August 31, 2009

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother and Obama’s Health Advisor, manages your Right to Life

Redacted from an article by Betsy McCaughey

The Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2009

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that re-defines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include re-defining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further re-enforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs!! He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. However, Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters - the patient and the society. Medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care."

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going. ... In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bio-terrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination . . .. Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices and procedures . . .. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.

Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views.

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort." Is this what Americans want?

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York State.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:59 AM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2009

Solving the Conservative/Liberal Impasse

AN AMICABLE DIVORCE

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide the country by landmass, each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and (the yet to be determined, by the Israelis, by the way – not George Mitchell, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - jsk) "Palestine" and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickledown economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since they so often offend you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you can answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall, Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda with you.

In addition, we won't have to press 1 for English.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:58 PM | Comments (0)

August 27, 2009

Finally, the true story of a long pathetic history about to be repeated

(G-d forbid)

PM Netanyahu & Defense Minister Ehud Barak – A dangerous duo for Israel’s sovereignty and security

By Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The Wall St. Journal on August 21st ran an article by Joshua Mitnick "ISRAEL’S BARAK TAKES LEAD IN PEACE TALKS" (1) wherein he describes the wonderful(?!) relationship between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ehud Barak. What Mitnick ignores is read between the lines for those of us who know them both and their complicated histories. Since the Wall St. Journal is generally no push over for the boys in the Beltway, why the Puff Piece?

Most everyone in Israel and those outside who know the backgrounds of Netanyahu and Barak would describe them in a different way. Ehud Barak was nurtured by the Labor Left as the "Great Hero,” along with receiving medals for special politically inspired missions so that when he left the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), he would be ready for a Labor Left political career. As for Netanyahu, he is often equated with a used car or house siding salesman, too easily manipulated by U.S. interests with a rubbery spine.

Barak was the one who ran out on his Christian Lebanese allies in the middle of the night. He kept it a big secret between him and President Bill Clinton. The ‘deal’ was if he vacated Israel’s vital security zone on the Southern Lebanese border. Clinton would transfer $800 million to the Israeli Left government if Barak abandoned his allies to the incoming Hezb’Allah terrorists. Barak ran out so fast, he left four tanks, long range 120 mm artillery with pallets of shells and more. Bill Clinton never did transfer the promised $800 million!

Some of the Lebanese Christian soldiers managed to escape over the border into Israel where Barak provided less than desirable living quarters and conditions. Barak has left a trail of victims and their broken bones. Few, other than some radical Leftists, trust Barak. Some will recall that - when Barak was Prime Minister, he desperately tried to abandon the most vital high ground of the Golan Heights and surrender it to Syria’s Hafez al Assad - a most dedicated enemy. Then Barak confirmed his Left Liberal credentials when he was PM by trying to give up 97% of the territories to Yassir Arafat who, thankfully, refused - proving that he never wanted a Palestinian State.

As for Bibi, he bent like a green twig during the Wye River Conference, ending up abandoning 80% of Hebron and the surrounding communities to Yassir Arafat and his PLO Terrorists who immediately went to work, sniping and killing the Jews who remained. Who remembers the Muslim Arab Terrorists shooting of the baby Shalhavet Pass, who died in her father’s arms? And more.... How many more do there have to be?

Let’s not forget then and now how the U.S./CIA trained and armed Arafat’s killers in sniping and other terrorist activities. The American General Keith Dayton has been training the remainder of the PLO (now under Arafat’s loyal lieutenants who are now under Mahmoud Abbas) in shooting, maneuvers - as well as arming them with automatic rifles, long-range sniper rifles, side arms and, no doubt, anti-armor weapons. Israeli leaders even allowed in weapons’ carriers, some from Russia, supposedly to use against ‘other’ Terrorists but we know the newly U.S.-trained PLO Army will use them against Israel.

Bibi sports his Jewishness as a badge of shame. (I saw him resist putting on the kippa in his pocket at a fund-raising dinner hosted by observant Jews.) What nation, what religion would give up the burial site of their nation’s founders? Bibi knowingly gave up sovereignty and sanctity over the venerable Burial Cave of the Matriarchs and Patriarchs, "Ma’arat HaMachpelah.” Our ancestral mothers, Sara, Rivka and Leah, and our fore-fathers Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’acov are buried there. Before 1967 when the IDF liberated all of Eretz Yisrael, the Muslims let the Jews go up only to the 7th step, outside the Tomb.

After the Six Days War of June 1967 liberated all of Eretz Yisrael, including Hebron, Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights, the Jews were finally free to pray in all of the Ma’arat HaMachpelah. HOWEVER, the Left Liberal government of Moshe Dayan, ‘et al’ gave away our sovereignty and the sanctity for the Cave by ‘sharing’ it with the Muslims who could have it on ‘their’ days, parts of it to be shared, and we could have it on ‘our’ days.

Remember, Dayan (another Leftist un-Jew) also gave the "keys" to the Temple Mount to the Muslim Wakf who now totally control Temple Mount and are propagating lies that the Jews have no connection to Har HaBayit. The idea of abandoning any and all holy rallying Jewish sites for observant Jews started with David Ben Gurion and continues to this day.

Bibi proved his choice to be an un-Jew by abandoning the sole sovereignty for the heritage of all Jewish people from ancient times and forever. The pressures put upon him by America to do so, do NOT ameliorate his responsibilities for these surrenders at all. We are left with a lack of trust and confidence in Bibi’s ability to resist the world and, especially, American pressure for future abdication of Israeli and Jewish land.

Nevertheless, Bibi again was elected Prime Minister this year and chose Ehud Barak as his Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, knowing Barak was well beyond the appellation of "Radical Left.” Of course, Bibi tried to get Tzipi Livni first, on direct orders of Arabist State Department but she opted out. The U.S. State Department wanted someone connected to the Olmert government’s appeasement weak psychology. They had ‘secret’ plans to drive the Jews out of Judea and Samaria - and gift all of Jerusalem that Jordan had occupied for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 - the North, South and East of Jerusalem. The State Department wanted an unbroken continuation with the secret negotiations by Olmert-Livni-Barak - forcing Jews out of their inheritance - all the holy sites in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem - and soon - the Golan Heights.

When or IF the Muslims control Judea, Samaria and most (or all) of Jerusalem, none of the rest of Israel - in any borders - will be safe from terrorist attacks. Israel’s water resources will also be at critical risk. Most important, where do they intend to ‘put’ the 500,000 - 600,000 Jewish men, women and children they plan to uproot? In addition, small matter, how and who will pay for that ‘small’ evacuation and re-settlement? Or, don’t we use the word ‘settlement’? Has it become a dirty word?

The Muslim Arabs never wanted a state before the Jews created a Garden of Eden in a desolate land. Since then, the Muslims felt compelled to steal it from the Jews. Those Muslim Arabs now called ‘Palestinians’ came into Eretz Yisrael from all over the Middle East after the Jews made jobs, medical care and a better life for all the people of the Middle East. Of course, none of these historical facts would appear in a puff piece written for the Wall St. Journal by Joshua Mitnick. Not his fault, just a bit of an important history lesson left out - Our History. We Americans should be used to misleading articles as was done - often - for President Barack Hussein Obama but NOT from The Wall St. Journal.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:12 PM | Comments (0)

August 26, 2009

Cutting through the chaff of PM Netanyahu’s remarks at British press conference

Redacted from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Newsletter

August 25, 2009

We (PM Gordon Brown and PM Netanyahu) also discussed the peace process. I reiterated Israel's commitment to peace and outlined what I believe is the winning formula for peace: a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. We're working hard to advance a peace process that will lead to an actual peace result and we hope to move forward in the weeks and months ahead.

We're not waiting. We have already moved: my government has removed, to be precise, 147 checkpoints and roadblocks. The 14 remaining checkpoints, 12 of them are manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to facilitate movement. I have extended the time of passage on the Allenby Bridge on the Jordan River in order to facilitate movement in and out of the Palestinian territories. I chair a ministerial committee that seeks to remove and has removed roadblocks to economic activity in the West Bank. We've moved on the ground.

I've also moved not merely in deed but in word: I have spoken about the need to achieve this balance of a demilitarized Palestinian state next to a Jewish state and I think that this has resonated far and wide. It wasn't easy to do. But this is what we have done in the short period of time - the four months that we're in office. We “expect” similar movement from the Palestinian Authority and certainly based on what we've seen in the recent Fatah conference there has not been that movement; that's an understatement.

(“Expect,” “hope,” “wish”, “American, British, EU and Arab Promises” – We should know exactly where you could put those words. When will Netanyahu and the Israelis ever learn and finally remove their heads from the chopping block?) jsk

But, there has to be (really?) that movement. There has to be not merely a partner on the other side, there has to be a courageous partner, because I think we've shown a certain amount of fortitude and leadership and that's what's required from the Palestinian side. They have to say unequivocally 'it's over. We are going to make a real peace.

It'll be a final peace. It will be a peace that will end all claims to further conflict. It will be a peace that will resolve the Palestinian refugee issue once and for all and just as Jews can come to Israel, Palestinians can come to the Palestinian state. But, not in Israel, because there has to be a Jewish state and if we're asked to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people, it is absolutely essential that the Palestinian leadership says to the Palestinian people 'you will have to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.'

(And, how’s the tooth fairy doing? Jsk)

QUESTION: Mr. Netanyahu, will you continue while you talk to build homes for Jews in those parts of Jerusalem that Israel captured in 1967?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I have made it clear in my conversation with President Obama in Washington and since that, Jerusalem is the sovereign capital of Israel. We accept no limitations on our sovereignty. This is very clear. To put a fine point on it, I say Jerusalem is not a settlement. The settlement issue is outstanding and has become one of the issues to be resolved in the negotiations, alongside Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state and effective demilitarization arrangements for any future peace agreement.

However, our position is that Jerusalem is the united capital of the Jewish people. It has only been around for 3,500 years. We recognize that there are obviously Arab residents in Jerusalem, and they enjoy all the equal rights and all the equal benefits of the Jewish residents. We do not draw a difference.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:46 AM | Comments (0)

August 24, 2009

For those buying Swedish Volvos or shopping at IKEA,

I Letter from David Frankfurter - dfrankfurter.livejournal.com
II Report on Sweden from Israel - Israel Foreign Ministry

Dear Friends,
I am sure that you have been following the war of words between Sweden and Israel. A Swedish newspaper repeated rumor and innuendo that Israeli soldiers were harvesting organs from Palestinians. Sweden (which currently heads the European Union) has refused to condemn this blood libel, confusing freedom of speech with hate speech. The Swedish Foreign Ministry even distanced itself from criticism of the article by its own Embassy staff in Israel.

Friend Gerald Steinberg that this is consistent with Sweden being a major sponsor of anti-Semitic NGOs which consistently defames Israel with lies, innuendo, propaganda and spin. Gerald expresses the hope that this furor will somehow teach the Swedes a lesson, and that they will stop this destructive funding. Unfortunately, I am less optimistic. This blood libel is, in fact, consistent with Swedish government policy for over a decade.

In March of 2004, Swedish newspapers showed that Sweden had, from 1997 to 2004, deliberately and consistently classified as secret their own reports that their donations to Arafat’s Palestinian Authority were being diverted to corruption and the creation of a police state. Why? So that they could continue to knowingly, channel billions of crowns to Palestinian corruption and violence. Also hidden from view of the Parliament was tens of millions in donations to the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit - an organization which had stopped negotiating and had become a pure Palestinian propaganda agency. Swedish politicians were “shocked” – but the money kept flowing.

Later that same year, Lisa Abramovich and I highlighting the fact that the Swedish government was funding a conference in Gothenburg aimed at finding ways to fund Palestinian terrorism. For well over a decade, Sweden has deliberately and carefully looked for and found ways to secretly and openly fund the Palestinian propaganda and physical war against the Jews. Moreover, the Israeli government thinks that they can get the Swedes to change their ways with a bit of diplomatic pressure. They forget that the Swedes may live in a cold country, but they have proved that they can take the heat.

II Report on Sweden from Israel
Israeli Foreign Ministry, August 23, 2009

FM Liberman reacts to Swedish article slandering Israeli soldiers. The meaning of freedom of the press is the freedom to publish the truth and not the freedom to lie and slander. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Liberman will convey a sharp protest to his Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt, for failing to support the condemnation issued by Sweden's ambassador in Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, of the defamatory article published this week in the daily newspaper Aftonbladet.

FM Liberman instructed Ministry staff to examine the possibility of revoking Aftonbladet's press credentials in Israel or, at the very least, not to aid or cooperate with the newspaper's journalists. FM Liberman said that it was a pity that, after Swedish Ambassador to Israel Borsiin Bonnier did the right thing and condemned the article, thereby making clear that the newspaper did not represent Swedish views, the Swedish Foreign Ministry chose to distance itself from her remarks instead of supporting them. The meaning of freedom of the press is the freedom to publish the truth, Liberman continued, and not the freedom to lie and slander. A country that truly wants to safeguard democratic values should strongly condemn false reports that reek of anti-Semitism, such as the one published this week by the newspaper Aftonbladet, Liberman said.

“It's a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry doesn't intervene in cases of blood libels against Jews. This is reminiscent of Sweden's position during World War II, when it also failed to intervene. The article published this week is a natural outgrowth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and blood libels in which Jews were accused of adding the blood of Christian children to the Passover matzahs."

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:00 PM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2009

What’s with these “Czars”?

Where does a czar’s reign end and Congress begin?

By Lurita Doan

Lurita Doan is the former Administrator of the US, General Services (GSA) administration

US News Today, August 12, 2009

Here we go again. By my count, President Obama has appointed nearly three dozen czars to deal with myriad policy issues from technology to restructuring the auto industry. Now Congress is keen to add to the stable of existing czars yet another Slavic potentate, the insurance czar, who would be given sweeping new powers to oversee the medical insurance industry. Czars are a terrible idea. The old adage used to be that not everyone could be a chief but, in the Obama administration, everyone can be a czar. Each week, it seems, the president announces yet another one. Historically, there was only ever one omnipotent czar at a time. Obama’s czars, in contrast have neither autonomy nor clear authority and seem only to erode the statutory responsibilities of Senate confirmed Cabinet members.

Do we need czars? The idea of yet another czar brings three questions immediately to mind.
· How will the president ensure that the various czars’ responsibilities do not duplicate the efforts and responsibilities of Senate-confirmed Cabinet members?
· How can accountability be ensured when so many responsibilities are divided among so many masters?
· Where’s the funding for this new position and its accompanying infrastructure?

For Cabinet members, the arrival of yet another czar competing for the president’s attention reduces their influence. Perhaps even more important; the rapid proliferation of direct reports to the president is impossible to manage effectively. Accountability in the federal government is challenging enough, but with czars and pop up all over the place, it is increasingly difficult to know who is in charge, and you can bet the turf wars are ferocious. Too many strong-willed people with duplicative responsibilities and no clear direct line of responsibility are a recipe for confusion.

Who deals with Congress?

What hasn’t been explained by the president is how his czars will interface with the oversight from Congress. When Congress calls with questions and concerns, the White House staff often hides behind the protection of executive privilege. As a result, the agency head, confirmed by the Senate, is held responsible. Agency heads arid Cabinet officials must venture to the Hill and be accountable to Congress. Yet, the actual policy for that grosgrain may well have been managed by one of the ubiquitous White House czars. What happens then? You better believe that when the heat is on, fingers will start to point in many directions and, most likely, the czars will find a place to hunker down.

There’s also the funding issue. Czars come with infrastructure requirements: office space and technology needed to perform the job. One can only wonder why Obama seems to be increasing unnecessary spending when a more responsible course of action might be to cut redundant positions and programs. As Americans, we need our presidents to succeed. The president has the right to appoint whomever he believes will best help him achieve that success. However, for the sake of transparency and for fulfilling statutory obligations, the president might find that he and our country are better served if he allows those whom Congress confirms for the job to be the ones to actually do the job.

In addition, remember, the historical record with czars is rather grim. Many were killed off by rivals and met a nasty end. Expect history to repeat itself.

(Evidently, the writer is either naive or much more likely, not willing to say the obvious - that Obama and his carefully selected henchmen, are interested only in a power grab in order to control the entire government. They are making moves to by-pass the Congress, make “empathetic” Supreme Court Justice appointments, replace our entire society based upon merit and equal opportunity with some hoax called “diversity” that has repeatedly been defeated by the electorate, subvert our national security interests, make porous our borders, diminish our foreign policy strengths and appoint a crew of lackeys based entirely on their proven loyalty to Barack Obama's perverse ideology and the many questionable tactics of his recent election) Jsk


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:53 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2009

The True Health Care Number is 8 million not 47 million

Why the Obama administration cannot tell the truth on health care

By David Limbaugh
The Washington Times, August 10, 2009

President Barack Obama is spreading disinformation about health care almost as quickly as he’s driving up the national debt, such as that 47 million Americans can’t get health care and that a government takeover would be a panacea. Democrats have constantly demagogued the 47 million un-insured figure to gin up public fear about the scarcity of health care access, especially for the poor. They follow up with the promise that under their plan, we would achieve universal access. But, both are untrue.

In “The ‘Top Ten Myths of American Health Care;’ Sally Pipes points out that while there are some Americans who simply can’t afford health insurance, many millions who can afford insurance choose not to buy it and “very likely would not want to be ‘rescued’ by mandatory socialized medicine. In the first place, the 47 million number is grossly inflated. The Congressional Budget Office survey generating it included those who were un-insured for any part of a year, despite the fact that almost half of these remain un-insured for an average of only four months.

Some 38 percent of this 47 million — almost 18 million — make more than $50,000 a year, and 10 million of them make more than $75,000. Of all the uninsured groups, this is the only one that is growing, because in a still free country, they’ve made their own decision not to buy expensive insurance while (most of them) are young and healthy. The Census Bureau also reports that more than 10 million of the un-insured are not American citizens.

But, how about the very poor? Well, it turns out that the Democrats are shedding crocodile tears here, as well. Pipes explains that “as many as 14 million of the 45.7 million uninsured — poor and low-income Americans — are fully eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, But, they’re just not enrolling in the programs.”

So, while Mr. Obama tells us that almost 8 million children lack health insurance, he doesn’t disclose that 5 million of them only lack insurance because they haven’t been enrolled in the available programs. Not only would this fact undermine the urgency of his appeal; it illustrates that even under his universal access plan, not everyone would acquire coverage anyway. Indeed, the CBO has estimated that some 17 million would remain un-insured if the Democrat’s plan were implemented.

Yes, there are people who fall through the cracks (Ms. Pipes’ words) — mostly those who earn less than $50,000 per year but too much to qualify for government help. When it’s all said and done, there are probably about 8 million of these “chronically uninsured,” who really can’t afford insurance and don’t qualify for help — though they are able to receive emergency room care.

Moreover, many of these 8 million would be better able to afford coverage if government regulations and mandates hadn’t driven up the costs so much. But, how urgent do you suppose is Obama’s call for universal coverage would sound if he were to come clean with these figures? The truth is he couldn’t get to first base if he used the 8 million figure instead of 47 million.

But, there’s another important factor to keep separate, as well. There’s a major difference between a lack of insurance and a lack of care. Under Mr. Obama’s socialized medicine scheme, not only would universal insurance coverage be impossible to achieve but also access to medical care and the scope of care would be dramatically reduced, as it has been in every socialized system in the world and in our own government health programs.

It is axiomatic that price controls result in rationing and waiting lines, and many of the very people Mr. Obama is using to shame us into supporting socialized medicine would suffer drastic reductions in the quantity, scope and quality of care. Hit hardest would be the elderly. Big Brother would make the decision as to scope and even quality of care. Chilling evidence for this is already in the draft bills and in Mr. Obama’s unwitting admissions to that effect.

It is tree that our health care costs are very high and rising at alarming rates, but not for the reasons Mr. Obama wants you to believe. Rather, it’s because we Americans demand greater quality care and medications (and we get them), which are expensive, and because of already excessive government interference with free market forces.

It’s no wonder costs are skyrocketing when government mandated coverage requirements choke competition and prevent more affordable plans and when 60 percent of Americans have health insurance and don’t directly pay for their care, which necessarily increases demand (and prices). The solution lies in unleashing market forces (see more on this later), not the tyrannical hand of government

David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:19 PM | Comments (0)

August 18, 2009

CNN, Christiana Amanpour and their latest disgrace to objective journalism.

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Christina Amanpour hosted a predictably biased analysis of the problems of the Middle East August 13 9PM EST, in a two hour “special” called Generation Islam. The press release modestly declared that Amanpour "explores the battle for the next generation of Muslim hearts and minds." The settings are in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Gaza and, of course, virtually all the multicultural and multifaceted problems in the huge areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Hamas dominated territory of Gaza are Israel’s fault.

But, why should we be surprised by Amanpour’s presentation? As recently as August 2007 Amanpour produced a so-called documentary, God's Jewish warriors, that was a classic in deliberately distorted depiction of Israel and its supporters. Another episode in the same series, God’s Muslim Warriors, attempted to create a moral equivalency in the actions of the opposing factions which, in the real world, outside Arab propaganda, simply does not exist.

In fact, Amanpour’s pro-Muslim, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Christian, versions of the conflict go back much further. Way back on Jan. 12, 1998, the Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletin, had already figured out Amanpour, citing her pro-Muslim press releases from Bosnia and from the oil dispute in the Caspian Sea. “Christiana Amanpour, a CNN reporter of Iranian ancestry (which CNN carefully omits), whose passionate lies and distortions aired from Muslim Sarajevo during the three-and-a-half year Bosnian war, turned the Christian Serbs into minced meat, while covering the Muslims with sympathy and glory.”

Christiana personal history is instructive. Shortly after her birth in London, her father Mohammad, an Iranian airline executive and her British mother Patricia, moved the family to Tehran. The Amanpours led a privileged life under the government of the Shah of Iran. Her family later fled from Iran during the Islamic Revolution. Amanpour moved to the United States to study journalism and in 1983, she was hired by CNN. Her emotional delivery during the Siege of Sarajevo led some viewers and critics to question her professional objectivity, claiming that many of her reports were unjustified and favoured the Bosnian Muslims, to which Amanpour replied, "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.” Hence, her Israeli/Arab type coverage, except Israel obtained no legitimate hearing.

In her current diatribe against Israel, Generation Islam, completely ignored is the history of the conflict with the Arabs attacking Israel with the purpose of annihilation in 3 major wars (1948, 1967, 1973) with constant terrorism and a War of Attrition in between. In Gaza, the history that led to the current state of affairs is again ignored. The fact that Egypt ruled the area from their attack on Israel in 1948 to 1967 and made no attempt to develop the area and kept the population in abject poverty is not mentioned. In the June 1967, Six Day War, Israel regained Gaza and the standard of living of the Gazans improved tremendously. Then in May, 2000, PM Ariel Sharon made the gargantuan error of disengaging Israel from Gaza, forcibly removed 8000 Israelis from their flourishing homes, farms, greenhouses, flower and fish industry with resultant Arab job loss and turned it over to Hamas. Hamas immediately destroyed all the productivity the Israelis had created, riddled the government with graft, militancy, terrorism and abject poverty and began sending thousands of rockets into Israeli towns now just a few minutes away.

Finally, In January 2009, Israel had enough and pummeled the parts of Gaza, from which the rockets were being launched and deliberately placed in civilian centers.

Instead of presenting these irrefutable facts, Christine Amanpour put out her usual emotional one sided creation with the transparent purpose of denigrating American foreign policy and laying the entire catastrophe on the Israelis. Instead of facts Amanpour put forth tens of witnesses consisting primarily of well rehearsed little kids with the their parents and Amanpour prompting every word disparaging America and Israelis and going so far as to encourage one Arab woman who wished she could find every Jew in order to kill them! We were also shown numerous militant training camps for very young boys and the question was raised how come these boys grow up to want to kill Israelis? Big mystery!

What is not shown is the great amount of destruction done to the Israeli town of Sderot now in easy range of Hamas rockets. Hamas continues to improve upon their rocket fire bringing the densely populated Mediterranean coast of Israel in range. If new attacks occur from Gaza, their people will again suffer the consequences.

Toward the end of the program, Amanpour praises the new Arab children’s Muppet TV program which claimed to have some elements of peaceful resolution, perhaps replacing the previous Mickey Mouse show that featured Arab toddlers in suicide jackets dressed up to go to Muslim heaven. Amanpour's well timed phony gasps and exclamations at the sight of stains of blood that somehow were kept in place with the rest of the ruble seven months later, were not convincing. Unfortunately, another CNN/Amanpour political propaganda charade took Sunday night center stage. We can only hope the American public like many of Amanpour’s media peers have figured her out.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2009

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s spiritual and political re-awakening

(And may it be G-d’s will) jsk

Redacted from a speech at Shomriya (Nascent community within the Negev desert of Israel)
August 10, 2009

...Distinguished guests,

On my way here I passed a hill. I stopped the motorcade, we walked around and I climbed the hill. I have been near Tel Lachish many times, I have stood beside Tel Lachish, but as far as I can remember, I have never climbed Tel Lachish, at least not during the day. So, I decided to climb it during the day. And before me, I saw the amazing sight of one of the most spectacularly beautiful hills and one of the richest in our history - in the history of mankind. However, it stands abandoned.

First, I would like to ask about the children. Rabbi Yuval, have the children been on Tel Lachish? This is our land. Climb the hill! Visit this hill. Lead the people of Israel and foreign tourists in climbing the hill. Sennacherib [King of Assyria] came here and conquered the area; he came and went – we are here. After that the Babylonians came; they came and destroyed, conquered; but they fell – we are here. Many others came – but we are here, we are here in the Lachish Region, at Tel Lachish. It is in our possession, part of the State of Israel, of the Jewish people who returned to its land and re-established its sovereignty.

Near Lachish Hill, there are many other regions – Efi mentioned them: there is Tel Gezer as well. Simon the Hasmonean said about Tel Gezer: “Not a foreign land have we conquered, but rather this is our land.” I would like there to be young people at Tel Gezer. I would like to speak about our heritage. I would like to speak about the land; I would like to speak about our land, our history. There is no future without the past. First and foremost, we must establish the past.

So one decision we made on the way here today at that stop was: we will rehabilitate the spectacular sites of Jewish heritage, here and there and in other sites. I have one request: I would like to see many more children here, although the number of children here today is heartwarming. How many are here today? 100 families? G-d willing, there will be 400 during my next visit. ...

We cannot deny the mistakes made during the Disengagement from Gaza and unfortunately, we see that what we got in exchange is an Iranian base (Ruled by Hamas, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction.) jsk. We did not get peace or security. We suffered thousands of rockets fired at our communities, from Gan Yavne to Be’er Sheva, to Ashkelon and Ashdod, and of course, Sderot. We will not accept rockets fired on our communities. There is nothing natural about this. Not a dribble, not a trickle, not a hail of rockets and not “one” rocket. Israel will not suffer rocket fire. We will respond to every rocket fired. Yesterday there was rocket fire – and last night we responded. Our enemies should know that this is our policy. We will not suffer rocket fire on our communities. This clarity, this resolution should be clear to everyone.

In addition, a second thing, we know that a unilateral abandonment, without an agreement, without security arrangements, without an exchange, without mutuality – all these create deterioration. We seek peace – genuine peace, a peace of recognition, a peace in which the other side recognizes our rights in this land, our history in this land, in the national right of the Jewish people to its own country, not because that will lead to the legitimacy of recognition for us, but because it is the only way our neighbors will begin to accept the fact of our existence and our right to exist here. This is the first and most basic claim.

The second thing – in addition to our right – is security. We must always ensure that there be appropriate security arrangements – not feeble ones that will later lead to attacks on our communities, on our children. These are two basic principles that we firmly insist on, and I think the international community is slowly accepting this. ...

Good luck, and thank you very much.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis



l






Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:21 PM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2009

Islamists invade American public grade schools and universities!

August 12, 2009

Muslim Indoctrination in Nyssa, Oregon
Students taught:
* How to Say Muslim Prayers
* The Five Pillars of Islamic Faith
* Key Scriptures from the Koran
TEACHERS ASK STUDENTS TO:
* Dress up as Muslims
* Play Islamic skits
* Build Muslim props

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Public Funds Discriminate Against Christians
Muslims students are given a “prayer” room when no such room is available to Christians or Jews. The room is laid out with prayer rugs.
Non-Muslim students must remove shoes and be separated according to sex when entering the prayer area.

Irmo High School Columbia, South Carolina
A public funded school School Superintendent Don Grotting says the Islamic program is mandated by the State of Oregon. However, one parent, Kendalee Garner, says her teenage son is being “indoctrinated” when asked to dress up as a Muslim and then taught prayers and scriptures from the Koran.

UNIVERSITIES INSTALLING MUSLIM FOOT BATHS AND PRAYER ROOMS
At least 17 universities have foot baths built or under construction, including Boston University, George Washington University, and Temple University. At least nine universities have prayer rooms for “Muslim students only,” including Stanford, Emory and the University of Virginia.

Students are required to create a pamphlet which would teach people about Islam. Discuss the Five Pillars of Islam.

STUDENTS TOLD BY A GUEST SPEAKER: All religions are based on Islam.
STUDENTS TAUGHT: The United States is a “Judeo-Christian-Muslim” nation, according to the beliefs of the founding fathers.
MUSLIM STUDENTS: Allowed to use the school library for prayer each day.

SAN DIEGO PUBLIC SCHOOL

During the 2006 school year at Carver Elementary School in San Diego:
Muslim students were given a dedicated room for 15 minutes of prayer each day after lunch.
A school aide was accused of leading Muslim prayers.
Classes for Muslim students were separated by sex in compliance with Islamic tradition.
Pork products offending Muslims were eliminated from the cafeteria menu.
After Carver Elementary absorbed 100 Muslim students from a failed charter school, it immediately set out to accommodate its Islamic students.
It initiated single-sex classes, Arabic studies, a special room for Muslim prayer and eliminated pork from the cafeteria menu. After an uproar from community members and activist organizations, school officials agreed to eliminate “boys-only and girls-only” classes and the special classroom for Muslim prayers. To accommodate Muslim students, school policy has added a new lunch schedule where Muslim students can pray and the school still eliminates pork from its cafeteria menu.

BYRON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
Seventh grade students were given an “Islam Student Guide” that specifically states: “From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslim.” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the program as constitutional! What the Byron school program taught or asked students to do:
• Recite aloud Muslim prayers that begin with “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful...”
• Memorize the Muslim profession of faith: “Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger.”
• Chant “Praise be to Allah” in response to teacher prompts.
• Profess as true” the Muslim belief that “The Holy Quran is God’s word.”
• Give up candy and TV to demonstrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
• Take an Arabic name from a list of 30.
• Play a board game called a “Race to Mecca”
• Wear an emblem of the Muslim star and crescent moon around their necks.
• Students were taught this jihadist prayer: “Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of Allah,’ you linger slothfully in the land? ... If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly and replace you with other men.”

This report contains just samples of Islamic intrusion, indoctrination and accommodations promoted and accepted in America’s public schools. It is presented by Christian Action Network, PO Box 606, Forest, VA 24551

To help our special TASK FORCE monitor, investigate and aggressively confront these unconstitutional programs, please help us now with the best possible tax-deductible donation you are able to make.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:54 AM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2009

Capitulation to Sharia Law - Are floggings, amputations and beheadings next?

Sharia law takes over British Police Dept.

By Daniel Pipes

National Post
August 5, 2009

Those of us who argue against Sharia are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that Sharia should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005. The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion. Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.

Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law. The first concerns Queens Care Centre, an old-age home and day-care provider for the elderly in the coal town of Maltby, 40 miles east of Manchester. At present, according to the Daily Telegraph, not one of its 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim. Although the home's management asserts a respect for its residents' "religious and cultural beliefs," QCC's owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own, decided this year to switch the home's meat purchases to a halal butcher.

His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers and mash, ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork pies, bacon butties, or sausage rolls. The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one resident called it "a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in their final years deserve better. “It's shocking that they should be deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man." A staff member opined that it's "quite wrong that someone should impose their religious and cultural beliefs on others like this."

Queried about his decision, Khan lamely replied he ordered halal meat for the sake of (non-existent) Muslim staff. Then he backtracked: "We will be ordering all types of meat" and went so far as to agree that religious beliefs should not be imposed on others. His retreat did not convince one former QCC staffer, who suspected that Khan "intended to serve only halal meat at the home but has had to think again because of the row."

A second example of imposing Shariah on non-Muslims comes from southeast England. The Avon and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13 apiece, come complete with the constabulary's emblem. Now, issuing hijabs as part of uniforms in Great Britain is nothing new. The London police led the way in 2001, followed by other police forces, at least one fire brigade, and even the furniture chain IKEA, (from notoriously anti-Semitic Sweden – jsk). What sets the Avon and Somerset hijabs apart from these others is their being intended not just for pious Muslim female staff. It also applies to non-Muslim staff, in particular for their use upon entering mosques.

Rashad Azami of the Bath Islamic Society finds it "highly pleasing" that the constabulary took this step. One of the seven non-Muslim officers to receive a hijab of her very own, Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, calls it "a very positive addition to the uniform and one which I'm sure it will be a welcome item for many of our officers."

Dhimmitude is the term Bat Ye'or coined to describe subservience to Sharia by non-Muslims. Assistant Chief Constable Roberts' enthusiasm for the hijab might be called "advanced dhimmitude." "Hijab bullies" (as David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch calls them) who coerce non-Muslim females to cover up are just one stripe of Islamist imposing Shar'i ways on the West.

Other Islamists focus on impeding the uncensored discussion of such topics as Muhammad and the Koran or Islamist institutions or terrorist financing; still others exert to bring taxpayer-funded schools, hospitals, and jails into conformity with Islamic law, not to speak of taxi cabs and municipal swimming pools. Their efforts don't always succeed but in the aggregate, they are rapidly shifting the premises of Western, and especially British, life.

Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork consumption. That, in brief, explains why Western accommodations to Halakha have no relevance for dealing with Sharia and why Sharia as public policy must be opposed.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:14 PM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2009

The Unvarnished anti-Israel position of the American State Department

Subject: US Consulate in Jerusalem ignores Israel.
From: Barry Shaw

August 05, 2009

I am sending you a troubling email and attachment relating to the official website of the US Government. America has an official US Consulate based in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the official capital of the Jewish state of Israel. Yet, to read the official website of the US Department of State Consulate in Jerusalem, you would think that Israel does not exist and that their official function is to act as the US Embassy to the State of Palestine.

Please browse through this officially sanctioned website and try to find any reference to cooperation or coordination between the American Consul and Israel. The absence of mention or official contact with the State of Israel from their Jerusalem bureau is deeply disturbing. Let me make it very clear. We are not talking about some anti-Israel NGO (Non-government organization) here. This is the US Government! This website appears in English and Arabic - but not Hebrew.

The website reports on funding for Palestinian programs - but none for Israel. The US Consulate in Jerusalem offers funding for educational grants to Palestinian residents of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem which excludes Israelis and Americans from participation. The website reports on US Government funding for Palestinian libraries - but not for Israeli libraries. The site reports on funding for Palestinian summer camps in the West Bank but none for Israeli summer camps. They even provide funding for what they call the Palestinian Cultural Heritage - but none to preserve Israeli or Jewish Cultural Heritage schemes.

If you thought that the US Government was non-partisan - think again. It seems that the US Department of State has joined the Palestinian Authority in wiping Israel off the map.

Barry Shaw
The View from Here – Israel
netre@matav.net.il
Shortcut to: http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/index.html

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:50 PM | Comments (0)

August 07, 2009

The deliberate perversion of the news by supposedly objective sources

Unfortunately, the Left wing JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) remains the main news source for Jewish Papers around the country - Not unlike the erroneously exalted New York Times for American newspapers. And, guess who suffers from this slanted coverage – the State of Israel and the Jews who refuse to recognize the damage being done. (jsk)

JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) Coverage of Fatah Congress in Bethlehem

By David Bedein
August 4, 2009

The Fatah Congress, launched on Tuesday in Bethlehem, focused on Fatah's determination to continue the armed struggle against the state and people of Israel. However, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) Correspondent Dina Kraft waits until paragraph nine to even mention the threat of continued Fatah war against Israel:

· JTA ignores the official statement of the Israel Minister of Information who declared that the statements of this Fatah Congress represent a declaration of war against the state of Israel.
· JTA ignores the refusal of the Fatah to remove the "armed struggle" from the Fatah platform:
· JTA ignores Fatah columnists who editorialized this week as to why Fatah must maintain the "armed struggle as part of the Fatah's bylaws
· JTA ignores coverage of the Middle East Newsline which features interviews with a wide range of Fatah leaders who call for the continued armed struggle
· JTA ignores Fatah refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state:
· JTA ignores Fatah TV shows aired this week which define
Haifa, Acre and Jaffa as Palestinian cities

Since the Fatah Congress resumes on Wednesday morning, it will be instructive as to whether JTA will continue to downplay the spirit of this seminal meeting, which represents a lethal threat to the state and people of Israel.

David Bedein, author of the forthcoming book, "Swimming Against the Mainstream,” has run the Israel Resource News Agency, since 1987, at the Beit Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, where he also heads the Center for Near East Policy Research and serves as the Middle East correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin.

Additional commentary from a well-informed Israel pundit:

"The JTA's stories are increasingly more negative on Israel and may as well be competing with Al - Jazeera. It's really disgusting !"

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)

August 06, 2009

Pathetic, self-hating Jews and their organizations, genuflecting to their mortal enemies

Paved With Good Intentions

By Ruth King

From Outpost published by Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI)
August 2009

I am not a Torah scholar, but have consulted with experts and scoured the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) and the 613 additional commandments (Mitzvahs) codified in the eighth century. I can report with confidence that among the hundreds of “shalts” and “shalt nots” there are none that command Jews to be Democrats or liberals or to love their enemies better than themselves. You could be excused for not knowing this, given the number of political groupies who cloak themselves in “religious” palaver when their politically correct doctrines are challenged.

The most misused and overused cliché is, Tikkun Olam, translated as “repairing the world.” The phrase originated in classical rabbinic literature and is found in kabala, a major strand of Jewish mysticism whose famous exponent was the 16th-century Rabbi Isaac Luria. It is now used to promote the cult of global warming, universal health care and assorted other “progressive” policies, especially those inimical to Israel’s survival. Incidentally, one of the directors of the seditious group “J” Street which acts as shill for President Obama’s anti-Israel policies is named Isaac Luria. Well what’s in a name? The director is called “Ben-Ami” which means son of my people.

Groups like “J” Street were founded on anti-Israel premises. More alarming are the formerly mainstream organizations which have veered precipitously to the left. For example, Hadassah is the world’s largest volunteer women’s organization with a sterling record of hands-on support for Israel. Hadassah sent the first group of public health nurses to Palestine in 1913. It established nurseries, schools, health centers and major hospitals. Its members were active in the rescue movement which saved thousands of children from the Nazis. With Israel’s independence Hadassah played an outsize role in the ingathering which brought the wretched survivors of Europe and the Arab states to Israel, providing housing, medical care, counseling and language and vocational training.

However, as younger women active in the 1970s anti-war movement took over, the focus changed to trendy domestic issues such as abortion, gay and lesbian rights, embryonic stem cell research, a “green” planet, and “social justice and civil rights” as seen through the prism of the far left of the Democratic party. It is not only that this has nothing to do with specifically Jewish concerns. “Social justice” issues, thus defined, are the mainstay of Israel-hating groups—to take Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well known examples.

The Anti-Defamation League formerly of B’nai B’rith is another former powerhouse that fell to the left. Founded in 1943, the B’nai B'rith is the oldest Jewish service and communal organization in the world. It founded the ADL in 1913 "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.” The great influx of refugees from Eastern Europe had intensified latent anti-Semitism. Libels of Jews as “money lenders” and criminals were widespread; clubs were formed to exclude them; even boycotts of businesses gained traction; and financial and academic institutions established quotas to limit Jewish participation.

Through education, public relations and the courts, the ADL rose to the challenge of taking on defamers of Jews. The ADL was also strongly supportive of Israel and after 1967 closely monitored anti-Vietnam and other leftist protests which degenerated into stealth-bashing of Israel. The ADL maintained the most thorough archives of United Nations depredations, anti-Semitic cartoons and editorials in the Arab press, media assaults and libels against Israel. Within the President’s Conference, the ADL was foremost in resisting the pressures of left-wing anti Israel groups. What happened?

Why did the ADL turn from opposing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda to insulting people like Dennis Prager as "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American” for insisting that Moslem Congressman Keith Ellison take the oath of office on a Bible, not the Koran? (The worst the ADL could find to say about Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University was that it was "a charade of half-answers and obfuscation.")

Why does the ADL slam the heroic Geert Wilders, who has put his life on the line for the West, for “Islamophobia,” while remaining silent on the genocidal intentions toward Jews of “the religion of peace”? Why have they defamed the Evangelicals who are Israel’s most stalwart supporters while schmoozing with and empathizing with the “hurt feelings” of those who want to behead all infidels? In its zeal to empty the public square of any and all religious content, the ADL has gone so far as to criticize the placement of the Ten Commandments on public property and Bibles in public schools.

In a hard-hitting column, Ann Coulter skewered the ADL: “The survival of Israel is inextricably linked to the survival of the Republican Party and its evangelical base. Yet, the ADL viciously attacks conservatives, implying that there is some genetic anti-Semitism among right-wingers. This ploy is used in order to hide the fact that anti-Semites are the ADL's best friends. They are the defeatists in Congress, the people who tried to drive Joe Lieberman from office, the hoodlums on college campuses who riot at any criticism of Muslim terrorists and identify Israel as an imperialist aggressor, and liberal college faculties calling for ‘anti-apartheid’ boycotts of Israel. The Democratic Party sleeps with anti-Semites every night, but groups like the ADL love to play-act their bravery at battling ghosts, as if it's the 1920s and they are still fighting quotas at Harvard.”

The ADL’s poster boy is Alan Dershowitz, once a defender of Jews and Israel at Harvard and the bete noir of Jimmy Carter, who feared debating him. His obsession with abortions, climate warming hysteria, and other multi-cultural trash has rendered him a pathetic hero worshipper of Obama and the Democratic Party and a loud and articulate defamer of Christian friends of Israel. What is going on?

People like Dershowitz, along with the leaders of most of the mainstream Jewish organizations, somehow got the idea that blending with the left and dabbling in “progressive” politics was good for the Jewish future. They bought into the idea that they were furthering Jewish interests but now the idea has them in its grip. To the left, which increasingly flirts with outright anti-Semitism, they are irrelevant. As defenders of Israel, they are useless. Indeed, by their support of the left they wind up in the same place as Israel’s most malevolent detractors, the J Streets, Tikkun Olams and New Israel Funds, driving away friends and gratifying enemies.

As the old saw has it, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:33 AM | Comments (0)

August 04, 2009

Netanyahu asks US envoy George Mitchell to deposit Southern California to...

Mexico prior to US Mexican border re-adjustment negotiations

(Not really but, what a grand idea ...)

Netanyahu to Mitchell: No Golan Deposit to Assad

From: Dr. Aaron Lerner
30 July 2009

Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot correspondent, Itamar Eichner reports in today’s edition, according to senior officials with Netanyahu, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told US Middle East envoy George Mitchell on Tuesday that he would not give Assad an Israeli agreement in principle to withdraw from the Golan Heights – a condition set by Syrian President Assad for the renewal of talks.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:32 AM | Comments (0)

August 01, 2009

From brilliant Prof. Ruth R. Wisse to colleague, Prof. Henry Louis Gates

An open letter to Henry Louis Gates.
By Ruth R. Wisse
07/29/2009

From: The Weekly Standard

Dear Skip,

My first thought on hearing of your arrest was for your welfare, so I was relieved to learn that that the case against you had been dropped and you were off to join your family on Martha's Vineyard. From what I can piece together, you must have been exhausted after a long flight, exasperated to have your front door jammed, and then dumbfounded to find yourself suspected of breaking and entering your own home. To that point, you have my sympathy.

But thereafter your case becomes disturbing, and while the president's unwise comments turned a local episode into a national referendum, it's the local issue that troubles me. Like you, I live in Cambridge, commonly known as the "People's Republic of Cambridge" for its left-leaning political correctness. Our congressional district has not sent a Republican to Washington since 1955. Not surprisingly, the officers who came to your door--a rainbow of black, Hispanic, and white--were led by a man hand-picked to provide training on the avoidance of bias in policing. To accuse the Cambridge police of racial profiling, as you did, is about as credible as charging Barack Obama with favoring Republicans.

What puzzles me most in the report of your actions--or reactions--on July 16 is why you would have chosen, as I've heard you put it elsewhere, to "talk Black" to officer Crowley instead of "talking White" as you so eloquently and regularly do? These are distinctions I've heard you expound--how educated African Americans switch their register of speech depending on what part of themselves they want to get across. Many of us do something similar inside and outside our particular communities, but you make it sound like a sport that is also for African Americans a tool of survival. So why didn't you address the policemen as fellow Cambridgians?

What was that "yo' mama" talk instead of saying simply, in the same register your interlocutor was using, "Look, officer, I'm sorry for your trouble. Thanks for checking on my house when you thought I was being burgled, but this is my home, and if you give me a minute, I'll find the piece of mail or license that proves it to you." It seems it wasn't the policeman doing the profiling it was you. You played him for a racist cop and treated him disrespectfully. Had you truly feared bias, you would surely have behaved in a more controlled, rather than a less controlled, way.

Do you really think anyone in this country has reached adulthood without having undergone the humiliation of self-justification to police? As it happens, a few days prior to your arrest, I was pulled over on the highway near Saranac Lake, New York. My husband and I had driven into town for dinner and were on our way back to our camp in the Adirondacks. When I saw that I was being stopped, I said, "I don't get it. I'm going under 55 mph." Nonetheless, when the officer approached the car, I quickly rolled down the window, reached for my driver's license as my husband got the registration out of the glove compartment, and said to the officer as gently as I could, "Excuse me officer, have I done anything wrong"? (I had not noticed that one of our headlights was out: we were told to repair it at the next gas station.) It would not have occurred to this gray-haired Caucasian female to count on a policeman's sympathy; the last time I tried joking with a policeman, some forty years ago, my quip cost me an extra $15 on my fine.

Rather than taking offense at being racially profiled, weren't you instead insulted that someone as prominent as you, was being subjected to a regular police routine? A Harvard professor and public figure--should you have to be treated like an ordinary citizen? But that's the greatness of this country: enforcers of the law are expected to treat all alike, to protect the house of a black man no less carefully than that of white neighbors. You and I entrust our protection to these police, and we also entrust to them the protection of Harvard students.

These are the police who were called in on May 18 to deal with the shooting of Justin Cosby, 21, inside one of the Harvard dorms by suspects who, like him, were African Americans. Has any case ever been dealt with more discreetly--likely at least in part because it involved African Americans? Should we not be encouraging all students to live within the law and to consider ourselves on the side of the law unless clearly and manifestly demonstrated otherwise? Is it not for faculty to set an example of politeness, civility, responsibility and cool temper?

The ironies of progress can hardly be lost on you. When I came to Harvard in 1993, you had just published in the New York Times an op-ed urging Black intellectuals to face up to their own racist attitudes. Invoking the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., you wrote, "While anti-Semitism is generally on the wane in this country, it has been on the rise among black Americans. A recent survey finds not only that blacks are twice as likely as whites to hold anti-Semitic views but--significantly--that it is among younger and more educated blacks that anti-Semitism is most pronounced." You argued then that owning up to such internal racism was the key to self-respect. Now that America has a black president, Massachusetts a black governor, and Cambridge a black mayor, you appear to have adopted the posture of racial victim. Are you trying to keep alive the politically potent appeal to liberal guilt?

I'm concerned for you, but would not like to see the authority of our police diminished, their effectiveness reduced or their reputation unfairly tarnished. Since, inadvertently I assume, you have made the work of our police force more difficult than it already is, I wish that you would help set the record straight. You are the man to do it.

Fondly,
Ruth

Ruth R. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature, and Professor of Comparative Literature, at Harvard.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)