How could she move?
That’s the sort of thing I’ll never know, or comprehend—what
humans are capable of.
She picked him up and continued walking, the girl clinging now to
her side.
Authorities were met and questions of lateness and the boy raised
their vulnerable heads. Liesel remained in the corner of the small,
dusty office as her mother sat with clenched thoughts on a very hard
chair.
There was the chaos of goodbye.
It was a goodbye that was wet, with the girl’s head buried into the
woolly, worn shallows of her mother’s coat. There had been some
more dragging.
Quite a way beyond the outskirts of Munich, there was a town called
Molching, said best by the likes of you and me as “Molking.” That’s
where they were taking her, to a street by the name of Himmel.
A TRANSLATION
Himmel = Heaven
Whoever named Himmel Street certainly had a healthy sense of irony.
Not that it was a living hell. It wasn’t. But it sure as hell wasn’t
heaven, either.
Regardless, Liesel’s foster parents were waiting.
The Hubermanns.
They’d been expecting a girl and a boy and would be paid a small
allowance for having them. Nobody wanted to be the one to tell Rosa
Hubermann that the boy didn’t survive the trip. In fact, no one ever
really wanted to tell her anything. As far as dispositions go, hers wasn’t really enviable, although she had a good record with foster
kids in the past. Apparently, she’d straightened a few out.
For Liesel, it was a ride in a car.
She’d never been in one before.
There was the constant rise and fall of her stomach, and the futile
hopes that they’d lose their way or change their minds. Among it all,
her thoughts couldn’t help turning toward her mother, back at the
Bahnhof, waiting to leave again. Shivering. Bundled up in that useless
coat. She’d be eating her nails, waiting for the train. The platform
would be long and uncomfortable—a slice of cold cement. Would she
keep an eye out for the approximate burial site of her son on the
return trip? Or would sleep be too heavy?
The car moved on, with Liesel dreading the last, lethal turn.
The day was gray, the color of Europe.
Curtains of rain were drawn around the car.
“Nearly there.” The foster care lady, Frau Heinrich, turned around
and smiled. “Dein neues Heim. Your new home.”
Liesel made a clear circle on the dribbled glass and looked out.
A PHOTO OF HIMMEL STREET
The buildings appear to be glued together, mostly small houses
and apartment blocks that look nervous.
There is murky snow spread out like carpet.
There is concrete, empty hat-stand trees, and gray air.
A man was also in the car. He remained with the girl while Frau
Heinrich disappeared inside. He never spoke. Liesel assumed he was
there to make sure she wouldn’t run away or to force her inside if she
gave them any trouble. Later, however, when the trouble did start, he
simply sat there and watched. Perhaps he was only the last resort, the final solution.
After a few minutes, a very tall man came out. Hans Hubermann,
Liesel’s foster father. On one side of him was the medium-height Frau
Heinrich. On the other was the squat shape of Rosa Hubermann, who
looked like a small wardrobe with a coat thrown over it. There was a
distinct waddle to her walk. Almost cute, if it wasn’t for her face,
which was like creased-up cardboard and annoyed, as if she was
merely tolerating all of it. Her husband walked straight, with a
cigarette smoldering between his fingers. He rolled his own.
• • •
The fact was this:
Liesel would not get out of the car.
“Was ist los mit dem Kind?” Rosa Hubermann inquired. She said it
again. “What’s wrong with this child?” She stuck her face inside the
car and said, “Na, komm. Komm.”
The seat in front was flung forward. A corridor of cold light invited
her out. She would not move.
Outside, through the circle she’d made, Liesel could see the tall
man’s fingers, still holding the cigarette. Ash stumbled from its edge
and lunged and lifted several times until it hit the ground. It took
nearly fifteen minutes to coax her from the car. It was the tall man
who did it.
Quietly.
There was the gate next, which she clung to.
A gang of tears trudged from her eyes as she held on and refused to
go inside. People started to gather on the street until Rosa
Hubermann swore at them, after which they reversed back, whence
they came.Eventually, Liesel Meminger walked gingerly inside. Hans Hubermann
had her by one hand. Her small suitcase had her by the other. Buried
beneath the folded layer of clothes in that suitcase was a small black
book, which, for all we know, a fourteen-year-old grave digger in a
nameless town had probably spent the last few hours looking for. “I
promise you,” I imagine him saying to his boss, “I have no idea what
happened to it. I’ve looked everywhere. Everywhere!” I’m sure he
would never have suspected the girl, and yet, there it was—a black
book with silver words written against the ceiling of her clothes:
THE GRAVE DIGGER’S HANDBOOK
A Twelve-Step Guide to
Grave-Digging Success
Published by the Bayern Cemetery Association
The book thief had struck for the first time—the beginning of an
illustrious career.Yes, an illustrious career.
I should hasten to admit, however, that there was a considerable
hiatus between the first stolen book and the second. Another
noteworthy point is that the first was stolen from snow and the
second from fire. Not to omit that others were also given to her. All
told, she owned fourteen books, but she saw her story as being made
up predominantly of ten of them. Of those ten, six were stolen, one
showed up at the kitchen table, two were made for her by a hidden
Jew, and one was delivered by a soft, yellow-dressed afternoon.
When she came to write her story, she would wonder exactly when
the books and the words started to mean not just something, but
everything. Was it when she first set eyes on the room with shelves
and shelves of them? Or when Max Vandenburg arrived on Himmel
Street carrying handfuls of suffering and Hitler’s Mein Kampf? Was it
reading in the shelters? The last parade to Dachau? Was it The Word
Shaker? Perhaps there would never be a precise answer as to when
and where it occurred. In any case, that’s getting ahead of myself.
Before we make it to any of that, we first need to tour Liesel
Meminger’s beginnings on Himmel Street and the art of saumensching:
Upon her arrival, you could still see the bite marks of snow on her
hands and the frosty blood on her fingers. Everything about her was
undernourished. Wirelike shins. Coat hanger arms. She did not
produce it easily, but when it came, she had a starving smile.
Her hair was a close enough brand of German blond, but she had
dangerous eyes. Dark brown. You didn’t really want brown eyes in
Germany around that time. Perhaps she received them from her
father, but she had no way of knowing, as she couldn’t remember
him. There was really only one thing she knew about her father.
Fascinating, Martha! 😲
Mesechta Avoda Zarah specifically instructs that only Israel accepts the Torah. Hence the דיוק – the god of Sinai only a local tribal god. Clearly the god who delivered Israel out of Egypt not the God of Egypt. בראשית ברא אלהים introduces Av tohor wisdom commandments taught through the משל of the world created in six days. The נמשל introduces time-oriented Av Torah commandments which creates the chosen Cohen people in all generations through the sanctification of time-oriented commandments. Hence Torah commands mussar. Torah does not teach history. T’NaCH & Talmud, Siddur & Midrashim establish the culture, customs, practices and identities of the chosen Cohen people. Just that simple, no fancy dancing.
The god of Israel judged the Egyptian Gods. The concept of as above so below. The god of Israel vs. the Gods of Egypt serve as the eternal model of a Court-room trial. The Goyim world view which reads their Bible or Koran as Egypt’s Gods either false or subordinate means nothing. Goyim never accepted the Blessing/Curse brit of Sinai. Just as Goyim aliens do not determine the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach so too Goyim do not determine the god of Israel.
The curse of g’lut: Jews do not do mitzvot לשמה – based upon the first Sinai commandment. Egypt לאו דוקא. The temple of Shlomo – av tuma avoda zara made by a fool. The Book of Kings makes satire by referring to Shlomo as the “wisest of all men”. The god of Israel binds only Israel because only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The Nicene Creed which equates Jesus as God, perhaps the strongest proof; international law a myth of propaganda morality, not a binding authority. Political conflicts throughout history falsely classified by some as a failure of diplomacy. But casting this political rhetoric upon the dust bin of history, political conflicts express a natural clash of sovereign “Gods.” Restated: A nation‑state — a functional “God.” Theological Universal Monotheism\tawhid, often called “international law” by UN member states who oppose Israel, attempt to override national sovereignty through religio/political rhetoric. But history provokes-proves that nations create their own sacred narratives. Universal monotheism directly resembles Great Power imperialism. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai establishes faith as judicial Sanhedrin court justice limited to the bnai brit people alone.
Other nations never bound to the 7 mitvot other than Ger Toshav. Why? These mitzvot make a required הבדלה which separates ger toshav from na’creeim. The Talmud always remains within the judicial boundaries which the Written Torah determines. Post sealing of the Shas Bavli all opinions made by scholars compare to US Supreme Court rulings which later Courts can overturn.
The Blessing/Curse Torah oath brit faith never presumes any conclusion that g’lut applies to HaShem as its applies to Israel. Any reading that attempts to teach this metaphor – it taken literally – merely a טיפש פשט. For example: among the Reshonim, only Rambam ruled halacha from aggadic sources. His Universal Monotheistic God permits Jews to daven in av tuma avoda zara Mosques.
That later Goyim, such as Hobbs, Schmitt, or modern nationalism “influenced” by the Torah does not invert this Torah “Nation-State as Functional God” as post Talmudic. Based upon the Torah premise: the chicken created and later laid eggs. Church rejection of the פרדס Oral Torah combined with their Jesus God invalidates its literalist reading of the Creation story. Just as Muhammad’s equal redefinition of prophets as persons sent to all nations invalidates the revelation of the Torah first commandment. Allah simply a Golden Calf word substitution.
Rambam’s universalist Noahide framework only a philosophical systematization, and it does not appear explicitly in the Talmud or Tanakh as a normative precedent. Hilchot Melachim 8–10, expresses a foreign philosophy — a Greek-influenced natural law perspective. The Talmud does not frame non-Jews as bound by a universal law in a systematic, Greek-like sense. Rambam abstracts from Talmudic rulings to a universal ethical schema — a philosophical move. There is no canonical Talmudic or Tanakh precedent for universalist moral obligations like Rambam imposes.
T’NaCH prophetic sources such as found Isaiah 13-14, 40-48 directed toward the failure of Israel to do t’shuva and remember the Sinai oath brit. Never to Goyim who never accepted this Sinai oath brit obligation. Same applies to Yonah sent to Nineveh. Repentance made by Goyim shares nothing with the Torah mitzva of t’shuva. Because t’shuva centers upon remembering the oaths sworn by our fore-fathers; repentance refers to regret made over personal sins.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Ukraine has captured more territory than Russia has taken in recent months, particularly during February 2026, highlighting a shift in momentum. However, these figures vary by source, with some analysts noting that winter conditions and troop morale play significant roles.
U.S. government social media post regarding the death of activist Quentin Deranque during political clashes in Lyon, France has limited the access of U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner to senior officials. His death has sparked significant outrage in France, leading to accusations and heightened tensions between political factions, particularly between far-left and far-right groups. The recent diplomatic spat involving Charles Kushner, the U.S. Ambassador to France, revolves around his failure to attend a summons from the French Foreign Ministry concerning the comments made by the U.S. in the wake of the tragic death of Quentin Deranque, a 23 year old far-right activist who suffered a suffered a fatal brain injury. In the aftermath, eleven suspects have been detained, with several under investigation for murder. Among those arrested were two parliamentary aides linked to La France Insoumise (LFI), a significant left-wing political party in France. Raphaël Arnault, a party member, faced significant backlash due to his connections to groups blamed for the violence. Despite being forewarned about the protest, local police failed to prevent or even timely respond to this political murder. This failure raises serious concerns about public safety and the police’s ability to manage politically charged situations.
Spain’s political landscape with the US, terminated after Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez refusal to support U.S. military actions in Iran, and denounced U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Spanish officials have voiced their “concerns” about the consequences of Sanchez’s defiance, including possible restrictions on Spanish shipping to the U.S. stemming from the refusal to allow weapon transport for Israel.
Trump’s “America First” policy aligns with Washington’s ideals by advocating for reduced military engagements abroad and questioning the utility of longstanding alliances with European nations, particularly Britain, France and Spain. The Trump Administration during its first term highly critical of NATO countries funding structures, framing NATO allies’ lack of investment as a drain on U.S. resources.
The Gaza Board of Peace excludes England France and the UN and Spain. But includes regional players like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, aiming for a “balanced” approach without traditional Western intermediaries. Trump’s “America First” policy aligns with Washington’s ideals by advocating for reduced military engagements abroad and questioning the utility of longstanding alliances with European nations, particularly Britain, France and Spain. The Trump Administration during its first term highly critical of NATO countries funding structures, framing NATO allies’ lack of investment as a drain on U.S. resources.
President Trump’s foreign policy echoes strategies reminiscent of those instituted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower following the Suez Crisis of 1956. This reflects a significant historical context regarding U.S. relations with European powers and the Middle East. The establishment of NATO in 1949 was a direct outcome of Truman’s support for European nations. No critic of Eisenhower ever once referred to his slap to both London and France as ‘Great Powers’ in Middle East diplomacy commonly referred to as ‘sharing the balance of power’ as US pre WWII Isolationism. Truman’s pivot, prioritized containing communism over long-term decolonization, fostering global disillusionment with U.S. foreign policy.
The original British empire policy coined as “maintaining the balance of power” in a region of interest, emerged as the US rejection of European colonialism and imperialism throughout history. FDR publicly denounced Paris colonialism in Vietnam. Alas Truman rejected this FDR anti-colonial policy and employed US ships to return the French back to Vietnam. That failure of leadership resulted in the Korean and Vietnam wars – a horrible disaster for the American people.
Truman’s abandonment of FDR’s anti-colonial stance exemplifies a critical failure of leadership, where short-term geopolitical interests overshadowed the long-term implications of supporting colonial powers. This pivot fostered continued conflict and disillusionment with U.S. foreign policy. President Trump seeks to make America Great Again, not based upon a Hoover isolation policy but rather a rejection of past Presidential incompetence and betrayal of the American manifest destiny vision first established by the Framers who established the American Republic and not the American Democracy as developed post Civil War. Dismantling the Federal bureaucracies and returning State economic autonomy back to the States as first laid down by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and Jefferson’s 10 Amendment, will this policy define Trump 2.0?
Will Trump 2.0 restrict all bills presented in either Houses of Congress to maintain the priority status that Congress persons in Washington serve as “ambassadors” of State legislatures. Only State Legislatures can introduces bills to their Congressional representatives sitting in Congress. Outlawing Corporate lobbies which currently dominate the Federal legislative process. Restricting corporate lobbying to the States would greatly enhance the prestige of State legislative governments. Limiting corporate lobbies to the states, acknowledges Washington DC not a separate state within the Union Republic. Openly rejects the false notion that frames Corporations as people. The Bill of Rights extends only to citizens but not business corporations.
As the Trump SC over-ruled Roe vs. Wade so too and how much more so may this Court negate the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) perversion. This Obamo-watch abomination stands upon several Post Civil War judgments which began with the notion that States do not have the Right to secede from the Union, and then elevated the privileges of Robber Baron monopolies. The 2010 Supreme Court ruling equates corporate political spending with free speech. However, based upon the simple principle: Guns do not kill, it takes a person to pull the trigger — business corporate interests do not qualify as people any more than guns kill.
Because in your blog there isn’t a space for the like ? Like is important !