Buerger Bites

meizitang botanical whitened-collar employees must first know how they’re to achieve .

I want to be the first to congratulate Andrew Buerger.

Young Andrew not infrequently has a rather strange relationship between words and what they actually mean.

Two examples, among many, should suffice to illustrate this. Some time ago, he ascribed his business landing in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy to a “disgruntled vendor,” rather than his own breach of a contract he willingly signed with a long-standing and trusted business partner.

More recently, he described Obama’s approach to Israel as “tough love,” when it is becoming increasingly crystal-clear and undeniable to any sentient observer that the kind of hostility Obama projects towards Israel, and Israel alone, is unmatched by any US president since Eisenhower.

However, in this blog entry, Young Andrew simply nails it!!

When he says the agit-prop (my words) film “Standing Silent” is “about him” [Phil Jacobs], the words, finally and at last, mean exactly what they ought to mean.

This is, the film is not about helping anyone but Phil to advance his, and this publication’s, agenda. The truth of what has actually transpired since at least 2007, or even 2004, won’t be found in Scott Rosenfelt’s film, anymore than the truth of the JFK assassination is obtainable in Oliver Stone’s film.

However, the truth is available to anyone who is truly interested in it.

A good place to start would be two Letters to the Editor, published in the Fall of 2007:

Writing of Phil’s first of many smears of Rabbi Moshe Eisemann, Rabbi Harvey Gornish of Brooklyn, NY, wrote:
“I and many of his loyal students ask ourselves why these terrible events have now befallen this good man –– and the answer is clear. It is because he cares about people more than most, and that always makes one vulnerable to the destructive needs of people with an agenda.

There is nothing wrong in demanding moral integrity in our teachers and seeking safe environments for our children, but your prurient approach to journalism would make Sen. McCarthy proud.”

Destructive needs of people with an agenda. Prurient approach to journalism. McCarthyism. All true.

At the same time, Stan Lebovic, who no doubt listed his location as Salem, Mass, to reinforce the theme of Phil’s witch hunt, wrote:
“I am, however, greatly despondent that in pursuit of a worthy cause (protecting children from any kind of abuse), we have become abusers ourselves. From bloggers to respected newspapers, abuse of power seems to be running rampant. When the likes of Rav Eisemann are rounded up and burned at the stake you know you are not in Baltimore anymore.”

Now, there are those who support Phil’s anything-goes, the-means-justify-the-ends, agenda. Some simply share his hatred of Orthodox Judaism; others agree with with Phil that allegations of abuse automatically become the truth, and to say otherwise is to “blame the victims.”

All of this is bunk. Whatever else might be said about Moshe Eisemann, in this country he is innocent until proven guilty, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts of such emotionally unstable and disturbed people as Phil Jacobs and the execrable Vicki Polin to assassinate his character, murder him economically, and render him homeless. Who is Phil Jacobs to arrogate to himself the role of judge, jury, and executioner?

Perhaps more breath-taking than Phil’s treatment of Moshe Eisemann are his two smears of Judge Robert Hammerman in 2004.

I asked Phil what changed in the one month between the sensitive and sensible obituary of the Judge that The Jewish Times published immediately after the Judge’s death and his “Pandora’s Box” smear. Phil, characteristically, refused to answer this question.

But the answer is obvious. After the Judge’s death, Phil quickly realized that the sob-story brought to him by a single source he refused to name served an important purpose. Since the Judge was not affiliated with an Orthodox shul (and unable to respond), Phil could say, “See! We aren’t Orthodox bashing!”

Both Phil and Neil Rubin have done exactly this. See Phil’s blog entry of March 15, 2007, and Rubin’s op-ed on May 4, 2007.

Of course, Judge Hammerman never abused anyone, unless the fact that Phil’s “Barry” character didn’t get into the college he thought he deserved to attend constitutes “abuse.” Such is Phil’s state of mind that on this basis he could, and did, smear a Great Man.

As Churchill observed, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” In our times, it is the medium of film that is the most nefarious projector of deceit, rendering the separation of fact from fiction exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for most people.

But, again, the truth, for those who seek it, is here in the writings of Jacobs and Buerger.

Yes, Andrew, the film is “about” Phil. But that is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Both of you have much to answer for, though one doubts Mr. Rosenfelt has much stomach to make a film about what you have actually done.