July 29, 2010

Congressman Pete Hoekstra for Governor of Michigan

Personal endorsement by terrorism expert Steve Emerson

Rep. Mike Rogers, Senator John DeMint, Governnor Mitt Romney, Congressman Vern Ehlers, Congressman Candice Miller, Congressman Frank Wolf, Dr. James Dobson and terrorism expert Steve Emerson endorse Rep. Pete Hoekstra

Holland, Mich. Republican gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra today announced the endorsement of U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Howell) in his bid to become the next governor of Michigan. Representing Michigan's 8th Congressional District, Congressman Rogers is a highly respected leader at the national, state and local levels and his support for Hoekstra will provide major momentum to the campaign.

"Mike Rogers and I have worked together closely for many years in Congress fighting for Michigan families and businesses," Hoekstra said. "We serve together on the Intelligence Committee, fighting to keep our country safe against the threat of terrorism. I am honored to have his support in my campaign for governor."
"Mike has been a solid leader for Michigan on the state and federal level and I look forward to having him as part of our team as we continue working towards creating jobs and a better future for Michigan."

Congressman Rogers is currently serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives where he is a member of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rogers previously served in the Michigan Senate and was the co-founder of a family-owned home construction business. The Congressman's previous experience as a U.S. Army officer and an FBI Special Agent has made him a vital member of the House Intelligence Committee.

"Pete has always put his constituents and the people of Michigan first during his time in Congress," Rogers said. "He is a strong leader who has consistently fought to eliminate wasteful government spending and for smaller government." "As the former Chairman and current Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, Pete has demonstrated he has the strength and character necessary to lead the efforts to reform Lansing and help turn our state around.

Now more than ever, Michigan needs a leader we can trust, with the experience and skills to tackle the big issues. I am confident Pete Hoekstra is the right person to stand up to the special interests in Lansing, cut wasteful spending, create jobs, and turn Michigan around."

Jerome S. Kaufman had the privelege of attending a breakfast meeting given in honor of Congressman Hoekstra a couple of weeks ago. Kaufman said most impressive were the words of the speaker that had flown in specifically from his offices in Washington, DC to recommend Congressman Hoekstra. The speaker was Steve Emerson, the foremost expert on Islamic terrorism in this country. Emerson spoke glowingly of Congressman Hoekstra's work as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and how they had cooperated on many issues crucial to the well being of this country and our great ally, Israel. Emerson spoke of Congressman Hoekstra as a dedicated patriot and one of the few that truly understand the existentional threat we are facing from militant Islam.

Of particular interest to Michiganders were the words of Emerson speaking on Fox News’ Fox Report, December 25, 2009.
"Counter-terrorism analyst Steve Emerson reported that 23 year-old Nigerian national Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspected al-Qaeda linked terrorist that tried to blow up a Christmas day flight arriving at Detroit Metro Airport, was known by U.S. government officials for as long as a month to have been affiliated with al-Qaeda. Emerson went on to say that Abdulmutallab was able to get on the flight due to the government having had him listed as ’suspected’ of having al-Qaeda links but still waiting for more evidence before having him ‘watch-listed.’"

Without question, Congressman Hoekstra, as governor of Michigan, will help to prevent fiascos of this sort and make all of our lives safer. We certainly welcome his election.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:04 PM | Comments (0)

July 28, 2010

Setting the Record Straight on Deceased Senator Robert Byrd

By: Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz
The Jewish Press, July 23, 2010

Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, died recently. The other day I saw a clip of him singing "Amazing Grace." The sincerity in his voice was unmistakable. And why not? That hymn is his only saving grace. For Byrd found his faith in the Baptist church, which teaches that all sin can be washed away "in the blood of Christ." It is divine grace and not good works that rights the wrongs perpetrated against one's fellow human beings.

In the early 1940s Byrd brought together a number of his friends to form a chapter - a klavem - of the Ku Klux Klan. He solicited from each of them $10 for membership and $3 for a robe and hood. The grand dragon for the Mid-Atlantic States region came to Byrd's community to officially open the chapter. Byrd was elected the so-called exalted cydops of his Klavern. Byrd said that at the time he viewed the Klan as merely a fraternal group of "understanding people" - doctors, lawyers clergy - who never preached violence or prejudice against blacks, Catholics or Jews.

He was partially correct. The KKK was composed of ignorant, racist and bigoted individuals. But, as Byrd stated, it included among its ranks many doctors, lawyers, clergy and judges. Its influence was felt everywhere. The Klan's control of nearly every aspect of Southern society was frightening. The Klan exchanged the lash of slavery for the hangman's rope. Its burning crosses meant torture, death and the destruction of black homes and churches.

In 1948 Byrd wrote to the notoriously segregationist Theodore Bilbo, a Democratic senator from Mississippi, regarding President Truman's desire to integrate the American military. Byrd said he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

Yes, I do understand why "Amazing Grace" was Byrd's favorite hymn. Shortly after Byrd's death I was visiting a relative at Skokie Hospital and noticed that CNN was broadcasting from the Senate chambers. There, lying in state, was the former exalted cydops himself. Frankly, I was sickened. The uneasy feeling worsened the very next day as I watched President Obama, of all people, eulogizing Byrd. stating that while Byrd began as a racist, he repented and became a supporter of the dvil rights movement.

What really happened, of course, was that Byrd saw the handwriting on the wall. Ever the wily politician, he understood that if he didn't get on the civil-rights bandwagon his career would be over. Do you really believe a man who in 1948 wouldn't serve in a fox hole with "race mongrels" suddenly decided he desired to eat in the same restaurant, send his children to the same school and swim in the same pool with "race mongrels" - i.e., African-Americans?

Suffering is not the unique property of the Jew. The story of slavery and segregation in the United States is one that we as Americans and as Jews should never forget. The death, pain, violence and torture - the absolute dehumanization visited upon innocent individuals of color - is something we Jews should empathize with. We Jews sought out for punishment those who played a role in the Final Solution. It didn't matter whether it was a mere pencil pusher or a guard in a concentration camp who regularly beat and tortured Jewish inmates - for us, all were guilty and deserved retribution for their crimes.

What retribution did that former exalted cyclops and kleagle (recruitment officer) of the KKK, Robert Byrd, receive for his active involvement in that demonic organization? In life he enjoyed the singular privilege of being a U.S. senator - for half a century! - and in death was granted the honor of lying in state in the sacred chamber of the Senate, eulogized by the president of the United States. To call it disgraceful would be an understatement.

Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz is the rav of Agudas Achim North Shorn Congregation in Chicago.



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:44 AM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2010

Obama pays off Organized Labor's $400 million campaign contribution, albeit at the expense of the rest of the country.

Obama is making union dreams come true

BY PEYTON R. MILLER
The Weekly Standard, July 19, 2010

Labor union membership has declined dramatically in the past six decades from over a third of the work force in 1945 to just 7.2 percent of private sector employees in 2009; unions are now overwhelmingly concentrated in the public sector. But organized labor continues to wield tremendous political influence. Unions spent $400 million during the 2008 elections in support of Democratic candidates, and Barack Obama has been grateful.

While the president has failed to enact the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — the mother of all pro-union legislation which includes the infamous "card check" proposal to effectively eliminate the secret ballot from union elections, he has made it possible for labor leaders to implement the provisions by other means. Through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), for instance. The NLRB conducts union elections and remedies unfair labor practices in most industries; Obama has named two pro-union members to this body — both were radical enough to require recess appointments.

Stewart Acuff of the Utility Workers Union of America vowed to the Huffington Post that even if EFCA does not pass labor leaders will work with the president's NLRB appointees "to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action." The board is now considering use of remote online voting rather than in-person ballots in representation elections, which like card check could expose workers to undue influence from organizers.

An Obama, appointee to the National Mediation Board, which coordinates railroad and airline labor management relations, precipitated a rule change in May to allow approval of union representation by a majority of those voting, rather than a majority of a company's entire workforce as in the past. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce notes that the new rule violates the Railway Labor Act, which was designed to prevent a few disgruntled employees from triggering a strike that could cripple commerce throughout the country.

President Obama has unilaterally aided unions through regulatory initiatives, which, according to Randel Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have mirrored the "wish list" presented to the Obama transition team by the AFL-CIO. Obama signed an executive order requiring federal contractors to inform employees of their right to organize under federal labor laws, and revoked an order that they be informed of their right to forgo joining a union or paying certain union dues.

Another executive order reflected unions' preference for seniority-based hiring by requiring contractors to offer existing service employees first refusal of positions for which they are qualified under a new contract. Obama has precluded reimbursement of expenses contractors incur to influence employees' decision to form a union, and relaxed union financial disclosure requirements.

He strongly encouraged federal agencies to award construction contracts of more than $25 million to companies that either employ unionized workers or offer union wages and benefits, which is bound to increase the cost of government construction.

The president's bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler subverted bankruptcy law by giving preferential treatment to the United Auto Workers over the automakers* secure creditors. Bondholders ended up with a smaller stake than the UAW members of both companies, even though they had lent money under the contractual understanding that they would be compensated first in the event of bankruptcy.

Big Labor has also benefited from Obama's legislative agenda. He enacted a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires at the behest of the United Steelworkers, fulfilled a Teamsters Union priority by canceling a program allowing Mexican trucks to carry cargo on American roads, and required that projects funded by the 2009 stimulus use U.S.-manufactured supplies.

The stimulus bill operates under the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that employees of public works projects receive the prevailing wage in the area as determined by the Department of Labor. The regulation raises costs by putting a floor under wages for the more than 678,000 public construction jobs to be created by the end of 2010—many of which are in areas where Davis-Bacon has not previously applied.

The bill also included a $53.6 billion "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" to prevent layoffs of heavily unionized public employees. And labor unions have not been docile since 2008. They funded a multimillion-dollar "grassroots" effort to counteract opposition to Obamacare, whose mandates and subsidies will generate new demand for health services, and thus more dues-paying union members in the health sector.

As J. Justin Wilson of the Center for Union Facts points out, the activism was also part of a broader advocacy of a federal beach head in certain industries, which allows unions to lobby the government for favorable regulations More directly, the Democratic health care bill included a $10 billion bailout of mismanaged retiree health Plans that will benefit numerous former union workers.

Just last month, Obama asked Congress for another $50 billion, on top of what the stimulus already provided, to prevent states from firing employees. While he's stopped campaigning for EFCA, the president may yet have an opportunity to sign it in some form. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka is determined to see card check attached to an urgent bill while Democrats still have decisive congressional majorities. Democratic leaders have indicated that the lame duck session following the November elections may he the best opportunity.

Even if no other pro-union legislation comes to pass. President Obama has more than paid off big labor's $400 million investment, albeit at the expense of the rest of the country.

R. Miller is the editor of the Harvard Salient and a Student Free Press Association intern at the Weekly Standard.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:11 PM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2010

Highlights redacted from one of Bret Stephens usual, brilliant articles

Iran Cannot Be Contained

By Bret Stephens
COMMENTARY July/August 2010

Policymakers are looking for ways to accommodate a nuclear Iran. Their ideas are serious and thorough. And they are tragically and dangerously wrong-headed. Many of containment's advocates are former supporters of engagement with Iran.Iran. Having invested their hopes in President Obama's "outstretched hand," they now understand that Iran's hostility to the United States was not merely a reaction to the Bush administration.

It's an open question whether even a policy of containment that did succeed over many years and through crises - would not exact a higher price on the US, its allies, and its interests than a series of military strikes that prevent Iran from going nuclear in the first place.

Marxist-Leninist regimes may be unmatched in their record of murderousness, but they were never great believers in the virtues of martyrdom. That is not the case with Shiism, which has been decisively shaped by a cult of suffering and martyrdom.

A better comparison for Iran than the Soviet Union might be Japan of World War II - another martyrdom-obsessed, non-Western culture with global ambitions. It should call into question the view that Iran operates according to a pragmatic estimate of its own interests.

The Iranian regime has stood out since its earliest days for its willingness to pick fights with powerful enemies, to undertake terrorist strikes at great range, to court international opprobrium, and to raise the stakes every time the world seemed ready to come to terms.

Behavior, after all, is largely a function of experience. Why would a nuclear Iran, emboldened after successfully defying years of Western threats and sanctions, believe that the US was seriously prepared to enforce this or that red line for the sake of containment?

Advocates of containment believe the possibility of a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran is remote. But Jerusalem's assessment of the United States's willingness to deter Iran will be undermined by the failure to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the first place.

A nuclear Iran would be unlike any nuclear power the world has known, dangerous and unpredictable in moments of strength as well as in those of weakness. The closer the regime got to its deathbed, the more tempted it would be to bring its enemies along with it.

It is also far from clear that military strikes would be the death knell to the reform movement that opponents claim. Whatever fits of nationalist, anti-Western fervor such strikes might induce among Iranians at large, they are likely to be short-lived. Defeat does not ultimately make for good politics. In 1982, the unpopular and repressive regime of Leopoldo Galtieri in Argentina also bought itself popular support by invading the Falklands. Yet Galtieri was ousted just days after the British took Port Stanley.

Much the same went on in the Balkans, where Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic profited politically from his brutal policies in Kosovo and his defiance of NATO. Yet he, too, did not last long in office after losing the battle he had staked so much on. As for the argument that military strikes would merely delay Iran's nuclear programs, one can only ask: what's wrong with delay?

Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor was also, in its way, a delaying tactic, since Saddam Hussein moved aggressively to reconstitute his program under deeper cover. Yet had it not been for the raid on Osirak, the Iraq that invaded Kuwait in 1990 might well have been a nuclear power. In that case, no US government would have dared risk a war with it for the sake of Kuwait's liberation.

As for Iran, a delay of several years to its nuclear programs would be no small thing if the regime fell to its internal opponents within that period. Far from being the end of the reform movement, military strikes could be their salvation. One must also ask what would prevent the US from striking again in the event that Iran did attempt to reconstitute its program.

None of this is to say that strikes on Iran would not have unforeseen, unintended and unhappy consequences. All military actions do. But the serious question that confronts policymakers today is whether the foreseeable consequences of an Iran with nuclear weapons are not considerably worse. They would be. And because they are foreseeable, they are preventable. Through action, not through the inaction that, in this case, goes by the name of containment.



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:16 PM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2010

Obama’s College Roommate Speaks Out

By Wayne Allyn Root

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

June 6th, 2010

Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. 

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:41 AM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2010

Donors to Ben Gurion University to have their heads examined?

Posted by Isi Leibler
Jerusalem Post Blog Central
July 7, 2010

Israeli Self-Destruction at Ben-Gurion University

Just a few weeks ago, Professor Neve Gordon, head of Ben-Gurion University's department of politics and government, was again challenged for continuously engaging in initiatives calling for a global boycott of Israel including his own University.

The Rector of the University, Professor Jimmy Weinblatt, once more rejected efforts to discipline Gordon, insisting that he would retain his position despite the fact that he was using the University as a launching pad to demonize Israel. To do otherwise, he said, would be an infringement on academic freedom. Weinblatt was conscious of the problems he would face from faculty if he acted against Gordon.

On a previous occasion when this issue had arisen, the head of the Sociology and Anthropology Department, Professor Uri Ram warned:
Should he be fired as head of the Political Science department due to his political opinions, I shall call on all department heads in the University to resign as well, in support of Gordon and in protest of the violation of his rights, civil freedom and the University establishment in Israel."

A few days ago, an extraordinary event occurred at Ben Gurion University which barely caused a stir amongst the public or the media. Dr Yeruham Leavitt, a professor emeritus who has conducted a bio-ethics course over many years, was sacked from the University for having opined at a lecture, that homosexuality could be "contained", and that children of same-sex couples were being deprived of a "normal" upbringing.

One may of course dispute such an assertion. Yet the remark was not intended to offend. In fact, Dr. Leavitt stated:
I have nothing against the gay and lesbian community. Moreover during my years at the university, I always instilled the values of tolerance and liberalism."

However, Professor Riad Agbaria, head of the clinical pharmacology department, insisted that Leavitt's employment be terminated. "There is no room for personal opinions that offend some of the students", he wrote. The university responded with a statement emphasizing that "Ben-Gurion University sanctifies freedom of expression, but the lecturer blatantly crossed the red line." News reports also noted that Dr. Leavitt was a settler who resides in Kiryat Arba, presumably implying that this had relevance to his dismissal.

The firing of Dr. Leavitt exemplifies the absurd and obscene double standards being imposed by Israeli academic institutions. Universities are willing to sack a lecturer for expressing a view not considered politically correct by dominant academic establishment. Yet the same authorities insist on retaining tenure for a senior academic like Gordon, described by Alan Dershowitz as a man "who has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites... a despicable example of a self-hating Jew, and a self-hating Israeli."

Gordon has actually endorsed terrorist attacks, described a convicted Fatah terrorist as a role model for his children and called for a boycott of Ben-Gurion University as well as "apartheid" Israel. Yet the university administrators  repeatedly reiterated that even if Gordon continued to use his position to undermine the state and collaborate with those seeking to boycott his own university, he would not be disciplined because that would represent a breach of academic freedom.

Whilst the University did not consider that "red lines" were being crossed by Gordon, Dr Leavitt was sacked for having made a remark about problems facing children growing up in a homosexual household - surely a legitimate viewpoint worthy of consideration.

This episode demonstrates how a cabal of post-Zionist and far left academics have succeeded to create an environment in which tenured staff are conscious that they have a license to debase the State - and even call for the destruction of their own University in the name of academic freedom - whilst suppressing any views that are politically incorrect from their bigoted perspective. It is truly reminiscent of the universities in the former Soviet Union approved by Stalin.

The government and donors to Ben-Gurion University and other academic institutions should have their heads examined if they continue providing funds which can be exploited in such a degenerate manner.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:46 AM | Comments (0)

July 16, 2010

How ABC, CBS, and NBC deliberately Dis Tea Party Movement

From: The Watchdog Members Report
Media Research Center (MRC)
June, 2010

By L Brent Bozell III, Editor and Founder

The liberal media despise the Tea Party movement that has swept the nation because it's effective and fundamentally upholds our conservative principles. It is regular people challenging their political leaders to obey the Constitution. It is millions upon millions of people who want lower taxes, smaller government, rule of law, and an end to the economically destructive welfare state. In short, the Tea Party - Taxed Enough Already - represents everything the liberal media oppose. It threatens their big government agenda. This is why the liberals continually belittle and smear the movement, and the leftist press is trying desperately to destroy it.

In our new MRC Special Report, TV'S Tea Party Travesty: How ABC, CBS, and NBC Have Dismissed and Disparaged the Tea Party Movement, we document how the three networks have slanted their coverage of this grassroots movement in different ways, constantly inferring that the Tea Party is extreme, racist and dangerous.

In the report, by MRC Research Director Rich Noyes, we looked at all the morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as their Sunday talk shows and ABC's Nightline froFebruary 2009 through March 2010. These news shows reach a combined audience of 47 million Americans - 35 million every day during the week and then another 12 million on Sundays.

That's huge, considering that the biggest show on cable, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, has an audience of 3 million a day. Our new report shows that when the Tea Party was launched in the spring of 2009, with activists criticizing the $700 billion financial bailout, followed by the $787 billion so-called "economic stimulus," the networks tried to ignore those voices. A typical example was NBC's Chuck Todd, who reported on "idea hasn't really caught on."

Democratic operative Paul Begala went around tarring the activists as "just a bunch of wimpy, whiny weasels who don't love their country." On July 4, 2009, the Tea Party held rallies nationwide, which the networks largely ignored. Only the CBS Evening News ran one short segment.

But as September's off-year elections approached, and the battle over socialized medicine intensified, the networks realized that the Tea Party was having a huge impact on the public conversation. So, they changed direction. Now they are smearing the movement as dangerous and racist. On CBS's Face the Nation that month, Bob Schieffer prattled about "an angry nation, a nasty debate, "conservatives " protesting what they call socialism in the president's health care plan

ABC's Dan Harris labeled conservatives racists, lecturing that the movement was all about some Americans' "refusal to accept a black president." NBC's Brian Williams fretted about protests speckled with "racial and other violent themes," and ABC's Terry Moran channeled Jimmy Carter that "it was all being fueled by racism."

The networks' attacks really heated up after the January 2010 election of Scott Brown, who won the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, with a lot of help from Tea Party supporters who wanted to stop ObamaCare. Brown's shocking win was a blistering wake-up call to the liberal media. As a result, the networks intensified their trashing of the Tea Party. They also tried to panic the GOP, fretfully reporting that the activists were also going after moderate Republicans.

CBS's Chip Reid warned on Feb. 18, "Republican incumbents have a big problem of their own this year. Across the country, Tea Party activists are challenging sitting Republicans, claiming they're not conservative enough." Reid's CBS colleague Harry Smith wondered, "Can the Republican Party exist without moderates?" (Moderate is media code for liberal.)

When Tea Party activists held a convention in Nashville in February, the networks gave it 36 mentions, much of it negative. ABC's World News, for example, noted "a tone of anger and confrontation" and questioned whether the people there would ever get beyond "the fringe." In fact, as our report documents, 44 percent of the complete news stories (27 out of 61) broadcast by ABC, CBS, and NBC on the Tea Party - not counting the briefs and mentions - implied or stated that the
movement was fringe or extremist.

That tack continued through March, particularly around the ObamaCare vote. As tens of thousands of Tea Party activists from across the country rallied in Washington, D.C., the CBS Evening News described it thus, "it got ugly." Then, with no evidence whatsoever - despite hundreds of witnesses, video cams and cell phone cams at a Capitol Hill rally - the networks breathlessly reported that Tea Party protesters had called a black congressman the N-word and spat on another lawmaker. No evidence has surfaced to prove that either of those incidents ever happened. But the liberal networks reported them anyway to smear the Tea Party.

That's what the liberal media do. I will continually say this: They can't win in the battle of ideas - their ideas are intellectually and morally bankrupt. So, the networks distort the facts and trash conservatives to keep liberalism's charade going as long as they can. It's all they have. And that's why we, despite the near 50-million audience of ABC, CBS, and NBC, are documenting and exposing their deceptions every day. Our message about liberal media bias reaches tens of millions of Americans every week through our Web sites, blog, publications, and on talk radio, cable TV, in the newspapers and across the Internet.

It is still a liberal media world, but we are devastating in our impact. We shall fight on, thanks to your support - and like those anti-tax protestors at Boston Harbor some 237 years ago, we will prevail.

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell III Founder and President




Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

July 14, 2010

Why I am opposed to the Kagan Nomination

By Senator Jim DeMint
The Washington Times, July 5, 2010

When a president and a Congress collude to pass and sign into law unconstitutional power grabs, bailouts and takeovers there is only one immediate backstop: the Supreme Court. Every branch of government has an obligation to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution, and if the legislative and executive branches overstep their boundaries, the judicial branch can stop them.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court doesn't say "no" when the other two branches go too far, there is no tax that can't be levied, no mandate that can't be imposed, no regulation that can't be iastituted and no industry that can't be taken over. The only recourse Americans have is to remove and replace members of Congress and the president slowly through the election process. But, when Supreme Court judges, who are unelected and given lifetime appointments, refuse to say "no" when the Constitution says they should, it can take much longer to undone damage.

Judges who rely on flawed precedent or their own "judgment" instead of the Constitution to justify their rulings can say "yes" to anything. This is precisely how liberal judges have rubber stamped tyrannical actions by the government in the past and how they will do it in the future. On these grounds, I am compelled to oppose Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. During my private meeting with her, I asked Ms. Kagan questions about the limits of federal power. Her answers indicated her judicial philosophy is not grounded in the Constitution and she would grant too much deference to precedent.

No judge should be subjected to ideological litmus tests, but should be able to say easily where the limits of government power begin and end. The answer is provided in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. In a sense, the Constitution should be the litmus test. In my talk with Ms. Kagan, she was willing to talk about precedents, but very little about the Constitution.

In her confirmation hearings she should be asked questions about the Constitution , such as "Aside from what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, what do you think the Commerce Clause means?" Her answer will probably be along the lines, "It is settled law because of precedent" but this is not an acceptable answer. The Constitution trumps precedent. The Constitution is the precedent.

The Interstate Commerce Clause has had a dramatic effect on the lives of Americans ever since the New Deal. It was the key issue in Wickard v. Filburn, which tested progressive President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act. FDR believed farmers had a "right" to sell wheat at a certain price, and he put quotas on it to drive up the price. Then, by stretching the Commerce Clause and engaging in several turns of hypothetical mental gymnastics, the New Deal Court, packed with Roosevelt appointees, said crops grown on private land for personal consumption could fall under federal regulation.

Because of that decision, the Commerce Clause has become an endless source of government power. Tbday, liberals are hoping the Commerce Clause can be stretched far enough to justify President Obama's "individual mandate" — the requirement that every man, woman and child buy health insurance.

Having the Supreme Court sanction this kind of eeonomic nationalism was key to FDR's progressive agenda. For FDR, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness evoked in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution weren't enough. He even Proposed a second Bill of Rights in his annual message to Congress in 1944. He talked about "the right of every family to a decent home," "the right to adequate medical care" and the "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age sickness, accident and unemployment" among other things.

Mr. Obama could have given FDRs same speech today, having consciously modeled his "spread the wealth" government expansions after the New Deal Progressives like FDR. Mr. Obama want a constitutional guarantee to a lifetime of positive outcomes for Americans, not just the opportunity to succeed. That's why liberal lawyers and academics, including Mr. Obama, have complained that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." They think the constitution is weak because it says what the government cannot do instead of as Mr. Obama says, "yes, we can."

A "living Constitution" that changes and evolves over time to create new rights and entitlements is what people like FDR, Mr. Obama and Ms. Kagan are after. A statement from Ms.Kagan's Oxford thesis is emblematic of this mindset. She wrote future courts could make decisions "on the ground that new times and circumstances demand a different interpretation of the Constitution."

When judges examine Mr.Obama's health care mandate, they can either look to the enumeration of powers in the Constitution and find limits on what the government can do, or use "new times and circumstances" to make up "a different interpretation of the Constitution."That's the same sort of tortured reasoning that led to the federal regulation of crops farmers grow for their own use. The "new times and circumstances"presented by the Obama administration are dominated by bailouts, takeovers and powergrabs.

While judges should pay deference to past precedents, they should read the Constitution for themselves and ultimately rely on what the Constitution says the federal government can and cannot do. Americans don't want their country to be reinvented, expanded and transformed by a "living" Constitution.

(Re-invented by an all-powerful partisan government bureaucracy as exemplified by the current Obama administration with his all-powerful czars by-passing the Congress of the United States. Now, all they need is a Supreme Court that upholds their destructive decisions.) jsk

Sera. Jim DeMiht is a South Carolina Republican.



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:17 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2010

Perks of Writing for the New York Times: Nicholas Kristof’s Gaza Solution

By Jerome S. Kaufman

In his, Burrowing through a Blockade, (The New York Times, July 11, 2010) Nicholas Kristof demonstrates the great perks of writing for the New York Times. Evidently when one works for the New York Times he can have published dubious material as long as it is anti-Israel in content.

A prime example is the above mentioned article wherein Kristof found an inspiring place to write and formulate his Gaza solution. He was inside an 800 foot long smuggler tunnel burrowing into Gaza from Egypt. His solution: All Israel has to do is lift its “siege” of Gaza. allow free access of all materials into Gaza, thus eliminating the need for any tunnels.

As a result, the business men in Gaza would be rejuvenated by eliminating the competition of these tunnel smugglers. They would then, ipso facto, become pro-Israel in their gratitude, and become a successful counterweight against the power and dedication of Hamas to destroy the Jewish State.

It is truly hard to think of anything more naive or else cleverly destructive to Israel in its presentation. I thought “naive” appropriate until I read of Kristof’s illustrious professional history and previous commentary on the Arabs and the Middle East. Obviously, Kristof has an ax to grind which coincidently, corresponds with that of his illustrious publisher.

Evidently Kristof does not know that Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel, that Hamas has refused to recognize or make peace with Israel. It has assaulted Israel with thousands of rockets since seizing control of the territory in 2007. It has smuggled into Gaza offensive weaponry that any sovereign nation has every right to prevent, including the right to intercept sea vessels suspected of carrying arms and refusing to dock for inspection.

As to the admission of humanitarian supplies to Gaza - even Kristof had to admit that the tunnels provided plenty of access to as much humanitarian material as needed. The immediate world also chooses to ignore the fact that every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza - a pretty generous way to treat an enemy dedicated to its destruction .

It is also unlikely that the following brief history is of any importance to Kristof’s thesis:

In the 1947 UN partition plan agreement, the sand dunes that became Gush Katif (area of Gaza) were part of Israel and only came under Egyptian rule after the 1948 War of Israel Independence. Egypt conquered Gaza, to which it had no legitimate previous claim, when the Arab Legion attacked Israel attempting to annihilate it after 2000 years of Jewish forced exile.

The land in Gaza was part of Jewish biblical land. Remember the triumph of Samson over Goliath. Present day Israelis built 23 towns over 30 years in Gaza out of nothing but the sand of the desert. These towns were arbitrarily destroyed by Israel’s own government in August 2005 because of Ariel Sharon personal legal problems and need to curry favor with the far Left within the government.

Hard working, productive families consisting of over 7000 people were uprooted from their homes, synagogues, farms and their biblical history and centuries-old tradition. Immediately upon the Israeli government-forced withdrawal, Arab mobs from Gaza overwhelmed, looted and destroyed the homes, buildings, greenhouses and fisheries that had created thousands of jobs and produce that could have profited and provided employment for the Arab residents of Gaza for years to come.

Despite this Arab propensity for self-destruction, the international community has been generous and made the following pledges to the Gazan Arabs:

On 2 March 2009, in an international conference at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, donors pledged $4.481 billion to help the Palestinian economy and rebuild the Gaza Strip. The biggest donor was Saudi Arabia with $1 billion, followed by the United States, which promised $900 million, a third for humanitarian aid to Gaza and the rest to assist the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas. The conference was criticized by Iran. But, what has actually happened to this aid and the billions of dollars given in the past is questionable, especially recalling the history of donations given to the previous great Arab peace maker, Yasser Arafat.

But, never-mind all of the above, if only Israel would allow those tunnels to function unobstructed as per the recommendation of Middle East expert, Nicholas Kristof, all the problems of Gaza would be solved.

For further insight into Nicholas Kristof, please click into the following YouTube interview wherein he explains the treatment of females in Islamic society. It might help you understand how he came to write his masterpiece on tunnel burrowing.

>YouTube interview

This video may also be seen by clicking on the second entry under LINK found in the the Israel Commentary side panel:
YouTube Question: Views on Islam.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor Israel Commentary

Comment from a reader, July 14, 2010

"Kristoff's ancestors were Russian "nobles" - in other words, he comes from a long line of Jew-haters. They persecuted and oppressed my ancestors and probably yours too.
It'd be surprising to get anything remotely like fair treatment, never mind sympathetic treatment, from a Kristof."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:57 AM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2010

How the Catalones (not the Corleones) deal with Islam

Islam in Catalonia
Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2010

Review by Stephen Schwartz of:
(Muslims in Catalonia : The Challenge of Integration and Religious Freedom.)
By Alex Seglers Gomez-Qumtero. Barcelona: Angle Editorial, 2004 206

The history of the Catalans and Islam is distinctive from that of the rest of Spain. The Catalan language, which counts some 10 million speakers, is an official idiom along with Castilian, in the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands. Barcelona, the great Catalan metropolis, was taken back from Muslim conquerors in the year 801—only ninety years after the Umayyad invasion of 711—and became the capital of the Marca Hispanica, or the Spanish March, controlled by the Christian heirs of Charlemagne.

Catalonia was thus never part of Al-Andalus and is one of the few regions of Spain from which a Muslim cultural legacy, in the form of architectural monuments and Arabic loan-words, is absent. Muslim immigration became a significant recent phenomenon in Catalonia in the 1980s when the need for agricultural labor m the region's rich vineyards and other farming enterprises became acute.

Seglers, the author of Musulmans a Catalunya, is a professor of ecclesiastical law at the University of Barcelona and has conducted wide-ranging studies of immigration in Canada and throughout the European Union. This book, aimed mainly for the use of Catholic clerics and governmental authorities, is a serious, factually based examination of the legal issues that have emerged as Catalonia has struggled with North African and black African immigration.

While Seglers does not take up the point, Catalonia resembles, in some ways, the Flemish areas of Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and Switzerland vis-a-vis the challenges presented to a native population by an influx of new Muslim residents. Muslims represent a minority in these territories (anywhere from 4-6 percent of the population according to a 2005 estimate) and are increasingly demanding special status for themselves.

In the meantime, the Catalans, Flemish, Dutch, etc., are communities and nations with small populations whose cultures and languages vary from those of their larger European neighbors. If Muslims are a minority in Catalonia, Catalans are a minority in Spain. Catalans, and other small European nations, thus fear cultural dilution from two directions, and concern about a growing, and increasingly militant, Muslim population in these small Western European communities, is based in reality. At the same time, new Muslim residents have, for the most part, been slow to recognize the sense of cultural threat felt by those from whom they ask a privileged protection.

Seglers argues that a peaceful integration of Muslims in Catalan life is possible if it is based on Muslim acceptance of European democratic values. The author writes that guarantees of religious freedom in Europe must rest not on acceptance of Islamist demands for special treatment but in demarcating the principle that Muslims may become citizens, as long as they jettison the tenets of Islamist ideology. As he writes,"Muslim citizenship" and Islamism remain at odds, producing "hidden conflicts."

Such conflicts include controversies over Islamist proposals for European accommodation to Shari'a-based family law with rights to polygamy and an acceptance of forced marriages. These matters, according to the author, define the limits of religious freedom and include important examples little known outside Spain. In 1994, for example, a Moroccan immigrant tried to a register a second matrimony in Spain. He argued that he had contracted the marriage with his second wife in his native land where polygamy is legal before becoming a Spanish national. His case was dismissed due to the country's ban on polygamy, which was reaffirmed by adoption of new legal language in 2000.

A ban on talaq or unilateral divorce by a husband's oral declaration, was strengthened when, in 1999, the practice was judged a violation of "the constitutional dignity of the person and against the Spanish conception of marriage." The country has also maintained legal prohibitions on forced marriages and female genital mutilation.

Seglers' work is replete with important information in which Catalonia and Spain serve as particularly appropriate examples for examining the legal and social problems rising from increased Muslim immigration in the West. He is especially critical of the current legal regime governing relations between Islam and the Spanish State through the Comision Islamica de Espana (Islamic Commission of Spain or CIE). The CIE was established in 1992 and was the first institution to embody an "official" Islam in Western Europe. Seglers points out that the CIE defines Islam as a faith equal in rights with the Catholic church, which represents 94 percent of the Spanish population. He writes disapprovingly:

It is evident that the CIE was not born as the fruit of an imposition by the Spanish political power; nevertheless, the need to consolidate it as unique interlocutor has ended with its conversion into a kind of artificial church, parallel to the Catholic Church. Seglers points out that, in contrast to Catholicism, Islam in Spain "has neither a body of canon law nor a hierarchy rooted in the broader society, nor the same spiritual needs as the Catholic citizenry." Put simply, Catholicism is by far the majority faith of Spanish religious believers with a long history and association with the dominant culture, and in Seglers' view, religious minorities like Muslims, as well as Jews and Evangelical Protestants, cannot reasonably be considered as institutional equals to the Catholic church. Additionally, having come under the direction of members of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Saudi and Moroccan religious scholars, the CIE is currently being reorganized.

(I am not clear what Stephen Schwartz thinks Segler means by the term, "Institutional equals." It sounds ominous and hearkens back to when the Pope ruled the world. I have queried him directly and will report his reply, should I receive it. Jsk)

Seglers' book is uniquely valuable, but unfortunately, the likelihood that it will be translated or published in other languages is small. Spain's modem encounters with Islam should not be neglected by the rest of the world.

Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, DC He has published extensively on Spanish and Catalan affairs.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:11 AM | Comments (0)

July 09, 2010

II A Sad Commentary on the understanding of Israel by American Diaspora Jews

By Jerome S. Kaufman

I Zionist Congress Characterized by 'Not a Lot of Listening'
 
By Bryan Schwartzman
The Jewish Exponent
July 01, 2010
 
Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, and Steve Masters of JStreet -- spokesmen of the political right and left when it comes to Israel issues -- generally don't agree on much.

Yet they had similar reactions after returning from the 36th World Zionist Congress, which brought some 1,500 delegates from around the world to Jerusalem in mid-June to debate a host of issues concerning the peace process with the Palestinians, the status of non-Orthodox Judaism in the Jewish state and even the role that the Israeli government should play in protecting Jewish holy sites in Palestinian territory. But their agreement was about how divided the left and right are when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy in the Middle East.

"The voting is more polarized than I can ever recall. I found greater divisions" this year "than in any other year," said Klein, of Lower Merion, who had attended four previous confabs going back to 1994. Masters, a first-time attendee, said there "wasn't a whole lot of listening going on between the right and the left, there was definitely polarization."

The first World Zionist Congress was convened by Theodore Herzl in 1897. Along with the publication of Herzl's pamphlet, "The Jewish State," the gathering in Basel, Switzerland, is credited with transforming Zionism into a political movement. Pivotal decisions took place at the first few congresses, including a 1903 rejection for a Jewish homeland in Uganda.

Yet since Israel's creation in 1948, many have questioned the need of continuing with the quadrennial meetings of a body that governs the World Zionist Organization, which in turn helps elect the board of the Jewish Agency for Israel, but has limited decision-making powers. Still, proponents argue that the WZO serves as the only organization where Diaspora Jews have input into Israeli affairs.

Unlike in the past, this time around, delegates weren't elected because there were no funds to oversee a ballot process, according to officials involved. Instead, delegates for various slates were chosen through a complex formula. Roughly 250 Americans, including an estimated eight Pennsylvanians, were delegates to the conference, representing a wide range of Jewish organizations and movements, such as Hadassah, JStreet -- which isn't a full WZO member but managed to make some waves -- the Zionist Organization of America, the Reform and Conservative movements, Shas, Likud, Labor Zionists and Meretz.

Some Volatile Debates
The proceedings were cantankerous, often chaotic, and reflected wide divisions in world Jewry between the right and left, Israelis and Diaspora Jews, and the religious and secular, according to attendees. The most volatile debates surrounded the issue of settlements and the peace process. The status of non-Orthodox Judaism in Israel was also a major point of contention. The more left-leaning bloc passed a number of measures opposed to Orthodox hegemony over religious affairs, including one that opposes the current conversion bill being discussed in the Knesset.

Critics say the proposed legislation bolsters the clout of the Chief Rabbinate and potentially delegitimizes non-Orthodox conversions. The resolution also opposed "any future legislation which prejudices the right of all Jewish communities in Israel and the Diaspora to act in the domain of conversion."

Another heated debate surrounded a resolution calling on the Israeli government "to ensure and allow freedom of access, freedom of worship and prayer, to all religions and nations of all sites ... wherever located in the land of Israel... ."The Likud bloc tried, and failed, to insert an amendment that specifically called on Israel to preserve and restore Jewish sites in the West Bank. The Reform and Conservative movements voted as a bloc against this amendment, which particularly upset Klein. He said the Palestinians have shown over the years that they don't respect holy sites, such as Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs, so that Israel must be responsible for them.

II A Sad Commentary on the understanding of Israel by American Diaspora Jews

It is particularly offensive to me that American Diaspora Jewry attempts to dictate religious observance and protocol in Israel. The fact is that only an infinitesimal number of American Jewry makes aliyah to Israel and constitute less than 1% of the population. And, of these, the far greater number making aliyah are Orthodox Jews interested in intensifying their beliefs by living in Israel.

It is not their goal to promote other varieties of Judaism popular in the United States and not supported by the far greater number of Israelis. The obvious solution for non-Orthodox American Jews intent upon imposing their form of belief in Israel is to make aliyah in far greater numbers and become a political presence in Israel's governing body, the Knesset. From that position it is possible to legitimately promote their agenda, oppose settlements crucial to the continued existence of Israel, make "peace" with a non-existent "peace partners", etc. etc. That is how democracies are supposed to work.

Jerome S. Kaufman

 

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)

July 07, 2010

An Avalanche of Anti-Israel Propaganda from the NY Times, of course

By Phyllis Chesler
July 6th, 2010

Is The New York Times on The White House Payroll?There is an avalanche of hatred bearing down on Israel. I fear it might be too late to stem this “blood-dimmed” tide and its fearful consequences.

The state of Israel was envisioned, not only as a way to rescue Holocaust survivors and Jews who were persecuted and endangered in Arab and Muslim countries, not only as a movement for national and religious sovereignty, but also as a way of protecting the lives of Jews elsewhere, everywhere. Now, the very existence of the only Jewish state is being used to justify attacks against Jews and Jewish holy sites all around the world, including within Israel itself. And, the entire world is, irrationally, heart-sickeningly, joining in the legal, cultural, military, propaganda, and economic lynching of Israel.

The propaganda war is, arguably, the hottest war. Today, on the very day that President Obama was due to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu—guess what the New York Times  prints? Before Bibi could even have breakfast, the paper was, no doubt, on his desk. The lead story, of nearly 5000 words is   titled: “Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank.”

The article is accompanied by no fewer than six photographs and a map of the so-called “illegal settlements” that is about six times larger than the entire map of Israel when viewed in situ, surrounded by its many Arab, Muslim neighbors. This is only the latest example of a long campaign at the Paper of Record to vilify the Jewish state and her supporters, especially Christian-Americans.

The Times article is propaganda and advocacy, not even-handed journalism. In my view, the Paper of Record is doing some crude heavy lifting for the White House. This piece—so prominent, so lengthy, so carefully timed– is yet another way to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu even before he sits down with President Obama.  Just as you’ve given up Gaza, give up the West Bank, give up East Jerusalem, accept the return of five generations of Palestinian “refugees,” give up control of Tel Aviv and Haifa–in short, do what King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia wants and then maybe, just maybe, we’ll let a remnant of Jewry live. True, only as second or third-class citizens but if this means peace in the Middle East and an Arab world united with America against Iran, little enough to ask.

Of course, I wrote a letter to the Gray Lady about their lead article which—who knows?—they might print. It’s happened before. But, what needs to be said requires at least the same 5000 words that comprise this foul and misleading piece. And, it needs to be written by the most eloquent Israeli diplomats and by the world’s leading historians and Middle East analysts.

I am only one Jew, crying out, dependent on what I read in the mass media and on the internet. The New York Times is the true Bible for most liberal Jews. Fed today’s  kind of steady propaganda, year in, year out, liberal and young Jews believe that what they read here is the whole truth—after all, they’ve read it in the Bible. Hence, they are far more comfortable, far more rewarded for attacking and critiquing Israel than for defending Israel from Big Lies—and for attacking, rather than respecting, Israel’s Christian-American supporters.They may feel that doing so fulfills a Jewish “religious” obligation.

This article presents the settlements as “illegal,” “isolated” “outposts,” run by “militants” and supported by funds from abroad supplied by wealthy American Jews and by Christian Evangelical supporters of Israel. It’s all presented as a damning and dramatic expose of shady and nefarious characters.“Illegal” and “militant” are an interesting choice of words for a newspaper which refuses to call Turkish assassins and mercenaries “terrorists,” but prefers to refer to them as “humanitarian activists or “divers;” that, over the years, refused to describe the dreaded Sudanese Janjaweed  as “ethnic Arab Muslims”  who were engaged in “genocidal aggression” towards black African Muslims, Christians, and animists.

First, this focus on what American dollars are buying abroad—the subject of this article–might be balanced by an equal examination of what Saudi funding and the Saudi Lobby, (funds which also emanate from abroad), are purchasing in America: real estate, universities, Middle East programming, the media—and mosques which preach hatred of infidels, and which raise funding for terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and for every conceivable Palestinian form of terrorism. 
 
Second, after outlining the tax-exempt support for allegedly “illegal” settlements in the West Bank, the article utterly fails the most minimal standards for even handed reporting. It fails to mention the nearly half century-long funding of an Israel-hating, corrupt, terrorist and anti-Palestinian Palestinian leadership—by the United States, the United Nations, The European Union, and by the Arab and Muslim world.

Additionally, the article fails to note that there are as many foundations and NGOs who also use American tax-exempt status to defame and weaken Israel, both globally and within Israel proper. For example: The Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, (that’s Soros’s baby), New Israel Fund, Palestinian Right to Return (Al-Awda), Friends of Sabeel, Middle East Children’s Alliance, Deir Yassin Remembered, Rachel Corrie Foundation, and Birthright Unplugged—to name only a few.

My colleague, Professor Gerald Steinberg, has a much longer list of such NGOs.Where is a comparable 5,000-word, front-page article about the Saudi Lobby and the NGO tax-exempt funding of every conceivable organization and project that demonizes and endangers Israel? For a paper which prides itself on fairness, objectivity, even-handedness, why does this article quote only the Palestinian negotiator but not his Israeli counterpart?

Helen Freedman, the Executive Director of Americans for a Safe Israel, (AFSI), who is quoted in the article: “My advice to those worried about charitable funds going to support remarkable people who put their lives at risk for love of their country, is to read the factual history of the State of Israel. AFSI will be happy to supply copies of Battleground, free of charge, to all those who wish to learn the truth, rather than the hate-inspired myths regarding the biblical, historic, and legal claim of the Jewish people to the Jewish state.”

But America elected Obama President. Liberal Jews all voted for him too. Obama turned out to be a President who bowed down, quite low, to King Abdullah—but not to Queen Elizabeth; who has, explosively, told the head of NASA that NASA’s primary goal is to reach out to the Muslim world; and whose mentors include the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (“God damn America”) and The Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan who, only recently, in a letter to American Jewish leaders, ranted against Jews.

Minister Farrakhan  accused Jews of having “an undeniable record of Jewish anti-Black behavior, starting with the horror of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping…out history with you shows you have been our worst enemy.” Farrakhan ended his letter with a threat and a curse. If the Jews continue to “fight and oppose me rather than help me lift my people from their degraded state, Allah (God) and his Messiah will bring you and your people to disgrace and ruin and destroy your power and influence here and in the world.”Farrakhan fails to mention the enormous role that Muslims played in the African slave trade—a point which Morton Klein, the President of the Zionist Organization of America makes. Klein has called upon our President to condemn Farrakhan’s letter, especially because the church which the President attended for twenty years recently honored Farrakhan.

Although I was a Hillary supporter, as an old civil rights activist I was also thrilled by the handsome and charismatic…stranger in our midst who rose to such great heights so quickly. For many, a vote for Obama proved they were not racists, that they rejected America’s history of slavery; voting for Obama meant that one was entitled to feel “cleansed” of the sin of racism.I did not like how Obama’s Team cut Hillary out. (And no, I do not “like”  Hillary, that is not the point). However, in the beginning, I though that America had simply hired the empty suit instead of the girl.  On the other hand, I thought, perhaps we’ve hired a Muslim/Islamist Manchurian candidate. Now, you tell me.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author, psychotherapist and an expert courtroom witness

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:48 AM | Comments (0)

July 06, 2010

Whose Cowardice?

I The Cowardice Of Not Calling Them Enemies

By Charles Krauthammer
07/02/2010

II Whose Cowardice?

Aside by Jerome S. Kaufman
July 6, 2010

Krauthammer: To deny this undeniable truth leads to further absurdities. Remember the wave of speculation about US military psyciatrist Hasan's supposed secondary post-traumatic stress disorder — that he was so deeply affected by the heart-rending stories of his war-traumatized patients that he became radicalized? On the contrary. He was moved not by their suffering but by the suffering they (and the rest of the U.S. military) inflicted on Hasan's fellow Muslims, in whose name he gunned down 12 American soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar."

With Shahzad, another Muslim terrorist, we find the equivalent ridiculous — and exculpating — speculation that perhaps he was driven over the edge by the foreclosure of his home. Good grief. Of course his home went into foreclosure — so would yours if you voluntarily quit your job and stopped house payments to go to Pakistan for jihadist training. As the Washington Post's Charles Lane pointed out, foreclosure was a result of Shahzad's radicalism, not the cause.
There's a final reason why the administration's cowardice about identifying those trying to kill us cannot be allowed to pass. It is demoralizing. It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency, and diminishes the memory of those (including thousands of brave Muslims — Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan and Western) who have died fighting it.

Churchill famously mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. But his greatness lay not just in eloquence but in his appeal to the moral core of a decent people to rise against an ideology the nature of which he never hesitated to define and describe — and pronounce ("Nahhhhzzzzi") in an accent dripping with loathing and contempt.

No one is asking Obama or Holder to match Churchill's rhetoric — just Shahzad's candor.

II Kaufman: Sometimes I have to disagree with the great Krauthammer. Obama’s terminology discrepancy is not the result of oversight or even cowardice. It is part of a deliberate well considered plan by Obama to divorce the American people from the reality. The huge majority of people perpetrating these horrendous crimes against American civilians are Muslims. They are Muslims that have been indoctrinated to fulfill the dictates of Mohammed’s religion, that is, the entire world is to be made up of Muslims or those that must be in transition toward Islam or be killed. This is the religion within which Obama spent his formative years with his family in Indonesia. There is no mystery here, no oversight, no cowardice. Obama knows exactly what he and his henchmen are trying to do to the American people. And, its far past time for these people to wake up and rid the country of the cowardice on our part, not his.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:40 AM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2010

Geert Wilders: a Dutch "Revolutionary" and neglected American and Israeli Hero

Redacted from a combination of Web sources and personal experience

By Jerome S. Kaufman
July 1, 2010

June 10, 2010
After 16 hours of manually counting the 9 million cast votes, the 9th of June 2010 Dutch general elections were finally no longer "too close to call". For the first time the Liberal Party (WD), lead by Mark Rutte did win 31 seats against 30 seats for Job Cohen's Social Democrats (PvdA). Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV) added an unprecedented 15 seats and became third with 24 seats, wrong footing every analyst - domestic and abroad.

The local elections in March showed that the Dutch were going for a further fragmentation of the political landscape and a sharp turn to the right with Wilders' victories in Almere (5th city) and The Hague (seat of Crown and Government) and the Liberal's mushrooming in nearly every other city.

The Hague was besieged by international media covering Rutte's predicted victory and Wilders' meteoric rise. Almost unanimously they concluded that Wilders' program, expressly his uncompromising Islam critique and rejection of mass immigration, was radically different and extremely challenging to Dutch politics - a true revolution.

...In the European Union the PVV (Party for Freedom) of Wilders is actually outstripped in its reaction to the concerted Muslim attack. In Catalonia (Spain), curbing legislation against Islamic expressions such as the the burka and niqab and the building of mosques are currently implemented in cities such as Lleida and Reus (Tarragona). The same goes for Arhus in Denmark, which undid the obligation of serving halal food in schools and hospitals. In Flanders (Belgium), Paris (France), Hungary, Austria, Switzerland and Italy curbing legislation against the building of minnarets and the publicly wearing of burka and niqab are implemented.

... Geert Wilders is backed by groups such as the Tea Party and orthodox Christians in the US, and orthodox Jews around the globe. The hunch of the foreign media is that an alteration, something revolutionary, had suddenly happened in the Netherlands with the 9th of June 2010 Dutch election. Wilders' PVV probably, was correct. But it's not his party program that causes a revolution. Wilders causes the Dutch revolution. He is the revolution.

...Wrongfully or rightfully accused of nearly every evil imaginable, Geert Wilders, single handedly, caused a fundamental alteration in Dutch politics and society, which fits the definition of a revolution. What did he do? ... Wilders in person and expression is not nice but certainly charismatic. He doesn't care whether he's liked or not; he doesn't care about the unsettling effect of his critique. Clearly, like every politician in every nation and time he spins his facts, but unlike a great many Dutch politicians his facts are correct.

Other commentary concerning Geert Wilders found on the Internet proves him to be a true friend of Israel and the United States when it finally wakes up to the threat of Islam:

21 juni 2010
Geert Wilders: ‘If Jerusalem falls, Athens and Rome are next’

Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, said last week, he believes Jordan should be renamed "Palestine". The Jordanian government responded by saying Wilders’ speech brought to mind the Israeli right wing, according to a report on Ynet. “There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan,” said Wilder. He also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy from Ramat Gan to Jerusalem.

Wilders Triumphs
14 juni 2010

Holland - long seen as a liberal, pot-smoking, hippie hang-out seems keen to defend the culture that’s made it so free, to judge from this week’s election:
Geert Wilders, the controversial anti-Islamic Dutch politician, came third behind tied Liberal and Labour parties after elections in the Netherlands left no obvious winner or combination for a coalition government. Wilders could thus be kingmaker in the Dutch parliament after coming third with his Freedom Party (PVV) jumping from 9 to 24 seats thus becoming the swing vote between the two other parties in the Dutch Parliament.
 
Finally:
It so happens, I (jsk) personally heard Wilders speak at my synagogue in Palm Beach Florida a few months ago and was delighted with his outspoken honesty. The article I wrote relative to the experience can be found in Israel Commentary simply by typing Geert Wilders into the Search engine.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:23 PM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2010

Tom Friedman, self-hating Jew and his sponsor, The New York Times in the usual vile, despicable lie

June 28, 2010

Tom Friedman's Blood Libel of IDF Tactics against Palestinian Terrorists

By Leo Rennert
 
Columnist Tom Friedman, in the June 27 edition of the New York Times, updates a medieval blood libel against Jews by comparing the tactics of Israel's defense forces in counter-terrorism operations to Syrian dictator Hafez Assad's massacre of tens of thousands of civilians in putting down a fundamentalist uprising in the town of Hama in 1982.

The father of today's Syrian leader indiscriminately and deliberately used the full brutal force of his army -- tanks, warplanes, mass executions -- to obliterate most of Hama.  Fatality estimates range as high as 40,000, of which only about 1,000 were combatants. The massacre is known as the "single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people."

Yet, Friedman avers that the IDF used "Hama rules" when it fought against Hezb'allah in southern Lebanon; also in Gaza and the West Bank during the second intifada, and, more recently, in last year's incursion into Gaza when it sought to halt the firing by Hamas and other terrorist groups of thousands of rockets against civilians in southern Israel. 

Which is a vile, despicable lie.

In all the military campaigns cited by Friedman, Israel  instead took great risks and went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, unlike its enemies who were deeply embedded among civilians and used civilians as human shields.  If Israel had followed "Hama rules," as Friedman charges, it had the means to obliterate terrorist strongholds like Jenin in the West Bank during the second intifada.  Instead, to spare civilians, it opted for house-to-house combat -- a strategy that cost the lives of dozens of Israeli soldiers.  . 

It's exactly this deep, civilized commitment to minimize civilian casualties that prompted British Army Colonel Richard Kemp to testify before the UN Human Rights Council about the IDF's examplary conduct during the Gaza operation:  In his words: "Based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this:  During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

Unlike Friedman, Col. Kemp knew whereof he spoke, having fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in situations where the challenge to his troops also was to take extra precautions not to harm civilians.  

In Israel's recent wars, it never deliberately targeted civilians as Assad pere did in his bloody massacre of Hama.  Friedman's assertion that Israel has been operating under "Hama rules" doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.   It is a disgusting libel that will only feed the propaganda of Israel's enemies who seek to delegitimize the Jewish state.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:10 PM | Comments (0)