The Lawfare Lynch Mob: Biden’s Banana Republic Unmasked
We are not witnessing justice.
We are watching regime warfare disguised as law.
This is not democracy — it’s an oligarchy with indictments.Donald J. Trump isn’t being prosecuted.
He’s being persecuted — hunted, smeared, raided, shackled by a Department of “Justice” that acts more like the secret police of a decaying empire than a guardian of constitutional order.Let’s talk about the raid on Mar-a-Lago — a former president’s home stormed by FBI agents like a cartel compound.
They rifled through Melania’s wardrobe, for God’s sake. Her undergarments, treated like contraband.
What were they expecting to find? Nuclear codes in her lingerie drawer? Or was it just the thrill of humiliation?Meanwhile, Joe Biden — the geriatric puppet with a teleprompter leash — hid classified documents in his garage next to his Corvette, guarded only by the flimsy lock of media indifference.
And what did we hear from the FBI?
Crickets.Worse still, 51 corrupt intelligence officials, the “guardians of our democracy,” swore that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation — a lie so transparent it glows like plutonium.
They lied.
They interfered in an election.
They colluded with Big Tech to silence the truth.
And now we’re supposed to pretend that Trump is the threat to democracy?
Give me a break.
This is the political equivalent of pouring bleach on the Constitution and calling it a cleaning product.And let’s not forget Nancy Pelosi — the shrieking banshee of Capitol Hill.
She twice attempted to impeach Trump on ghost stories and hallucinations, like some deranged medieval inquisitor.
And when that failed, she ripped his State of the Union address on live television — a tantrum more fitting for a toddler than the Speaker of the House.All while the three-year fever dream of Russiagate was peddled like heroin by the likes of Rachel “Madd Cow” Maddow and the Jesuit-trained jackals of late-night TV.
They told us Trump was a Russian agent.
They said he was installed by the Kremlin.
They said Mueller would save them.
They said indictments were coming.
They lied. Over. And over. And over again.They lied to delegitimize your vote.
They lied to justify spying on a candidate.
They lied to criminalize opposition.And the judges? Don’t get me started on these robed oligarchs.
Unelected, unaccountable, and bloated on their own power, they now pretend they are the guardians of policy — mini-kings with gavels, ruling by decree.They have no right to govern.
They were never chosen by the people to dictate trade, war, or cultural norms.
Yet here they sit, striking down tariffs that protect American workers, striking down election laws, and pretending the Constitution is their pet chihuahua to drag around in circles.And now, the same legal establishment that bent every rule to shield Clinton, Biden, and Obama — now weaponizes those rules like blades to gut Trump and anyone who stands in their way.
This is not law. It’s a purge.
A political purge in slow motion.
A show trial, without the showmanship.Let them choke on their fake norms.
Let them drown in their own hypocrisy.
Let the records show: the very people who screamed about “fascism” built the gulag they now rule from.If you want to see democracy die, watch the prosecution of Trump.
If you want to see tyranny rise, watch the media cheer it on.We will not forget.
mosckerr
We will not forgive.
And we will not kneel.
To the parasite Governement of S. Africa – rot in Hell.
To the Cowards in Pretoria: A Rebuke for the Ages
You, government of South Africa, dare to accuse Israel of genocide? You, who preside over a crumbling shell of a nation, drowned in corruption, crippled by lawlessness, and soaked in the acid of hypocrisy, presume to pass moral judgment on the Jewish state defending itself from an unprovoked, satanic pogrom?
Shame on you.
October 7th, 2023 — when Jewish civilians were raped, burned alive, tortured, decapitated, shot in their beds, and abducted — was not a military operation. It was not “resistance.” It was a blood-soaked reenactment of the darkest nightmares of our history. A genocidal orgy of sadism, filmed and celebrated by the perpetrators. And you called it justified.
You rushed to The Hague with crocodile tears and a briefcase full of lies. You perverted the very word “genocide” — a term forged in the fire of the Holocaust — and aimed it at its survivors’ descendants. You accused Jews of the crime committed against us.
You call this justice? It reeks of betrayal.
Your invocation of “human rights” is not merely hollow. It is weaponized cowardice. The same South Africa whose government sings “Kill the Boer,” whose power grid collapses like a failed state, whose cities rot under the weight of gangsterism and economic decay — now appoints itself the judge of the Middle East?
You parade on the world stage with moral pretensions while:
Your country’s rape statistics rank among the highest on earth.
Your hospitals collapse while your ministers embezzle public funds.
Your police force disappears while violent crime explodes.
Your universities burn Israeli flags while Hamas uses hospitals and babies as shields.
You want to talk about apartheid? You wouldn’t know apartheid if it stared you down with a rocket launcher from a UN school in Gaza. In Israel, Arabs vote, serve in Parliament, work in hospitals, on the Supreme Court. In Gaza? Jews are lynched if they set foot there.
Your claim to moral clarity is not just thin. It is fetid.
You distort law. You insult memory. You betray the legacy of Mandela — who sought reconciliation, not international lynch mobs. The very black Jews of Ethiopia, the Yemeni Jews of Aden, the Mizrahi Jews of Iraq, the Persian Jews of Iran — they were rescued and embraced by Israel. Meanwhile, you uplift Hamas, a death cult that tortures women, executes collaborators, and starves its own people while building tunnels to kill Jews.
You are not anti-colonial. You are not pro-human rights.
You are moral parasites, feeding off the corpse of UN legitimacy.
You did not bring a case to the ICJ. You spat in the face of truth.And all to distract from your own rot.
While you point your trembling finger at Israel, your nation hemorrhages dignity and competence. You know what Hamas is. You know what Israel faces. But you bury truth beneath ideological rubble because it is easier than looking inward.
Your accusation will fail.
Your theater will fade.
But the memory of your betrayal will not.The Jewish people, who stood with you in the struggle against apartheid, now stand aghast as you turn their graves into props for your lies.
The blood of October 7 still cries out from the ground — not for revenge, but for truth.
And you have muzzled it.
You have twisted it.
You have desecrated it.History will remember.
And Israel will endure.
mosckerr
Feel Tremendous Anger
The British ignore the Israeli staff members, engaged to be married, brutally murdered in Washington DC. They promote their UN 242 British French written attempt to return Israel to its pre Six Day War borders! The borders which prevailed when both England and France invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal in 1956. Israel categorically rejects Europe’s Two State Solution. Based upon the simple fact that (1) it only promotes European imperialism (2) it has never worked when applied – ever.
- The UK and EU Posturing as Neo-Mandate Powers
Your critique of the UK and EU as acting in a neo-imperial, Mandate-era fashion has strong historical resonance. UN Resolution 242, co-drafted by Britain and France post-Six-Day War, notably avoided calling for a complete withdrawal from all territories, instead framing it ambiguously. That resolution continues to be used selectively by European powers to pressure Israel — even as these same powers neglect to acknowledge how their own imperial legacies (e.g. Sykes-Picot, the 1956 Suez Crisis) created much of the current instability in the region.
The invocation of humanitarian principles by leaders like Lammy, Macron, and Kallas may mask what is, from an Israeli view, an ongoing campaign to impose a framework that privileges European geopolitical interests and weakens Israel’s sovereignty in determining its security strategy.
- Selective Outrage and Moral Hypocrisy
The British and EU response, especially given the brutal murders of Israeli citizens on foreign soil, smacks of selective moralism. Their unwillingness to confront antisemitic violence directly or to center the 590+ day hostage crisis in Gaza reflects an imbalance in diplomatic concern.
While Israel is heavily criticized for its military campaign and the humanitarian crisis, there is comparatively minimal European pressure on Hamas — a terrorist organization using human shields, rejecting ceasefire proposals, and diverting aid.
- Israel’s Rejection of the Two-State Model
Israel’s firm stance against the current form of the Two-State Solution reflects decades of failed negotiations, Palestinian internal division, and the strategic abuse of land concessions (as in Gaza post-2005). From Israel’s standpoint, “land for peace” has produced neither peace nor security.
Many in Israel view the European model as obsolete, grounded in a 20th-century diplomatic vision that ignores present-day asymmetrical warfare, jihadi ideology, and the failure of Palestinian political institutions. Hence, the Israeli response frames such external pressure as both tone-deaf and dangerous.
- Strategic Recalibration of Alliances
While the UK and EU may see this as an assertion of liberal democratic values, Israel perceives it as a betrayal of mutual interests — particularly amid Iranian regional aggression and surging antisemitism in Europe.
Israel’s pivot toward strengthening relations with the U.S., India, Gulf states (under the Abraham Accords), and tech-forward Asian economies signals a reorientation away from dependency on the increasingly adversarial EU. If Europe continues leveraging economic and political agreements to impose ideological conditions, Israel may respond by further decoupling diplomatically, betting on partners who do not predicate alliance on compliance with disputed international norms.
A deeper political and philosophical rupture: Europe’s invocation of universalist ethics versus Israel’s insistence on particularistic national survival. For many Israelis, the war in Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis of their own making but the unavoidable result of a genocidal neighbor-state hybrid entity entrenched in civilian areas. For Europeans, the war is a test of human rights values. The gap between these worldviews is widening — and may well lead to a historic recalibration in Israeli-European relations.
The British ignore the Israeli staff members, engaged to be married, brutally murdered in Washington DC. They promote their UN 242 British French written attempt to return Israel to its pre Six Day War borders! The borders which prevailed when both England and France invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal in 1956. Israel categorically rejects Europe’s Two State Solution. Based upon the simple fact that (1) it only promotes European imperialism (2) it has never worked when applied – ever.
The Times of Israel reports: He said Britain would be “reviewing cooperation” with Israel under its so-called 2030 roadmap for UK-Israel relations, and noted: “The Netanyahu government’s actions have made this necessary.”
“I say now to the people of Israel: we want, I want, a strong friendship with you based on our shared values, with flourishing ties between our people and societies. We are unwavering in our commitment to your security and to your future, to countering the very real threat from Iran, the scourge of terrorism and the evils of antisemitism,” Lammy stressed.
“But the conduct of the war in Gaza is damaging our relationship with your government. And, as the prime minister has said, if Israel pursues this military offensive as it has threatened, failing to ensure the unhindered provision of aid, we will take further actions in response.”
Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer also summoned Israel’s Ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotovely to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in response to “the wholly disproportionate” expansion of military activity in Gaza.
In a statement, the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem retorted: “The British Mandate ended exactly 77 years ago. External pressure will not divert Israel from its path in the struggle for its existence and security against enemies seeking its destruction.”
“Even before today’s announcement, the matter had not been advanced at all by the current British government,” said the ministry, adding that the trade agreement “is mutually beneficial” and if, “due to anti-Israel obsession and domestic political considerations, the British government is willing to harm the British economy — that is its decision.”
Mounting international outrage
The UK’s moves come amid mounting international outrage leveled at Israel over its conduct during its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which has skyrocketed due to an aid blockade and following the IDF’s initiation over the weekend of an expanded ground invasion.
Israel began blocking aid from entering Gaza on March 1, arguing that sufficient humanitarian assistance entered the Strip during a six-week ceasefire earlier this year and that Hamas has been stealing much of that aid to replenish terrorist group members. Israel also said the blockade was necessary to pressure the terror group to release the dozens of remaining Israeli hostages it has been holding for over 590 days.
Under widespread pressure, including from the United States, to alleviate the worsening hunger crisis in the Strip and after some IDF officials warned the political leadership that Gaza was on the brink of starvation, Netanyahu stated on Sunday that until new distribution centers under a US-backed plan to ensure aid bypasses Hamas are complete, Israel must provide a “basic” amount of aid to the Strip. The Gaza Humanitarian Fund, which has been set up to carry out the new aid plan, is slated to start its operation next week.
Following Netanyahu’s announcement, the government authorized the entry of five trucks into Gaza.
Late Monday evening, the UK’s Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney threatened in a joint statement to take “concrete actions” against Israel if it refuses to halt its military campaign and address the need for aid, saying the minimal supplies Israel permitted on Sunday were “wholly inadequate.”
A day later, Israel permitted some 100 aid trucks to enter the territory, but continues to strongly reject pausing its military pressure campaign unless Hamas lays down its arms and releases all the hostages.
EU may deliver next blow
The UK and Israel began negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement to bolster bilateral trade in July 2022, working off a 2019 UK-Israel trade continuity agreement. In July 2024, the UK’s new Labour government announced its intention to resume FTA talks with Israel, making it one of the six FTAs the UK government committed to restart.
Israel sees the UK as its fourth-largest provider of foreign direct investment, with $1.13 billion invested in 2023, according to data shared by the British Embassy in Israel in March.
In another potential economic blow, Israel’s top trading partner — the European Union — agreed on Tuesday to review its cooperation deal with Jerusalem over alleged human rights abuses in Gaza, said the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.
Kallas said Brussels was acting after “a strong majority” of its 27 member states backed the move in a meeting of EU foreign ministers, during which the Foreign Affairs Council was set to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which governs the ties between Israel and the European body.
“What it tells is that the countries see that the situation in Gaza is untenable, and what we want is to really help the people, and what we want is to unblock the humanitarian aid so that it will reach the people,” Kallas told journalists after the meeting.
The Foreign Ministry responded to Kallas’s comments on Tuesday evening, saying, “We completely reject the direction taken in the statement, which reflects a total misunderstanding of the complex reality Israel is facing.”
“We call on the EU to exert pressure where it belongs — on Hamas,” wrote the ministry’s spokesperson, Oren Marmorstein, saying that Hamas started the war and is responsible for its continuation by refusing the US proposals for a ceasefire and hostage release, which Israel has agreed to, and that ignoring this only “encourages Hamas to stick to its guns.”
“It is also unfortunate that the statement ignores both the American initiative to transfer aid without it reaching Hamas, and the recent Israeli decision to facilitate the entry of aid into Gaza,” added Marmorstein.
By enlisting the help of 10 countries, including Germany and Italy, Israeli diplomatic efforts succeeded in stopping the EU from halting the cooperation deal, agreeing to review the pact rather than suspend it, a senior official in the Foreign Ministry told the Walla news site Tuesday night.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said at a Jerusalem conference Tuesday morning that he had been holding talks with his EU counterparts to avoid the potential break in economic cooperation.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Tuesday morning regarding the possibility of suspending the pact that “the Netherlands suggested a reexamination of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. We supported this initiative and I call on the EU representatives to examine it, to address this requirement, and to determine if Israel is fulfilling its human rights obligations or not.”
In response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp has led an initiative demanding a review of the pact, which dictates that cooperation between the EU and Israel “shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.”
“The situation is unbearable because the blind violence and the blocking of humanitarian aid by the Israeli government have turned Gaza into a dying ground — if not a cemetery,” Barrot told France Inter radio, calling Israel’s military campaign “a total violation of all rules of international law, and contrary to the security of Israel — to which France is committed — because those who sow violence reap violence.”
Sharon Wrobel and agencies contributed to this report.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
1. The UK and EU Posturing as Neo-Mandate Powers
Your critique of the UK and EU as acting in a neo-imperial, Mandate-era fashion has strong historical resonance. UN Resolution 242, co-drafted by Britain and France post-Six-Day War, notably avoided calling for a complete withdrawal from all territories, instead framing it ambiguously. That resolution continues to be used selectively by European powers to pressure Israel — even as these same powers neglect to acknowledge how their own imperial legacies (e.g. Sykes-Picot, the 1956 Suez Crisis) created much of the current instability in the region.
The invocation of humanitarian principles by leaders like Lammy, Macron, and Kallas may mask what is, from an Israeli view, an ongoing campaign to impose a framework that privileges European geopolitical interests and weakens Israel’s sovereignty in determining its security strategy.
2. Selective Outrage and Moral Hypocrisy
The British and EU response, especially given the brutal murders of Israeli citizens on foreign soil, smacks of selective moralism. Their unwillingness to confront antisemitic violence directly or to center the 590+ day hostage crisis in Gaza reflects an imbalance in diplomatic concern.
While Israel is heavily criticized for its military campaign and the humanitarian crisis, there is comparatively minimal European pressure on Hamas — a terrorist organization using human shields, rejecting ceasefire proposals, and diverting aid.
3. Israel’s Rejection of the Two-State Model
Israel’s firm stance against the current form of the Two-State Solution reflects decades of failed negotiations, Palestinian internal division, and the strategic abuse of land concessions (as in Gaza post-2005). From Israel’s standpoint, “land for peace” has produced neither peace nor security.
Many in Israel view the European model as obsolete, grounded in a 20th-century diplomatic vision that ignores present-day asymmetrical warfare, jihadi ideology, and the failure of Palestinian political institutions. Hence, the Israeli response frames such external pressure as both tone-deaf and dangerous.
4. Strategic Recalibration of Alliances
While the UK and EU may see this as an assertion of liberal democratic values, Israel perceives it as a betrayal of mutual interests — particularly amid Iranian regional aggression and surging antisemitism in Europe.
Israel’s pivot toward strengthening relations with the U.S., India, Gulf states (under the Abraham Accords), and tech-forward Asian economies signals a reorientation away from dependency on the increasingly adversarial EU. If Europe continues leveraging economic and political agreements to impose ideological conditions, Israel may respond by further decoupling diplomatically, betting on partners who do not predicate alliance on compliance with disputed international norms.
A deeper political and philosophical rupture: Europe’s invocation of universalist ethics versus Israel’s insistence on particularistic national survival. For many Israelis, the war in Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis of their own making but the unavoidable result of a genocidal neighbor-state hybrid entity entrenched in civilian areas. For Europeans, the war is a test of human rights values. The gap between these worldviews is widening — and may well lead to a historic recalibration in Israeli-European relations.
Amen
The pius EU pigs pretend they do not selfishly seek to impose a “piece of shit” upon Israel.
The EU PIGS condemn Israel over the Oct 7th Abomination War!
How the Cohen blessing ברכת כהנים shapes the kre’a shma tefillah from the Torah and halacha disputed between the Rambam and the Rosh
This blessing known as ברכת כהנים – the blessing of the sons of Aaron. Shares a common root denominator with the 3 Divine Names employed in the language of the opening p’suk/verse of Sh’ma Yisroel …
This tri-blessing stands on the foundation of the oaths sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov which create continuously the Chosen Cohen People – throughout time. A mitzva which the Torah defines as a “time oriented commandment”. The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments. The next 3 Books of the Torah, they introduce secondary positive and negative תרי”ג commandments – according to the erroneous popular opinion of the Rambam.
This idea that limits Torah commandments to merely 613 commandments, the Rambam disputed with the earlier scholar known as the B’HaG, author of Hilchot Gadolot/Great Halachot. There in that sefer, the B’HaG argues that Torah commandments extend equally to rabbinic halachot “commandments”, under the pre-condition, when a scholar elevates rabbinic halachot to Torah time oriented commandments! A tremendous chiddush/new idea of how to understand the Torah commandments. Which clearly the Rambam failed to grasp.
The Rambam never developed, (just as did the new testament fail to grasp time oriented Torah commandments), a clear understanding of tohor time oriented commandments as having a priority over positive and negative commandments. Why? The tuma influence of new testament avoda zara, shaped the Koran avoda zara. The idea of Monotheism, as a theological belief system which promotes belief in a Universal God, clearly befuddled the mind of the Rambam. The God of Sinai – a Tribal God. Mesechta Avoda Zara and other mesechtot argue that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the God of Israel, clearly not a Universal God as the avoda zara of the new testament and koran declares.
The Rambam, likewise clearly did not understand that the T’NaCH and Talmudic legal system spun around the central axis of common law. Rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin Court organized his 6 Orders of Oral Torah judicial legal rulings which he named “the Mishna” based upon this name given to the 5th Book of the Written Torah D’varim/Mishna Torah. Mishna Torah means – common law. The Mishna a Case/Din organization of common law judicial rulings.
The Rambam erroneously named his statute law, obviously assimilated – to the ways of how Greek and Roman law organized law into legal categories. The Rambam erroneously named his statute halachic code Mishna Torah, utterly oblivious to the fact that Mishna Torah means – common law. Later rabbis hence corrected this fundamental error made by the Rambam by referring to his halachic code by the name Yad Chazaka/strong hand.
The error that the Rambam statute law introduced, dates back to the Rif common law codification of halacha criticized by the 18 year old scholar known as the Baali HaMaor. Personally I admire and respect the Baali HaMaor’s critique made upon the Rif common law code. For me the Baali HaMaor rates side by side with the Rabbeinu Tam my personal hero of Talmudic common law. It seems to me that the Tosafot critique of the Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud centers upon the basic contradiction of Rashi p’shat learned from his common law commentary to the Chumash to the dictionary definition of p’shat learned from his commentary to the Talmud. The latter more resembles how Ibn Ezra learned p’shat as codified in his commentary to the Chumash. Assimilation and intermarriage define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment, not to worship other Gods.
The RambaN (1194 – 1270), a scholar who challenged the Baal HaMaor’s prioritization of judicial interpretation of different Case/Law. The scattered Jewish communities during the height of the dark ages where travel and communications between distant communities almost completely perished. The RambaN opposed the prioritization of interpreting different judicial case/rule halachot from the need to establish a unified code of halachic common law so that the scattered Jewish communities could maintain some semblance of unified customs and traditions. Scattered Jewish communities needed at that time some type of fixed culture and tradition rather than the Talmudic priority of disciplined פרדס common law judicial ruling.
The Rosh, born around 1250, a harsh critic of the Rambam statute law perversion of Talmudic common law. This “perversion” introduced Halacha clothed in the garments of Greek/Roman, cult of Caesar personality, legislative decrees ruled by the authority of the Rambam – Heil to the Leader!
This altered and changed the Talmudic format, which relied upon court judicial ruling – ruled through precedents. The Rambam code expunged the concept of judicial precedents as the backbone for judicial common law rulings. Yet he amazing had the chutzpah to name his statute law code perversion – Mishna Torah! His replacement theology introduced Greek logic, specifically Aristotelian logic – based upon how Arabic scholar interpreted this system of syllogism based deductive logic.
The Rambam codification uprooted the concept of Order established through Gemara sugya integrity. In effect the Rambam code cast the editing efforts made by Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina and the 150 years of Sovaraim scholarship between 450 to 600 CE, upon the dung heaps of history. His code effectively blew out the lights of Hanukkah which culminated in the victory of the P’rushim over the assimilated to Greek culture and customs Tzeddukim kapo Jews of the House of Aaron. The latter sought to make Jerusalem into a Greek polis whereas the former maintained the masoret of פרדס Oral Torah inductive logic reasoning; which compares case law to similar cases of case law ruled from previous court room cases.
פרדס logic defines the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which all the rabbinic authorities in the Mishna and Gemara based their sh’ittot of learning upon. Inductive logic dynamic and not static as expressed through the syllogism model of Greek philosophy. Engineering a rocket’s flight path to Mars requires calculus variables. Whereas designing a bridge to span a river only needs algebra and basic geometry. In this sense, the modern scientific method which absolutely requires empirical evidence resembles static Catholic dogmatism.
The Rambam’s static code of Aristotelian logic, set the stage for the Reform Judaism revolt which denounced the halachic code of the Shulkan Aruch, modeled upon the Rambam’s Yad, as archaic and not applicable to the Modern Era – a just and valid criticism of post Ghetto rabbinic Judaism. Alas in the latter case, Reform threw out the baby together with the bath-water! It failed to address the eternal threat of Amalek. The consequences of Jewish avoda zarah assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim. This basic fundamental flaw equally defines and highlights the tragic error of the Rambam’s Yad introduction of Greek Roman statute law and Aristotelian logic based upon how Arab scholars understood this triangle syllogism of deductive static reasoning.
T’shuva demands that post Rambam Civil War scholars return and respect how the closing scholars sealed the Talmud texts. This requires a disciplined study of Talmudic sugyot. As an English minor, remember my Freshmen year of English literature. There the professor emphasized the organization of a thesis statement. This organization of a paragraph included the central thesis statement, followed by three qualifying particulars, and concluded with a re-statement of the original thesis statement.
This model, coupled with the deductive reasoning of a triangular syllogism, served as the basis by which I studied intact Gemara sugyot. The sh’itta of the Rabbeinu Tam, where he as a rule, tended to jump off the dof of the Gemara to some other Mesechta of Gemara intrigued me. Noticed that Rabbeinu Tam jumps to different Gemara “precedents” tended to follow the patterns which later Acharonim scholars on the Talmud tended to duplicate through their asterix terse commentaries which made a גזירה שווה comparison between different mesechtot of Gemara.
Early on, starting with my first year in Yeshiva, I strove to integrate the earlier Case/rule precedents within the Yerushalmi as the basis for the later Bavli scholarship. I started this sh’itta within 6 months of being in Yeshiva. In like manner my sh’itta of learning broke up the Chumash, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings of the T’NaCH. It seems to me that T’NaCH serves as the foundation of Talmudic common law just as much as the Yerushalmi serves as the basis of Bavli common law.
This premise caused me to divide the Chumash into בראשית Av tohor time oriented commandments and שמות ויקרא במדבר as תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות. The Book of דברים of course name משנה תורה and the common law case/din style of the Mishna caused me to conclude, even before I entered my first Yeshiva at age 31 that the Talmud exists as a common law legal format. Hence I opposed the Rambam, Tur, Shulkan Aruch statute halacha straight from my mothers’ milk.
Perhaps the main reason that the rabbis permitted a 31 year old man to live and learn in a dorm of early 20s men, besides my cleaning the bathrooms, which everyone immediately appreciated, I introduced a thesis of studying the Talmud as common law based upon legal precedents. The rabbis laughed at my thesis, but I believe my early attempt to argue that the Mishna exists as a common law legalism impressed the Rosh Yeshiva rabbi Kaplan.
Because he specifically taught in his Mishna class the Case/Din structure of the language of the Mishna – as proof of common law! Did he do this for me? I believe he actually respected the 50 page thesis, written while working milking cows on a socialist kibbutz, as my basis for which I asked permission to learn in Yeshiva as a 31 year old man. Yeshua Lapel, also taught as a rabbi in that Yeshiva, and early on he told me that he thought I might become a Torah scholar.
When I moved to the Yeshiva of D’var Yerushalem, they treated me as royalty, gave me a private room with a balcony! All other students had 3 or 4 in a room. When Rabbi Horowitz had a bad dream he asked me to give him, as one of the three men, מחילה. Rabbi Nemuraskii introduced me to Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv. His sons, Moshe and Benyamin, they danced at my wedding; and Rabbi Elyashiv asked me – erev Yom Kippur – to give him a public blessing, just before we began Kol Nidre.
Rabbi Nemuraskii’s son asked me one day while walking to the Elyashiv shul, why his father did not teach him the common law masoret which I learned from his father? Rav Nemuraskii, besides hilchot shabbat, he focused my attention upon the Chumash Targumim and the Midrashic commentaries made upon the Aggada of the Sha’s Bavli.
Prior to this introduction, had not considered the Midrash as the primary commentary to the Aggada. This huge chiddush of rabbi Nemuraskii shaped how I developed the thesis that the Talmud compares to a warp/weft loom. Where the Aggadic portions make a דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH Primary Sources to determine the k’vanna of the language of the Aggadic stories. And this k’vanna weaves into the halachot within the Gemara’s common law commentary which re-interprets the language of the Mishna.
Herein defines the explanation wherein the B’hag developed three distinct branches of Torah commandments as opposed to the Rambam’s two branches of Torah commandments. All the rabbinic commandments which the B’HaG ruled as mitzvot from the Torah, time oriented commandments! The dynamics of the B’HaG Code of Common law interpreted to mean that if a person wove Aggadic prophetic mussar into the רמז\סוד of halachic ritual observance, that doing mitzvot with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar elevates these rabbinic mitvot into Torah commandments! This insight, seemed to me as a revelation in and of itself!
When I studied the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif, I studied it together with the B’HaG common law halachic codification. The genius of these to Talmudic scholars absolutely left me dumbfounded, thunderstruck, flabbergasted, stunned, and utterly astonished. Rabbi Waldman, whose opinion I admired and really trusted offered no enlightenment, why the Yeshiva world ignores these great men.
This caused me to reach the conclusion that post the Rambam extinguishment of the lights of Hanukkah wherein Israel had dedicated to remember the Oral Torah through interpreting the Written Torah – based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four-part inductive reasoning process – that following the disaster of the public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242, rabbinic Judaism jumped off the path of studying the T’NaCH and Talmud as common law based upon this chosen path of פרדס inductive logic, and forgot the Oral Torah revelation at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf – just as the blessing of Hanukkah in the bencher forewarns.
The Yerushalmi which teaches that over 427 prophets wrote the Shemone Esrei corresponds to the number of words in the Yerushalmi Shemone Esrei itself. Just as Siddur stands upon the foundation of ס – ד – ר, so too and how much more so the editing of the Talmudic sugyot likewise stand upon the identical foundation as defines the Order of 3 + 13 + 3 = 613. Six Yom Tov + Shabbat … the number of blessing said every shabbat. The Minorah lights of k’vanna by which Israel dedicates our the 7 faces of our soul to keeping the Torah oath brit alliance which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen People יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים, שלום … these 7 Divine Names distinguish the spirits dedicated and blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our hearts from the breath blown from our lungs; just as the blessing over wine separates shabbat from chol מלאכה from עבודה.
Observance of Shabbat as a time oriented commandment, the dedication not to do forbidden מלאכה on the day of Shabbat/shalom this holiness likewise dedicates the other 6 lights of the Menorah soul on the 6 days of the week we ‘most holy’ dedicate (an inference made upon Baba Kama 4 Avot Tam damages) not doing חמס, גזל, ערוה, ושוחד במשפט during the Yom Tov of the 6 days of the week. Hence just as the Menorah lights really one light, so too shabbat as a Torah time oriented commandment inclusive of the entire week. Herein defines how the k’vanna of the time oriented commandment of Shabbat encapsules all the Torah commandments, from the Torah as the Rambam learns and from the Talmud as the B’HaG learns.
The Quartet – DEAD.
The sense of futility surrounding European posturing—especially in the face of a reshaped Middle East where Israel, backed (or at least tolerated) by the U.S., is asserting itself more aggressively than at any time in recent decades. The UK and France—once colonial architects of the Middle East—are now marginalized. Their joint statements and targeted sanctions amount to moralistic theater, not actionable strategy. They no longer possess the financial, military, or diplomatic clout to force outcomes in the region. The “pause” in UK-Israel trade talks or symbolic settler sanctions are optics-driven gestures, not genuine statecraft.
Starmer’s posturing is politically safe for domestic audiences but toothless internationally. Without control of global finance mechanisms like the U.S., UK and EU sanctions are performative at best. Much like the ICC after President Trump imposed sanctions upon it for attempting to arrest the Israeli PM. The Abraham Accords rather than UN 242 serve as the model for Middle East Peace.
The post-imperial West (Britain, France, EU) no longer drives outcomes in the Middle East; it spectates. The U.S. remains top dog, not because of moral authority, but due to raw power. And Israel has become a regional superpower in its own right, no longer dependent on international approval. The so-called “rules-based order” is exposing its contradictions in real time—where legal norms are performative, and power alone determines what gets enforced.
mosckerr
Straight forward facts trump idle speculation and slander.
Straightforward facts, such as the financial success of Shakespeare’s works and the inheritance received by Anne Hathaway, Shakespeare’s widowed wife, provide concrete evidence of his accomplishments as a playwright and the impact of his writings. These facts can indeed serve as strong counterarguments to speculative theories about authorship.
The financial success of Shakespeare’s plays, along with the property and wealth he accumulated, underscores his status as a significant figure in the literary world. This reality can challenge the notion that someone of his background could not have produced such influential works.
In discussions about authorship, it’s important to weigh the available evidence against speculative claims. Acknowledging the straightforward facts can help ground the conversation and provide a clearer understanding of Shakespeare’s legacy.