said that it shouldn’t even be a crime to enter our country illegally. Both supported giving illegals free health care and numerous other rewards for breaking our laws.

     Sadly, unlike Trump, they kept their immigration promises. Biden’s first day in office, he ordered the immediate cessation of any work on the border wall. Over the next few weeks, Joe’s handlers used a mechanical auto-pen to “sign” 94 executive orders on immigration, a majority of them rescinding Trump policies — the very policies that had cut illegal immigration to historic lows.

With the red carpet rolled out, illegal immigration to our country exploded, from an average of 500,000 a year under Trump, to more than 2 million a year under Biden-Harris. (The onslaught of the world’s destitute actually wore out three red carpets at the border.)

Terrorists, murderers and rapists from around the world have been pouring across our borders, north and south. Illegal crossings on the U.S.-Canada border have increased by more than 1000% under this administration. Some illegals are so busy collecting benefits and committing crimes that the barely have time to vote.

Biden and Harris want to find the “root cause” of illegal immigration? The root cause is them.

With millions of foreign criminals rampaging across our country, hijacking school buses in California, seizing apartment complexes at gunpoint in Colorado, and turning New York City into the slums of Caracas — all at the low, low price to Americans of only $150 billion a year — I can certainly see why Democrats would like to blame Trump.

Unfortunately for them, no person of ordinary intelligence is going to believe them. (Obviously, this excludes U.S. journalists.)

Here’s an idea for Democrats. Why not checkmate Trump by building a wall and deporting illegal aliens? As he said: “If Joe Biden truly wanted to secure the border … all [he] needs to do is to reimpose every single border policy of the former president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.”

What’s the counterargument to that?

Or how about merely not sending federal agents to dismantle the barbed wire fencing on the border put up by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott?

You’ll totally have Trump on the run! Isn’t that what you care about, Democrats? Or is the opposition to Trump merely a cover for your real objective: Destroying the United States of America?

     COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Peter Brimelow interviewed by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Arktos Journal

/2 Comments/in /by

On Vdare’s oppression, immigration, the election, etc.

Eurosiberia (arktosjournal.com)

NYTimes on the most important donors in the presidential election

/3 Comments/in /by

Link

Republicans: Tim Mellon, Elon Musk, Dick and Liz Uihlein, Linda McMahon (non-Jews); and pro-Israel nutcase Miriam Adelson (bad sign). But it’s no surprise that she supported “more traditional” Republicans:

Miriam Adelson, a fervent supporter of Israel, decided earlier this year to break with the rest of Trump world and start her own super PAC. She is planning to put more than $100 million into the group.

Ms. Adelson took some criticism from Mr. Trump just a few days after meeting with him at the Republican National Convention in July, drawing his ire because she is working with more traditional establishment Republican operatives. But Mr. Trump then showered her with praise at a recent event focused on antisemitism, at which Ms. Adelson spoke.

Democrats: Reid Hoffman (not Jewish as far as I can tell), George and Alex Soros, Mike Bloomberg, Dustin Moskowitz, and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

As has been the case for decades, Jews fund the Democratic Party and the political left generally. But Jewish money is too big for Republicans to ignore and may well be at least partly responsible for their fervent support of Israel in Congress.