Again these are old SDA sources.

The word "Jew" was only introduced into the English language in the eighteenth century.

False. Modern sources show the word "Jew" arose in English in the 13th century, and the divergence in meanings of Ioudaios to include both Judean and Jew would necessarily date from the destruction of Judaea and renaming of the region in 135 AD. In the Bible Ioudaios has both meanings at once, as it is much older than Judaea Province but refers to the people before they were given a Roman province.

The form of religious worship known as 'Pharisaism' in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud.

False. The Talmud was completed in the 5th century AD. Pharisaism in Jesus's time was one of several formal sects of Judaism (including also Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Sicurians, and Messianics). Pharisees and Sadducees leaned heavily but not exclusively upon the oral and written mishnah, a Talmudic source, which is essentially identical with "the tradition of the elders"; since the mishnah was in formation Jesus properly contributed to it as the greatest rabbi of the era.

The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who practiced 'Pharisaism'.

False. First, for the reasons above. In the time of Jesus, the mishnah, the Sifra and Sifre, the Mechilta, notes in the targumim and qere, and other early legal codes that preceded and informed the Talmud were regarded more like Northwest Ordinances that informed religion. The Torah was the Magna Carta and Declaration, the rest of the Tanakh (OT) was the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and the oral traditions were like Supreme Court decisions.

Then he states: From the birth of Jesus until this day there have never been recorded more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, or Christians and the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere, or anytime, than you will find between the covers of the infamous '63 books' which are the 'legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious law' as well as the 'textbook used in the training of the rabbis'.

False. As should be clear by the quotation marks, this is not Rabbi Kertzer's sentence, but Benjamin Freedman's. Further, Freedman is not familiar with a history of blasphemy of Christ from Celsus to LaVey that includes not only the Toledot Yeshu but also hundreds of anti-Christian governments that have little or nothing to do with Judaism. Having looked at all the key Talmudic passages that might be construed as negative toward Christ or Christianity (compare Peter Shaffer, Jesus in the Talmud), I'm comfortable saying that only one rabbi (Ulla) in only one such passage (Sanhedrin 43a) is actually negative about Jesus, in an otherwise historically accurate passage; every other such allusion whatsoever conflates nascent Christianity with other movements rejected by the nascent Talmudists, and cannot be used as evidence of blasphemy. The many other non-Talmudic sources I allude to are much more blasphemous than this.

As to the origin of the present "Jews" in Palestine, he states that those Jews derived from Eastern Europe and are not descendants of the Judeans, or the lost tribes of Israel, but rather descendants of the Khazars, a nation most people don't even know of:

False. Again, the phrasing above makes this appear to refer to Kertzer's words, but the quote and the sequel are actually Freedman's words to David Goldstein. Further, because the Khazars converted to and intermarried within Judaism, particularly intermingling with Armenian, Balkan, and Crimean Jews, they were accepted by all Jewry as full fellow Jews and their Khazarian heritage has been lost. There is not sufficient evidence that a non-Jewish Khazarian "diaspora" existed and connected to Ashkenazim by any other route than absorptive intermarriage. We don't get to follow Freedman in othering the Ashkenazim by calling them non-Jews when all Jews accept them as Jews.

The remainder of the post contains good Biblical advice. However, the uncritical reliance on Freedman hampers your presentation.