World Net Daily
When America was in good hands with Democrats
". . . Roosevelt wrote to King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, promising that as long as he was president, America would not recognize a Jewish state: “I communicated to you the attitude of the American government toward Palestine … that no decision be taken. … I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive … with regard to the question of Palestine … the policy of this government … is unchanged.”
"[Within] a week of making this promise, the ailing Roosevelt died.
"The next chief of the executive was President Harry S. Truman, who immediately proceeded with plans to recognize the state of Israel.
"In his “Memoirs – Volume Two: Years of Trial and Hope,” published in 1956, Harry S. Truman stated: “When I was in the Senate, I had told my colleagues, Senator Wagner of New York and Senator Taft of Ohio, that I would go along on a resolution putting the Senate on record in favor of the speedy achievement of the Jewish homeland.”
"President Truman commented . . . “The American view on Palestine is that we want to let as many of the Jews into Palestine as it is possible to let into that country.”
"President Truman wrote to Winston Churchill, July 24, 1945: “The drastic restrictions imposed on the Jewish immigration by the British White Paper of May, 1939, continue to provoke passionate protest from Americans most interested in Palestine and in the Jewish problem. They fervently urge the lifting of these restrictions which deny to Jews, who have been so cruelly uprooted by ruthless Nazi persecutions, entrance into the land which represents for so many of them their only hope of survival.' ” . . .
Students who disagree with my lectures don’t hesitate to speak out during the Q&A. The back-and-forth is spirited but civil, and I have never been shouted down or physically threatened. Still, a disinvitation at some point may have been inevitable. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which fights campus censorship, has compiled a “disinvitation database” that dates to 2000 and today includes nearly 300 incidents. According to FIRE, the “number of ‘disinvitation incidents’—i.e., efforts to prevent invited speakers from conveying their message on campus—has risen dramatically.” I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been approached by conservative students after a lecture to a mostly liberal audience and thanked, almost surreptitiously, for coming to speak. They often offer an explanation for their relative silence during question periods when liberal students and faculty are firing away. “Being too outspoken would just make it more difficult,” a Wellesley student once told me. “You get to leave when you’re done. We have to live with these people until we graduate.”
