October 31, 2004

And may the best man win: a gesture of re-conciliation

Accepting differences peacefully exemplifies America

By Marianne Williamson

(From the Detroit News, October 29, 2004)


As we move into this last stretch of time before the election, let’s all take a deep breath and remember what it means to be an American and how much we have to be grateful for. Among other things, we can be grateful for the fact that we do not have to agree.

My heart is sickened by how often the campaign sign in my front yard has been torn down and removed from my lawn. I would never do that to someone else’s sign. What is beautiful about America is that we can disagree, and theoretically it is for freedoms like that that are willing to sacrifice. No one has a monopoly on truth, in politics or anywhere else. So let’s try to be respectful toward those who disagree with us. The act of destroying someone else’s political sign is an act of contempt and dishonor, not only toward the person who put up the sign, but also toward democracy itself.

I drove to a friend’s house recently, and although she’s a big John Kerry supporter, there was no Kerry sign on her lawn. I asked her why not. She said that her little boy is a best friend with the boy next door. Since the neighbors already had a George W. Bush sign up on their lawn, she didn’t want to cause any problems.

I told her I saw things very differently. To me, it’s deeply American to teach our children that during an election season we might disagree very strongly about political issues, but that doesn’t mean we’re not friends anymore, It shouldn’t mean we‘re not affectionate friends and neighbors anymore.
It simply means we’re living in America, where everyone has the right and responsibility to express themselves.

My friend agreed. Today there’s a Kerry sign in her yard, and a Bush sign in the yard next to hers. That, to me, is a very American sign. And when I see it, I am proud to be American. Our freedom to disagree is the essence of democracy. I am reminded of a quote from President Dwight Eisenhower who said, the American mind, at its best, is both liberal and conservative. Any time we start thinking people who disagree with us shouldn’t express themselves, we’ve given up on democracy.

Disagreement is not negative; it’s part of the vitality of human freedom. This is not a time for any of us to be quiet about our views, or less than passionate about expressing them.

But next Tuesday, we will vote. And nothing is more important than that our votes be properly counted and that whoever gets the most votes becomes the next president. The only thing any of us need really fear is the thought that democracy could be a loser on November 2. Let’s pray for this election cycle. May democracy itself be the winner. May justice prevail. May brotherhood reign. May the world be blessed.

After seeing my sign removed one more time, I wrote this prayer. And I will be saying it each day leading up to and including Nov 2.

Dear God,
Please bless our precious nation during this critical campaign. We place the election in your hands. May cosmic support be given to those who would lead us from darkness to light whatever that is, and whomever that is, may Your will be done.

Amen.

God bless America, and everything that happens here.


Marianne Williamson is a best selling spiritual author from Metro Detroit

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:45 PM | Comments (0)

October 29, 2004

FOR THOSE THAT ARE STILL ON THE FENCE

Maybe the article below will help?

KERRY'S TWENTY YEAR RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT IN THE SENATE

From: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15626

In the debates, President Bush said that John Kerry had written only five bills that became law. Senator Kerry said that 56 laws he had written(or co-written) had passed. President Bush was apparently wrong - there seem to be 11 that became law. Mr. Bush should correct the record.

In fact, there were 56 that passed in the Senate, but only 11 of them were actually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by a President.

Here are the only 11 bills ever passed with John Kerry's name on them:
99th Congress
:

A concurrent resolution expressing solidarity with the Sakharov family

100th Congress: None

101st Congress: A joint resolution designating a week in Oct 1989 as "World Population Awareness week."

102nd Congress: Another joint resolution designating week in Oct 1999 as "World Population Awareness week."

A joint resolution designating Nov 13, 1992 as "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day."

A Joint resolution designating September 18, 1192 as "National POW/MIA recognition day."

A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the National Sea Grant College Program Act.

103rd Congress: A bill to re-designate a federal Building as the "Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center."

A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Protection act.

104th Congress: None

105th Congress: None

106th Congress: A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Women's business center program.

107th Congress: A bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer program

108th Congress: A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson.

This is Senator Kerry's total record of achievement in his 20 years in the U.S. Senate!! It is truly hard to believe, explain or excuse and it doesn’t matter what your politics are.


Senator Kerry’s record vis-ŕ-vis the State of Israel

Kerry is not a mainstream Democrat,” said Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, “just look at his record..;(Boston Herald 1/28/04)

Senator John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a “Statesman” and “Role Model,” long after Arafat’s history as a responsible for the deaths of both Americans and Israelis was well known (The New War, by Senator John Kerry)

Senator Kerry recently told Arab American leaders Israel’s Security Fence was “Counterproductive” and “Harmful.” “We don’t need another barrier to peace.” (Remarks to Arab American Institute, 10/17/03).

A leading Arab-American organization, The Arab American Political Action Committee, endorsed Kerry on October

Senator Kerry’s Voting Record on Israel

Kerry was not an original co-sponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 81, the Kyl-Feinstein Iran Resolution which sought to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In 1996, Kerry did not sign on the Iran & Libya Sanctions Act. Forty-four of his colleagues did.

In 1993, Kerry did not sign the Lautenberg/Grassley letter urging the Secretary of State to include Hamas in the State Department’s terrorism report, although 55 other Senators did.

In 2000, Senator Kerry did not co-sponsor the Peace Through Negotiations Act (S. 3250) which warned against a Palestinian unilateral declaration of Independence. Sixty of his colleagues did

Senator Keny was not the original co-sponsor of a single piece of pro-Israel legislation in his 20 years in the Senate.

The case now rests. It is now up to you, the American public, to come to a rational and fair decision based upon the evidence presented - not upon a lifetime of pre-conceived notions and party affiliation.
_

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:41 PM | Comments (0)

October 28, 2004

The Israeli take on Bush vs. Kerry

By Don Feder

From an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, October 28, 2004

Jews Commit Political Hari-Kerry


Where do American Jewish voters go for guidance? Apparently, this year
were heeding advice from Tehran, from the rabidly anti-Semitic former
prime minister of Malaysia and of course from our pals in the Palestinian Authority. What I mean to say is that in one of those ironic twists of fate its likely that this year a majority of Jewish voters will cast their ballots
for the presidential candidate favored by Israel’s most implacable enemies.

As I noted in a recent article in Human Events Online, according to The
American Jewish Committees Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion (conducted
between August 18-September 1, 2004), 69% of Jews will vote for Kerry this
year, and only 24% for Bush. This would be a slight improvement over Bush’s share of the Jewish vote in 2000 (19%). And Kerry isn’t doing nearly as well with Jewish voters as Gore in 2000 (79%), Clinton in 1996 (78%) or Clinton in 1992 (80%).

And there are stirrings at the grass roots. In Michigan (with a Jewish
community of 100,000) a group called Jews for George is hard at work. Its
co-founder, Moe Freedman, says they’ve mobilized 900 members to hear the
president speak at the Pontiac Silverdome Wednesday evening (October 27th)
Still, given the inveterate liberalism of most American Jews (who believe
Moses was a charter member of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State), a big Jewish vote for Kerry seems inevitable. Jews for George should start a chapter in Tel Aviv.

Unlike their brethren in the States, Israelis know where their interests lie.
In a poll in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (published on October 16), almost twice as many of Israelis said they wanted to see W. re-elected
(50%), as those who were cheering for Kerry (24%).
It’s an open secret that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is praying for a Bush
victory. In July, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a group of
prominent American Jews that he personally prefers Bush to Kerry.

For Israelis and their more discerning supporters in this country, it all
comes down to terrorism and security. When Clinton was president, the White House welcome mat was always out for Yasser Arafat who practically took up residence in the Lincoln Bedroom. At Camp David (2000), Clinton pressured then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to give the wily old terrorist 98% of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem. That wasn’t enough for Arafat, who walked away from a deal and precipitated four years of murderous jihad.

By contrast, Bush refuses to meet with the man whose organization is still
sworn to the total destruction of Israel. Just months into his first term, the president decided that Arafat was a cunning killer who would never abandon violence.

In his 1997 book, The New War, Kerry who has the endorsements of both the
Muslim American PAC and the Arab America PAC spoke glowingly of Arafat as
a "statesman" and "role model." The last is correct. Arafat was
slaughtering civilians as long ago as the 60s, and thus is a prototype for
the current generation of terrorist leaders.
In a November 17, 2003, speech to the Arab American Institute, Kerry
called Israel’s security barrier, "a barrier to peace." (It is also a great
inconvenience for suicide bombers.) When Jewish leaders complained, the
Senator reversed himself. But his initial reaction was telling.

Kerry’s chief Middle East advisor is former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who: 1) Helped devise the disastrous Olso Accords, 2) Persuaded Clinton that Arafat was a big teddy bear, 3) As ambassador, called for the division of Jerusalem, 4) At the outset of the latest Intifada, insisted that Israel to hold back its army to encourage Arafat (who orchestrated the bloodbath) to deal with the terrorists! and 5) Wants to station U.S. forces in the West Bank and Gaza to cover an Israeli withdrawal.

Little wonder Israeli journalist and FrontPage Magazine columnist David
Bedein writes, "The very mention of Indyk sends shudders down the spine
of senior members of the Israel defense and foreign policy establishment."
Equally troubling is the senator’s determination to put the survival of
democracies firmly in the hands of the United Nations.

In a recent column, New Republic editor Martin Peretz notes: "Save for the
U.S. veto in the Security Council, Israel loses every struggle at the
U.N. The body's bloated and dishonest bureaucracies are no better, as
evidenced most recently by the head of the U.N. Palestine refugee
organization, who defended having Hamas on his staff."
Peretz charges: "I’ve searched to find one time when Kerry even candidate
Kerry criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I’ve come up
empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Unions continuous
hectoring."

This past July, in a typical example of the U.N.'s blame-the-victims game,
the General Assembly voted 150-to-6 in condemnation, not of Palestinian
suicide bombers, but of Israel’s attempt to keep them from spreading
body-parts in downtown Jerusalem via its security barrier. Even before he goes running to the U.N., Kerry will seek the wise counsel of France and Germany (our neglected "allies," the Senator calls them) on foreign policy questions.
That would be another catastrophe for Israel. Paris and Bonn are puppets
whose strings are pulled in Arab capitals.

France, which is well on its way to becoming a Muslim country (thanks to
immigration from North Africa), quietly tolerates an on-going wave of
anti-Semitic violence. Jews are now the victims in over 80 percent of
bias-related offenses in the land of liberty, equality and fraternity.
And Kerry wants to give the lily-livered Perrier guzzlers of the Elysee
Palace a veto over U.S. foreign policy. Why not vote for Jacques Chirac
for president of the United States, and cut out the middleman?

If it were up Senator Don’t-Rush-To-War (wait until the UN, European
Community and Michael Moore decide its necessary), Saddam Hussein would
still be in power cooperating with al-Qaeda, paying bounties to the
families of those who murder Israelis and threatening the Jewish state
with nuclear annihilation when he developed the bomb.

There are, however, exceptions to the yellow-dog Democrat rule among
American Jewish voters. In a January 9th article in The Forward ("Bolting for Bush"), former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a life-long Democrat, said he’s never voted for a Republican presidential candidate before, but he was going to vote for Bush this year. Koch wrote, "President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve necessary to wage the war against terrorism."

Even Senator Joe Lieberman (D, Conn.) while he was campaigning for Kerry
in Florida last week, frankly confessed, "We are dealing with a president
who has had a record of strong support for Israel. You can’t say otherwise."

Israel’s enemies understand this, even if many of her friends do not. As
Ben Johnson noted in these pages last week, many pro-terrorist nations
favor John Kerry. Iran, for one. In June, the Tehran Times editorialized, "Kerry is exactly what the U.S. needs right now." It means Kerry is exactly what Iran needs right now - a U.S. politician who blindly believes in negotiations with terrorist states. In a futile effort to deter the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Senator has promised them nuclear fuel, if he’s
elected exactly the same strategy that failed Bill Clinton, in regard to North Koreas nuclear program.

Other thugs are also speaking out for the Democratic ticket.

You may recall former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, who told
the 10th Islamic Summit last year "Jews rule the world by proxy. They
get others to fight and die for them." Also, Jews "invented socialism,
communism, human rights and democracy." (Why not monarchy and fascism, too?) Bush condemned Mohamed’s comments as "wrong and divisive." Said the president, "it stands squarely against what I believe."

Last week, Mohamed put out a letter urging U.S. Moslems to vote for Kerry,
"in the name of Islam." The ex-prime minister exhorted his fellow
jihadists on their "duty to ensure that Bush will not be able to determine
our fate for four more years." Said he, "There is an obvious connection
between the sufferings of the Moslems and the policies and thinking of
Bush." Mohamed could have saved his breath. According to a Zogby poll, on
November 2, American Moslems will vote for Kerry by a 10-to-1 margin.

Earlier this month, Nabil Shaath ("foreign minister" of the Palestinian
Authority) said that while he thought Bush wanted to resume the so-called
peace process, "with the staff that surrounds him and with his current
opinions, it doesn’t look promising." But, in a Kerry presidency, Shaath gushed, "It would be likely that several staff members during the Clinton administration would return" and "that would be a good thing." The PA longs for the halcyon days of Clintonian appeasement.

Israel’s chief of military intelligence, Major General Aharon Zeevi says,
"Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that
President Bush will be defeated in the presidential election and turned
out of office." So, Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, the savage anti-Semites of Iran and the neo-Nazi former prime minister of Malaysia not to mention the valiant French and the fair-minded Germans all support John Forbes Kerry.

On the other hand, by almost a two-to-one margin, Israelis who are on the
frontlines in the war against terrorism favor Bush, as does the prime minister they overwhelmingly elected. In The American Jewish Committee survey mentioned at the outset, 75% of respondents said they felt "very close" or "fairly close" to Israel. Also, 74% said "Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew."

Pity most of them will vote with Israel’s enemies this year. Jews may have a disproportionate share of Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry, but when it comes to political intelligence, we are truly clueless.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 24, 2004

Sacrificing Israel - Charles Krauthammer

By Charles Krauthammer

The Washington Post Friday, October 22, 2004


The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances
so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the
allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad.

Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do
it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve
of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail
about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in "Foreign Policy for a
Democratic President," a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign
policy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage
in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in
the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a
Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we
should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and
Iraq."

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the "peace
process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the
Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do
for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They
would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do
precisely that.

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't
Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent
Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians
genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist
leadership of Yasser Arafat.

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violence continues and while
Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy. That policy --
isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right to defend itself both by attacking the terrorist infrastructure and by building a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada and producing an astonishing 84
percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties
.

John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no
issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of
international consensus than Israel
. In July, the U.N. General Assembly
declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone.

You want to appease the "international community"? Sacrifice Israel.
Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of "peace." Apply
relentless pressure on Israel to make concessions to a Palestinian
leadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000) it will never make peace.

The allies will appreciate that. Then turn around and say to them: We're
doing our part (against Israel), now you do yours (in Iraq). If Kerry is
elected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 22, 2004

The Jews of Aberration ( How perfect!)

Through some sort of serendipity, I just ran across this article by the great Rabbi Meir Kahane, imminently politically incorrect activist who happened to be right in every prediction he made concerning Arab behavior as he watched Israelis and Diaspora Jews continue to embrace their own inane, self-destructive policies.

Rabbi Kahane was describing Washington Post correspondent Richard Cohen 14 years ago and the rabbi's commentary unfortunately, still pertains.

Jerome S. Kaufman

By Rabbi Meir Kahane, May, 1990

I wait for the first Arabs of Guilt to do unto their people what the Jews of abberation do unto theirs. I patiently stand and wait for the first Arab “Peace Now” group to dedicate itself to protesting against “intransigence”: “refusal to compromise’: and “atrocities against the Jews?

I wait for the first Arab “Women in Black’ to condemn the actions of the Arab armies against Jewish civilians; to bitterly protest and picket every Friday the murder of Jewish civilians, women and children, in bombings and attacks on buses and marketplaces. And I wait for the first Arab counterpart of Richard Cohen.

Ah, Richard Cohen. Richard Cohen is a Jew by birth. Richard Cohen is the resident Jewish self-hater and Israel basher in the Washington Post, a newspaper that has quite a sizable non-Jewish contingent of its own. Cohen stands for everything that is unJewish and his ignorance of the faith with which he was unfortunately burdened is exceeded only by his arrogance in pontificating about it. Above all, he is a liberal whose very elixir of life is composed of all the ingredients that run counter to authentic Jewish concepts. He is liberal and his brand of liberalism and democracy and values run counter to all that Judaism and true Zionism preach and so, week after week, Cohen contributes his voice to all the enemies of Judaism, Jews and Israel as a Jewish state,

And recently he spread his wings and his disturbed views and, behold, an article by Richard Cohen appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News - one which must assuredly make him a candidate for the King Feisal or Abu Jihad Award of the Year ”for the journalist who has written the ‘most effective column of Araby, if surely not a pillar of wisdom.

In the article, Cohen bashes and consigns Israel to the outer reaches of what passes for liberal Hell. He rails against Settlements as a “thumb in the eye to the Palestinians” (Of course, Tel Aviv and the rest of the Jewish state is not a thumb in their eye before the fanatical setttlers begun their evil designs. The “Palestinians” in 1948 reached out to the State of Israel with only warmth, love and brotherhood.)

He belches forth his wrath against the settlers for daring to live in East Jerusalem’s “Christian Quarters” saying that this feeds Arab fears that the Jews threaten their sacred holy places, (of course, the Jewish holy places were always treated by Moslem and Christian Arabs with nothing but the deepest of respect and religious devotion)

But above all, Richard has a wonderful solution, He gazes with anger upon his fellow Jews who do not live in Israel and demands ot them the following:
“Maybe, its time for American Jews to do two things at once: Open their mouths and close their checks books.

Clearly this is a thing that Cohen has done all his life. As Bilaam’s donkey, his mouth is perpetually open, braying and heehawing against the state of the Jewish people, the state his great-grandfather and his, before him, dreamed of as a Jewish State for the Jewish people. As some Jewish version of Scrooge, his checkbook never finds his pen drawing funds from it for Israel. Cohen is the classic phenomenon of our time; ‘the kind of creature that one could never find among the Arabs or among any other normal people.

Can anyone even begin to remember an Arab who called upon Arabs to cease helping an Arab cause? Can one search his mind and memory and emerge with the name of any Arab counterpart to Richard Cohen who demands that Arabs cut off funds and condemns their brethren because they “Oppress” Jews? Does any one know an Arab “Richard Cohen?” Could there ever be one?

Of course, Cohen is not a person. He is a concept. Just as not one Arab “Richard Cohen” can be found, so can one never escape the Jewish ones. They abound and they flourish, and they multiply and they fill the land. They hate their Judaism that is such total contradiction of the generalized values they embrace. They hate themselves for not having the courage and honesty to reject that Judaism and that Jewishness and choose to be human beings instead. Above all, they hate themselves and seek destruction of Judaism and their own self-destruction.

That Israel will survive the “Richard Cohens” of the earth is clear. But there is an irony in this that transcends even that. The same ‘Cohen” who cries aloud for a policy that would allow the Arabs to destroy Israel will, some day, seek out that Israel in frantic desparation, as the gentilize land he sought to make his own burns beneath his feet And we the normal Jews will be at th airport to meet and greet and welcome him, this incredible and rare creature.

We will receive him, take him into the Jewish state that survived both the Arabs and the “Richard Cohens” efforts to have them adopt the policies of madness that would have destroyed her.

And he who called for Jews to open their mouths and close their checkbooks to Israel will come with mouth closed in shame, and no checkbook — a refugee who came to the land he so condemned and to which he never wished to come. And the Jews of Israel will come to see the phenomenon that one can never find among the Arabs. The Jew who joined the enemies of the state and the people to which he belongs: the Jew for whom no conceivable counterpart could ever be fiound in all of Arabia or Islam.

“Richard Cohen.” I wait to see if any other pcople could produce one like him. I wait for him come home, to the home he did his best to pervert arid destroy.

Rabbi Meir Kahane


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:38 PM | Comments (0)

October 21, 2004

American Jewish Committee Poll – 31% of Jews will vote for President Bush

By Joseph Curl
The Washington Times

The Bush Cheney ticket is making an all out effort this election to increase its take of the Jewish vote, a powerful voting bloc that could turn the tide in several battleground states. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who each addressed enthusiastic Jewish groups last month, have overseen one of the most aggressive pro-Israel agendas of any recent administration, which Republican campaign strategists and Jewish leaders say has loosened the Democrats’ stranglehold on the Jewish vote.

“The Jewish vote is more in play this election than it was in the last,” said Josh Block, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in the country. “It is clear that in some of these very close swing states - Florida, Pennsylvania, potentially Ohio, Nevada, New Jersey — that there is a significant enough percentage of the voting population that is Jewish that it could make a difference in a very close election’ he said.

Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlnan said Jewish voters, only 19 percent of whom supported Mr. Bush in 2000, now know the president as a strong leader on the war on terrorism a topic of importance in their community, who has the moral clarity to stay the course. “And they have seen the President take a position that we need to support our ally, the one democracy in the Middle East, Israel — while at the same time working in order to provide a democratic Palestinian state that respects Israel’s security,” Mr. Mehlman said.

The Bush-Cheney campaign, according to one Jewish official who works closely with the White House, is looking to pick up about a third of the Jewish vote this years similar to the support former Republican President Ronald Reagan, a strong advocate of Israel in his two successful campaigns.

A poll taken last year for the American Jewish Committee found the President is making headway as 31 percent of those surveyed said they plan to vote for him in November. “While Jews are only 2 percent or 3 percent nationwide, they’re a fairly high concentration in some of the key swing states. In those states, picking up an additional 20 percent of that vote in a really tight race would probably make a difference,” said Monika L McDermott, an assistant professor of political science who conducts research on voting behavior and public opinion at the University of Connecticut

Nine states with large Jewish populations account for 212 of the 270 electoral votes a candidate will need to win the White House, according to an analysis by Steven Windmueller, director of the Jewish Institute of Religion at Hebrew Union College.

While the two states with the largest Jewish populations — New York and California — will almost surely vote for the Democratic candidate, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which hold 68 electoral votes, are up for grabs. In addition, the Jewish vote in Michigan, Nevada, Missouri, Arizona could swing the election in November.

In 2000, Mr. Bush won Florida by less than 1 percent, lost Pennsylvania by 4.2 percent and was hammered in New Jersey by 16 percentage points. A new poll this month shows Mr. Bush and Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, running neck and neck in New Jersey. Mr. Bush’s gains are coming a the expense of Mr. Kerry, who unlike Vice President AL Gore in 2000, will not have the first Jew on a national ticket, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, to generate support.

Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee rates Mr. Kerry’s tenure in the Senate highly, he has of late been alienating Jews, in part by saying he would consider appointing former Secretary of State James A. Baker III former President Carter, both viewed by many Jews as biased against Israel, as an envoy to the Middle East.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

October 19, 2004

Voter Eye-opening Presidential Endorsements


1. Kerry's Hometown Paper Endorses President Bush

Most of you know what a big deal the mainstream media made of the Bush hometown newspaper endorsement of Kerry. The newspaper of Crawford with 400 + citizens. Well, just in case you missed , here is a real big endorsement of President Bush, from the Lowell, MA newspaper, hometown of John Kerry, which is somewhere in the vicinity of 220,000. This is a scathing editorial to say the least.

This paper can be found at http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105%7E4746%7E244

2. Palestinian Foreign Minister, Nabil Shaath suggests Kerry would make better president in light of Bush’s current positions.

(Israeli newspaper Maariv, October 19, 2004)

The Palestinian publication “al-Ayam” has quoted a first reference of a senior Palestinian official on the upcoming US elections. During an interview with the BBC, Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said the peace process would be better off if Bush were not re-elected. “If Bush wins, he said he would renew efforts to resume the peace process. However, with the staff that surrounds him and with his current opinions, it doesn’t look promising”, Shaath said. According to the Palestinian foreign minister, if John Kerry were elected for office “It would be likely that several staff members during Clinton’s administration would return. That would be a good thing, but it could take at least a year before a policy is formulated. We cannot wait so long”.

Shaath added that British Prime Minister Tony Blair could use his connections in the US to help promote the peace process and the Road Map. If Blair would be given the chance to influence the Americans to return to the Road Map and stop Israeli aggression, he said, that would provide a real opportunity to advance toward a monitored cease-fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorses Kerry for President


By Joe Kaufman and Larry Klayman

2004 WorldNetDaily.com October 16, 2004

The November presidential elections are weeks away, and the quest to get out the vote is in full swing. But when some swing voters have links to radical Islam, motives for eliciting their support must be questioned.

An e-mail announcement, dated Oct. 13 was sent out by the president of the Muslim Student Organization of Florida Atlantic University, Asmaa Metwally. It stated the following: "Former Ambassador Osman Siddique, a representative from the John Kerry campaign will be coming to the Pompano Beach Masjid this coming Saturday, Oct. 16 to rally up the Muslim vote for John Kerry."

It's surprising that Asmaa Metwally would be the dispatcher of an announcement for a campaign for president of the United States, as his name appears on an endorsement of another event put on by the Palestine Solidarity Movement, a group that has, on numerous occasions, turned a blind eye to terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians.

But then, as we read on in the e-mail, we find out that the Kerry event is being hosted by a Dr. Maged Metwally, an obvious relation to Asmaa.

Following this bit of information comes the real surprise. The event again, an event for a campaign for president of the United States is being held, as stated in the e-mail, "in coordination with the Pompano Beach Masjid and CAIR." As the late announcer of the New York Yankees, Phil Rizzuto, would say, "Holy Cow!"

CAIR, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is an organization that purports to be a harmless civil rights group fighting against discrimination of the Muslim community. Yet, evidence shows that CAIR is nothing more than a militant Islamist organization. CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization that was founded by current Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, himself, has stated that he supports Hamas.

Numerous leaders of CAIR have been cited for their involvement in nefarious activities. They include:

a. Ghassan Elashi (founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter) was chairman of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was shut down by the United States for raising millions of dollars for Hamas; in July of 2004, was convicted of conspiracy, money laundering and making false statements about shipments of high-tech equipment to countries deemed state sponsors of terrorism.

b. Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer (national staff member of CAIR) past communications director of the Muslim American Society, an organization that publishes materials calling suicide bombings against Israelis justifiable; in April of 2004, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his participation in a network of al-Qaida-related militant jihadists centered in northern Virginia.

c. Bassem Khafagi (CAIR's community director) was co-founder and past president of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization that has been investigated for possible funding to terrorist-related groups and publishing of materials calling for suicide bombings in the United States; in November of 2003, was sentenced to prison for bank fraud and making false statements on his visa application; was later deported to Egypt.

d. Rabih Haddad (fund-raiser for CAIR's Ann Arbor chapter) was co-founder and past executive director and public relations director for Global Relief Foundation, which was shut down by the United States for its financing of terrorist groups, specifically al-Qaida; was arrested by INS for visa violations, in December of 2001 and was later deported to Lebanon.

e. Siraj Wahhaj (national board member of CAIR) in February of 1995, was named by federal prosecutor Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; was a character witness for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for his part in the '93 bombing conspiracy; currently sits on the board of directors of the radical Islamic Society of North America. Steven Pomerantz, former FBI assistant director and chief of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Section, has stated, "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." And "CAIR is but one of a new generation of groups in the United States that hide under a veneer of 'civil rights' or 'academic' status but in fact are tethered to a platform that supports terrorism."

Why would John Kerry, a candidate for president of the United States, allow himself or his campaign to be involved with such a group as this? And will a vote for John Kerry for president mean a vote for CAIR in the White House, as well?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:50 AM | Comments (0)

October 16, 2004

Iran sponsors Kerry – Huh?

Pro-Iranian lobby funding Kerry

By Aaron Klein

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been given to Kerry from the pro-Iranian lobby, possibly influencing the presidential candidate's startling call to provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, according to Iran's Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy chairman Aryo Pirouznia.

With top Iranian officials openly calling for the development of nuclear weapons within the next four months and overwhelming intelligence indicating Iran is seeking to create a nuclear arsenal, Kerry has been insisting as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel as long as it is used for peaceful purposes only, a position that has many Middle East analysts baffled.
During the first presidential debate, Kerry said, "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." The same policy of accommodation toward Iran's nuclear aspirations is clearly outlined on Kerry's campaign website as well.

Under the heading: "Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons," the Kerry campaign states: "Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear ..."

Pirouznia, who is holding a press conference in Washington, D.C., this morning, is disclosing the details of Kerry's financial ties to backers of the mullah government in Iran that have been seeking to moderate America's harsh line with regard to Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York who has joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime. Nemazee has raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign.

Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties, WND previously reported.

As well, a Nemazee friend in Silicon Valley, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, who has also raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign. In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine, and, most recently, a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran.

Kerry has embraced the political agenda of Akbarpour and other wealthy Iranian-Americans lobbying for Tehran. Aside from nuclear accommodation, other key positions include ending the finger printing of Iranian visitors to the U.S; expanding "family reunion" visas to allow extended family members of Iranians living in the U.S. to immigrate here legally and in large numbers; offering a "dialogue" with the hard-line, terrorist-supporting clerics in Tehran; and help Iran join the World Trade Organization.

Pirouznia will be working closely with Dr. Jerome Corsi, co-author of the New York Times best selling "Unfit to Command," on a new book about the Iranian-Kerry connection titled, "Atomic Islam," which will be published by WND Books in 2005. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, [Kerry's policy] sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Dr. Corsi said, "Not surprisingly, Iran has publicly accepted Kerry's 'offer' in the last few days." Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official recently said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program. Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Khamenei has in the past told many newspapers that nuclear weapons would be used to "destroy the Zionist regime."

Middle East Expert Craig Smith of Swiss America, who wrote the introduction to the forthcoming Atomic Islam book, said, "During the Presidential Debates, many of us were baffled as to why Senator Kerry unabashedly promised that as President he would give the totalitarian government of Iran nuclear fuel, but now it all makes sense. He knew who took him to the dance and he had no choice but to attempt to waltz American technology over to his newfound friends in Tehran."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:24 PM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2004

A sickening story of French perfidy.

How America’s Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies

By Bill Gcrtz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES, September 19, 2004 (First of three excerpts)

New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein’s regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq. The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

“No wonder the French are opposing us;’ one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began. That official was careful to stipulate that intelligence did not indicate whether the French government had sanctioned or knew about the parts transfers. The French company at the beginning of the pipeline remained unidentified in the reports.

France’s government tightly controls its aerospace and defense firms, however, so it would be difficult to believe that the illegal transfers of equipment parts took place without the knowledge of at least some government officials.

Iraq’s Mirage F-1 fighter jets were made by France’s Dassault Aviation. Its Gazelle attack helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which became part of a consortium of European defense companies. “It is well-known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items,” a senior Bush administration official said before the war, refusing to discuss Iraq’s purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts.

The State Department confirmed intelligence indicating the French had given support to Iraq’s military. “UN sanctions prohibit the transfer to lraq of arms and materiel of all types, including military aircraft and spare parts,” State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said. “We take illicit transfers to Iraq very seriously and work closely with our allies to prevent Iraq from acquiring sensitive equipment”

Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, declared that France’s selling of military equipment to Iraq was “international treason” as well as a violation of a U.N. resolution. ‘As a former war pilot, this disturbs me greatly that the French would allow in any way parts for the Mirage to be exported so the Iraqis could continue to use those planes:’ Stevens said.

“The French, unfortunately, are becoming less trustworthy than the Russians;’ said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “It is outrageous they would allow technology to support the jets of Saddam Hussein to be transferred?’

The U.S. military was about to go to war with Iraq, and thanks to the French, the Iraqi air force had become more dangerous. French aid to Iraq goes back decades and includes transfers of advanced conventional arms and components for weapons of mass destruction.

The central figure in these weapons ties is French President Jacques Chirac. His relationship with Saddam dates to 1975, when, as prime minister, the French politician rolled out the red carpet when the Iraqi strongman visited Paris. “I welcome you as my personal friend,” Chirac told Saddam, then vice president of Iraq.The French put Saddam up at the Hotel Marigny, an annex to the presidential palace, and gave him the trappings of a head of state.

The French wanted Iraqi oil, and by establishing this friendship, Chirac would help France replace the Soviet Union as Iraq’s leading supplier of weapons and military goods. In fact, Chirac helped sell Saddam the two nuclear reactors that started Baghdad on the path to nuclear weapons capability.
France’s corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war. By 2000, France had become Iraq’s largest supplier of military and dual- use equipment, according to a senior member of Congress who declined to be identified. Saddam developed networks for illegal supplies to get around the U.N. arms embargo and achieve a military buildup in the years before US. forces launched a second assault oil Iraq.

One spare-parts pipeline flowed from a French company to Al Tamoor trading Co. in the United Arab Emirates. Tamoor then sent the parts by truck through Turkey, and into Iraq. The Iraqis obtained spare parts for their French-made Mirage F-l jets and Gazelle attack helicopters through this pipeline.
US. intelligence would not discover the pipeline until the eve of war last year; sensitive intelligence indicated that parts had been smuggled to Iraq as recently as that January.

“A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air-defense systems and armored vehicles,” the CIA said in a report to Congress made public that month. U.S. intelligence agencies later came under fire over questions about prewar estimates of Iraq’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But intelligence on Iraq’s hidden procurement networks was confirmed.

An initial accounting by the Pentagon in the months after the fall of Baghdad revealed that Saddam covertly acquired between 650,000 and 1 million tons of conventional weapons from foreign sources. The main suppliers were Russia, China and France. By contrast, the US. arsenal is between 1.6 million and 1.8 million tons.

As of last year Iraq owed France an estimated $4 billion for arms and infrastructure projects, according to French government estimates. US. officials thought this massive debt was one reason France opposed a military operation to oust Saddam. The fact that illegal deals continued even as war loomed indicated France viewed Saddam’s regime as a future source of income.

Just days before US. and coalition forces launched their military campaign against Iraq, more evidence of French treachery emerged. In mid-March 2003, US. intelligence and defense officials confirmed that exporters in France had conspired with China to provide Iraq with fuel for long-range missiles. The sanctions-busting operation occurred in August 2002, the US. National Security Agency discovered through electronic intercepts.

The chemical transferred to Iraq was a transparent liquid rubber called hydroxy terminated polybutadiene, or HTPB, according to intelligence reports. US. intelligence traced the sale to China’s Qilu Chemicals, “the largest manufacturer of HTPB in China” one official says.

Representatives of the French and Chinese governments went on the attack when The Washington Times asked about the chemical sale. Chinese Embassy spokesman Xie Feng did not address the specifics, but said “irresponsible accusations” about China’s exports had been made in the past.
“These accusations are devoid of all foundation’ French Foreign Ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau declared. “In line with the rules currently in force, France has neither delivered, nor authorized, the delivery of such materials, either directly or indirectly”

By that point, many in the US. government were fed up with French denials. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called in the French ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte to complain about France’s covert and overt support for Saddam’s regime.

“‘Twelve years of waiting was too costly in terms of the growing threat from Baghdad;’ Wolfowitz told the ambassador, according to a U.S. official who was present. The war in Iraq which began March 19, 2003, provided disturbing evidence that France’s treacherous dealings come at a steep cost to the United States.

On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald’s A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first US. pilots shot down in the war was rescued by members of the Army’s 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.

Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials. A week after Ewald’s A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry confirming what U& intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.

Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator’s regime.

The intelligence team sent to find Iraqi weapons also discovered documents outlining covert Iraqi weapons procurement leading up to the war. The CIA, however, refused to make public the documents on assistance provided by France or by other so-called allies of the United States. The clandestine arms-procurement network, disclosed late last year by the Los Angeles Times, put a Syrian trading company in a pivotal role. Documents showed the company SES International Corp. was the conduit for millions of dollars worth of weapons purchased internationally, including from France.

Al Bashair trading Co. in Baghdad was the major front used by Saddam to buy arms abroad. A Defense Department-sponsored report produced in February identified France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq’s conventional arms, after Russia and China. The report revealed that France supplied 12 types of armaments and a total of 115,005 pieces. A major reason Iraqi militants posed a threat to U.S. forces for so many months was that they had access to weapons that Saddam stockpiled in violation of U.N. resolutions.

One of the most frightening examples of how the militants put French weapons to use against the Americans came Oct.26, 2003. That morning, at about 6 o’clock, they bombarded the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad with French missiles. The French rockets nearly killed Wolfowitz, whom Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsld has called “the brain” of the Pentagon.

The deputy defense secretary had just gotten dressed in his room that Sunday morning when a car stopped several hundred yards from the hotel. It dropped off what appeared to be one of the blue electrical generators that was common in the power-starved Iraqi capital. The driver stayed just long enough to open a panel on the end of the metal box that was pointing upward toward the hotel. The car sped off. Minutes later, a pod of 40 artillery rockets set off by remote control began firing at the hotel, their trails leaving sparks as they flew. The rockets hit one floor below where Wollbwitz and about a dozen aides and reporters were stayng.

One rocket slammed into the room of Army Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring, a public-affairs officer. The explosion hit Buehring, 40, in the head. A reporter discovered him and tried to help, but the Fayetteville, N.C., resident died a short time later.

In all, between eight and 10 missiles hit the hotel. The casualties might have been higher, and included Wolfowitz, if the improvised rocket launcher had fired all the missiles. Because of a malfunction, 11 failed to go off. Half the missiles fired at Wolfowitz’s hotel were French-made Matra SNEB 68-millimeter rockets.

End of part 1

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:04 AM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2004

Senator Kerry’s Plan to enlist the European Union

How Europe became a 90-pound weakling

By Thomas Bray, The Detroit News, September 19, 2004


If there is a consistent thread to John Kerry’s constantly shifting lraq policy, it’s that George W. Bush didn’t do enough to create a real coalition to do the fighting. If elected, Kerry pledges to rectify that oversight. But that involves several large assumptions - beginning with the question of whether the foremost absentees from the Iraq conflict, France and German, would report for duty. Second, what could these two countries bring to the party even if they were so inclined?

The answer: Not a lot.

The harsh fact is that the European military establishment, never large to begin with, is a 90-pound weakling. The United States, despite years of cutbacks beginning in the wake of the Cold War, plunked down nearly 400 billion last year to support its military. That’s about 3.7 percent of gross domestic product, only about half the amount spent at the height of the Cold War.

The European Union, by contrast, spends less than 2.0 percent of its GDP on the military. France spent a grand total of about 40 billion in 2002, according to North Atlantic Treaty Organization figures, Germany spent about 37 billion. The United Kingdom, though Prime Minister Tony Blair has proved to be a stalwart friend, came up with about 37 billion. Canada is off the charts at a mere 10 Billion and shrinking fast.

In Bosnia where the French and Germans did collaborate in the sort of coalition Kerry favors, the United States had to deliver an embarrassing 80% of the missile strike because of the primitive condition of the European air forces.

Why is Europe so weak? The trend began well before the end of the Cold War. Increasingly, Europe opted for the free-rider approach, happy to let American taxpayers shoulder the major share of the burden. But Europe’s continuing power slide strongly suggests there may be an even more fundamental reason for its weakness: the debilitating effect of the vast European welfare state.

Europeans like to look down their noses at what they see as America’s “cowboy capitalism.” They prefer a system with generous economic and health benefits. And once somebody has a job, employers are all but forbidden to fire them or lay them off. But the costs are substantial. Employers are understandably reluctant to hire new workers. And the average tax burden in Europe is about 40 percent, compared with 30 percent (federal and state) in the United States. Thus, while America was generating tens of millions of jobs in the 198os and ‘90s, Europe was virtually stagnant.

There’s a lot of moaning stateside about President George W Bush’s jobless recovery. But the unemployment rate in America is 5.4 percent, or less than it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election. In Europe, the average unemployment rate is nearly 10%.

And lest you think that Europe’s military stinginess and high taxes at least keep deficits down, most European countries are running substantially in the red! Both France and Germany have failed to meet European Union requirements — which they themselves wrote — to keep deficits under 3.0 percent of GDP. The US deficit is 3.7% of GDP.

John Kerry says the Bush administration offends our allies by “dissing” them on such matters as the Kyoto global warming accords, which Bush opposes. But the European fondness for carbon dioxide controls is easily explained by the fact that they would impose the biggest penalty on the American economy. This would make it far easier for Europe to compete without having to dismantle its cozy welfare state. Think of Kyoto as Europe's weapon of mass destruction.

A broader European coalition to help put in Iraq? Don't count on it. There isn't much that France and Germany could contribute, beyond some marginal peacekeeping forces, even if they wanted to. And they are likely to remain unwilling to do even if John Kerry is elected.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:39 PM | Comments (0)

October 10, 2004

Kerry sister’s questionable activities in Australia

(redacted from an article in the Detroit Jewish News by Susan Burstein-Kahn, October 8, 2004)

(Kerry's sister’s overseas activities raises the question of legitimate campaigning vs. stark anti-Americanism – not unlike Kerry’s own Viet Nam speeches to the Congress.)

Some of the Kerry siblings political activites have gone unreported by the Left wing press. According to the Sept. 18th national daily newspaper Australian,

“John Kerry’s campaign has warned Australians that Prime Minister John Howard’s support for the United States in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists”! Diana Kerry who is Sen. Kerry’s younger sister, charged that the United States is violating “international law,” and that by doing so, we are ‘endangering the Australians”

In case anyone thinks that Ms. Kerry simply speaks for herself, it is crucial to understand that she is in charge of Americans Overseas for Kerry. We should also be aware of the fact that the Kerry campaign clearly is trying to help defeat Prime Minister Howard’s government - a staunchly pro- American government. Howard’s political opponent has pledged the immediate removal of all Australian troops if he is elected.

While Sen. Kerry says that President has failed at building alliances, his sister, on his behalf is working to undo one of the strongest alliances that we have! Australia has fought by the side of America in every major war going back to World War I.

Will the Kerry campaign stop at nothing to win - induding tearing down a strong American ally? If the target is the Australian alliance today, where will the moral fiber be for a possible President Kerry when political expediency requires him to sacrifice the special American relationship with Israel, the United Kingdom, the new Iraqi government, the newly elected government of Afghanistan and our many other allies around the world?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 07, 2004

Understanding the actions of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon

For those, like me, that have had a hard time understanding the actions of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon

By Aaron Lerner, Editor IMRA, Independent Media and Review Analysis, Ranaana, Israel 7 October 6, 2004

Retreat driven by spinelessness - not reason

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is hardly the first Israeli prime minister who
makes major policy moves because of orthopedic problems (the absence of a
backbone). Thanks to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass, the Israeli public knows that a lack of intestinal fortitude is the driving force by Sharon's retreat plan before it is actually implemented.

Here's how Weisglass put it in his controversial interview for the 8 October
Haaretz Friday Magazine:

Sharon accepted the road map "because the road map stipulated that it was
based on performance and not on sacrosanct dates." And the Palestinians weren't performing.

So far so good. Israel accepted the American plan. The Palestinians failed to perform and the Americans recognized that the Palestinians were at fault. Why then the retreat?

"What was the main factor that pushed you to the disengagement idea?" asks
Haaretz reporter Ari Shavit.

Weisglass: "The concern was the fact that President Bush's formula was stuck
and this would lead to its ruin. That the international community would say:
You wanted the president's formula and you got it; you wanted to try Abu
Mazen and you tried. It didn't work. And when a formula doesn't work in
reality, you don't change reality, you change the formula. Therefore, Arik's
realistic viewpoint said that it was possible that the principle that was
our historic policy achievement would be annulled - the principle that
eradication of terrorism precedes a political process. And with the
annulment of that principle, Israel would find itself negotiating with
terrorism. And because once such negotiations start it's very difficult to
stop them, the result would be a Palestinian state with terrorism. And all
this within quite a short time. Not decades or even years, but a few
months."

Plain and simple: there would be pressure and Ariel Sharon would collapse so
quickly and completely under that pressure that a negotiated terror
Palestinian state would already come into being within "a few months."

Mr. Weisglass, of course, claims that the retreat will relieve Israel from
pressure for decades to come. But months - or less - after a retreat, Weisglass could justify an additional retreat, explaining: "The concern was the fact that the peace process after the disengagement was stuck and this would lead to its ruin . . ."

Mr. Sharon apparently misunderstood Harry S. Truman's recommendation that
"if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." The "you" is the politician - not the nation the politician is leading.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava), INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 06, 2004

Re-elect Justice Marilyn Kelly to the Michigan Supreme Court – I Don’t Think So!

By Jerome S. Kaufman

It was my good fortune to hear Justice Marilyn Kelly speak at the 2004 Democratic Caucus at Cobo Hall in Detroit Michigan, August 28, 2004. As her remarks progressed, it became quite obvious that there was not a far Left position or affirmative action stance that she did not support. Her bio also shows that she received the Attorney’s Division of the State of Israel Bonds Award. Please note - I have nothing against the State of Israel, its bonds or its right to obtain funds to try and defend itself.

It is the Attorney’s Division with their plethora of politically active trial lawyers that rings warning bells. It is their dedication to stopping any kind of tort reform and limitation on the gargantuan jury awards they obtain from deep pocket companies, cities, police departments, wherever, that turns me off. And ultimately it is you and I, the ordinary citizen, that pays for these awards through consumer price increases diminished services and outrageous insurance rate increases to cover the preposterous cost. Trail lawyers honoring Marilyn Kelly is therefore a very bad sign to me.

Justice Kelly is also appearing October 10, 2004 before the Annual Lecture of the Cranbrook Peace Foundation, a far left so-called “peace” organization that has, in the past, honored Hanan Ashrawi of the PLO, South African anti-American, anti-Semitic Bishop Desmond Tutu, Haitian despot Jean-Bertrand Aristide who paraded as a great champion of the poor before his election but turned out quickly to be just another Third World despot, once again overthrown by the popular demand of his own people.

The Cranbrook Foundation also recommended and promoted for President of the United States, far Left candidate Dennis Kucinich, who garnered one to two percent of the votes in this year’s Democratic primaries, being most frequently neck and neck for last place with another great American hero, Al Sharpton!

But, in all fairness to the Cranbrook Peace Foundation, they have had some outstanding honorees in the past – dignitaries like John Galbraith, Paul Warneke, Elie Weisel and Senator George Mitchell.

But back to Justice Marilyn Kelly: This year, Justice Marilyn Kelly will be introducing this year’s Cranbrook honoree, Kathy Kelly, who has somewhat unique credentials of her own:

Kathy Kelly is a long time political activist for “peace”. She is the founder of her own organization, Voices in the Wilderness, which is dedicated to anti-war and other ostensibly “peace-rendering” and citizen-protecting projects. Kelly, according to her literature, is also a three-time Nobel Prize nominee. I am not sure if Yasser Arafat happened to beat her out for one of those Nobel Peace prizes or not.

Also of note is that Kathy Kelly was released this year from the Federal facility in Pekin, Illinois serving a three-month sentence for trespassing during a protest at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga. That sentence was followed by another 30 days for trespassing at the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) command center in Northern Wisconsin.

This then is the person Justice Kelly is proudly introducing at the Cranbrook Peace Foundation annual affair. And Justice Kelly is the honoree of the trial lawyers who evidently look upon her re-election to the Michigan Supreme Court as a very good thing.

Hey, maybe this all sounds really good to you. Maybe these are your kinds of people and your issues. Great! Then vote for Justice Marilyn Kelly.

If stuff like this gives you the willies and sounds basically ideologically inappropriate to say the least, and does not remotely represent your inner yearnings or those of roughly 98% of Americans, vote for the other Michigan Supreme Court Candidates.

There are two spots available for five candidates. Justice Stephen J. Markman is the other incumbent Justice running for re-election and has a solid record on the Court over the last five years. The other outstanding candidate is Judge of the Court of Appeals, Brian Zahra. The others, to my mind, are not so red hot.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:00 PM | Comments (0)

October 05, 2004

The day before the Cheney/Edwards Debate

Trial Lawyers

By Thomas P. Branigan, The Detroit News, October 4, 2004

Democratic Sen. John Edwards debates Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday night. And critics have correctly focused on Edwards’ career as a plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer. Much of the skepticism about Edwards is that he would be owned by the trial lawyers’ lobby, an organization that is in the hip pocket of the Democratic Party and has actively supported his political campaigns.

A trial lawyer is almost always a plaintiff trial lawyer, not a member of the defense bar. The leading lobby for the plaintiff’s personal injury bar is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), 98 percent of whose members are plaintiff’s attorneys. It prides itself on influencing politicians - not to protect corporations and. the insurance industry at the expense of family and patient safety?

While this sounds noble, the ATLA spends most of its time and an enormous part of its budget trying to defeat tort reforms that would limit unreasonable jury awards, reduce excessive medical liabilities or curtail abusive class action lawsuits.

By contrast there are thousands of other lawyers like myself who spend their time defending individuals or companies who seek only fairness in the courts when confronted with liability lawsuits. Within the larger legal community there is widespread support for legal reform of the civil justice system. We also recognize that millions of dollars are funneled into judicial and legislative campaigns of politicians sympathetic to the cause of plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers.

These lawyers have felt the bite of tort reform in places like Michigan, Mississippi and Texas. They know that if the tide is not stemmed, more is on the way. Federal legislation is still bitterly opposed by the plaintiffs’ bar. Liability would be more strictly defined to discourage trolling for deep-pockets defendants. National class-action lawsuits would face stiffer restrictions to prevent venue shopping by attorneys seeking unfair pro-plaintiff, high-award jurisdictions.

Thus the specter of electing two of the Senate’s most liberal lawyers to the White House sends chills up the spines of those of us wishing to enact fair tort reform at the federal level. For all practical purposes, such an administration, with Edwards at the air brakes, would stop legal reform dead.

The meat and potatoes for plaintiffs’ attorneys are the ability to file lawsuits and win large settlement and jury awards. They would not be enthusiastic about restricting these. They favor, instead, increased regulation of industries that would allow them to file more suits, particularly in the automotive and health care arenas. Stifling tort reforms guarantees them a continuing opportunity to make huge fees by exploiting the legal system.

A plaintiff’s attorney-friendly administration could only foster increased hostility to businesses large and small, coupled with the real possibility of yet more litigation and regulation that threatens the country’s economic well-being technical superiority and competitiveness.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are fond of repeating the shibboleth of how ordinary individuals must be allowed to seek legal redress against powerful interests and greedy corporations. But the explosion of tort litigation, coupled with the financial burdens these place on businesses reveals that the tort system is a mess. America has the most expensive tort systems in the world. Each American pays about $809 a year in hidden taxes for the more than 16 million lawsuits filed every year - one every two seconds

The glut in our courts diverts time and resources from productive endeavors and results in lost jobs. In health care, malpractice litigation fears, exorbitant insurance premiums and excessive jury awards have caused four out of 10 doctors to consider giving up their practices.

With reasonable and fair tort reform starting to take hold in places that were once treasure troves for the plaintiffs’ trial bar, a Kerry-Edwards administration would be a setback to this much-needed effort.

Thomas P. Branigan is a managing partner of a Detroit, Michigan law firm

(Needless to say the opposite side of this argument was taken by Geoffrey Feiger, well known vociferous plaintiff’s attorney whose outrageous damages verdicts, much to his chagrin and that of other trial lawyers, have been reversed in appeals court all over the country.) jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:23 AM | Comments (1)

October 03, 2004

Bush, Kerry, and the Jewish vote

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist, September 28, 2004

WHEN they go to the polls in November, which of the two major parties will American Jews support? Consider:

At Party A's national convention, a prime speaking slot went to an infamous racial inciter, one with an ugly history of Jew-baiting. At Party B's convention, a leading speaker recalled with empathy the many pre-9/11 victims of terrorism, such as Leon Klinghoffer, whom the killers ''marked ... for murder solely because he was Jewish.''

Party A's presidential nominee said nothing about Israel in his convention acceptance speech. Party B's nominee, on the other hand, made a point of referring to ''our good friend Israel'' - and his campaign later distributed that portion of his remarks to its national e-mail list.

Increasingly, Party A is the political home of those who demonize Jews, such as the South Carolina senator who claimed that the war in Iraq was launched to ''take the Jewish vote.'' Conversely, Party B has driven out the anti-Semites in its midst, and is now where the most ardent philo-Semites in American politics are concentrated.

So which party will American Jews vote for in November?

If you know your political tides, the answer won't surprise you: Jews will almost certainly vote overwhelmingly for Party A - the Democratic Party - just as they have for more than half a century. They will do so notwithstanding the Democrats' willingness to indulge a race-baiting hustler like Al Sharpton. Notwithstanding John Kerry's uncertain trumpet in the war against radical Islamic terror. Notwithstanding the Bush administration's unprecedented support and friendship for Israel.

For countless American Jews, loyalty to the Democratic ticket is as automatic as breathing. The roots of that loyalty run deep. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, waves of Jewish immigrants from Europe, where the most anti-Semitic elements of society were often the most conservative, brought with them an intense aversion to right-wing politics - and an appreciation for the left, which they associated with emancipation and equality. Those attitudes were intensified during World War II, when the most lethal enemy in Jewish history was ultimately destroyed by an alliance led by a liberal Democrat named Franklin Roosevelt.

But America in 2004 is very different from the America of 50 or 100 years ago. American Jews owe it to themselves to base their political loyalty on something stronger than force of habit. Those who vote for Democrats (or against Republicans) because that's what their parents and grandparents did ought to take a closer look: When it comes to the issues they care about most, their loyalty may be misplaced.

Israel, for example.
Like millions of Americans, many Jewish voters are concerned about the safety and security of Israel. It is a concern they share with George W. Bush, who presides over what is widely considered to be the most pro-Israel administration in history. That stands in contrast not only to his father's record -the first Bush administration had a very strained relationship with Israel - but to Bill Clinton's as well. During the Clinton years, no foreign leader visited the White House more frequently than Yasser Arafat. The current administration regards Arafat as an untrustworthy liar, and has never invited him to the White House.

Bush likewise broke with the past by insisting that Palestinian democracy and tolerance, and a leadership ''not compromised by terror,'' are prerequisites to peace with Israel. Unlike John Kerry, who speaks of making the United Nations a ''full partner'' in US foreign policy, Bush is under no illusions about the UN's intense anti-Israel hostility. Nor has he had any difficulty recognizing the poisonous strain of anti-Semitism that runs beneath some of the most virulent denuncations of the Jewish state.

When the UN's self-styled ''conference against racism'' in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 turned into a grotesque anti-semitic debauch, Bush ordered the US delegation to walk out. When the prime minister of Malaysia opened an international summit by declaring that ''Jews rule the world by proxy,'' Bush personally rebuked him. In all this, he has come across not as a politician acting out of calculated expedience, but as a man acting on principle and conviction.

Bush got only 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000; he has known all along that most Jews would vote Democratic in 2004. Yet there is nothing anomalous about his ardent support for Israel or his firm stance against anti-Semitism. Unlike the Europe of Jewish memory, in the United States today it is the left that has increasingly set its face against Jewish interests. As poll after poll confirms, conservative Republicans are much more likely to self-identify as pro-Israel than liberal Democrats. It is no surprise that a man like Pat Buchanan has had to leave the Republican Party. Or that a man like Sharpton is at home among the Democrats.

Of course these are not the only issues that Jewish voters care about. For many voters, Jewish or otherwise, domestic matters - abortion, jobs, taxes, the environment - trump every other concern. But those for whom these issues do weigh heavily have an obligation to look beyond party label. This isn't 1944. No one should be voting as if it is.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:14 PM | Comments (0)