Mass Shootings in the United States: Refuting The Pundits

It is arguably a good thing that the left and the “intellectual” establishment rebel so strenuously against Donald Trump. In this way, their sensational objections, and even violent acts, only serve to question their motives in any policy debate. Intellectual opinion at best, is flawed by political concerns, i.e., “where you stand is where you sit;” but is nugatory when serving an ideological master.

There is much to condemn as to the opinions and debate of the recent mass shootings[1] in El Paso,[2] Texas, Dayton, Ohio,[3] and Chicago, Illinois,[4] over the August 2-4, 2019 weekend, in the United States. The Democratic Party’s and its leftist apparatchiks championing the myopic fixation of gun control, averred by all 2020 Democratic candidates for president, and the fatigued assertion that simply denying Americans the “right to bear arms,” will solve America’s gun violence, is a major part of the problem, and as a society, our ability to solve it.

These are the facts.

The El Paso shooter had apparently extreme view on illegal immigration, while the Dayton shooter had extreme left-wing views, and backed Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And, while the Chicago shooters political views are unknown, one can assume since they are African – American, they would support Democrats and left-wing views.[5]

51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino. Three mass shooters were Asian, two were American Indian and one was Arab. These numbers are if anything vastly understated. As many as half of the mass shootings that took place in 2019 thus far remain unsolved, but they often took place in black areas and claimed black victims.

We are beginning to understand a great deal more about mass shooters.[6] However, and this is important, it will not be through ideological biased opinion research (polling). Anecdotal, cherry-picked data, generalizations, straw man and Aunt Sally, and presenting complex issues in terms of two inherently opposite sides (firearm ownership or banning the private ownership of firearms), et cetera, arguments are insufficient in finding a solution.

However, a particular worrisome aspect of the left’s point of view is their attempt to link discussion of mass shootings and the immigration issue; and the fallacious allegations alleged by President Trump’s enemies that his “rhetoric” has caused the horrific mass shootings recently experienced in this country. Hence, it is proffered that the Trump Administration’s objection to illegal immigration is the root of the problem of mass shooting in the US today.

What the majority of Americans oppose, and what President Trump has given voice to, is not immigration, but illegal immigration. President Trump’s verbal opposition to illegal immigration is not inflammatory, even though it is portrayed as such by those who oppose his viewpoint on the matter. For example, A pundit[7] who’s description of Americans that support President Trump’s thinking on immigration as “officially sanctioned anti-immigration rhetoric,” is unfortunate, unsound, and unjust. To challenge an argument, or position on a policy, by asserting the manner in which it is presented is unsatisfactory, and regrettably sophomoric.

Do these same pundits agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) suspending immigration to Jews in 1939? Or his (FDR’s) executive proclamation 2526 and 2526, in 1941, interning Japanese Americans, and suspending immigration to anyone of German, Japanese, and Italian nationality? There was no substantial criticism of FDR, when he enacted these policies.

Accordingly, it is logical to conclude that if you sit in front of a fireplace, and speak in a professorial mode, with a patrician tone, you can remove people’s rights, and allow the systematic extermination of 6 million people, without objection from the Progressive left and the mainstream media.

On the other hand, President Trump, for the past three years, has been defined by the ideological left and mainstream media, as a racist, white supremacist, fascist, and Nazis. Without any incertitude, they purposefully misrepresent and even falsify his Administration’s policies. Any effort to clarify his position on any issue is met with allegations of racism and unsavory “anti-immigration rhetoric.” While the left advocates lawlessness without challenge!

Moreover, where was mainstream media when Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, called me a racist? Where were this same media and liberal pundits lamenting Obama’s, Holder’s, Ms. Clinton’s, et. al., rhetoric and leadership style while the country was being torn apart by identity politics?

The fact is there is no basis for the left’s personal attacks on Mr. Trump’s character and style of leadership. The left’s and mainstream media ad hominem attacks is what bullies do when they can offer no legitimate alternative(s).

Is there any evidence that: President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election; that he has been more mendacious and had more scandals[8] than Barack Obama when he was President; that he was a greater womanizer than Bill Clinton; or a weaker leader than George W. Bush. The short answer is that there is none (evidence). Yet, President Trump is portrayed by the left and mainstream media as the least virtuous and qualified of the lot. There is no question, this contempt for Trump borders on the pathological.

In the last analysis, Americans like guns. Americans understand that gun ownership keeps America free and a democratic country. It’s not the gun that kills – it’s the gun owner. It’s not immigration that Americans object to – it’s illegal immigration. It’s not the immigrant – it’s the illegal immigrant. America’s “right to bear arms,” is the essential reason we are free people today.

G-d Bless America!

---

[1] Definition of a “mass shooter,” is one that shoots and kills four or more people.

[2] El Paso, Texas, August 3, 2019, 22 people killed and 24 others were wounded or injured.

[3] Dayton, Ohio, August 4, 2019, 10 people killed and 27 wounded or injured.

[4] CBS (Chicago), “7 Killed, 46 Wounded In Weekend Shootings, by Mugo Odigwe, August 5, 2019 at 7:31 AM. Seven people were killed and 46 others were wounded in shootings since Friday evening, in Chicago, IL.

[5] 93 percent of African – Americans voted for Barack Obama, in the 2012 Presidential election. In the 2016 Presidential election, Hillary Clinton got 94 percent of the black women vote (4 percent for Donald Trump), and 80 percent of men (13 percent for Mr. Trump).

[6] Op-Ed: “We have studied every mass shooting since 1966. Here’s what we’ve learned about the shooters,” Jillian Peterson and James Densley, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 4, 2019, 9:41 AM

[7] “Dissenting Opinions: On Mass Shootings in the United States,” Geopolitical Futures (GPF), August 8, 2019, Austin, TX.

[8] The following are examples of serious violations of law not investigated by the Obama Administration: Operation “Fast and Furious;” Benghazi terrorist attack and cover-up; IRS’s targeting of conservative entities; Department of Justice’s seizing records of journalists; NSA surveillance of ordinary Americans; Ransom payments to Iran for release of hostages; Bowe Bergdahl’s prisoner exchange; Secret Service prostitution scandal; Hillary Clinton's email scandal; Clinton Foundation scandal; The VA death-list scandal; Solyndra green energy scandal; Administration Officials lying to Congress; Voter Fraud in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Elections; Russia hacking White House computers in 2014; Clinton campaign coordinating with DOJ and Attorney General Loretta Lynch; US Taxpayers Funding Iran Military; Fusion GPS; et cetera.

Trump’s Tweet

 Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Jul 14, 2019

“So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

The upshot, Trump’s tweets exposed the left’s increasing proclivity to loudly and viciously tell the people of the United States that its system of government is omne malum.

It should be clearly understood by now that the president’s use of tweeter to get his message out is not an aimless blunder. Who other than a leftist would allow their viewpoint filtered and interpreted by the Mainstream Media? The question is rhetorical.

There is nothing remotely racist in the tweet. The charge of racism is the Left’s cudgel for anyone who disagrees with their Socialist / Communist world-view. However, it has become increasingly worn and inefficacious, which is regrettable since there has been a serious and unacceptable exponential rise in anti-Semitism by these same Leftists who accuse others of racism. The hypocrisy is deafening!

Now, as a United States’ citizen, you do have the right to democratically want to change America. However, as a citizen, you took an oath, to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that means you must abide by all of it, whether you like it or not.

Indeed, if you don’t like it here, then leave this place!

January 1, 2019: A Mark In Time

January 1, 2019

Is this really a new year? 

Another period by which we mark time is over and done. 

Did you notice? 

Of course, who could not?

Always willing to lament, 

Yet with vile and contempt do they whine. 

Did you notice?

Of course you did,

They will not let you forget.

On and on they opine, 

Oh the horror they bleep.

What foul stench will strike us next?

And, when will it end?

They know best,

If only they were allowed to rule.

How can anyone not understand what they know?

Only if those fools, those deplorable fools,

Would see the light.

So, will the coming mark in time bring an end?

An end to their bleeping.

Unfortunately no,

Bleeping is all they know.

So, madness it will be, 

And where it ends,

May well be to the marrow.

In the end, 

Remember this,

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.[1]

Of whom do I speak?

I have come to understand that today Liberalism / Progressivism (The Democratic Party) is rigidly ideological, proudly sanctimonious, and hence represented by a profound evil. Wrapped so tightly in their own sense of righteousness and superiority over others they are unable to compromise, that would engender public policies for the greater good. Such people are narcissists rather than moralists. They care less about succeeding than about sneering. But worse, these tedious people, with their greed for power, are therefore not fully human. Too harsh you may say. Then consider this.

They will not stop. They are paid too well, and live too lavish a lifestyle, for pretending to fight on behalf of the downtrodden. Yet, all they do is to keep the downtrodden down. You should not confuse their lofty intentions with genuine commitment. This grotesqueness is only comparable to its shamefulness.

The liberal socialist agenda of the Democratic Party has a pitiful record of achievement. Its failures are listed here only as a footnote, and should be understood as a sample, and not exhaustive.[2][3]Another failure of the Democratic Party is lawlessness, in which laws would not be enforced that conflicted with its goals and objectives, even though officials took an oath to do so. This was in full view under the eight years of the Obama Administration.[4]

Liberalism / Socialism is in fact athwart to freedom and democracy. It is the home to tyrants, dictators, and global elites of all miens. Again you say too harsh. Then consider this. 

Martin Amis meditations on tyrants and dictators expressed this menace and horror in his treatment of Stalin. Amis writes, “torture … was part of Stalin’s war against truth. He tortured, not to force you to reveal a fact, but to force you to collude in a fiction.” [5]

Now think in terms of the Mueller Investigation (or as I have written, The Mueller Inquisition[6]), which after two years has failed to find any creditable evidence to support its existence and continuation. An investigation based entirely on a deceit. Mr. Mueller’s indictments, like Stalin’s use of torture, is to force innocent people to admit to collusion, where in fact none existed. Like any unaccountable tyrant, Mueller uses his unrestricted, expansive, and unethical practices[7], to bring great harm to people unrelated to the reason for his Special Counsel appointment. 

The final mark has ticked for a year gone by. And our history begins once more. Should we suffer again? Should we continue to avoid or deny the inescapable fact, that the liberal socialist Democratic Party holds a pathological contempt for others, and this contempt is arguably implicit in their entire ideology? 

There is more than one way a people can be governed, therefore it is desirable and essential that the governed understand that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are always at risk, and cannot be viewed with indifference.

A Happy New Year ?

---

[1]W. H. Auden, “September 1, 1939,” From Another Time, published by Random House, 1940.

[2]The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care); a plethora of spasmodic restrictive Federal Regulations resulting in the worst economy after a recession in US history; total capitulation to Islamic Terrorism; failure to secure immigration and US border, and therefore putting American citizens in harms way; et cetera.

[3]In March 2010, the black unemployment rate was 16.8%, under Barack Obama, after over two years of being President. In May 2018, the black unemployment rate was 5.9%, under Donald Trump, a record low, after the same period of time. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Labor Force Statistics

[4]The following are examples of serious violations of law not investigated by the Obama Administration: Operation “Fast and Furious;” Benghazi terrorist attack and cover-up; IRS’s targeting of conservative entities; Department of Justice’s seizing records of journalists; NSA surveillance of ordinary Americans; Ransom payments to Iran for release of hostages; Bowe Bergdahl’s prisoner exchange; Secret Service prostitution scandal; Hillary Clinton's email scandal; Clinton Foundation scandal; The VA death-list scandal; Solyndra green energy scandal; Administration Officials lying to Congress; Voter Fraud in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Elections; Russia hacking White House computers in 2014; Clinton campaign coordinating with DOJ and Attorney General Loretta Lynch; US Taxpayers Funding Iran Military; et cetera.

[5]Martin Amis, KOBA THE DREAD: Laughter and The Twenty Million, Vintage Books, USA, 2002, cited in Christopher Hitchens, “Legacies of Totalitarianism,” in his book Arguably, 12 The Twelve, The Hachette Book Group, New York, 2011, Page 627.

[6]Lawrence S. Schneiderman, “The Mueller Inquisition,”The Grey Grater, June 17, 2017.

[7]Mr. Mueller’s behavior is deemed unethical since it goes against the agreed upon code of conduct, which in fact may be considered illegal, in and of itself.

Sequestration: A Solution to the Higher Education Student Loan Crisis

Student loan debt is a critical concern for the economy, to say nothing of the students and graduates that hold it.[1]Student loans are made solely for the purpose of financing higher education;[2]that is, they are designed to help students pay for college tuition, books, and living expenses.[3]It is the intention of this discussion to examine the issues affecting the Student Loan Program(s), and offer a recommendation to address the programs most deleterious effects. 

Research indicates the increased usage of student loans has been a significant factor in college cost increases.[4]Some authorities such as the noted economist George Gilder has call the program a “scam.”[5]

The following data for the past 20 years (1997 - 2017) speak for themselves:[6]

• The average tuition and fees at private universities have jumped 157 percent.
• Out-of-state tuition and fees at public universities have risen 194 percent.
• In-state tuition and fees at public universities have grown the most, increasing 237 percent.
• The total consumer price index inflation increased, for the same period by 52.7 percent (August 1997 to August 2017), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The rise in student loan borrowing per person reflects to a large extent the rising cost of higher education that has been going on for over a decade. That begs the question, why has Higher Education costs risen so precipitately? 

At public colleges and universities, rising spending on: faculty; administrators; tumefied esoteric curriculum; student support services; and the need to make up for reductions in government subsidies, has generally driven up tuition. Additionally, the federal government imposes no direct borrowing limit. If a school sets tuition higher and higher every year, a government guarantee loan will cover the increase. Accordingly, schools have little interest and no incentive in keeping down costs. Moreover, studies have found that in some cases, such as at community colleges (which educate about half of the nation's college students), tuition have raised while spending on classroom instruction has actually fallen.[7]

Government control of the student loan program destroyed the integrity of the system by which loans are lent based on suitability of the borrower. Normally, or what economists call the Perfect Capital Market; the factors that affect a lender’s decision about whether to extend a student loan will thus be the opportunity cost of the funding (the interest the lender could have earned on other loans) and the riskiness of the gains (mainly due to the uncertainty about the borrower’s income). Therefore, these conditions are not met when government guarantees and/or holds the borrower’s indebtedness.  

The federal government has become the dominant supplier of student loans, first through its loan guarantee programs and more recently through direct loans.[8]Now with government authorization, there is no consideration of worthiness. It is simply guaranteed. Moreover, the fact that government has a history of involvement in Higher Education[9]is not ipso facto justification for its ‘predatory’ loan program. However, the only guarantee result is that the US Taxpayer will be left holding the bag. Hence, the risk of massive default provides a valid comparison with the Savings and Loan Crisis (S&L) 1980s and 1990s, and Subprime Mortgage Crisis of 2008.

Some critics of financial aid claim that, because schools are assured of receiving their fees no matter what happens to their students, they have felt free to raise their fees to very high levels, to accept students of inadequate academic ability, and to produce too many graduates in some fields of study. About one-third of students, whether or not they graduate or find jobs that match their credentials, are financially burdened for much of their lives by their debt obligations, instead of being economically productive citizens. When, not if, those former students default on their obligations, the burdens are shifted to taxpayers.[10] 

The point is made, that the cost of higher education, being past on to parents and students, has been outrageous. Simply "forgiving" the debt would be absurd public policy for multiple reasons. However, I would posit there is an alternative that relieves some of the pressure on parents and students. 

Reduce the debt by “sequestration” of part of the debt from universities, colleges, et cetera that are responsible for this egregious situation. It should be said that any sequestration program would require strict guidelines as to where and how program cost reductions can be made, therefore guarding against the inevitable use by schools of a ”Washington Monument” strategy.[11]

One further point should be made. In fact, there is a precedent. In 1967, I was an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. I had a student loan(s). Out of the blue, the University notified me that I was awarded a one-time financial aid award that could be used to reduce my existing loan, or taken to meet other obligations. Hence, a mechanism to reduce a student loan obligation is not without precedent. 

In the last analysis, it’s time students, and their parents, are given relief from this onerous and severely flawed aid program. The federal government should not be in the student loan business, and needs to end this government largesse to the Higher Education Establishment.

---

[1]According to the Census Bureau, college enrollment as a fraction of the population between ages 16 and 25 rose from 34 percent in 1990 to 51 percent in 2010. 

[2]Higher Education is defined as colleges, universities, community colleges, and technical schools. 

[3]Wenli Li, “The Economics of Student Loan Borrowing and Repayment,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Review Q3 2013.

[4]David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen (July 2015). "Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid programs" Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

[5]George Gilder, “Live, Liberty, & Levine,” Fox Cable News Network, October 14, 2018.

[6]Briana Boytington, “See 20 Years of Tuition Growth at National Universities,” U.S. News & World Report, September 13, 2018. 

[7]Steven Hurburt, “Trends in College Spending,” 12 January 2016, The Delta Project, The American Institutes for Research (AIR), 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC.

3Prominent arguments for government involvement are that social returns to education are greater than private returns. Furthermore, employers tend to under invest in generalized training, since they do not fully capture the returns in the event the trained employees leave the firm. Cited in Wenli Li, “The Economics of Student Loan Borrowing and Repayment,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Review Q3 2013, P.2.

[9]The modern student loan program dates to 1965, when the Guaranteed Student Loan, now known as the Stafford Loan, was introduced.

[10]Vedder, Richard; Denhart, Christopher; Hartge, Joseph (June 2014), “Dollars, Cents, and Nonsense: The Harmful Effects of Federal Student Aid,” Center for College Affordability and Productivity, retrieved November 23, 2014.

[11]A Washington Monument strategy is a tactic employed to avoid program cuts by finding the most essential, popular and visible programs and services to cut, instead of the superfluous. First espoused in Aaron Wildavsky classic book: Wildavsky, Aaron. “Politics of the Budgetary Process,” Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1964.

In The Beginning

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Thus begins the preeminent book (The Hebrew Bible) in the history of mankind. A sacred book that has been more often cited than read, and more read than understood.

This discourse will attempt to explain Creation, and specifically the first human being. In other words, it is the beginning of a beginning.  

I have come to understand that the conflict in interpretation, aka commentary, of the Hebrew Bible, or Torah,[1] is man made. This conflict can be understood in the context of a Non sequitur. A Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow.” It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Nowhere is this more in evidence than rabbinic interpretation and commentary of mankind’s creation. 

The account of Creation is so fundamentally rooted in Judaism’s consciousness that any attempt to consider it from solely an intellectual distance is immediately seen as suspect, and even amateurish. However, much contemporary commentary, in my view, as it relates to Creation, has been tendentious. In this sense, the historiographical shift from the literal to a figurative symbolism, shows the notion that mankind’s creation was not what it was. In terms of Creation, the contrast between literal and symbolic is easily understood. However, it is increasingly clear that contemporary interpretations have acquired a more ideological inclination. 

It needs to be said; the assertion that man can faithfully interpret G-d is naive at its best, and egotistical at its worst. An assertion is not a valid justification. Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction. For example, the statement that ‘everybody would agree.’ The assertion establishes an a priori as a fact that in fact may not be true, or at very least cannot be verified as true. An individually intuitive perception is not sufficient. To simply assert something or some action is good, is not proof, nor is it even reasoned justification.  Hence, it is only a supposition, an assertion, and certainly not a certainty. In this light, thus can we begin to interpret G-d’s meaning in Genesis.

As Harold Bloom[2] cogently discerned, ‘to read in the service of any ideology is not, in my judgment, to read at all.’

It is problematic to interpret Genesis as only figurative language. The plain sense of the Book of Genesis text (Torah) does not support this interpretation. Instead, Genesis is a literal account given to Moses from G-d. It is the only book in the bible that Moses was not an active participant in, and as such, is exhaustive and unabridged by definition. 

The point is, some commentary try to work out what happened in each hour of the creation of Adam on the sixth day. But here they delved way beyond the information in Genesis (text). In fact, this is the problem in much of the commentary to Genesis. The commentary does not reflect the text, and, in fact, goes way beyond.       

A primary example, is Bereishit 1:27, Human Beings, “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Yet, the Chumash[3] states in its text[4] that “He created them as a single, androgynous being comprising both male and female bodies, attached back to back.” This is a contradiction with the text,[5] and therefore must be suspect and taken as conjecture. It would only be correct in the sense that Eve was later created from Adam’s “bone and flesh.”[6] Yet, that is not what the Chumash says or implies. Clearly, man was created first – the first human being was a man, and not an androgynous being! No where in Genesis does it say that the first man, Adam, was partly male and partly female in appearance, or in any other feminine aspect.

Furthermore, the verse, "He created them," should be understood, not that G-d "created them" at the same time, for that contradicts the preceding, "so God created the human in his image, He created him in the image of God." Accordingly, "He created them," should be read in the future tense. Additionally, G-d created the fish, birds, reptiles, and animals in the plural, with the intention that all would go forth and multiply. However, it is only latter that He creates woman (Eve) for much the same purpose, in their role as humans.        

Moreover, Genesis says “ he created him,” not he/she, or it. “Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”[7] The fact is that Genesis recounts creation as “his nostrils,” and “the human,” not humans. “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Again, it is man and him, singular, not them. G-d did not put “them” in the Garden of Eden. “And the LORD God said: It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help(er) meet for him.”[8] If “Eve existed along with “Adam,” why would G-d say ‘that the man should not be alone,’  and why would the helper need to be created? 

Genesis tells us, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.”[9] G-d created Eve from the rib and flesh of Adam. The first women did not exist at the same time that the first man was created.

By attempting to reduce Creation to a politically correct ideological distortion that man was an androgynous being, one is only too prone to limit non-bias intellectual scrutiny. Within that framework nothing is easier then capitulation to interest group politics. But, in reality, critical analysis and Devine understanding are not so simple.

As previously stated, the Chumash avers that “He created them as a single, androgynous being comprising both male and female bodies, attached back to back.”[10] However, it is not believed that a closing of ranks by rabbinical commenters is ipso facto validity to adopt an illogical assertion – that the first man was an androgynous human being. In other words, an illusion and invalid assertion does not confirm respectability of an opinion, regardless of how many times you repeat it. Again, the first women did not exist at the same time that the first man was created.

Creation when recounted by means of politically correct ideological distortions, are often used as a veil of ideology, which then hides the real meaning of the event. Such is the case of this understanding of Creation. 

The purpose of this discourse is to interpret and understand Creation void of ideological sentiments. And, to debunk a pathological state of cognition in which ideology takes precedence over the genuine search for truth. 

---

[1]The Greek term is Pentateuch, which means five scrolls.

[2]Harold Bloom (b. 1930) is an American literary critic Professor of Humanities at Yale University.

[3]Chumash, Chabad House Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015.

[4]Ibid. Page 11

[5]Genesis 2:18

[6]Genesis 2:21 – 24

[7]Genesis 2:7

[8]Genesis 2:1

[9]Genesis 2:22

[10]Chumash, Chabad House Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015, Page 11.