Eye of the Beholder

Peter Schiff v. Heather Boushey

2011-09-19T16:44:00.000-04:00

Peter Schiff, the conservative investment manager, speaker and well-known contrarian, takes on Heather Boushey, a liberal economist before a congressional committee on jobs. Watch both segments and decide who you think has the better argument. (Hint: I think its the one who doesn't think more government spending is the answer to our fiscal woes)

UN=Anti-Zionism

2011-09-06T11:37:00.002-04:00

Beck Restores Courage in Jerusalem

2011-08-25T09:35:00.000-04:00

Please watch this riveting interview with a pro-Beck academic in Jerusalem yesterday as she declares her support for Glenn and his message....if you cannot view this video please click here.

America: Still Free. Lets Keep it that Way.

2011-07-07T13:06:00.000-04:00

In commemoration of July 4th, in these 2 short videos Dick Morris brilliantly reminds us why America still remains the free-est country in the world:

Who is the Flake, Chris Wallace?

2011-06-29T16:53:00.000-04:00

Glenn Beck and the "Tolerant" Left

2011-06-28T17:51:00.000-04:00

HonestReporting: The Myth of "Arab" East Jerusalem

2011-05-17T12:26:00.003-04:00

Glenn Beck is Restoring Courage....in Jerusalem.

2011-05-16T22:48:00.000-04:00

Yes, thats right, the guy who the media accuses of being an anti-semite seems to be the only national figure with a microphone who is willing to talk about Israel, Jerusalem and the whole host of nations and global organizations arrayed against it. "Things in Israel are going to get bad...its only a matter of time [before] the enemies of freedom will attack the center of our faith, our common faith--that is--Jerusalem."

Glenn went on a secret trip to Jerusalem last week to pave the way for a rally in August he calls "Restoring Courage." He has no idea how many will attend, or can afford to attend, but he is asking for a global effort to encourage people to gather in the Holy City "to stand with people of all faiths all around the world."

Glenn is not equivocal about how events are unfolding. "No time in the history of man has a group of people made the right choice at the right time...I just know that the old hatreds are starting up....the very gates of hell are going to open up against us."

I was in Israel recently, and I sensed that even there a great many people are in denial about the gathering storm clouds that bode ill for the Jewish State. And yet who can deny that increasingly Israel stands alone among the nations of the world as it tries to defend its borders from infiltration by Arab terrorists and its very legitimacy in the capitals of Europe and, soon, America.

Alone among the nations, but not alone. For God is involved in the affairs of man, and is not indifferent as to the outcome. Says Glenn, "Good and evil is very clear now. We must stand together and beg for His assistance and His forgiveness. We must do Good and we must restore courage in ourselves and then...stand."

Israel Through the Eyes of a High School Senior: “Eh, Surviving”

2010-12-30T12:23:00.000-05:00

Israel Through the Eyes of a High School Senior: “Eh, Surviving”: "“How are you doing today?” She asked, leaning forward in her seat to give the man her full attention, a look of concern and complete and utt..."

Where is TSA when you need them?

2010-11-28T14:34:00.001-05:00

If they had enhanced body scanners--or better yet, aggressive pat downs--at Target,
scenes like this might be avoided:

Outrageous.

2010-11-22T23:16:00.000-05:00

Not all the TSA horror stories are quite as bad as advertised. For instance the "shirtless" little boy in the video that has gone viral did not have his shirt removed by the TSA agent as alleged. But this one, about the man from Detroit with the urostomy bag, is undoubtedly true, and ought to be the textbook example of all that is wrong with the government's invasive and unconstitutional pat-down policy:

Wednesday is Opt Out Day

2010-11-22T14:37:00.000-05:00

Introducing Obamacare's new government-approved prostate exam:

What is Opt Out Day from George Donnelly on Vimeo.

Chris Christie is...

2010-11-20T21:24:00.000-05:00

Awesome.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/20/awesome-chris-christie-tells-of-apology-from-president-of-teachers-union/.

Obama an "Embarrasing Disappointment"

2010-11-14T17:11:00.000-05:00

You know things are bad for Obama when he loses even Bob Schieffer of CBS News:

RealClearPolitics - Video - "I Had My Moment": Bush Views Politics As A Chapter In Life

2010-11-09T23:31:00.000-05:00

RealClearPolitics - Video - "I Had My Moment": Bush Views Politics As A Chapter In Life

Voted Yet?

2010-11-02T15:01:00.000-04:00

His "work" may be done, but we can't start making it undone unless both Pelosi and Reid are gone. And they won't be gone unless conservatives take over the House and Senate.

So vote. Your life--as you know it-- depends on it.

CItizen Christine of Delaware

2010-11-01T16:30:00.000-04:00

You may have heard that a certain local cable outlet "forgot" to air this 30-minute paid advertisement for Christine O'Donnell over the weekend:

We the People of the First State from Friends of Christine O'Donnell on Vimeo.

I guess this is just the latest example of the Leftstream Media's attempt to marginalize Christine. I guess their attempt to discredit her as an extremist flake hasn't worked, so now they are simply refusing to let Christine make her case to Delawareans to be their next Senator.

Thanks to the internet, though, Christine's message is getting through. If you have half an hour to spare, please watch this well-crafted video. I feel confident that you will be inspired by this would-be citizen legislator. You may even shed a tear or two, as I did.

Win or lose, Christine has shown poise and class in the face of some of the worst attacks in American political history. Liberals hate her; Democrats demean her; the media mocks her and the GOP cuts her loose. I hope she makes it to the Senate and gives them all fits.

"Finish Strong."

2010-10-29T12:57:00.002-04:00

Remember November.

2010-10-29T09:06:00.002-04:00

Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Fenn Little for Congress: GA 05

2010-10-28T15:31:00.000-04:00

Ok, so as the picture illustrates, maybe Fenn is not so Little. But after meeting him the other evening in the Atlanta metro City of Sandy Springs-- just inside I-285 near the Glenridge Connector--I can attest that Fenn is a man whose heart is as big as his waistline. It takes a lot of heart, after all, to engage in what many initially saw as a valiant but ultimately hopeless struggle to topple his opponent, civil rights icon and 24-year incumbent Congressman John Lewis (D-GA 05).

If Fenn manages to upset Lewis on Tuesday, he will likely become instantly famous as a Giant-killer, as would Sean Bielat of Massachusetts should he prevail in his contest to unseat liberal icon Barney Frank. In normal election years, Little would be guaranteed a one-way ticket to obscurity on the Wednesday after Election Day. But in a wave election that promises to be historic, one has the sense that anything is possible, including a self-described North Georgia redneck succeeding one of the longest serving black liberals in Congress.

Fenn considers Lewis a hero for his role in the civil rights movement, including the famous 1960s march to Selma, Ala., during which Lewis got his head bashed in on the Edmund Pettis bridge. He challenges Lewis's policies and voting record, not his personal character, which is refreshing in an election year in which negative personal attacks are the norm. Little's focus is on the issues, not on personal attacks.

That Little admires Lewis' civil rights record is not surprising. Little is himself a civil rights lawyer, representing individuals, including many minorities, in civil rights, police misconduct and free speech cases. He has also defended first amendment rights in the arena of freedom of religion, and so has some real "street cred" when talking to people of faith of all colors and affiliations.

Fenn has been asking for votes everywhere throughout his district, which includes a vast number of minorities who are reliable Democrat voters. Through his legal work Fenn has established deep personal ties with clergy and other leaders in the black community, which gives him entree into churches and other venues where he can meet regular folks. When he gets a chance to convey to them his message of jobs, lower taxes, faith, freedom and smaller government he is amazed at how many people who have never voted for a Republican come up to him to shake his hand and say they will vote for him.

Fenn is careful to state that he is not a "Tea Party" candidate, although he respects and values the Tea Party's contribution to politics. He has received endorsements from some Tea Party groups, and shares many of the same positions on spending, taxes, government, and the Constitution. Both as an article of his Christian faith and his geo-political sensibilities, Fenn is pro-Israel, and is dismayed at the lengths the Obama Administration has gone to alienate one of our best friends in the world.

Little is clearly not a politician, and that is one of his strengths. He doesn't claim to have extensive or detailed knowledge of the "legislative process," but he is obviously quick enough to catch on. In an election in which the voters are willing to boot the experienced pols, Fenn's status as a Washington outsider can only help.

As far as I can tell this race is not on the radar screen of the pundits and pollsters. I don't even know if this race has been polled, other than by the Lewis' campaign's internal pollsters. Thus, it is fair to say that if Fenn does triumph over Lewis on Tuesday, he will catch the nation's political and media class by surprise--and not a happy one for most of them.

Could Fenn Little, husband, father of two young girls and accomplished chef, become Georgia Fifth's next congressman. The odds are long, but then again, in this political year, I wouldn't bet against it.

To help Fenn cross the finish line, please visit his website here.

25 Minutes to Change America.

2010-10-26T15:31:00.000-04:00

Having trouble deciding whether to vote on Tuesday? Think the stakes aren't high?

Please watch the video "Breaking Point," in 3 eight-minute segments, and pass to everyone you know. The National Republican Trust (not affiliated with the national GOP) produced this compelling review of the past 20 months since Obama the Destroyer took office.

Just in case you forgot why you should vote on Tuesday.

Click here to watch "Breaking Point: 25 Minutes to Change America."

"I Worked so Hard to Get that Title"

2010-10-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

From David Zucker of "Airplane" fame:

Bnei Akiva Hachshara Gap Year Program

2010-10-25T18:16:00.000-04:00

Michelle, you might want to take a look at this video and also click here to see more about this program, called Tafnit.

Thatcher Honored by Murdoch

2010-10-24T22:35:00.000-04:00

Please read this inspiring essay by Rupert Murdoch about the importance of Margaret Thatcher in her generation, and the necessity of her virtues in our.

Why Democrats Hate Our Guts

2010-10-24T22:04:00.000-04:00

They Hate Our Guts...and they’re drunk on power.

by P.J. O'Rourke (from The Weekly Standard, October 23, 2010)

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Our Chinese Masters?

2010-10-21T20:53:00.002-04:00

Ken Buck: "They Will Ignore us No More."

2010-10-15T10:38:00.002-04:00

Israel's Front Porch

2010-10-14T10:41:00.000-04:00

By Moshe Feiglin

2 Cheshvan, 5771
Oct. 10, '10

Translated from Ma'ariv's NRG website.

I get to Elmatan almost every morning - on my mountain bike. The dried creek beds and mountains on the way there and back provide me with half an hour of solace and physical fitness that are the dream of every mountain rider. After ten years of riding here and playing catch with the sun's first morning rays, I thought that I had already seen all the different views from Elmatan. Nevertheless, it is important for me to share this picture of the Elmatan synagogue with you:

Elmatan is a "mixed" outpost - a neighborhood of the Ma'aleh Shomron settlement that is open to everyone - with or without a kippah on his head. They built the synagogue pictured here about a year ago. Israel's Supreme Court has ordered the synagogue to be sealed off. Mosques are popping up like mushrooms after the rain in this entire area - which is under Israeli jurisdiction - and nobody dares touch them. But the synagogue within the boundaries of the Elmatan settlement unhinges the "rule of law" clan. Their norms dictate that the Arabs here are permanent while the Jews are a passing phenomenon. I am talking about Tel Aviv, of course.

Due to the fact that last week it looked like the government was going to seal off the synagogue, the residents of Elmatan asked the residents of Ginot Shomron, where I live, to come and boost the regular prayers there. And so, after my bike ride and shower, I picked up my son and we drove over to Elmatan for the morning prayers.

There are more panoramic views of the country than from Elmatan. From Moshe Zar's house at the top of the mountain, for example, the entire State of Israel is laid out on the palm of your hand; from the slopes of the Carmel Mountain all the way down to the shores of Gaza. I stood there once on a clear day and watched the unloading of coal for the power plant in Hadera through my binoculars. In his better days, Arik Sharon would bring US senators to the home of his buddy from Israel's famous battles and explain the strategic importance of Judea and Samaria to the American lawmakers from Moshe Zar's back yard. "Israel's front porch," he would call it.

I do not believe in basing our claim to the Land of Israel on security interests. It simply does not work. We are here in the Land of Israel because it is ours, because this is our Land and our home and this is our life. Without it, we have no ability to build, strengthen our character and fulfill our destiny. We are here in the most simple and natural way and whoever tries to take this Land from me will have to kill me first. If you are not feeling up to the task of keeping and guarding this Land, you can leave. But nobody has the right to uproot Jews from their homes and their Land. This is very simple and has no connection to the welfare of Tel Aviv with or without the Shomron.

Nevertheless, when a photographer arrived in Elmatan, I asked her to take a picture of the view glittering before my eyes at 6:30 a.m. from the synagogue that the High Court ordered sealed.

Never mind the fact that from here they will fire Katyushas at Tel Aviv, just like they fire them now at Be'er Sheva from the ruins of Gush Katif. That is really not the point. I just felt that there is so much symbolism in this surrealistic sight of the state of Tel Aviv spread out below the small synagogue from which - among other things - it draws the justification for its existence - and which it insists on destroying.

All the towers there, at the feet of the small synagogue, all the modern interchanges and even the permanent cloud of pollution over Tel Aviv that can be detected in the photo - all this amazing achievement of Zionism is planted on shifting sands. The more that we have disengaged from our Land and our identity, the more we have lost the legitimacy for the very existence of a Jewish state on the face of the earth. We have all the military prowess necessary to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. But we lack the fortitude and courage to do what we must for the coming generations because deep down, we have lost our faith in the justice of our existence here.

If it is illegal to build a synagogue in Israel's heartland, then certainly the Azrieli Towers there on the coastal lowlands are not legitimate. Soon there will be Congressional elections in the US. Afterwards, the cat in the Oval Office will come back to derisively torment the Israeli mouse and invigorate world anti-Semitism. And then what will we do? On whom and on what will we rely after we have invalidated the justice of our existence here with our very own hands?

Physically, Elmatan hinges on Tel Aviv. But the opposite is also true. Just look at what happened to the State of Israel after the destruction of Gush Katif. Just look at how our international legitimacy has eroded, how the dangers surrounding us have intensified and how the ability to defend ourselves has been abrogated.

This week the sealing of the synagogue in Elmatan has been postponed. Tel Aviv can breathe a sigh of relief.

EarMarx

2010-10-14T10:29:00.000-04:00

I've had my doubts about the Republican leadership's commitment to earmark reform. This article by Rep. Eric Cantor, current House minority whip, is therefore a welcome sign that the Republican leadership (in the House, anyway) "gets it."

Words are not deeds, but they are a starting point.

A step toward curing Washington’s spending disease – eliminating earmarks

Originally published in Politico
By: Rep. Eric Cantor

October 13, 2010 12:20 AM EDT
House Republicans took an unprecedented stand in March, imposing an immediate moratorium on earmarks for the remainder of the Congress. Yet, because the governing rules of one Congress cannot bind the next, this moratorium will expire on Jan. 3, 2011. I do not believe that should be allowed to happen.

A lot has happened over the last eight months. Unfortunately none of it has done anything to rein in spending, eliminate waste or send the message to frustrated people across this country that Washington gets it.

That is why the next Republican Conference should immediately move to eliminate earmarks. Should Republicans be elected as the majority party, I believe that we should extend the moratorium to the entire House – to Democrats and Republicans alike. And I encourage President Barack Obama and the White House to take a similar step.

There is no question that earmarks – rightly or wrongly – have become the poster child for Washington’s wasteful spending binges. They have been linked to corruption and scandal, and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington far too long. These reasons alone would justify completely eliminating earmarks, but the basis for my position doesn’t end there.

The old adage that he who can’t be trusted to reform the “small” problems can’t be trusted to reform the “large” ones applies as much to government as to individuals. Both Republicans and Democrats have an enormous task before us if we are going to get America’s fiscal house in order.

We will have to propose and execute real reductions to existing programs. If we hope to preserve Social Security and Medicare for seniors, younger workers and our children, we must begin the conversation about common-sense ways to reform both programs.

These are big things – and there is little question that turning trillion-dollar deficits into surpluses, while starting to pay down our national debt, is an enormous mountain to climb. Yet the long climb to fiscal responsibility must begin with a few smaller, but necessary, steps.

If Republicans put forward real federal spending reductions while simultaneously returning to the old way of earmarking billions of dollars, we will rightfully forfeit the people’s trust. After all, how can anyone defend reducing spending for housing programs, for example, while still earmarking for their favorite local museum?

Additionally, over the last decade, Congress has spent too much time in the process of earmarking. Not only did the number of earmarks explode, but the amount of time spent by members and their staff soliciting, vetting, submitting and attempting to secure earmarks soared as well.

Congress must change its ways from the inside out. That means time once spent securing earmarks would be far better spent overseeing federal agencies, reforming federal programs, cutting spending or eliminating barriers to job creation and economic recovery.

The challenges confronting our country — and our Congress — are far too great for so much time and money to be spent on earmarks.

I have little doubt that this position is going to be controversial in Washington. I have heard the arguments from those who believe we need to return to earmarking. I believe it’s important to answer a few of them:

Some assert that members should represent their constituents’ needs. Of course they should! Yet we, as conservatives, must not lose sight of the fact that Congress is the national legislature. It is our duty to consider those things that cannot be accomplished by state or local governments or, even better – private associations. When Congress spends a single dollar, that dollar is taken from the paycheck of a family in Culpeper, or a young worker in Richmond, or, as is now the case, borrowed and placed on their already maxed out credit card. We have an obligation to uphold the national interest, and that means ensuring that decisions about funding local streetscape improvements are returned to local officials.
Some make the case that if Congress doesn’t earmark, unelected bureaucrats will decide how to spend the same money. In the next Congress, however, our mission must be to ensure that time is spent reducing spending — period. If bureaucrats are misspending funds or wasting them on low priority projects, our responsibility should be to conduct the proper oversight to hold them to account and fix the problem. Taxpayers deserve that we hold the administration accountable. In recent years, earmarking has taken the place of setting guidelines and conducting strong oversight. We will change that.

Earmarks are a symptom of a disease — and that disease is Washington’s runaway spending. There is no silver bullet. For us to successfully eliminate the sickness, several prescriptions are needed. One is to apply the current House Republican earmark moratorium to all House members.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is the House Republican whip.

Christine O'Donnell's New Ad: "The Taxman"

2010-10-12T11:56:00.000-04:00

Devastatin'.

Re: Israel: Obama's Underwater Fantasy

2010-10-09T23:46:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of the satirical group "Latma:"

"J" Stands for "Jackals"

2010-10-03T00:20:00.000-04:00

J Street, Down the Rabbit Hole

SEP 30 2010, 3:00 PM ET

by Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic.

[From the editor of Eye of the Beholder: Right- leaning Jews always knew that the liberal "pro-Israel" J Street lobbying group was a front for self-hating, Israel-bashing leftist Jewish activists trying to influence American policymakers to abandon the U.S. bias towards Israel and adopt a more "even-handed" (i.e., pro-Palestinian, Arabist) point of view. Now, it seems, thanks to the revelations that Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's chief, has engaged in a lying campaign to cover-up J Street's funding sources (most prominently the well-known anti-Israel financier George Soros), even left-of-center opinion leaders have concluded that J Street's days are numbered.

Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic magazine article detailing this delicious scandal, follows below:]

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and president of J Street, the liberal Jewish group, e-mailed Goldblog last night: "Reports of our demise (including from you) are greatly exaggerated...." He was referring to a question I posted earlier in the day: "Will J Street even be around in its current form in coming days, now that it is enveloped in a scandal (more of a cover-up than a crime, in the traditional Washington style)?"

The scandal grows from a decision by Jeremy Ben-Ami to cover-up, over a long period of time, something he knew to be true: That George Soros, the billionaire investor and non-friend of Israel, provided J Street with almost $750,000 in funding. James Besser, at The New York Jewish Week, frames the impact of this cover-up in stark and simple terms:

There's no way this isn't going to make the politicians supported by J Street and those who may be considering accepting its endorsement incredibly nervous. Instead of providing protection for the politicians they supported, J Street essentially hung them out to dry - not by accepting Soros money, but by lying about their connection to the controversial philanthropist.

And there's no way this doesn't sow mistrust among commentators and reporters who write and speak about J Street, and who were repeatedly misled by its officials. J Street sought to create a climate of trust with a press corps that was being spun heavily by its opponents; this news undoes a lot of that effort.

An Atlantic reporter, Chris Good, was one of the journalists lied to by J Street; he ripped the organization a new one once he learned he was the target of a disinformation campaign.

News of the Soros donation, first brought to light by Eli Lake of the Washington Times, was accompanied by disclosures about a larger, and stranger, donation, by a resident of Hong Kong named Consolacion Escidul, who according to Ben-Ami, is a "business associate" of a prominent J Street supporter named William Benter, a well-known Hong Kong-based horse bettor. Escidul is responsible for contributing seven percent of all the money collected by J Street since its founding, but nothing is known about Escidul, or about the sources of her wealth, but the mere fact that she is not, as far as anyone can tell, an American citizen has J Street supporters on Capitol Hill worried that the organization is using foreign money to provide help to American political candidates.

And now there is a completely new scandal, brought to us, again, by Eli Lake and another Times reporter, Ben Birnbaum. According to an article posted on The Washington Times site last night, J Street helped arrange visits by Judge Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist appointed by the U.N. to investigate the most recent conflict in Gaza, to Capitol Hill. Goldstone's work, heavily reliant on Hamas for uncorroborated information, has been condemned on both the left and right, here and in Israel (including by the left-wing Israeli human rights group B'Tselem), for its fairly obvious biases. From the Times story:

Colette Avital -- a former member of Israel's parliament, from the center-left Labor Party and until recently J Street's liaison in Israel -- told The Washington Times that her decision to resign her post with J Street earlier this year was a result in part of the group's "connection to Judge Goldstone."

"When Judge Goldstone came to Washington, [J Street leaders were] suggesting that they might help him set up his appointments on Capitol Hill," she said.

In the Times story, Jeremy Ben-Ami denied that his group assisted Goldstone in his visit in any way: "J Street did not host, arrange or facilitate any visit to Washington, D.C., by Judge Richard Goldstone." Then, in the same response, he contradicted himself, acknowledging that J Street assisted Judge Goldstone in his efforts to meet members of Congress: "J Street staff spoke to colleagues at the organizations coordinating the meetings and, at their behest, reached out to a handful of congressional staff to inquire whether members would be interested in seeing Judge Goldstone."

This statement is of a piece with Ben-Ami's non-denial denial concerning Soros. On the J Street website, however, Avital issued a more straightforward denial:

I made clear (to The Washington Times) that I was and am completely unaware of any effort by J Street to facilitate visits by Judge Richard Goldstone to Capitol Hill.
I do not know how it is possible for a newspaper to run a story like this after I have specifically told them they have the story wrong.

Unfortunately for Avital, and for J Street, the reporter who interviewed Avital by telephone, Ben Birnbaum, recorded their conversation, and The Washington Times has posted the audio. The recording shows that Avital was quoted accurately, and more than that: It shows that it was Avital, and not Birnbaum, who first raised the subject of Goldstone.

On one level, I understand what is happening here: J Street is made up of liberal Zionists, as well as non-Zionists, and even a few anti-Zionists, and it has been difficult for it to please its differing constituencies. This is why Ben-Ami, its president, might have felt the need to cover-up the involvement of George Soros, because liberal supporters of Israel know that Soros is unfriendly to the Jewish state, and some, presumably, would not want to be part of a group that counted Soros as a prominent supporter. But on another level, what is going on here is inexplicable, and terribly dispiriting to people who thought that J Street was going to make a useful contribution to the debate over the future of Israel.

Israel's Leaders: When will they ever Learn?

2010-09-28T00:00:00.000-04:00

In 2003, the late Israeli political activist, thinker and commentator Shmuel Katz penned an essay entitled "Sharon's Egregious Blunder" bemoaning then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's determination to nursemaid into existence a "demilitarized" and severely limited Palestinian state. According to Katz, the very idea of a state accepting permanent limitations on its sovereignty along the lines of Sharon's vision (and presumably current P.M. Netanyahu's as well) was the height of political naivete and, if implemented, would lead only to heartache and bitter recrimination:

If Israel were to reach the nadir of political inanity of actually helping to establish a state for the Palestinian Arabs, the Arabs would reject with all vigor the idea that their state would be hobbled by a denial of major armaments. No less emphatic would be the hostile reaction of a large segment of the European and other nations.

Even friends, appalled and distressed, would find themselves bound, albeit reluctantly, to deplore such a limitation of sovereignty. They would find it intolerable.

For the Arabs the military issue is doubly critical. First because the very idea of demilitarization would be regarded as a blow to their honor; second, because a sovereign state has never been the ultimate purpose of Arab policy. The purpose is the destruction of Israel. A state could represent only the penultimate 'phase' in the policy of phases. It could be the staging ground - with a large and variegated arsenal - for the 'final phase.'

That is the original Arab game plan.

Arabs made their purpose clear from the very beginning of Israel's existence. In the UN debate on Palestine in November 1947 which led to the partition plan, Jamal Husseini, the spokesman of the Arab League States (there was no entity called Palestinians) announced that the Arabs would not tolerate the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. The UN partition plan actually also offered them a state. They brushed the offer aside, rejected the plan, and on the morrow of the British government's departurefrom Palestine, the Arab states launched their war for the annihilation of the infant Jewish state.

Nineteen years later, when the Arab leaders calculated again that they could win, they launched what became the Six Day War. The leader of the Arab coalition, president Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, confidently, repeatedly and vociferously announced its aim. 'The liquidation of Israel' he declared 'will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter a Palestine not covered with sand, but soaked in blood.' This is pounded out every Friday in the mosques. It is part of textbooks in the Arab schools and is the highlight of political speeches in the Muslim world.

If the Arab objective is achieved, the sovereign state of Palestine could join the Arab League. There, a pact for mutual security exists. Any Arab state attacked may call on the other members of the League to come to its assistance. A ready-made casus belli exists: The Arabs have long laid it down that the very existence of Zionism is an 'aggression.'

Does it not seem that Katz's words are as true today as they were 7 years ago? Perhaps it is not too late for Israel's leaders to heed them.

The Coming Obamafada

2010-09-26T23:02:00.000-04:00

by Scott Italiaander

Our feckless President is apparently not content to merely confuse our allies and seek to appease our rivals and enemies. Now he has managed to significantly weaken the strategic position of our greatest ally, Israel, vis a vis its already hostile Arab and Persian neighbors. By prematurely pushing Israel into peace talks with the weak and disingenuous Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, he ensured that those talks would fail and that Israel would be held responsible for the collapse.

The whole world knew before the start of "peace" talks just weeks before the expiration of Israel P.M. Bibi Netanyahu's 10-month freeze on building in the West Bank settlements that Abbas would break off the talks if the freeze wasn't extended indefinitely. And the world knew that Netanyahu would be forced into deciding whether to play the spoiler of those talks. It is a virtual certainty that Obama intentionally put Bibi in the no-win position of either (1) caving to American pressure to extend the freeze, thus putting him at odds with his own ministers and voter base in the Likud; or (2) caving in to domestic pressure and letting the freeze expire, thus putting the P.M. crosswise with the international community.

Well, Netanyahu seems to have made his choice: the building moratorium expired at midnight Sunday without action by Netanyahu or his security cabinet. And, according to the pro-Israel intelligence website Debkafile.org., Abbas has left the talks, as threatened. The predictable results are already being felt:

The breakdown of the talks was widely predicted by every seasoned Middle East hand. Many political observers therefore wonder: What was the point of filling the air waves for 26 days with the extravagantly upbeat phrases heard from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak calling the process "a historic opportunity for peace in the region?" The letdown was inevitable and leaves none of them looking good.

Perhaps the last word has not been said. Washington may go back for another try to restart the talks in a few weeks or months, but the process has already had a negative impact in the region, hardening the moderates and strengthening the rejectionists:

1. Israel is bracing for a fresh round of terror in the light of Hamas threats;

2. The feuding Fatah and Hamas are talking again, a process that will force Mahmoud Abbas into continuing to harden his posture;

3. Egypt and Israel have drawn apart on the Palestinian issue;

4. Cairo and Damascus have begun talks to bury the hatchet.

All four developments are a triumph for the Middle East radical camp and strengthen the hands of Hizballah and Hamas.

So, Obama has finally notched his first real foreign policy victory: by teeing up the media narrative that Israel's failure to extend the freeze was the proximate cause of the talks' collapse he simultaneously (further) isolated Netanyahu and his government, handed Israel's enemies a club with which to beat up the Jewish State and drove a wedge between Israel and the so-called moderate Arab States, which have apparently decided to make common cause with Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. The hapless, self-righteous Jimmy Carter could have never pulled off such a feat.

Already on Sunday, a Jewish woman was shot by "gunmen" (code for "Arab terrorist" in mediaspeak) near Hebron, thankfully not fatally for mother or child. But one can reasonably expect increasing violence and murder of Jews in the weeks and months to follow, thanks in large part to the fallout from the so-called peace talks forced upon Israel and their predictable failure.

Perhaps it is not premature to honor Obama's great success by labeling the next round of violence against Jews the "Obamafada."

Jimmy Carter: Southern for "Pompous Jerk."

2010-09-20T23:07:00.000-04:00

The headline I wanted to use was "Jimmy Carter: "What a Jew-Hating Prick!" But then I thought that would be unfair to pricks.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Obamacare: The Sequel"

2010-09-20T09:36:00.000-04:00

Dr. Scott W. Atlas, professor at Stanford University Medical Center and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, predicts a last gasp effort by the doomed Democrat majority to drive a nail in the coffin of
the private health insurance industry and perhaps severely restrict the ability of the nations' doctors to practice medicine as they see fit. :

When Congress passed the health legislation plan that the president sought, it radically changed health care in the United States and audaciously imposed a strong-armed federal government onto perhaps the most personal of all segments of American life. In the ensuing months, the opposition has tried to understand what it can do when governmental power is enacted despite the will of the people. Legal battles questioning the constitutionality of the legislation are already under way in more than 20 states. Political activists are targeting the rogue politicians who flaunted their own agenda in the face of the constituents who elected them in the first place. But indications are that this Congress and this administration may not care what the American public wants. Ultimately, they may be prepared to commit political suicide in a last-ditch effort to push their unwanted agenda on the nation.

Scary stuff, indeed.

A Whole Lotta Mama Grizzlies.

2010-09-19T11:59:00.000-04:00

“Fire From the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman" was previewed at the Redstate.com gathering in Austin this past weekend. According to Redstate, the film is a must-see for every citizen concerned with the direction of our country.

It will premiere on Wednesday, September 22nd, in Washington, DC. Here's the trailer:

If If you cannot see the embedded video, view trailer here.

"The Power of Ten"

2010-09-17T16:38:00.000-04:00

Whatever you think of Newt Gingrich's presidential aspirations, there is no denying that (unlike Karl Rove and others like him) he is no Inside the Beltway establishment groupthinker. After all, Newt is the guy who pulled off what at the time was the greatest outside political shot of its kind--the Revolution of 1994.

Newt is not the mercurial firebrand he was 16 years ago, but this self-styled historian still has an unerring sense of history and a passion for crafting policy solutions. He also knows a once-in-a-generation political moment when he sees one.

I know you are voting this November. But you may want to also consider giving Newt's Power of Ten a try:

(If you cannot view the video, please click here.)

Where else but Israel?

2010-09-13T17:52:00.000-04:00

Please watch this 6 minute video, and ask yourself where else but in Israel would this touching reunion have happened. After watching, please go to Honestreporting.com and sign up for their email alerts.

Mike Pence: Give 'em Hell in November!

2010-09-13T17:40:00.000-04:00

By Connie Hair, Human Events, 9/12/10

The 9-12 Taxpayer March on Washington in the nation's capitol Sunday began at the Washington Monument and concluded at the Capitol building where thousands in attendance heard from grassroots conservative leaders like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), Erick Erickson of RedState.com (an HE sister publication) and Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Chairman of the House Republican Conference spoke at the rally where people from around the country again made their presence known on Capitol Hill by the thousands.
Pence's remarks as prepared for delivery:
"I'm Mike Pence. I'm from Indiana. Welcome back to your nation's Capitol!

"I'm sure the press is going to focus on the numbers again, at this and other 9-12 events. But the only numbers that really matter are 51, 218 and 1.

“In 51 days, there will not be 218 Democrats left in Congress, and one liberal from San Francisco will no longer be Speaker of the House!

“The truth is there is nothing that ails this government that could not be solved by paying more careful attention to the principles enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

“And the Pelosi-led Congress is about to get a crash course in the Constitution, especially the meaning of ‘consent of the governed.’

“We, the governed,

• Do NOT consent to a government takeover of health care and will not rest until we repeal Obamacare -- lock, stock and barrel!
• We do NOT consent to runaway federal spending by either political party. And we demand an end to the borrowing, spending and bailouts once and for all!
• We do NOT consent to one more failed stimulus bill. The American people know we can’t borrow and spend our way back to a growing economy.
• We do NOT consent to higher taxes on any American in the worst economy in 25 years. When did higher taxes ever get anybody hired?

“No American should face a tax increase in January …not one. We will not compromise our economy to accommodate the class warfare rhetoric of this administration.

“You know, it is becoming more clear every day (to paraphrase one of my heroes) that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job and recovery is when Nancy Pelosi loses her job!

“You have come to our nation’s Capitol at a historic moment in the life of this still-young republic.

“A nation conceived in liberty has come of age in bondage to big government. We've lost respect in the world. We are going broke. The American dream is dying and our social and cultural fabric is unraveling.
"People are scared. If we do not succeed in November, all that once was good and great about this country could someday be gone.
"But we will remember in this November and every November to come, not only our rights under the Constitution, but our duty to defend them.
“November 2nd is not about controlling the reins of power. It is about reining in the power!

“America is not about free stuff; it is about freedom.

“But this is the moment, now is the time, to take your stand for what makes this country great.

“And as you take to the field in the next 51 days to do freedom’s work, know this: you will not fight alone.

“Engraved on the Liberty Bell are words of admonition from an ancient text. It reads, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.’ The Old Book also says, ‘Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’

“Translation: when we proclaim liberty, when we do freedom’s work, we make His work our very own.

“Men and women of the 9-12 March, the time has come to take our stand. We must not be afraid, and we must fight for what has always been the source of American greatness: our faith in God and our freedom.

“And if we hold that banner high, I believe with all my heart the good and great people of this land will rally to our cause.

“We will win this Congress back in 2010 and win this country back in 2012 so help us God.
“Remember in November, and let’s give them a November they’ll never forget!”

A Christian Speaks Out about a Divided Jerusalem

2010-09-12T22:35:00.000-04:00

Dividing Jerusalem

By MIKE EVANS

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approached the peace talks in Washington last week uttering words and phrases we’ve not heard from him before, i.e., “President Abbas, you are my partner…I see in you a partner for peace…I am fully aware and I respect your people’s desire for sovereignty.”

The questions are myriad, “Is he simply trying to appease President Obama before it becomes necessary to attack Iran? Is relinquishing part of the West Bank compulsory in order to acquire approval from the Obama administration for a direct strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Will he include Judea and Samaria in his talks with Abbas?” After all, Mr. Netanyahu uttered the dreaded words “concede territory.” Perhaps for the first time in his political career he is walking in the footsteps of those prime ministers before him.

His nemesis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is to lead the next round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in Jerusalem, starting September 15. The setting dramatically focuses attention on the core issue of Jerusalem, particularly after Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced his plan to re-divide the city in an eventual peace deal.

Barak set tongues wagging in March, when he told Al-Jazeera that some Jerusalem neighborhoods might become part of a Palestinian capital. "We can find a formula under which certain neighborhoods, heavily populated Arab neighborhoods, could become, in a peace agreement, part of the Palestinian capital that, of course, will include also the neighboring villages around Jerusalem," Barak said.

This assertion was not surprising, given Barak’s record. When he was prime minister, he pulled the Israel Defense Forces out of Lebanon, proposed giving the Golan Heights back to Syria, and even offered the late and unlamented Yasser Arafat the Temple Mount.

Barak’s “solution” for Jerusalem, as he floated it again on September 1: "West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives, and the City of David."

Is this the same Ehud Barak, who as prime minister publicly declared on Jerusalem Day, in June 2000—marking the city’s reunification in the Six Day War—that Israel’s sovereign capital would never again be divided?

"Jerusalem shall forever remain ours, because it is in our souls. Never again will Jerusalem be under foreign sovereignty. Only someone who has no sense of reality, who does not understand anything about Israel's yearning and longing and the Jewish people's historical connection to Jerusalem for over 3,000 years would even consider making any concessions over the city," Barak said a decade ago.

The topic of a united Jerusalem has bound the Jewish people together for some 3,000 years. It stands as the eternal, undivided City of God. It was King David’s capital and housed both the First and Second Temples whose only remains is the Western Wall where the Jewish people gather to pray each day.

Between 1948 and 1967, under Jordanian oversight, conditions in Jerusalem were deplorable, even by medieval standards. Jews were barred from worshiping at the Western Wall, the Jewish quarter in the old city was destroyed, and synagogues were demolished. Three-fourths of the tombstones in the Mount of Olives Cemetery were ripped out and used to build a hotel and to pave a path leading to army latrines. Many Christians were denied access to their revered Holy sites.

Having experienced Arab rule in part of Jerusalem, why would Ehud Barak again want to subject the Jewish people and Christians worldwide to such indignity? Israeli prime ministers have allowed themselves to be dragged from one bargaining table to another and have been forced to give up land for a peace that has never materialized. The only thing the Jewish people received from the Palestinians has been two intifadas, terrorist attacks too numerous to recount, civilians maimed and slaughtered, and the disdain of the world at large.

Ehud Barak has tried before to give Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Will his plan prevail at the bargaining table? Which Ehud Barak is the real one regarding Jerusalem? Maybe this doesn’t matter; maybe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the same position today as he stated at the Jerusalem Conference in January 2009:

“We have demonstrated in the past, and will continue to demonstrate our commitment to a complete, undivided Jerusalem... Everyone knows what will happen if we were to leave those areas and divide Jerusalem. Someone will enter—and that someone will be Hamas.”

Jerusalem has been a bone in the throat of the world. It is one of the most ancient capitals not recognized as a capital. International leaders think they can play a tune and Israel will respond like a cobra in the basket of a snake charmer. There is no fear of being bitten. They should beware the venom of the cobra.

The ancient prophet Zachariah cried out, “I will make Jerusalem a cup that will send all the surrounding people reeling … an immovable rock for all nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.”

Mike Evans is a New York Times bestselling author, most recently of Atomic Iran.

A Cautionary Note from Erick Erickson

2010-09-01T11:37:00.000-04:00

The founder and head honcho of Redstate.com--the conservative activist website-- reminds us that notwithstanding some impressive primary victories conservatives have won nothing---yet.

In the face of petty feuds and squabbles among Republicans in the wake of primary upsets, etc., Erick urges conservatives and moderate Republicans alike to act like grownups and unite to defeat Democrats in November.

Erick has his finger on the pulse of the conservative movement. His words ought to be heeded.

Meet Imam Rauf, Liberal Icon

2010-08-30T16:05:00.000-04:00

by Scott Italiaander

The man of the moment for virtually the New York Times and the entire New York-based elite media is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the promoter of the Cordoba Initiative Mosque--oops, I mean Park51 "community center"-- near Ground Zero. So busy are they defending the religious freedom of Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan (never mind the fact that not one critic of the proposed project--NOT ONE--has challenged it on religious grounds), and attacking mosque opponents (except for Harry Reid and Howard Dean, who are given a pass) as intolerant Islamophobes, the legacy media has willfully avoided asking questions about the political views or the character of the promoters themselves.

Well, across the Hudson River from the New York Times building--worldwide headquarters of erudite opinion-- the editors of the Bergen County Record have found the time and energy to do a little digging, and found that the good Imam owns several taxpayer-subsidized apartments in northern New Jersey which are, shall we say, not exactly maintained as luxury flats

In conjunction with others, Rauf is now taking on the largest project of his life with a track record showing that, despite government subsidies, he has had trouble maintaining small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City. Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water...

Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City — a longtime tenant of Rauf’s — said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”
She finds it hard to believe Rauf’s going to build a world-class Islamic community center, with fitness facilities, auditorium, restaurant, library, culinary school and art studios, as well as a Sept. 11 memorial and space for Muslim prayer services.

“He can’t even repair the bells in the hallway. He doesn’t take care of his properties. But he’s going to take care of a mosque?

The Record asked for a response from Daisy Khan, who replied that the Imam's track record as a landlord has no bearing on his promotion of the mosque. “He invests in real estate, much as someone would invest in stocks, bonds or other assets to secure one’s future and provide an income stream. He has dedicated his life to helping others working as an Imam.” By suggesting that her husband is merely a passive investor in a variety of assets, Khan is unwittingly confirming the allegations of the Imam's New Jersey tenants, to wit: the Imam's "passivity" seems to extend to taking care of his properties for the people who pay him (i.e., the tenants and the taxpayers who subsidize them) to do so.

Whatever this says about his fitness to run the mosque project, it gives the lie to any claims by Daisy or the Imam that Muslims in general and the Rauf-Khans in particular have suffered from anti-Muslim discrimination. By apparently securing millions in taxpayer funding for renovations that he either never completed or failed to maintain, the Imam seems to have reaped the benefits enjoyed by many a big-city slumlord and political operator--slurping at the government trough while flipping the bird to the rest of us.

If indeed the taxpayers of New York subsidize $70 million in tax-exempt industrial bonds to help finance the Ground Zero mosque as reported Friday, then Imam Rauf's taxpayer ripoffs in New Jersey will seem like child's play.

Jesse Jackson could learn a few things about public extortion from Imam Rauf.

Judea Pearl: Why I am Against the G.Z. Mosque

2010-08-30T10:40:00.000-04:00

Daniel Pearl's father, Judea, a professor at UCLA and the president of a foundation named in Daniel's memory, weighs in on the Ground Zero mosque controversy. Professor Pearl stands with the vast majority of Americans who oppose the mosque for reasons having nothing to do with the denial of religious freedom. In a sense, Pearl blames America for the status of so-called "moderate" Muslims in this country:

[We] have not helped Muslims in the confidence-building process. Treating homegrown terror acts as isolated incidents of psychological disturbances while denying their ideological roots has given American Muslim leaders the illusion that they can achieve public acceptance without engaging in serious introspection and responsibility sharing for allowing victimhood, anger and entitlement to spawn such acts.

Yes, America is to blame for the plight of Muslims, asserts Pearl, but not in the way that the pro-Mosque grievance-mongers would have you think. By bending over backwards to appease Muslim sensibilities we have encouraged American Muslims to think that they are owed respect and legitimacy without being held accountable for their words and deeds, or their silence in the face of the words and deeds of their more extreme co-religionists.

I believe when it comes to "moral authority," Mr. Pearl has more of it in spades than do those on the other side of the Mosque divide. He should be listened to.

Marco Rubio (R-Fl) for Senate

2010-08-29T15:05:00.000-04:00

Anyone gotta a problem with this? Cause I sure don't....

Rosett: Imam Cashing In on Ground Zero

2010-08-24T10:45:00.000-04:00

The following article by Claudia Rosett appeared today on Forbes.com:

Freedom's Edge
Cashing In On Ground Zero

Among the prime planners of a $100 million Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero, it's not just Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is visiting the Middle East this summer at U.S. taxpayer expense. The State Department is also about to send Rauf's wife and Cordoba Initiative fellow director, Daisy Khan, on her own taxpayer-funded "public diplomacy" trip to the United Arab Emirates. Khan is scheduled to visit the UAE from Aug. 29 to Sept. 2, overlapping there with Rauf, for whom it will be the final leg of a three-country trip including Bahrain and Qatar.

The U.S. Embassy in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi has posted on its website an announcement of the impending visit by this husband-wife team. Rauf and Khan will be there, the announcement says, "to engage foreign audiences and build people-to-people ties" and to "discuss their experiences as Muslims living and working in the United States."

What might their discussions entail? Rauf, since his Cordoba Initiative's Ground Zero mosque project triggered a national uproar, has spent the summer as an enigma. Before embarking on his State-sponsored tour, he walled himself off for weeks in Malaysia, where he has longstanding ties and keeps an office. His Cordoba website now features a note that Rauf could not be available (apparently not even by phone) to explain himself to the people of New York because "he travels the world in his life-long endeavor to bring the message of moderation, peace and understanding to both Western and Islamic countries."

In Rauf's absence, Daisy Khan has been speaking prolifically from New York about the Cordoba House mega-mosque project (which the developer recently re-dubbed Park 51, and the Cordoba House is now describing as a "community center"). Her message, like the name of the project, has been morphing at speed. When Rauf and Khan won approval for their 15-story mosque-topped Cordoba House from a Manhattan community board this spring, they advertised their project as all about doing their part for harmony and healing near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.

When it turned out that a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans generally, think this project is more like rubbing salt in a wound, Khan shifted focus. She's now talking about the Cordoba project as a test of American religious tolerance. If a majority of Americans--cognizant that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, in the name of Islam--think it's inappropriate to stage that test near the edge of Ground Zero, Khan's retort is that they must be bigots. In an interview last week with the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, she lamented: "When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?"

On Sunday, interviewed on ABC TV's This Week by Christiane Amanpour, Khan ratcheted up her complaints. Amanpour asked, "Is America Islamophobic?"

Khan replied, "It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia. It's hate of Muslims."

For the State Department to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars sending someone with those views on a "public diplomacy" trip to the Middle East is a curious exercise. Rauf's trip is costing $16,000. Khan's will cost $12,000. If Khan will be collecting the same $496 per diem that Rauf will be getting in Abu Dhabi, this will include a joint $982 per day for creature comforts, as Khan spreads her opinions about Muslim life in America--and builds people-to-people ties in an Islamic state loaded with billions in oil wealth. State has told Rauf and Khan to refrain from conducting "personal business" while rubbing shoulders on the taxpayer dime, but how they follow up on any of those ties is presumably up to them.

A broader issue here is why Daisy Khan, self-proclaimed healer and bridge-builder of Ground Zero, is now styling herself as an aggrieved victim. America has delivered to both Rauf and Khan a life in which they have freely practiced their religion and been free to convert others--including a sister-in-law of their real-estate partner, Sharif El-Gamal. Both arrived in this country as immigrants, and had conferred upon them the full panoply of American rights and freedoms.

Rauf is of Egyptian descent, born in Kuwait. Khan hails from India's Islamist hotbed of Kashmir. Rauf by his own account has held forth for more than 20 years at the Al-Farah mosque in lower Manhattan (there has been no outcry for the removal of mosques already extant in the area on Sept. 11; the issue is their plan to build a new one, provocatively close to the site of the destroyed Twin Towers). Rauf sits on the board of trustees of the Islamic Center of New York, a large facility established on Manhattan's Upper East Side by his father, who also ran a big Islamic center in Washington. Rauf serves as an advisor to the Interfaith Center of New York, and, like Khan, has been welcomed to spread his messages by a long list of foundations and institutions, including Jewish centers, churches and schools. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, Rauf has been tapped for three previous taxpayer-funded "outreach" jaunts to the Middle East, two in 2007 and a third earlier this year.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, far from being shunned as Muslims, Rauf and Khan have enjoyed a boom business in "outreach." Their lifestyle includes at least two homes in the U.S. and one in Malaysia, fancy cars and pricey clothes. Last October, in an article headlined "High Five With Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf," Forbes chronicled the imam's pleasure in driving a Lexus GS400. Rauf also detailed how he enjoys Armani and Brioni suits, his wife likes her cashmere scarves, and he mentioned his fondness for handcrafted Persian rugs, especially those woven of silk. He added that he owns about 15 carpets dispersed between his homes in New Jersey and New York, and another 15 carpets "at my home in Malaysia."

As for bigotry in America, the FBI in its most recent report on "Hate Crime Statistics," released in 2008, does point to a group more victimized than any other, targets of 65.7% of all reported religious hate crimes. Those people are not Muslims, but Jews, victims of almost eight times as many hate crimes.

For Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, Ground Zero has become a bonanza. Since their plans hit the headlines this spring, they have achieved celebrity status on a scale that millions in advertising, or less abrasive "outreach" efforts, could not buy. Their names are all over the news. Their project has become a fixture on the summer talk shows. In the escalating furor, along with the criticisms , they have received de facto endorsements from such prominent folks as New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama (whose supportive remarks about their project, delivered at an Aug. 13 Iftar dinner at the White House, are now featured on U.S. embassy websites worldwide; but whose later waffling is not). Their real-estate partner, El-Gamal, has told the press, "This might become the most famous community center in the world." Whatever comes of this, Rauf, Khan and El-Gamal are likely to dine out on it--and well--for a long time.

And make no mistake. While the Cordoba Initiative is now implying on its website that the mosque and Islamic center is mainly about serving a neighborhood, and "is not located at Ground Zero," Rauf himself told a very different tale to the New York Times last December. Back then, Rauf said the location's chief attraction was its proximity to Ground Zero--so close that it is, as he noted, "Where a piece of the wreckage fell." In Rauf's view, that made for an ideal venue to make "the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."

A majority of Americans then dared to disagree with this particular prescription of the self-described "Founder and Visionary" of the Cordoba Initiative. And now, the televised statement reverberating from Khan--on the eve of her $12,000 taxpayer-funded trip to join Rauf in the marble halls of Abu Dhabi and Dubai--is a denunciation of America as a Muslim-hating place, "beyond Islamophobia."

What's going on here is not a gauge of American religious tolerance. It has become a test of the extent to which Rauf, Khan, and their partners and donors, seen or unseen, are willing for their own aggrandizement to cash in on the agonies of Ground Zero. In this scheme, the thousands of Americans murdered on Sept. 11 in the name of Islam have by now become a backdrop for Daisy Khan's claim that she is the victim of a Muslim-hating America. There's an old name for this kind of stunt, and it isn't bridge-building. It's carpet-bagging.

Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.

Hanging the Dems on their own Race Chad.

2010-08-09T18:37:00.000-04:00

The Democrats New/Old Southern Strategy

By Scott Wheeler & Buckley Carlson, from the National Republican Trust

As many have known for years and warned frequently, the Democratic Party strategy of race-baiting was merely a tactic to gain political power for their White leadership. Sound really cynical? Take a look at the new strategy. Old habits die hard, as the saying goes. And so, too, do deeply-rooted, institutional policies reflective of a rotten core...like the Democratic Party's harboring of bold racial animus and disdain while claiming the mantle of "diversity," and at the same time, employing the most overtly divisive racial political strategies seen in this country during the past 60 years.

If not for racism, how else to account for the pervasive corruption in the Democratic party, and yet, under the authority of the Democrat-controlled Office of Congressional Ethics, only one White member is under investigation, while at least eight Black members are? Coincidence? Seems unlikely.

Chris Dodd. Barney Frank. Nancy Pelosi. Jim Moran. These are just some of the names that swiftly percolate to the surface during any man-on-the-street interview with regular Americans when you ask their views on corrupt politicians. And yet, not a one of them is currently under investigation by the Democrat-controlled Office of Congressional Ethics.

So, what is it, exactly, that differentiates those members of the Democratic Party from, say, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Melvin Watt, or Jesse Jackson, Jr., all of whom are currently enjoying "official, enhanced scrutiny"? Time in office? Power at hand? Intelligence? Good luck? Or, have they garnered special treatment simply because of the color of their skin?

Seem far-fetched? Here is how Democrat cheerleader Froma Harrop described Pelosi's strategy in her Real Clear Politics column:

"That the Democrats under the microscope -- New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel and California Rep. Maxine Waters -- are both black only underscores the seriousness with which the Democratic leadership supports a new set of standards for conduct."

In the 45 years since the inception of Civil Rights legislation in America, Democrats have taken Blacks from the back of the Democrat bus, propelled them up to the front of the bus when the microphones and the cameras were in evidence - festooning their likeness throughout - and then chucked them unceremoniously under the bus in order to get back what they consider their lost redneck voters. And yet, this is the political party that consistently "earns" over 90% of Black support at the polls?

Nancy Pelosi, who famously claimed to an un-skeptical press corps that she was going to "drain the swamp" of Washington corruption, has turned into the Creature from the Black Lagoon, mossy barnacles of corruption affixed to all but the surgically-enhanced square inches of her tight visage. The Democrats' ranks are literally rife with corruption; even a limp-wristed, blind swing of the piñata paddle would yield burst pustules of theft, bribes, and lies. And yet, Pelosi's efforts have yielded no white members, while ensnaring a full 38% of the Congressional Black Caucus.

According to David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, "PMA was shut down last year and raided by the FBI in the wake of several reports that its employees and clients were allegedly trading contributions for hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks from certain members of Congress. This accusation has never been proven, and the Office of Congressional Ethics dropped its investigation last year." An investigation that would have netted half a dozen or so White Democrats for allegedly taking millions of dollars in bribes, making what Rangel and Jefferson had done look like petty theft by comparison, until that investigation was shut down by the very same "office of Congressional Ethics" that has taken up investigating Black Democrats, at a very suspicious time- right before the November elections.

Pelosi isn't draining the swamp, she is holding Rangel's and Water's heads under the swamp water. According to the guidelines as established and aggressively heralded by Pelosi and the Liberal Left, the Democratic Party is guilty, at minimum, of "racial profiling"...of the kind they routinely accuse our nation's police of employing. At a minimum.

But, if we apply the same standards that Pelosi and the Liberal Left force American private businesses to adhere to, then what we are witness to is racism, pure and simple. If this was an affirmative action case, does anyone doubt that the evidence as presented would lead to a conviction?

To believe otherwise makes one a racist by Democrat standards. This is what they have demanded from the rest of us for years.

If you run a company and your employee base does not reflect the "racial make-up" of the community in which you are located, regardless of who has applied to work there? The verdict is swift and clear: Racial Discrimination!

If law enforcement arrests a disproportionate number of minorities? Again, the "evidence" is incontrovertible: Racial Discrimination!

So, if the Democratic Party engages in a "comprehensive effort" to rid its own body of corruption - a body that has long emitted the sights, sounds, smell of corruption - and then identifies ONLY Black members, when they represent just a small percentage of the total? Well, apply the Democratic Party Racial Calculus, and you can only conclude: Institutional Racism!

Democratic Party racism aside, we're not suggesting that Rangel, Waters, William Jefferson, etc. have been vindicated. But we think it's clear they were under the delusion that they, too, were free to participate in the wanton looting that has always firmly - if sort of quietly - defined the soul- the rich, White liberal soul of the Democratic Party. It is now clear that they were never part of the "elite," and that no one bothered to tell them that "carte blanche" in the Democratic Party is delineated with a "hard c", as in blanc, for white...In other words, you DO get a free pass, IF you're rich, WHITE, and liberal.

Pelosi and the Democratic Party have wielded the racial baton for years, silencing dissent, undermining opposition, engaging in the most egregious of personal attacks, and always for political ends. And most often without even the slightest morsel of evidence.

"Evidence" was never important; THEY were the arbiters of racism. In fact, how often does one hear that charge of racism now? How about every time a conservative defends States Rights...declares affection for the 10th Amendment...or displays opposition to ObamaCare?

But perhaps the Democrats' favorite tactic - aided and abetted by a sympathetic, sycophantic media - has always featured the slander of "unintentional racism," meaning someone could be guilty of racism, but not even conscious of it. Although slightly mitigating - "2nd Degree Murder", anyone? - this was also the most insidious of charges, because by it's very nature it could not be accounted for...or defended against.

Well, Pelosi and her liberal leadership are guilty of much worse than even "unintentional racism." Their racism is active, passionate, and very much pre-meditated. In fact, it's part of a much larger strategy to win back key Southern political districts. Abhorrent, for sure. But also risky: will the Democrats' strategy of hanging their Black members out as bait bring back their historically racist caucus? Does that constituency even exist anymore? And can the media, the Congressional Black Caucus, and concerned Americans everywhere tolerate this disgusting racism any longer? We thought this type of politics - surely the "Politics As Usual" historically practiced by the Democratic Party, and subsequently decried by its leader - were relics of the past. They sure should be.

The "Ground Zero Mosque"

2010-08-02T22:32:00.001-04:00

From the editors of Redstate.com.

In Praise of Financial Reform (Satirical Version)

2010-07-17T22:16:00.000-04:00

From David McAlvany at McAlvany Wealth Management:

The Financial Reform Bill passed. We will have consumer protections. There will no longer be unsound lending practices. Capital requirements for banks will be managed and regulated. The unwinding of systemic threats will be left to the most capable of market operators (business experience not required).

These and other goals have been reached with this massive (2,300-page) piece of legislation. Let’s thank Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, along with the courageous Republicans and Democrats that supported the bill, for their efforts to make America safe.

With gratitude, we should reflect on what has made America great. Surely the greatness of this country derives from its rules and regulations. What would we be without legislation? Surely it has always been about safety. Can you imagine a world where risk abounds and people flit around carelessly – without every possible protective measure guiding them peacefully through life?

Surely the “seen hand” of government can add more to productivity and growth in our economy than “free” markets. If Barney Frank has taught us anything, it is surely that the unseen hand of the market is an evil that can only be overcome by the sheer weight of moral outrage measured in pages and pontification, and weighing in at about 23.5 lbs. (I have to guess at the weight, not knowing the stock of paper our DC heroes use on these epic projects).

This weekend, I’ll wonder, in fact, how we came this far (over 200 lucky years) without so profound a contribution. I’ll always wonder where we would be if only we had had the state in control of the financial world from the outset – and everything else for that matter (they do a better job).

I’m so glad to see bi-partisan participation. Isn’t it neat to see differences set aside on issues that will determine the fate of this nation – voting as one on our behalf? It is comforting to know that, with all the confusion and chaos in the world, you really don’t even have to choose between parties. They both generously serve the American public and our interests. Every two- and four-year election is really more about entertainment as we go to the polls and cast our votes for the same team.

At the end of a week like this, I’m surprised the market ended on such a dour note. With so much hope for reform and so much control shifting from New York to DC (where the truly noble people congregate), it’s odd to see the market sell off so strongly. Doesn’t the market know that this is a good piece of legislation? Don’t investors see that the benefits of this legislation are as numerous as the pages it contains — and more? Mr. Market is getting it all wrong.

Mr. Market, go up now. All is well. All is properly legislated. You can go up now! Take Courage, be filled with hope … you have to, according to page 1700, paragraph 3, section 7.

Sure he made us mad, but...

2010-06-29T16:18:00.000-04:00

This was forwarded by a friend. I don't know if it is true. I hope it is. It sure sounds like the GWB we know and love.

Class shows up...

The doctor had his TV on in his office when the news of the military base shootings at Ft. Hood , TX came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,” I’m the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan , AL and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK.

She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to comfort him.

He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side. The nurse took this picture.

What? No news crews and cameras? This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform.

I sent my cousin in Fayetteville , N.C. (Retired from Special Forces) that picture of Geo. W. visiting the wounded at Ft. Hood. I got this reply:

What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped. Bush only asks for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The President is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital."

The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush, they immediately offered escort. Bush simply told them no escort, just let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.
He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours, and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.

Obama flew in days later, held a "photo" session in a gym, and did not even go to the hospital. All this from two soldiers who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened. This Bush/Obama/Ft.Hood story is something that should be sent to every voter in the US . Those who wanted "change" certainly got it.

"Obama's Greek Tragedy"

2010-06-24T23:29:00.000-04:00

From Victor David Hanson.

Anti-Semitism: Coming to America?

2010-06-16T12:43:00.000-04:00

It's not here yet, says writer J.R. Dunn at The American Thinker. Helen Thomas's outrageous and virulent comments show that in some precincts, ant-Jewish rhetoric is tolerated if not encouraged. But the swift reaction against her by the American mainstream (which trickled up to influence elite opinion) indicates that anti-semitism has yet to grab a foothold in American society as it has in Europe and elsewhere, argues Dunn.

Dunn ties the fall of France and Germany as great powers directly to the modern, intellectual variant of anti-semitism that grew like topsy within their societies beginning in the 19th century. In France, the Dreyfus affair in the 1890's caused a decades-long split among the ranks of intellectuals, between those who believed that Dreyfus was framed (he was) and those who needed his Jewishness as the only proof of treason. According to Dunn, many among the "ultramontane, ultranationalist" elements in France wore anti-semitism as a badge of honor.

In Germany, heavy-duty intellectuals like Richard Wagner in the 1850s pushed anti-semitism from the fringes of polite society to the salons of the elites that held enormous influence over popular opinion. They gave anti-semitism the intellectual weight and heft necessary to penetrate the consciousness of the masses and move to the center of "Deutsche Politik." Less than a century later, both France and Germany lay in ruins, the former destroyed by the latter and the latter defeated by the America and her allies.

So far, says Dunn, anti-semitic (disguised as pro-Palestine or anti-Israel) rhetoric in America is confined to "second-rank or over the hill" activists and entertainers like Danny Glover and Jane Fonda (and hack journalists like Helen Thomas) with an assist from pseudo-intellectuals like John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt of "Israel Lobby" fame and Jewish liberals like Peter Beinart. The Obama administration has introduced some figures of low repute and standing who harbor anti-Jewish sentiments, like diplomat Charles Freeman. But there exists no popular figure in America with wide-ranging appeal to the masses a la Wagner in Germany that could give anti-semitism the respectability and intellectual grounding necessary for it to spread into the heartland.

What the Helen Thomas affair shows, says Dunn, is that European-style anti-semitism has not spread to America in any significant sense. Dunn wonders, however, whether there lurks in our future a dark and evil figure with the stature and renown to influence the masses into adopting the "oldest hatred" in its most virulent form.

Silenced by YouTube.

2010-06-14T11:34:00.000-04:00

Remember the "We Con the World" video I sent out last week? This is the video produced, among others, by Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick parodying the "Freedom Flotilla" incident and the international outcry it engendered against Israel. When I first saw it last week on YouTube it had been viewed by 1.6 million people. By the time I got around to circulating it had been seen by 2 million plus.

The video has reached viral proportions--now seen by 3 million viewers--and presumably has created quite a stir among Israel's enemies. YouTube has taken the parody down from its website, claiming that it violates copyright protection afforded to the creators of "We are the World," a claim Ms. Glick refutes. According to Caroline, the parody is protected under the "fair use" doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Act, leading her to believe that there is something more sinister going on here:

If YouTube didn't already have a track record for censoring pro-Israel material, I would say that despite the obviously frivolous and unsubstantiated nature of the copyright claim against We Con the World, the company was simply erring on the side of caution.

The fact that more than 3 million people have already seen the video and that it has been written up in major newspapers and featured on major television networks around the world since we first posted it last Thursday night however causes me to fear that something else is going on here.

Despite these obstacles, we at Latma have no intention of crying Uncle. By tomorrow, we will repost our song on blogs throughout the world. If you already downloaded the song, please post it on your website. If not, I will post a non-youtube version on my site tomorrow with instructions from my webmaster about how to download it.

Moreover, stay tuned for our next video next Thursday night.

If someone is in fact trying to silence our voices, they will soon discover that they are messing with the wrong Jews.

I don't claim to know Ms. Glick personally (although we have corresponded a time or two in the past). But based on what I now of her through her writings and her curriculum vitae, indeed one "messes" with Caroline at his or her own peril.

To Caroline and friends, I say "Bravo."

If you want to follow up on this story, please visit Caroline's website at Carolineglick.com.

Obama's Offensive Charm Offensive.

2010-06-13T16:19:00.000-04:00

We heard a lot about Barack Obama's "charm offensive" to woo his Jewish supporters back into the fold after having dissed Israel and P.M. Bibi Netanyahu a few months back. As readers will recall, following the infamous visit of Joe Biden to Israel during which officials announced the approval of permits to build 1200 or so residential units in Ramat Shlomo, a Jerusalem neighborhood, the Obama Administration "condemned" Israel for daring to build housing in its own capital. Shortly thereafter, Obama reportedly left Bibi to stew alone in the White House while The One dined upstairs with his family, apparently to punish him for daring to stand up for his own country (a behavior that is apparently foreign to our Dear Leader).

Since the cumulative effect of this was agitation and disillusionment among even pro-Obama Jews, the president and his team mounted a campaign to try to convince Jewish supporters that Obama would never sacrifice Israel's security interests, Heaven forbid. They hosted something called Jewish Heritage Week at the White House (which would have gone unnoticed but for the fact that it served as the backdrop for Helen Thomas' career-ending anti-Jewish tirade); held numerous meetings with members of the "Israel Lobby" (as Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer refer to pro-Israel Jews and Christians); and even distanced itself from J Street, the leftist lobbying group that pretends to love Israel so much it takes up the cause of the Palestinians who want to destroy her. The administration even kept public pressure against Israel at a low simmer, lest they betray the president's deeply held commitment to Israel's demilitarization, denuclearization and de-Judaization.

Not that any of this for a moment fooled anyone. Obama-loving Jews needed no such campaign to restore their belief in Obama since they hadn't lost it to begin with. It is an article of faith with them that "loving" Israel means America dragging them kicking and screaming to the bargaining table with the Arabs or better yet imposing on Israel a solution to the conflict "for the sake of peace." This Time magazine article by Peter Beinart is the latest and best example of enlightened opinion from those who want only what's best for Israel, regardless of what Israel thinks is best for her.

Jews who never supported Obama and even some of those who did but had already come to see that he is more antagonistic towards Israel than any president since...well, ever...weren't taken in by the charm campaign either. It was simply a matter of time before Obama's default animosity toward Israel would shine through in policy if not rhetoric. Sure enough, the Freedom Flotilla incident the other week offered just such an opportunity to test Obama's commitment to Israel's security.

I need not amplify here the details of Israel's engagement with the Turkish-sponsored mini-flotilla which attempted to break Israel's (and Egypt's) arms blockade of Gaza. Countless articles and videos have been forwarded by yours truly on the subject. Suffice it to say that Israel's actions, justifiable in its premises if not perfect in its execution, has created a public relations nightmare for the Jewish State amid a firestorm of elite criticism and public Israel-bashing.

At first the Obama administration kept its mouth shut, which under the previous administration would have been construed as a breach of faith with Israel but under this crowd passes for a stoic portrayal of studied detachment. As time went by, though, the Obamites could no longer restrain themselves. This past week Obama met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (from Fatah, the "good" terrorists who run the West Bank)) and opined that the world needs to "help" Israel find a friendlier, more relaxed way of protecting its security interests than the meddlesome arms embargo against Gaza. "The situation is unsustainable," said Obama, using his favorite term for anything that needs "fundamental change." In the spirit of letting no crisis go to waste, the administration wants to turn the "tragedy" of Israel's raid into an opportunity to impose on Israel a new "conceptual framework" for protecting itself.

As proof of his intention to make sure that the days of U.S. serving as an "honest broker" in the Middle East are over, Obama doled out $400 million in Obama Money (courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer) to the Palestinian leader, officially earmarked for infrastructure projects in Gaza and the West Bank but undoubtedly headed straight into the pockets of the thieves, murderers and apparatchiks who run Fatah and Hamas.

In another bid to weaken the blockade, which Egypt also maintains to protect itself from the fundamentalist regime in Gaza, the American administration has refused to send a half billion dollars to Egypt for the purpose of building a steel anti-smuggling wall between Egypt and Gaza, apparently at the behest of Israel's newest enemy, Turkey. The U.S., Debkafile.com reports, is focusing on undermining the Netanyahu government's legitimacy in an effort to appease Turkey and its Islamic government. The president's sweet words and toothy smiles for Israel, its leaders and its supporters have been replaced with bared teeth and veiled threats, in the Chicago style of doing business.

And finally comes word of a new and dangerous development in Israel-America relations. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard reports that the U.S. is about to sign on to an anti-Israel resolution in the U.N. next week calling for an "independent" commission under U.N. auspices to look into Israel's behavior regarding the "freedom" flotilla. According to Kristol:

The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

It should be noted that the White House has angrily and categorically denied Kristol's claim that the U.S. intends to back such a resolution, and admits that doing so would indeed be unprecedented. Indeed, delivering Israel to the tender mercies of the U.N., which never met an anti-Israel resolution it didn't like, would be a faithless betrayal the U.S.'s greatest ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. It would be the equivalent of filing divorce papers against a loyal and loving spouse.

Let us hope that such an action is beyond the pale even for this White House. But either way, it appears that the "charm offensive" to win back Jewish supporters is over, and what has taken its place is, frankly, just offensive.

Israel at a Crossroad?

2010-06-10T09:48:00.000-04:00

We have two alternatives. We can come to terms with the "Palestinian" narrative, as the leftist demonstrators would have us do, wave a white flag of surrender and enter negotiations with the hopes of being granted the status of dhimmi in the new Palestine. The other alternative is to revolutionize Israel's basic values, rebuild our national ethos on Jewish foundations, return to our Jewish sense of justice and re-invent ourselves as proud Jews in the Jewish Land.

--Moshe Feiglin, Leader, Manhugit Yehudit (Jewish Leadership).

Gaza: "We Con the World"

2010-06-08T09:38:00.000-04:00

Who says Israelis are bad at P.R.? This has gotten over one and a half million views.

Free Gaza... before they eat themselves to death!

2010-06-07T19:16:00.000-04:00

Israel trucks 10,000 tons a week in food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Yet the "Freedom" Flotilla apologists insist that Gaza is suffering under the brutal whip-hand of the Israeli occupiers, who maintain a blockade of Gaza for no other purpose than to keep the poor Gazans hungry and in penury.

The pictures above would seem to undermine that characterization of the situation, as the Gaza City markets seem as full of staples, treats and delicacies as any in Israel or any other free country. And my guess is there would be no products to sell if there weren't customers to buy them, which means that not everyone is jobless and penniless.

Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't want to live in that hellhole by the Mediterranean, even if I were an Arab. But it sure isn't because of conditions created or maintained by Israel. Gaza, in case you forgot, is run by the "bad" terrorists--Hamas--as opposed to the "good" terrorists who run the West Bank. Hamas rules with an iron fist and, like most authoritarian regimes, treats its own kind even worse than its enemies. Just ask the Fatah members who were summarily shot or lynched by their co-religionists when Hamas took over Gaza in 2007.

In addition, Gazans receive more international aid per capita than any other peoples on earth. There is a United Nations agency (UNRWA) devoted solely to the so-called "refugees" of Gaza and the West Bank with a budget of over $400 million a year, most of which finds its way into the personal accounts of the corrupt apparatchiks of Hamas and Fatah. If the Gazans can't live on whats left over, isn't Israel's fault.

Not that facts make a damn bit of difference when it comes to the now universally accepted narrative of Israel-as-purveyor-of-death-and-destruction, which casts the Palestinians as the poor innocent downtrodden victims of Jewish racism and triumphalism. The narrative is so absurd on its face that anyone who buys into it either has an axe to grind or is painfully and woefully naive and softheaded.
No Israeli public relations campaign, no matter how brilliantly executed, can ever hope to persuade people in either category.

The only thing left for Israel to do is to unhinge itself from an unhinged world. It has no natural or permanent allies, only natural and permanent enemies. If the United States is among them, then so be it. It is time for Israel to realize that it needs no person or country to support it or recognize its right to exist. It is time for Israel to turn toward the Source of its salvation and ultimate redemption for comfort and strength, for that, it would seem, is its only hope.

Take that, you ugly old b*tch!

2010-06-06T18:14:00.000-04:00

From Lanny Davis, Democrat strategist and lawyer, as quoted at Politico.com:

“Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot. This is not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.

However, her statement that Jews in Israel should leave Israel and go back to Poland or Germany is an ancient and well-known anti-Semitic stereotype of the Alien Jew not belonging in the ‘land of Israel’ -- one that began 2600 years with the first tragic and violent diaspora of the Jews at the hands of the Romans.

If she had asked all Blacks to go back to Africa, what would White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials -- much less a privileged honorary seat?

Does anyone doubt that my friends Ann Compton, head of the WHCA, and Joe Lockhart, who believe in the First Amendment right of free expression as much as I do, would be as tolerant and protective of Helen's privileges and honors in the White House press room as they appear to be if she had been asking Blacks to return to Africa? Or Native Americans to Asia and South America, from which they came 8,000or more years ago? I doubt it.

Of course Helen has the right as a private citizen under the First Amendment to speak her mind, even as an anti-Jewish bigot - but not as a member, much less privileged member with a reserved seat, in the WH press corps.

In my opinion, her apology was not direct and didn't address the merits of her belief in the stereotype that Jews are aliens in Israel and don't belong there. She should be at the least suspended from all privileges in the White House press room since bigots don't merit such privileges. And I believe Hearst should consider a similar suspension of her position as a nationally-syndicated columnist until she owns up to her bigotry and apologizes for it.”

"Jews get the hell out of Palestine!"

2010-06-04T18:39:00.000-04:00

"Go home to Poland and Germany." Yeah, that worked out well last time, didn't it?

Funny, but not really.

2010-06-03T16:47:00.000-04:00

All you need is...love.

"Suicide Activists" of the Gaza Flotilla

2010-06-03T13:45:00.000-04:00

"Suicide bombers' success is measured by the number of Israelis killed...the goal of these [suicide] activists is to damage Israel in the world's eyes using the world media.

Their weapon is not a bomb belt; rather the media is their weapon...to deligitimize and demonize Israel...and this week the world's media outlets fell for it hook, line and sinker"

Gingrich: a Time for Choosing.

2010-06-03T11:37:00.000-04:00

"We are either in the next few years going to become a secular socialist country...or we are going to reach out and not only defeat the Left but insist on a principled conservatism that can solve problems, can reduce the size of government and can create greater prosperity, greater freedom and greater safety.

We need every citizen who care about his country, children and grandchildren to get actively involved and save America."

LOL! Maureen Dowd Turns on "The One"

2010-06-02T11:53:00.000-04:00

A Storyteller Loses the Story Line
By MAUREEN DOWD

It’s not a good narrative arc: The man who walked on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water.

One little hole a mile down on the ocean floor, so deep it seems like hell spewing up its sulfurous smoke, has turned the thrilling saga of “The One” into the gurgling horror of “The Abyss.” (Thank goodness James Cameron, the director of “The Abyss,” came to Washington Tuesday to help the administration figure out how to cap the BP well. What’s next? Sending down the Transformers and Megan Fox?)

With as much as 34 million gallons of oil inking the Gulf of Mexico, “Yes we can” has been downgraded to “Will we ever?”

It’s impossible not to feel sorry for President Obama, pummeled by the cascading disasters, at home and abroad, unleashed by two war-mongering oil men — plus scary escalations by Israel, Iran and North Korea. (Dick Cheney’s dark influence is still belching like the well. BP just brought on a new public relations executive: Anne Womack-Kolton, who served as Cheney’s campaign press secretary in 2004 and worked in W.’s White House and at the Energy Department.)

Obama wanted to be a transformative president and now the presidency is transforming him.

Instead of buoyant, he seems put upon. Instead of the fairy dust of hopefulness, there’s the bitter draught of helplessness.

His battle against water is taking on Biblical — even Job-like — proportions.

Besides the roiling water below, the skies opened from above and gusting, lightning-streaked rains drowned the president’s plans to give a Memorial Day speech at the Lincoln cemetery near Chicago. On the evening news, pictures of the president standing under an umbrella shooing people off the soggy field were a sad contrast to the wildly sentimental Joe Biden presiding, hand on heart, over a sunny and moving Memorial Day commemoration at Arlington National Cemetery.

After suffering more indignities — a S.U.V. in his motorcade blew a tire on I-55 outside of Chicago — a tired-looking Obama returned to Andrews Air Force Base at 7:30 Monday night and went to an area called the “tactical fitness center” to give his remarks to 150 or so subdued service members who had been rounded up by the White House advance team.

As The Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut wryly wrote in her pool report: “It has been years since President Obama attended a rally like the one that took place here Monday night: sparsely attended, thrown together at the last minute, involving people who were not expecting to be there. We’re partying like it’s Obama circa 2005.”

The oil won’t stop flowing, but the magic has.

Barack Obama is a guy who is accustomed to having stuff go right for him. He’s gotten a lot of breaks: two opponents in his U.S. Senate race in Illinois felled by personal scandals; a mismanaged presidential campaign by Hillary Clinton; an economic collapse that set the stage for a historic win, memorably described by the satiric Onion newspaper as “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.”

Reporters grilled Robert Gibbs at his White House briefing on Tuesday about the president’s strange inability to convey passion over a historical environmental disaster. This was underscored by Obama’s perfunctory drop-by to a sanitized beach in Grand Isle, La. Despite his recent ode about growing up near an ocean, he didn’t bother to meet with the regular folks who have lost their seafaring livelihoods.

After Gibbs asserted that his boss was “enraged” at BP, CBS News’s Chip Reid skeptically pressed: “Have we really seen rage from the president on this? I think most people would say no.”

“I’ve seen rage from him, Chip,” Gibbs insisted. “I have.”

Reid asked for an exact definition of what constitutes emotion for Obama: “Can you describe it? Does he yell and scream? What does he do?”

Gibbs mentioned the words “clenched jaw” and the president’s admonition to “plug the damn hole.”

How does a man who invented himself as a force by writing one of the most eloquent memoirs in political history lose control of his own narrative?

In “Dreams From My Father,” Obama showed passion, lyricism, empathy and an exquisite understanding of character and psychological context — all the qualities that he has stubbornly resisted showing as president. It was a book that promised a president who could see into the hearts of other people. But there’s so much you don’t learn about candidates in campaigns, even when they seem completely exposed.

This president has made it clear that he’s not comfortable outside whatever domain he’s defined. But unless he wants his story to be marred by a pattern of passivity, detachment, acquiescence and compromise, he’d better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative

Why Didn't I Think of That?

2010-06-01T15:13:00.000-04:00

How to plug the oil leak in the Gulf:

H/T: Alan Smirin

Shocker: "Peace" Activists Brandishing Weapons!

2010-05-31T20:10:00.000-04:00

For the sordid and depressing details of the anti-Israel propaganda war being waged by the pro-Palestinian media (aka the "global media") in the wake of Monday's IDF raid on the Gaza flotilla, read the HonestReporting.com account here.

Ynetnews.com published a first-hand account of the incident that details how the IDF commandoes who boarded the vessels bound for Gaza in contravention of an Israeli embargo were ambushed, then beaten by "activists"wielding knives, clubs, poles and guns. This account states that only after suffering wave upon wave of injurious attacks did the on-scene IDF commanders seek approval for a live-fire response. It is no surprise that once shooting starts in close quarters with lots of concealed weapons, people are going to get killed. And in most situations the ones being killed are likely to be those who are shooting at well-trained Israeli soldiers.

While it is early in the lifecycle of this story, it already seems clear that if the Israelis are guilty of anything it is not murder or indiscriminate use of force, but poor planning. Someone in the IDF's intelligence wing should have realized that the so-called "political" activists and "humanitarians" aboard the vessels were capable of brandishing weapons that they were willing to use brutally and mercilessly.

Thankfully, the American administration appears to be taking a wait-and-see attitude rather than assuming the worst of Israel immediately. But it is still a holiday weekend, and the White House could turn on Israel at a moment's notice once it absorbs the global anti-Israel firestorm that is in full swing.

Common Sense or Nonsense?

2010-05-25T22:02:00.000-04:00

You decide.

"I came here to govern, not to worry about reelection."

2010-05-16T22:42:00.000-04:00

Isn't this what we all say we want in a politician?

"Thunder on the Mountain"

2010-05-10T22:47:00.000-04:00

posted by Jay Cost of Horseraceblog.com

Thunder on the mountain heavy as cscramblingan be 

Mean old twister bearing down on me 
All the ladies of Washington to get out of town 
Looks like something bad gonna happen, better roll your airplane down-Bob Dylan
The American people have only a limited role in the United States government. They must choose representatives to govern for them, rather than govern directly. They have just two political parties from which to choose. And if a representative from one district votes for a bill that affects another, the people in the other district cannot do a thing about it.

Oftentimes, one can't help but wonder if the practical power of the people is even slighter. American elections too often have low turnout. They are too frequently determined by the campaign for dollars, as candidates raise money to subsidize the unctuous propaganda that fills the airwaves prior to Election Day. Elections often do a poor job of booting the bad characters from government. The whole ugly process of electoral politics rarely seems to attract the best of the citizenry. A visit to Washington, D.C. can prompt the cynical question, "Who runs this place? Because it sure as hell doesn't seem like it's the people..."

And yet for all this, the people do indeed rule. While their power is limited, it is nevertheless unconditional where it exists. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi need the assent of the people of the United States to govern this country. But the people don't need any such thing. In the limited sphere where they rule, they are supreme.

This is easy to forget because it is rare to see the people actually wield their power in its full force. Between 1954 and 1994, the Democrats controlled the House, whether they deserved to or not. The Republicans controlled it from 1994 to 2006, again regardless of merit. The Senate has usually been just as static. Turnover in the presidency has also been fairly uneventful. Only once in the last century have the people ejected from the White House a party it had installed just four years prior (that dubious distinction goes to Jimmy Carter and the Democrats, who were promoted to the White House in 1976 then quickly demoted in 1980).

This kind of stability can give the impression that the people do not rule. We so rarely see the full force of their power that it is easy to think that the real bossess are the decades-long denizens of the prestige committees, the high-powered lobbyists, the king-makers in both party establishments, or the plugged-in Beltway journalists. We see them all the time, preening about their power and influence. They seem like they're really in charge.

But they're not. D.C. might shine brilliantly to the eyes of some, but it is still just reflected light. For all their posturing, the establishment still works at the pleasure of the people. It just so happens that the people usually choose to renew their tenure.
Yet this year, it looks like the people are set to deliver a historic rebuke to the establishment. The portents of the coming reprimand are all around us. Consider:

-Arlen Specter was effectively booted from the Republican Party nearly a year before the primary election. The conventional wisdom at the time was that the Republican electorate in Pennsylvania had become too conservative. This tendentious interpretation has been exploded by the fact that he's about to be ejected from the Democratic side, too.

-Scott Brown came out of nowhere to defeat Martha Coakley in the election to replace Senator Ted Kennedy.

-Former Senator Dan Coats couldn't even get 40% of the vote in the Indiana primary. Most of the vote was split between Marlin Stutzman and John Hostettler, who combined had raised just $315k by April 14.
-In Indiana's 9th Congressional District, frequent candidate, former representative and party favorite Mike Sodrel finished in third place. In Indiana's 5th District, Republican incumbent Dan Burton scored just 30% of the primary vote.

-Charlie Crist has been forced to exit the Republican primary in Florida because of Marco Rubio's surge. He is currently leading in opinion polls, but the lead is completely illusory. Right now, he's winning over 40% of the Democratic vote (more than the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meeks) as well as nearly 25% of the African-American vote. Those numbers are unsustainable.

-Three-term Senator Bob Bennett has been booted from his seat by the Republican Party of Utah.

This is the thunder on the mountain, the early warning that something bad is about to blow through the District of Columbia. I don't think there's anything anybody there can do about it. The people have a limited role in this government - but where the people do possess power, they are like a force of nature. They cannot be stopped.

That's bad news for the establishment this year. They're going to wake up on the morning of November 3rd and be reminded of who is actually in charge of this country.
Democrats will be hit much, much harder than Republicans. Even so, it would be a huge mistake to interpret the coming rebuke through a strictly ideological or partisan lens. Yet predictably, that's what many will do. Republicans will see this as a historic rejection of Barack Obama's liberalism, just as they saw the 1994 revolution as a censure of Bill Clinton, and just as Democrats saw 2006 and 2008 as admonishments of George W. Bush's foreign policy. These interpretations are only half right. When the people are angry at the way the government is being managed, and they are casting about for change, their only option is the minority party. The partisans of the minority are quick to interpret this as their holy invitation to the promised land, but that's not what it really is about. They were only given the promotion because the people had no other choice.

The entire political class needs to understand that the coming events transcend ideology and partisanship. The electoral wave of 2010 will have been preceded by the waves of 2006 and 2008. That will make three electoral waves in a row, affecting both parties and conservative and liberal politicians alike. The American people are sending the establishment a message: we're angry at the way you are running our government; fix it or you'll be next to go.

Fear and Loathing in Phoenix?

2010-05-04T00:32:00.000-04:00

Hugh Hewitt's favorite Lefty Peter Beinart proves that when it comes to the politics of race and ethnicity, there are no moderates on the Left. They just can't help but view everything through the prism of race. And of course, in their telling, the Left is always the champion of the downtrodden and the Right is always suspicious and fearful of anyone not just (white) like them.

The problem is, the folks opposing LBJ on civil rights and beating up blacks in Alabama that Beinart laments were Democrats. And the folks today who wave the bloody shirt of race at every turn are...Democrats. And yet we are supposed to believe that just because liberal eltes can't stop thinking of race, normal Americans are similarly afflicted.

Do these people ever go the places they write about? If they did, they might talk to the people most affected by the refusal of the Federal government to enforce its own laws, and thus necessitating the new Arizona law. One may quibble about the legislative language, but what normal person (i.e., one who doesn't live on either of the Left coasts) can begrudge the good folks of Arizona for wanting their government to do something about the lawlessness and violence on their borders?

Does anyone believe that some nativist impulse drives the majority of Arizonans and similarly situated citizens of other southwestern states to want to stem the tide of illegals coming across the border? The southwestern states contain a larger percentage of citizens and legal residents of Latino origin than any other region of the country? Do none of them agree with the majority of Americans that border protection and enforcement of immigration laws is a national priority? And are those Latinos who agree with their fellow citizens similarly nativist?

I think the liberals may have played the race/ethnicity card a little too often. It has been thrown against conservatives in almost every political dispute since Obama was elected, ranging from a police arrest of an arrogant Harvard professor to opposition to Obama's plans to nationalize the health care industry. It should be no surprise that after demonizing average Americans as racists merely for exercising their right as free people to disagree with their elected officials, liberals would demonize average Americans as nativists for trying to protect their life and property from lawbreaking thugs.

Don Imus, Trent Lott and countless other public men have slinked away quietly in the face of unfair and ludicrous charges of racial crimes and misdemeanors. But as I said, liberals may have finally overplayed their weak hand in the race game. Now that they have waved the bloody shirt of "racism" at great swaths of ordinary law-abiding Americans, liberals may be surprised to find that their targets are not willing to gently comply with their demands to leave the public stage a la Messrs. Imus and Lott.

Shame on you, Peter Beinart. I thought you were above the street theater of Sharpton and Company.

"Old Geezer" to Obama: "Shape Up or Ship Out."

2010-05-03T16:42:00.001-04:00

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, reaching 95 on December 13 of 2009. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation."

"America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world, "america is mean-
spirited." Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man;

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

From a letter by Master Chief Harold Estes to President Obama dated November 20, 2009, as verified by Snopes.com

Where are the Jewish Extremists calling for Jihad?

2010-04-26T10:58:00.000-04:00

If National Security Advisor James Jones had told a joke about Muslims you can be sure some Islamic group would have issued a Fatwah by now. So far all I've heard from Jews offended by Jones' so-called "joke" is...wait, I haven't heard anything from Jews offended by Jones!

Of course, its possible that Jews-- who voted overwhelmingly for Obama-- have no problem with his advisor making Jewish jokes. Then again, it is also possible that Jews know a real threat when they see one. Given all of the actual dangers lurking in the world--from growing anti-Semitism in Europe to the Iranian bomb-in-the-making to increasing global diplomatic isolation--perhaps American Jews can put Jones' comments in the proper perspective:

Obviously, James Jones is an embarrassment--not only was the joke inappropriate, but his delivery stinks. He could use some lessons in comedic timing. But the point is that if anything this video will elicit from Jews a "feh," not a Fatwah. ("Feh" is a Yiddish term for disgust).

A case in point is Comedy Central's cowardly appeasement in the face of death threats by a fringe Islamic group the other day. If South Park's Matt Stone and Trey Parker had mocked Jews instead of Muslims, Comedy Central wouldn't have even considered censoring the episode. And Jews offended by it would have risen in disgust and...changed the channel.

Re: Israel: "Break the Silence" Rally in NYC

2010-04-25T10:13:00.000-04:00

Mayor Ed Koch's taped message to today's rally to protest President Obama's anti-Israel policy:

"The silence is deafening! Where are the Jewish Democrats? Do you see them getting up every day and denouncing what the President did?"

I would ask a different question: Where are the Jews who voted for this president, who, according to the New York Times, is now changing the policy of the United States vis a vis Israel to make it more acceptable to the Arabs?

Peter Schiff on Financial Regulation, Moral Hazard and Goldman

2010-04-21T22:26:00.000-04:00

"Consumers need protection from government...That is the consumer's worst enemy."

"The Energy Policy Morass" by Stephen Hayward

2010-04-21T10:20:00.000-04:00

This is a long and thoughtful piece on energy policy by energy and environmental writer Stephen Hayward that takes aim at Democrats, Republicans, "peak oil" fear-mongers, environmentalist obstructionists, oil companies, coal interests, the "green" movement, conventional wisdom, et al.

Hayward's thesis is that hardly anyone understands the nuances of the energy sector, and that the confusion that reigns leads to simplistic political grandstanding by all sides. I don't know enough about the subject to have much of an opinion, other than the fact that such a complex and thorny issue probably does not lend itself to a command and control government regulatory scheme. The private sector and free market is best positioned to determine what technologies are viable and where capital should be directed.

This is not to eschew the necessity for a national energy policy or some amount of government regulation and coordination. As Hayward writes, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the International Energy Agency provide important backstops to short-term disruptions in oil supply, as was the case during Hurricane Katrina. But history has proved that when government gets too involved in complex industrial policy it distorts the private market(s) through bureaucratization and regulation and--worst of all--politicization. Government inevitably thinks it can pick and choose among competing interests better than the free market can, often with abysmal if not disastrous results.

To me, the most surprising conclusion of the writer comes at the end, when he endorses alternative energy projects such as algae biofuels. But he doesn't pretend to know which project will bear fruit, preferring instead to permit private entrepreneurs to sort it out. That is an attitude that would be welcome were it to be shared by policy makers both inside and outside of government.

Read the article here.

Happy Independence Day!

2010-04-20T23:39:00.000-04:00

No, I am not 3 months too early. Today WAS independence day...Israel Independence Day, the 62d anniversary of Israel's declaration as a State on May 14, 1948. (I know, I know: it isn't May 14th. But it was the 5th of Iyar, the anniversary date according to the Hebrew calendar).

Some Jews observe Israel Independence day as a religious holiday, some as a secular one, some as a hybrid of the two and some not at all. Many Jews don't even know or care the day exists and that is a little troubling.

Whatever one believes about the religious significance of the founding and continued existence of the Israeli state, no one can doubt its significance in the history of mankind. Anyone who fails to be astonished at the improbability of the entire enterprise either has no sense of history or is cynical in the extreme. 62 years ago European Jewry had been decimated by Hitlerism and its bedraggled remnants left homeless and penniless. For many, little Palestine was the only refuge, but it was a poor and troubled land surrounded by hostile Arab countries and governed by the brutish and arrogant British who did all they could to keep the Jewish refugees away.

Israel today is still troubled, still surrounded by the same hostile forces (and pestered by some new ones). But it is now home to almost as many Jews as were lost in Europe, and now represent a plurality of Jews living on the planet. Its economy is the envy of the Middle East and its standard of living exceeds that of most European countries. It boasts on a per capita basis more patents and more start-up companies than practically any country in the world.

Along the way, tiny Israel managed to beat back the armies if its many enemies in three major wars and many other skirmishes. Its soldiers liberated its capital with its cherished Western Wall, and once again Jews were able to pray near the site where Abraham (almost) sacrificed Isaac and where two holy Temples stood. Israel expanded her borders not through conquest but as a consequence of war that it never sought. (If only she had annexed rather than administered the captured territories, we would hear little talk from the global elites about population withdrawals from "occupied" lands).

With all the talk about Israel's material success it is possible to forget that Israel is only quasi-democratic and vaguely socialist. It is ruled by a governing elite which is quite deaf and blind to the best interests of all its citizens. Its political parties are comprised mainly of rent-seekers and fixers who finagle the system to extract as much money for their constituents as possible. With nearly free healthcare and education, housing subsidies, immigration subsidies, almost universal military service and an expensive security apparatus, its citizens are among the highest taxed anywhere. The government--even Likud-- is beholden to Left-leaning interests in the media, academia, the police and the judiciary. There is no constitution to restrain the ruling elite's voracious appetite for authority over the people.

Still, Israel being Israel, all of this is accepted with barely a shrug. Jews have been dealing with this and worse for millenia. And besides, there are common enemies which almost everyone takes seriously, and so the day-to-day grind of bureaucratic ennui seems benign by comparison to the real dangers that lurk inside and outside the country.

Finally, it must be remembered that Israel is first, last and always a Jewish state. The Jewish State. As much as its elites may want Israel to be a "state of all its citizens", there is no escaping its Jewish character. And it is not just the Jewish State, but a Jewish state in the land of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rachel and Leah. It is where most of the great events of the bible took place, where Jews forged their religious and historical identity, the heart and soul of Jews for 3500 years. The daily prayer for the return to Zion and the rebuilding of the Temple is not merely aspirational; it represents our unshakeable belief that God will speedily--and in our days--gather the Jews from the four corners of the earth and bring us home.

Those who commemorate Israel Independence Day as a religious holiday believe that the establishment of the Jewish State and its continued existence is the "first flowering" of the ingathering promised by God. Others are less sure, believing that only the Messiah can usher in the final redemption. Still others celebrate the day out of national pride, much like Americans celebrate the 4th of July. And as I said above, many others don't think of Israel at all.

We ought to be able to all agree that whatever one's worldview--Jew or non-Jew, religious or not--the story of Israel is a remarkable one and its birthday should be heartily acknowledged.

Happy Birthday, Israel.

Ed Koch Weeps for Israel in Age of Obama

2010-04-12T22:23:00.000-04:00

A DANGEROUS SILENCE

By Ed Koch

April 12, 2010

I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.

For me, the situation today recalls what occurred in 70 AD when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans.

In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem.

Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out.

The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem - its Jewish quarter - took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states - Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq - seeking to destroy the Jewish state. At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were "Judenrein" -- a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews..

Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it - so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims and Jews -- "where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah," which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place? He replied, "When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter," whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it. And I did.

I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays. When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. Those who leave their religion, remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don't think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them. I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel in an interview with a reporter stating that while he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew. I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture.

My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel. My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976.

I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides. The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking.

The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways - the president's own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan - and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S. is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity. Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don't stop making demands on him. Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times of April 10th reported, "...that Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. ‘It was a respectful letter,' General Jones said."

On the other hand, our closest ally - the one with the special relationship with the U.S., has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan I suspect is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch.

I believe President Obama's policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran - The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon. If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it.

I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel's most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama's mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak. They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama.

What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders - Jew and Christian. Where are they? If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens. I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King's memorable speech was given? His reply was "Fifty people might come." Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent. Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"

We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel?

If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies.

To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I'll be happy to apologize if I am proven wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?

Ahmadinejad: Obama is a Callow Fellow.

2010-04-11T22:33:00.000-04:00

Ok, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't actually call Barack Obama "callow" (as in "immature" or "inexperienced"). But he essentially meant that when he taunted our beloved President in a speech in Iran the other day. "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics)," said the Fanatical One. "Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience."

While any American is right to get his blood up when a foreign dictator mocks our Dear Leader, who can doubt the truth of that statement in light of the President's stunning new "nuclear posture" policy? In his new formulation of America’s long-standing policy regarding possible use of nukes, the President has rhetorically-- if not legally-- committed to tie America's hands in responding to threats or, for that matter, acts of war by our adversaries. According to Fred Kaplan of Slate.com, a liberal foreign policy analyst, Obama’s strategy rejects the use of nuclear weapons against any country that has signed and/or is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In other words, if such a country attacked or sponsored an attack on the U.S. (or on U.S. interests abroad) using conventional, biological or chemical weapons, the U.S. would rule out a nuclear retaliatory strike, whether or not justifed militarily.

Mr. Kaplan attempts to downplay the impact of the new policy by suggesting that since it rejects a doctrine of “no first use” it is hardly a radical change from prior policy. A "no first use" doctrine would have committed the U.S. to never use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear threat or attack. But the fact that the policy isn’t as unhinged from reality as it might have been doesn’t make it any less foolish or irrational.

Kaplan suggests that, among other salutary effects, the new policy will “provide another incentive for countries—even unfriendly countries—not to develop nuclear weapons (if they believe the U.S. declaration, anyway), and... further isolate those countries that are in violation of the NPT—which is to say, Iran and North Korea.” Yet it is hard to square that conclusion with another assertion by Kaplan--an accurate one--that the Obama policy removes the “strategic ambiguity” of prior policy.

For the long duration of the Cold War and beyond, the doctrine of “strategic ambiguity,” along with that of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” not only kept the bad guys guessing what the West’s response to an attack of any kind would be, but it gave aid and comfort to our allies. A bad actor could never really be sure that the U.S would act with restraint, and therefore would govern his action accordingly. Now we are told that the doctrines that have prevented the firing of nuclear weapons in anger for the past 65 years are relics of the past.

Michael Goodwin points out that Obama’s portrayal of the new policy as a middle course between liberals and conservatives is absurd. The fact that the policy is only merely dangerous and not suicidal (although it may be that) doesn’t make it a “middle course.” Goodwin notes that the policy is grounded in a childish fantasy of a nuke-free world and a complete misreading of human nature.

As for the true effects of this policy on our enemies, Goodwin writes that outlaw states will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and now feel emboldened to use them. And as for our allies: “If we are no longer able or willing to protect them, they would probably side with our adversaries or ramp up their own militaries to defend themselves. That could destroy the peaceful equilibrium that has kept major nations in Europe and Asia from fighting full-scale wars for more than 50 years.”

Journalist Claudia Rosett, who understands rogue nations as well as anyone given that her beat was the United Nations--expects a surge in the development of chemical and biological weapons even by countries that are NPT compliant. With “strategic ambiguity” relegated to the ancient past, our adversaries need not worry that a mass-casualty attack of the non-nuclear sort will trigger a nuclear response. Claudia points out that rather than welcoming the new U.S. posture as a gesture of friendship, our adversaries--like the aforementioned dictator of Tehran--will view it as a lessening of our resolve to defend ourselves and our allies.

The nuclear posture review doesn’t just consist of a change of rhetoric vis a vis our enemies. It also promises not to replenish our aging arsenal of nuclear weaponry. According to Fred Kaplan, the U.S. will not build any new nuclear warheads, “period.” But we will spend tons of money redesigning our multiple-warhead ICBMs so that they can carry only one bomb instead of three. Rosett ruefully refers to this as "preemptive disarmament."

The difference between the liberal and conservative perspectives on the consequence of this policy change couldn’t be starker. Kaplan says that it “will greatly reduce...any fear in the Kremlin that the United States might be planning a disarming first-strike against Russia...[t]his could do much to build trust and stabilize relations.” But Rosett counters: “Obama is introducing into global affairs a growing measure of wild uncertainty over what will replace the folding U.S. security umbrella. If anything, this will fuel a rush across the board for nuclear weapons.”

Aside from the moral sophistry of the liberal argument, it misses the important point of any nuclear policy, which is to deter the world’s bad guys from ever testing our resolve and mettle. Obama, on the other hand, intends to use the new policy to signal to our enemies our good intentions and our peaceful motives. Think about this: would a president and administration comfortable with American power and confident of American motives ever feel the need to convince our enemies that we mean them no harm?

When you strip away all the high-minded sentiment of the President's vision of a nuclear-free world, three things are evident. One is that Obama’s policy is unilateral to the core; America’s disarmament is not conditioned in the least on the behavior of our adversaries or enemies. In fact, it is based entirely on the notion that our preemptive disarmament will make the world feel safer and thus induce the world’s malefactors to follow suit.

Second, the policy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of countries. Nations, like people, act out of self-interest, and it is well nigh impossible to believe that our adversaries will simply suspend their development of weapons of mass destruction because we retire our MIRVs. It is more reasonable to conclude they will instead exploit the gap created by our move towards a “no first use” policy and a standing down of our nuclear arsenal.

Third, the policy pokes a finger in the eyes of our allies. Whatever the effect of the policy on our enemies, there can be no doubt that our allies will come to doubt our resolve in coming to their defense (especially since it appears we will not come to our own). This will lead them to reconsider strengthening their own non-conventional capabilities-- or worse, seek protection under the nuclear umbrella of one of our adversaries.

Speaking of adversaries, you have to hand it to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For all his faults, he doesn’t mince his words. Obama’s own actions prove that Ahmadinejad is right-- he is but a newcomer on the world stage whose sweat has yet to dry.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the sweating has barely started.

Dems' Phony Hate Crime Charge: the Scandal the Media Ignores

2010-04-04T16:36:00.000-04:00

This scandal is the Duke 'rape' case on steroids.

Warning: This is NOT an SNL skit

2010-04-01T23:01:00.000-04:00

And to think he actually represent folks in my state.

For Jews, "The Trust is Gone"

2010-03-27T22:41:00.000-04:00

by Ed Koch

I consider the Obama administration's recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust. I refer to the denunciations by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials The world knows what happened; nevertheless, I will try to put it into context.
Vice President Joe Biden was in Jerusalem to convey to the Israelis and the world that the United States government is committed to protecting and assuring the security of Israel from attack. While he was there, an Israeli government minister announced that the Israeli government had authorized the construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem to be occupied by Jews. Currently, 280,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, and these apartments were to be added to an existing complex, built on land owned by Jews; about 250,000 Jews live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem.
The timing of the Israeli government's announcement was unfortunate and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for it, but it did not mark any change in the Israeli government's policy. That policy is and has long been to allow construction of homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.
Now a little history. In 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a Jewish state
Jordan conquered East Jerusalem, separating it from its Western half.
within the British Mandate of Palestine. After it declared independence in 1948, Israel was immediately attacked by the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Although Israel repelled the attack, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem, separating it from its Western half. Ultimately, a cease fire was arranged by the U.N. and for the next 19 years until 1967, Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, including the old city, which historically had been the capital of King David's ancient kingdom.
In 1967, the Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria again sought to destroy the State of Israel, but Israel prevailed in six days and conquered the Jordanian-held East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. During the 19 years that Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, it expelled all of the Jews living in what was historically the Jewish Quarter, and literally destroyed every synagogue and the homes of the Jews. When Israel reunited all of Jerusalem, Jews were, of course, allowed to live in any part of the city, and today, more than a quarter of a million Jews live in East Jerusalem. Numerous Arabs live there as well.
For quite some time and certainly since the Gaza War, the Palestinian Authority has broken off direct negotiations with Israel which had been ongoing since about 1993, in an effort to create two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace. This so-called two-state solution always seemed out of reach, notwithstanding the efforts of Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to jumpstart negotiations.
President Obama has sought to revive the negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to assist by committing Israel to stop building new apartments in East Jerusalem and new settlements on the West Bank. In a move that Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, praised as "unprecedented," Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month settlement moratorium on the West Bank. However, he refused to stop Jews from living in any part of East Jerusalem, which is considered by Israelis to be an inseparable part of their capital. Both the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. government, ultimately accepted Netanyahu's offer, albeit grudgingly, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to engage in indirect talks through the American mediator George Mitchell.
Given this history, it was a shock to the Israeli and American supporters of Israel to have Joe Biden, a great friend of Israel, make the extraordinary harsh statement he made denouncing the future construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem. The Vice President's condemnation was even more baffling because, as The Times of March 12th reported, "he spent most [of the previous day] expressing his personal devotion to Israel, as well as the Obama administration's ‘iron-clad commitment to Israel's security.'" As someone high in political life once said to me after I mentioned to him the violation of his iron-clad commitment to me on a subject involving the mass transit fares in New York City, "Next time, get it in steel. Iron breaks."
But even more disturbing than the Vice President's reaction were the comments and implicit threats voiced by Hillary Clinton in a telephone conversation she had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, described in The Times of
Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there.
March 12th. "In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel's plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a ‘deeply negative signal' about Israeli-American relations."
Under President Clinton and George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Ministers have offered the Palestinians a state of their own on virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza, with land swaps to compensate for any portion of the West Bank that would remain in Israel, but those offers were rejected by the Palestinians.
What is most disturbing about the truly harsh and inflammatory rhetoric of both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton directed at the government of Israel, is that it is speculated President Obama himself may have ordered Biden and Clinton to make the statements they made.
The Times of March 16th reported, "...the President was outraged by the announcement of 1,600 housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden's visit, administration officials said. Mr. Obama was deeply involved in the strategy and planning for Mr. Biden's visit and orchestrated the response from Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton after it went awry, these officials said." President Obama and his administration's overly harsh public reaction to the construction in East Jerusalem appears to have emboldened Israel's enemies and provided a cover for their extremist views. It has also created a serious crisis of confidence among the Israeli public that it can depend on this administration for its security.
There will be an effort this week when Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with President Obama to mend fences. There will be huggy-kissy pictures with Hillary and handshakes by Bibi Netanyahu with Joe Biden and the President, but the relations will never be the same again. Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of new York City and a liberal Democrat.

Liars.

2010-03-25T22:52:00.000-04:00

Rep. James Clyburn, Democrat House Whip, suggests that GOP leaders are giving aid and comfort to terrorists and racists (aka Tea Party activists):

Really? In this country you have the right (still) to say anything you want. But as a public official--and a member of the leadership of the governing party at that-- you also have the responsibility to refrain from outrageous and incendiary allegations without a shred of evidence.

Believe me, if there was any evidence that Republicans were behind the threats that Democrat congressmen say they have received, we would have seen it by now. But then again, with liberals it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the quality of the evidence. So the charges--lies, actually-- get repeated by other Democrats and amplified by the media wing of the Democrat party.

You'd think the Democrats would be so happy their monstrous legislation passed that they'd be on all the cable shows talking it up. But no. Instead they are all over the airways accusing Americans scared and angry about the direction they have taken the country of being kooks, racists and terrorists. Could it be that they are more comfortable attacking ordinary Americans than they are defending their votes to pass this wretched bill?

Since members of Congress have received death threats since time immemorial, why all of a sudden this hand-wringing over the issue? And why suddenly accuse the GOP of inciting this so-called spate of violent threats? My guess is that they know the lapdog media will try to put Republicans on the defensive and get them off their game of attacking the policies of the Democrats.

Based on the video I have seen of the comments of John McCain, Eric Cantor and Michael Steele, it looks like the Republicans aren't taking the bait. In various interviews they were asked if they would urge their supporters to refrain from threats of violence. Instead they forcefully called out the Democrats for their insidious and shameless attempts to politicize allegedly criminal behavior and to criminalize political discourse.

The only question after the Democrats year-long march to pass a bill unwanted by the majority of the American people and the attendant corruption of the political process is what, if anything, will Democrats NOT do to advance their thirst for absolute power and control?

I fear that we'll find out soon enough that the answer is "nothing."

Sometimes a picture really is worth 1000 words

2010-03-23T22:53:00.002-04:00

"A Dark Day for Freedom in America"

2010-03-22T13:06:00.000-04:00

What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.

--Nile Gardiner, Foreign affairs analyst, The U.K. Telegraph

Joe Biden--In His Own Words

2010-03-17T15:17:00.000-04:00

‘Why is it that the one ally we have in that part of the world [Israel], that we have the right to publicly chastise them? We would not do that with any other friend.” Sen. Joe Biden, 2001

“As much as the Middle East is always on our minds, the best thing we can do is keep it off the U.S. and world press...[criticism] emboldens those in the Middle East and around the world who still harbor as their sacred goal the elimination of Israel." Sen. Joe Biden, 2001

“It is not right for you to tell them [Israel], nor for me, what is in their best interests...we should give them the right to determine what chances they will take.” Sen Joe Biden, 2001

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem...The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel.”
V.P. Joe Biden, March 2010

Peter Schiff: Krugman is Krazy

2010-03-16T22:09:00.000-04:00

Or something.

Palestinian "Day of Rage" Sponsored by Obama

2010-03-15T18:00:00.001-04:00

Oh, thats not me saying that. Its the Palestinians:

Palestinian leaders are taking encouragement from the Obama administration's harsh campaign against Israel of the last five days as their big chance to embark on another violent war of "resistance" to Israel. They are convinced that the Jewish state is in such bad odor with its best friend, America, that it will be held responsible for the outbreak by the entire world, even if it is initiated by the Palestinians.

Do you suppose the Administration might have assumed this would be the necessary and logical consequence of its intimidation campaign against Israel? If not, they are idiots. If so, they are bastards.

Perfidy, Too.

2010-03-14T23:18:00.000-04:00

Many years ago Ben Hecht, the famous Jewish playwright and Zionist, wrote a book called "Perfidy," which chronicled a libel trial in post-war Israel involving a Hungarian Zionist named Dr. Rudolf Kastner. Dr. Kastner claimed that Machiel Greenwald, a writer, wrongfully accused Kastner of collaborating with the Nazis in Hungary, resulting in the death of thousands of Hungarian Jews. Kastner, who became something of a cause celebre among many of Israel's elites, lost the case, appealed, lost the appeal and then died under mysterious circumstances before he could be called to account under Israel's anti-collaboration laws.

The book is a gripping tale of intrigue and betrayal in which Hecht lays out a case against not only Kastner but the entire left-wing Zionist political establishment for selling out the Jewish people in furtherance of its own political and ideological agenda. In Hecht's telling, the true heroes of Israel's founding were the followers of rightist European intellectual Zev Jabotinsky, like Menachem Begin and other leaders of the Irgun. David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weitzman and the Jewish Agency establishment were no better than the British overlords who ruled over Palestine with a fist clenched toward the Jews, a view crystallized by the incident involving the weapons ship Altalena in 1948.

Needless to say, the book was and remains controversial. Some suggest that facts revealed in the decades since the book was published tend to support Hecht's stark accusations of the Left's collaborations with the Nazis. Others, including most American mainstream Jewish intellectuals and organizations, reject that charge strenuously, arguing that the real "perfidy" was in Hecht's imaginative rewriting of history to suit his own rightwing political agenda. (Hecht had been reviled by the Jewish establishment ever since--over their objections-- he joined with Hillel Kook (aka Peter Bergson) in the 1940s to pressure the U.S. government to take more aggressive actions to save European Jewry from the Nazi death machine).

The book was immediately banned in Israel. It is almost impossible to find in libraries, and its subject matter has been off limits for discussion in polite, elite circles for decades. One cannot help but wonder: if the historical narrative presented in "Perfidy" was as inventively fictional as Hecht's detractors suggest, why did the Jewish Establishment go to such lengths to hide it from public view and analysis?

I mention all this because the public reaction this past week of the American government to the announcement by Israel of its intent to build 1600 units in the Jerusalem community of Ramat Shlomo carries a stench that is reminiscent of the sort of political betrayal by putative allies which was the subject of "Perfidy." The week's events present a shocking example of how the United States of America treats one of its most faithful allies even while it bows and appeases it enemies. Even the Jewish elites have taken notice of what appears to be an intentional ratcheting up by the Obama Administration of diplomatic hostilities with Israel.

By all accounts, the Interior Ministry's announcement of the planned construction caught visiting V.P. Joe Biden off guard, and reportedly even the Prime Minister was surprised by the timing, which is not hard to believe given Israel's fractious political climate. Still, Biden's reaction was

swift and severe, if not unprecedented. In a statement drafted by the White House, Biden "condemned" Israel for its decision and accused Israel of "undermining the trust" needed for continued discussion with the Palestinians.

In pure diplomatic terms, the statement is an outrage, and an intended one. The term "condemn" is used sparingly in public diplomacy, and typically against a nation's adversaries. A case in point: in December, after almost a year's worth of provocation and indisputable evidence of brutality, President Obama condemned the "violent and unjust suppression" by Iran of its citizens. Obama has also condemned violence against Americans in Mexico, anti-semitic language by Louis Farrakhan, an anti-gay bill in Uganda, the nuke policies of Iran and North Korea and the virulent comments of his own pastor. But I am hard pressed to find the term employed against any actions of our allies.

Many sources in diplomatic circles believe that the Obama administration is deliberately overblowing a diplomatic faux pas into a crisis. According to Abe Foxman, executive director of the Anti-Defamation League and a figure with whom I have taken issue publicly, none of this is accidental. "We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem," he said. "One can only wonder how far the

is prepared to go in distancing itself from

Israel

in order to placate the Palestinians."

Then came Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the once and (hopefully) not future presidential candidate, to warn Israeli prime minister Netanyahu that the relationship was at risk unless Israel toed the administration's line in renewed talks with the Palestinians. This included the outrageous demand that Israel puts Jerusalem in play in talks with the Palestinians. According to Debkafile, Clinton threatened Israel with the possible withholding of arms and military equipment in any upcoming engagement with Iran if Israel didn't bend to the will of the U.S.

(Late breaking news suggests that Netanyahu has caved to U.S. pressure by now extending the freeze on building that was in place in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) to Jerusalem as well. The irony here is that Ramat Shlomo is an area never considered subject to negotiation with the Palestinians.)

It is clear that Obama has taken advantage of a misstep by Israels' diplomats to turn the screws against Israel publicly in a manner that is unprecedented, at least since the days of President Eisenhower. In forcing this crisis the administration seems to be the doing the bidding of American left-wing organizations like J Street, Israeli academic leftists, Netanyahu's Laborite opponents and even Israel's Arab enemies by trying to bring Israel's government to its knees. A humiliated and weakened Netanyahu will either do Obama's bidding or pave the way for a Leftist government that will.

Some observers suggest that having failed to rally America's allies to take substantive action against Iran, Obama has no choice but to bully Israel into refraining from military action against Iran using the "bluntest instruments in its diplomatic armory to a degree unheard of against a friendly government." The implications are breathtaking: because America has failed to remove the greatest existential threat to Israel in its history, Israel must be prevented from doing so. It is almost as if Israel must risk annihilation so as not to show America to be the feckless power that it appears to be.

As a conservative critic of Obama, the open hostility towards Israel by Obama is neither surprising nor unexpected. Anyone who did even cursory reading into Barack Obama the candidate (and church-goer) could have seen this coming. But as a Jew and a frequent visitor to Israel, the events of this past week have been shocking and dispiriting. Someone ought to write a book about this frightening turnabout in American-Israeli relations.

If there wasn't already a book by the same name they could call it "Perfidy.

Scott Brown: Healthcare Bill a "disastrous detour."

2010-03-14T10:32:00.000-04:00

Not bad for a Massachusetts Republican.

GOP Leadership: All Hat, No Cattle

2010-03-09T17:59:00.000-05:00

Sadly and accurately that appears to be the conclusion of Andy McCarthy over at nationalreview.com.

McCarthy laments the manner in which the GOP let Sen. Jim Bunning hang out to dry in the latest budget battle on Capitol Hill. Bunning objected to the Senate passing by unanimous consent a $10 billion bill extending unemployment insurance (yet again) without offsetting these expenditures with spending cuts or revenue increases as required by the PAYGO rules adopted by Congress. While the bill's cost is modest when compared to the $3.6 trillion in 2010 anticipated outlays, the GOP had before them an excellent opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy and irresponsibility of the Dem's spending addiction. All they had to do was to stand with Bunning and refuse to join in the passage of an extension of unemployment benefits without corresponding offsets.

Instead, Bunning stood alone as he took waves of withering fire from Democrats and their sycophantic allies in the press for daring to oppose our compassionate and beneficent government's gift of taxpayer dollars to the poor, hungry and pitiful masses who remain on the government dole primarily because of the self same government's incompetent stewardship of our economy. He clearly had no desire to take the proverbial food out of the mouths of the unemployed; rather he was trying to make a rather serious point, to wit: if extending a helping hand to our unemployed fellow citizens is a priority then we ought to be able to cut a measly $10 billion from some dreary corner of the unspent stimulus to pay for it.

And what did his Republican colleagues do? Why, they ran for the hills of course. According to McCarthy, Susan Collins of Maine took to the floor to declare that Bunning's views about accountability “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.” Indeed. For all the talk by GOP leaders of how they have learned from their mistakes leading up to their election debacle in 2006, when it comes time to act they shrink from the fight.

In fairness to the Senate GOP, its leaders may have concluded that they have to carefully husband the "shoot" in their eyes, and that this was not the time to pick a fight with the Dems. There is no question that they have held the line to oppose big ticket items like the stimulus and health care reform (to this point, anyway), and there will be higher-stake opportunities to stand firm against Leviathan.

In truth, Bunning's procedural ploy could not have changed the outcome, and indeed he finally relented to give the Dems the victory that was assured them from the beginning. Still, it would have been nice if his fellow Republicans had reinforced his message that a government that cannot pay for unemployment benefits for its citizens out of an existing $3.6 trillion budget is a government that is truly out of control

Health Care: Giant Gov't Leap Backwards

2010-03-07T11:21:00.003-05:00

So says Larry Kudlow in his March 5 commentary. Among others, note especially this insight:

A government takeover of health care will cripple one of our most productive job-creating sectors. Over the deep two-year recession, while overall corporate payrolls fell by about 7.5 million, private health-care firms created almost 700,000 new jobs.

And the health-care industry is one of our fastest-growing, most technologically advanced areas. With constant breakthroughs in biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and diagnostics, the growing demand for more health care could elevate this prosperous job-creating sector to a third of the economy in the decades ahead. What’s wrong with that? Why crush it?

Where is The Mainstream Media on this story?

2010-03-02T08:20:00.002-05:00

Jeez. This guy is shameless.

Obama Caught Lip-Syncing Speech.

Warning: this is satire. Something else that Americans used to be good at.

Backfire!

2010-02-26T10:19:00.003-05:00

After watching this video (and pay close attention to the President's body language), you have to wonder whether the Obama administration committed political hari kari when it proposed Thursday's "Health Care Summit" at Blair House:

Paul Ryan is one of the brightest and most articulate stars in the firmament of Republican congressional officeholders. To give him 6 minutes of uninterrupted media in order to demolish the President's policy assumptions while the President himself looks on silently is a faux pas of the highest order.

By descending from the heights of Mt. Olympus to engage with pols from both parties Obama inadvertently bestowed a presumption of seriousness and credibility on the attendees. He thus gave the Republicans a prominent platform from which to showcase their opposition to Obamacare.

Worse yet (from the Dems point of view), he gave GOP members highly valuable media face-time to demonstrate to a national audience their command of the issue of health reform and the fact that they have positive ideas for real reform. The summit undermined the Dems' primary line of attack on Republicans, which is that the GOP is the party of "no" which has no health reform ideas of its own. In retrospect, the GOP leadership's decision to attend the summit--a decision excoriated by prominent conservative voices--turned out to be politically astute.

The summit was a disaster for Democrats. Someone in the Obama White House should be fired and sued for political malpractice.

Thousands of Descendants, For G-d's Sake

2010-02-21T20:59:00.004-05:00

Some people collect jewelry, others silver and gold. But perhaps Yitta Schwartz, who recently passed away at 93, knew a thing or two about real treasure.

Politics Takes a Back Seat

2010-02-19T12:44:00.003-05:00

I wish I could say that I have received dozens of emails during the past 2 weeks begging me to end my self-imposed "radio silence," aka bloggus interruptus. One of my faithful readers told me yesterday that the sight of me reminded him that he hasn't seen a blogpost from me in quite some time, and he went on to say he generally like what I wrote. But in general my readers' lives seem not to have been much affected by a fortnight without the Eye of the Beholder.

My experiences over the past two weeks have sort of made the day-to-day thrust and parry of the various political and ideological warriors seem sort of silly and meaningless. The first half of the period found me in Jerusalem with 18 other guys from Atlanta on a men's "bible-study mission" if you will. We didn't study the bible text directly, but instead learned a portion of what is called the "gemara," the Talmudic discussions of the Sages inscribed about 1700 years ago. It is difficult to focus on modern politics when your head is wrapped around a piece of spiritual wisdom that transcends time itself.

Not to say that we spent all of our time in a state of asceticism. There was plenty of touring, eating, drinking and other pleasurable activities. In fact we were so busy that even if I had time to post a blog I was so un-plugged from the news cycles I wouldn't have known what to write about. The little time that I spent online was for reading and sending emails.

On the last day of the weeklong trip I found out that my youngest son Josh, age 10, was taken to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, known locally as "Scottish Rite." Josh has been suffering from gastro-intestinal issues for many months, and had been particularly unwell for a few weeks with a low-grade fever and, well, bathroom problems. He had become increasingly dehydrated and anemic and his Mom really had no choice but to take him in.

I landed in Atlanta early Tuesday morning after a fretful flight and arrived at the hospital in time to smother Josh with fatherly kisses before he was taken down for the upper and lower GI series intended to diagnose his problem. We had known for weeks that Crohn's was suspected and indeed the initial diagnosis pointed in that direction. The colonoscopy didn't confirm Crohn's, so the diagnosis for now is ulcerative colitis, which is somewhat less severe than Crohn's but treated more or less the same, at least initially.

The boy will be fine but can't come home until the meds are working properly and his bathroom habits approach normalcy. His Mom has spent every night with him in his room and will continue doing so until he is discharged. Josh's stepmom (my wife) and I spend as much time as we can with him, as do Josh's brothers and sister and other visitors.

I am fully aware that many families have suffered with a great deal more than we are facing. We know that with modern medicines and access to the greatest health care system in the world Josh will soon resume a normal life, which is not the case with most chronic diseases. At Scottish Rite, which is a terrific children's hospital, we see on a daily basis precious children who face challenges and struggles that I hope none of my children--or yours--ever have to face.

Nevertheless I experienced, if only for a short while, the feeling of helplessness and worry that a parent feels when his or her child is sick without a definitive diagnosis. I also felt the gnawing angst of a father who is 18 hours and thousands of miles from home when he discovers that his child is in a hospital bed. That is a feeling that I could happily do without for the rest if my life.

I thank G-d for the blessings of health for me and my family, a loving and devoted wife and stepmother to my children, caring friends and family members and my kids' mom, who has made Josh's hospital room her home.

I am sure I will be back to blogging about politics and the news of the day soon. But the past two weeks has put all of that in a different, less illuminating light.

Is this the New Populist Obama?

2010-02-01T15:22:00.008-05:00

From the U.K Guardian on Monday:

President Barack Obama today will send to the US Congress a budget with a record $1.6tn (£1tn) deficit, as he boosts spending on job creation, his healthcare overhaul and defence while ending Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

The budget deficit is the largest ever in dollars, and at 10.6% of US gross domestic product it is the largest proportionally since 1945, when the the war-time US ran a budget deficit of 21.4% of the economy.

A 1.6 trillion dollar projected deficit for FY 2011. Thats four times larger than the projected deficit in George W. Bush's last annual budget proposal.

Not to worry. The same folks who told us last year that the way to avoid national bankruptcy is to spend more money tell us now that the way to save money is...to spend more money:

"We must do what families across the country are doing," Obama said at the White House today, "save where we can so we can spend where we need."

The proposed budget assumes increases in revenues from cap-and-trade legislation--which will never pass the Senate--and from elimination of the Bush tax cuts--which may never pass either the House or Senate. It also assumes that Congress will pass Obama's punitive banking tax, which is not at all certain.

The budget also assumes federal tax revenues and interest payments on the national debt will reflect current economic conditions, which are pretty shaky already. If the economy enters into an inflationary recession or depression--not outside the realm of possibility--expect federal tax revenues to plummet and interest on the national debt to rise significantly. The budget proposal is a train wreck under the most optimistic assumptions and a national disaster under the more plausible ones.

The president's proposed budget document--like those of all presidents- -was dead on arrival in Congress almost from the day it was announced. Democrats are already balking at its fiscal irresponsibility (see below). But as an indication of an administration's political and fiscal priorities budgets are a window into the civic morality of our leaders. This deceptive and cynical budget proposal tells us much about this president, and none of it is good.

Obama’s budget assumptions, which by law must project out 10 years, would result in almost $50 trillion in new outlays and combined additional deficits of $9 trillion. By 2020 the national debt would total over $20 trillion, exceeding 1o0% of projected GDP in that year. Experts acknowledge that once cumulative fiscal deficits total 75% or more of national GDP, nations have almost no recourse but to declare national bankruptcy.

Pundits and economists of both the left and right acknowledge that our cumulative deficits are a looming national catastrophe. Last year, The Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson--no conservative --warned that Obama’s spending plans (he was discussing Obama’s 2010 budget proposal) augured a future fiscal crisis. Samuelson wrote: “The Obama budgets flirt with deferred distress, though we can't know what form it might take or when it might occur. Present gain comes with the risk of future pain. As the present economic crisis shows, imprudent policies ultimately backfire, even if the reversal's timing and nature are unpredictable.”

That was then. Things have only gotten worse, given that last year’s budget--the one Samuelson was analyzing--projected a 10-year deficit of $7 trillion and this year’s projects a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion. Thats a 30% increase in projected deficits year over year.

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal--a moderate to liberal commentator--concedes that the budget deficit has “graduated from a nuisance to a headache to a pressing national concern.” He goes so far as to deem it a national security threat, in that half our accumulated debt is owned by foreigners, many of whom aren’t interested in our welfare. Dangers abound--from China and foreign central banks who “could put pressure on the U.S. in a way that no military could” to a run on the dollar by foreign investors who suddenly lose confidence in the currency.

The New York Times--which by the way applauded Obama’s budget proposal--sort of concedes that fiscal deficits are a problem. But one that can wait, apparently. The Times admonishes Congress to not “waste any more time posturing about the deficit rather than doing what is needed to get Americans back to work.”

Many in Congress aren't listening to The Times, it would seem. Even Democrats--fresh from the wake up call of Massachusetts-- are spooked by Obama’s budget nightmare. When Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, testified at Capitol Hill yesterday, lawmakers of both parties took him to task over the administration’s joke of a deficit reduction plan. Senator Kent Conrad--a Democrat from North Dakota and Chair of the Senate Budget Committee--went so far as to declare that "the president's 10-year-outlook is not a path we can take.”

Obama's budget--probably willfully--sets the stage for a massive tax increase even beyond the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. But crushing new taxes will only reduce the pool of income producers who can be taxed to finance even the interest on the debt, much less to payoff the debt itself. That leaves only two options: Reduce spending to match revenues, which isn’t going to happen; or borrow the difference between outlays and income from domestic and foreign lenders.

The problem is that half of our debt--about $6 trillion-- is owned by foreign lenders. At some point they will conclude that the U.S. has no intention of putting its fiscal house in order. At some point thereafter they will avoid U.S. Treasuries and agency issues like the plague.

Enter then the third option, which is no option at all, but a fiscal imperative: run the printing presses. When the creditors balk at lending the Federal Reserve must raise short-term interest rates to attract them. But if they lose confidence in the dollar, even interest-rate premiums won't help. The Fed must then “monetize” the debt; that is, buy the bonds that no one else will.

In essence, the Fed will have no choice but to inflate the dollar by increasing its supply, thus lowering its value. This is tantamount to stealing wealth from the American people and a stealth default on our obligations to foreigners. This is the kind of scenario that results in trade wars--and shooting wars.

Barack Obama and most Democrats in Congress may be long gone by the time all this plays itself out, but that doesn't fully explain their willingness to subject this and future generations to the prospect of becoming the world's economic pariah. While both parties have contributed to our fiscal straits, the fact is that our fiscal nightmare accelerated once Democrats re-took control of the country's purse strings in 2007. Now they seem hell-bent on crushing any prospect for reversing course, preferring instead to pass an unpopular and divisive agenda.

There is something tragically, pathologically wrong with political leaders who would sacrifice the prosperity and economic well-being of its citizens for political and ideological ends. We can only speculate as to what it is that drives such men and women to put its citizens at risk. At times like this, political wisdom is not sufficient to address what increasingly looks like a psychiatric problem.

"The Audacity of Oops"

2010-01-26T16:15:00.005-05:00

Satirist and former Republican Christopher Buckley voted for Obama. I don't think he'll do that again. Read Buckley's preview of the State of the Union speech tomorrow night. Its funny.

The Day ObamaCare Died

2010-01-24T13:49:00.001-05:00

(We can only hope).

Lyrics by Rush Limbaugh's house satirist Paul Shanklin

War on the Left: Aftermath of Massachusetts

2010-01-23T21:51:00.007-05:00

Even before all the votes were counted in Scott Brown's special election victory over the Democrat machine's Senate candidate in Massachusetts, some Senate Democrats who value their political survival more than Barack Obama's ideological agenda ran for the middle. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania signaled a desire to turn away from the toxic issue of healthcare and towards jobs creation in order to appeal to independents like those who voted heavily for Scott Brown. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland expressed similar sentiments, suggesting that Congress should move on to more do-able issues with clearly defined "finish lines."

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh was blunter than most. He famously said that "if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.” Bayh also worried some in his party would be in denial about the results, which would "lead to even further catastrophe" for the Democrats.

For a minue and a half I worried that the Obama Administration, Democrat strategists and Congressional leaders might heed the warnings of Bayh, et al. and plot a "course correction," as the pundits call it. I knew that in the run up to the Massachusetts election administration insiders promised that whatever the results Obama would "double down" and move his agenda forward. But I figured that was political posturing designed to buck up their voter base, and that in the cold light of day Obama's advisers would be channeling Dick Morris, the godfather of Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy of 1995-96.

I needn't have worried. Even as the squishy moderate Democrats headed for the hills, other voices called for a "damn the torpedoes" strategy. South Carolina Democrat Party Chair Carol Fowler called for a greater effort to"hold Republicans accountable for objecting to the Democrats plans." The Democrat governor of Delaware cited a failure on the Democrat's part to "be responsive," and called for the party to "do something." Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell--typecast by the media as a pragmatist--called those claiming that the loss of the Ted Kennedy seat was a defeat for the President's agenda as "just wrong." Oh happy day, I thought, they are this stupid.

The piece de resistance was President Obama himself telling ABC's George Stephanopolous the night after the election that what swept Scott Brown into office was the same populist anger that swept him--Obama--into office a year earlier. According to the president, anger at what has been happening to the country the past eight years--that would be the Bush years--accounted for the Republican victory in Massachusetts. Get it?

Within days a meme developed among the liberal chattering classes. The problem isn't Obama's policies, they said, it's his style and demeanor. Words like "narrative" and "messaging" began to appear with remarkable frequency and consistency. John Heilemann in New York magazine suggested that Obama failed to "provide a compelling explanatory framework" for his ambitious policy agenda. If only the White House had produced an "overarching argument at once coherent and compelling" to the American public, all would be coming up roses today.

Columnist E.J. Dionne asserted that by failing to offer a "coherent Democrat narrative" independents were "confused" by Republican mischaracterizations of Obama's goals. Obama's "soothing pragmatism" is in direct contradiction to his desire for sweeping political change. Dionne's prescription for undoing the damage is for Obama to resolve his inner contradictions and "come out fighting."

Other liberals took up the populist "fight" cudgel. William Greider of the leftist magazine "The Nation," advised Obama, among other things to "clear out the cobwebs" of his policy aspirations and take on the establishment. Go toe-to-toe with the political forces opposing you, lectured Greider, and urge the people to join you in "the fight."

By Friday of last week, Obama had swallowed this line of reasoning whole. In Ohio, striking a defiant "no retreat, no surrender" tone, according to the Seattle Times, he promised to "never stop fighting" for his domestic agenda of jobs, homes, education, and banking overhaul. He acknowledged the "fear and anxiety" that his healthcare legislation had created, but insisted that it has to pass nonetheless.

And on Sunday, Obama sent three of his top officials to the Sunday talk shows to demonstrate to the American people just how out of touch the president is. Robert Gibbs, the press spokesman, insisted that we ignore the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate race and instead look at exit polls that suggest Obama's agenda is still popular. David Axelrod, the strategist, asserted that the voters of Massachusetts "don't want us to walk away from health care" and want Scott Brown to not be obstructionist." Valerie Jarrett, the president's close pal from Chicago, said that the Massachusetts results show not that the president needs to change his priorities but that people are "sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them."

Its not yet been a week since the political earthquake in Massachusetts rocked the nation's entire political calculus. It is possible that Team Obama's new faux populism will soon fade to conciliation and compromise once the political fallout settles. But all signs suggest that the Obama administration will only increase the pressure on Congress to pass his radical agenda, even if this means turning his guns on members of his own party.

If Obama pursues this course he will become increasingly isolated from the rank and file of his own party, who will pay for his hubris at the ballot box this November. As even Nancy Pelosi is signaling, Members don't have the stomach for more death-defying feats of sausage-making after Massachusetts. The question is how Obama will react when he cannot persuade a recalcitrant Congress to pass any significant items of his agenda.

Some predict he will finally capitulate and adopt a more centrist governing strategy to save his party from ruin in November, but I am not convinced. Barack Obama is petulant, arrogant and shallow, and I think he will lash out at those--especially fellow Democrats- who stand in the way of progress, as he understands it. He will attempt to obtain by fiat what he cannot achieve through consensus, testing the limits of executive power.

This will throw Democrats into an even deeper crisis than they are in now, which is obviously good news for Republican electoral prospects. But it may also do real damage to the country in the process, which is not good news for the country.

Abe Foxman Doesn't Speak for ME.

2010-01-22T13:17:00.004-05:00

On last Wednesday's Rush Limbaugh program--which I heard in its entirety as I was driving home from Tennessee--Rush touted Norman Podhoretz's excellent new book Why Jews are Liberals. As the title suggests, Podhoretz's book attempts to answer a question that is often asked of Jewish conservatives by non-Jewish ones. Rush--an admirer of the estimable Mr. Podhoretz--distills his analysis down to its essentials: Liberal Jews are liberals first, last and always, and their political liberalism trumps all their other "isms," including Judaism.

(I would add that liberal Jews, being in the main irreligious, have filled the void left by lack of religious belief with a secular catechism: the belief in man's ability, through the force of government, to solve the ills of mankind. Many of these Jews are woefully mis-educated in normative Judaism, and have been taught that "social justice" is the primary avenue for fulfilling the Jewish ideal of "tikkun olam"--repairing the world. No one doubts the purity of motive of these Jews; but the result has been--in my view--a self-destructive allegiance to liberalism (and the Democrat Party) that has become synonymous with Judaism since the days of FDR's New deal.)

Rush wondered whether Jews--often self-labeling as "independents"--had been a factor in Scott Brown's decisive win over Martha Coakley for the "Ted Kennedy" Senate seat in Massachusetts. Independents broke for Brown almost three-to-one, and Rush opined that if Jewish independents had voted in the same proportion as independents as a whole, that would be an astonishing political sea change. Rush suggested that Jews--who are well represented in the worlds of finance and banking--might have been antagonized into voting for Brown by Obama's new War on Wall Street.

Apparently this was a bridge too far for Abe Foxman, the long-time national director of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the nation's oldest Jewish activists groups. Foxman issued a press release accusing Rush of anti-semitism, or something close to it. Foxman seems to think that Rush was playing to his audience of bigots and Jew-haters who buy into the ancient and persistent stereotypes that Jewish bankers control not just the money but even much of the U.S. and global government. Foxman then demanded an apology from Rush.

Foxman is either an idiot or a liar. Anyone who has listened to Rush knows that he is a faithful and passionate friend of Israel and the Jewish people. He has often taken on the Left for their growing intolerance of Israel and their blind acceptance of the Palestinian anti-Jewish narrative. Foxman no doubt knows this, and intentionally took Rush out of context to gin up his own base of Rush-haters.

As Norman Podhoretz points out in a post at Contentions, Commentary Magazine's main blog, Rush was suggesting that Obama--by attacking Wall Street--might be the one playing on the fears of anti-Jewish bigots for whom "banker" is code for 'Jewish.' Podhoretz says Foxman "has a long history of seeing an anti-semite under every conservative bed." Foxman has "blinded himself to the fact that anti-Semitism has largely been banished from the Right in the past 40 years, and that it has found a hospitable new home on the Left, especially where Israel is concerned." Podhoretz says Mr. Foxman's charge of anti-semitism against so openly loyal a friend of the Jews as Rush is "chutzpah," and states that it is Foxman who owes Limbaugh an apology.

I must disagree with Podhoretz. It doesn't take "chutzpah" for Foxman to ingratiate himself with his elite supporters and contributors by calling a conservative a Jew hater. It just takes a willingness to foment hatred against conservatives, which the ADL under Foxman has often shown. Late last year the ADL published an outrageous report entitled "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," which essentially casts the Tea Party movement and populist anger at government spending and meddling in the free market as a dangerous lurch into right-wing anti-government extremism and violence akin to the white supremacists of the militia movement.

I would link to the "Rage" report here, if I could find it. Both that report and the diatribe against Rush have mysteriously vanished from the ADL's website, although the front page of the website refers to both. Excerpts from the report have found their way onto various "Tea Party" websites, including this one. Foxman lays the blame for the "dangerous" new political environment squarely at the feet of talk radio hosts like Rush and Glenn Beck, who broadcast "extreme sentiments, including Nazi imagery, racist imagery, and imagery that implicitly or explicitly promotes violence." Foxman's report seems almost as if it were ghost written by the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is at the forefront of the campaign to rid the country of the scourge of talk radio under the banner of...wait for it...free speech.

As a Jew, a conservative, and a fan of both Limbaugh and Beck, I am appalled--though not surprised--at the venomous charge by ADL that these great and good Americans are fomenting hatred and violence, when the opposite is surely true. Both Beck and Limbaugh have cautioned against violence or civil disobedience of any kind, calling instead for Americans to engage in politics as the preferred vehicle for reigning in government excess.

Any attempt to marginalize Rush and Glenn Beck and their colleagues on talk radio is nothing short of an attempt to marginalize you and me. It is unseemly in the extreme for a Jewish organization that purports to stand against bigotry to wantonly accuse their political opponents of same through innuendo and lies. It is disheartening that an organization that regards free speech as a religious value would vilify those who are among its greatest champions.

I don't know who Abe Foxman speaks for, but he does not speak for me.

Sick of the Mass. Senate Race?

2010-01-18T15:41:00.002-05:00

Not me...I can't get enough of this:

Massachusetts: Reagan Country.