January 30, 2011

Swapping Jews for Muslims

The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008.
It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned. And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. 
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe ..

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai

1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.
The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels. Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems. Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Benjamin Netanyahu

General Eisenhower Warned Us It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because he said in words to this effect:
 'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets. This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world. How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?
Do not just delete this message; it will take only a minute to pass this along

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:50 PM | Comments (0)

January 29, 2011

Spending Masquerading as Investing

Don't be fooled by the Speech

By Cal Thomas,
Townhall.com and syndicated columnist

Palm Beach Post, January 29, 2011

In his State of the Union address, President Obama at times sounded like he was channeling Ronald Reagan: cutting the deficit, hailing private enterprise and individual initiative, talking about the future. But for all his eloquence, the president wrapped his liberal ideology in conservative sheep's clothing. On the surface, the president said many things with which conservatives might agree, but words can mean something, or they can mask true intentions. There was no indication the president plans to retreat on his far-left agenda of the last two years. Why should he? That would require denying who he is.

Absent the glamorous rhetoric, let's examine the major subjects on which the president touched.

EDUCATION: Anyone who has seen the film "Waiting for Superman" knows the public education system in this country is a mess and that if all the money now being spent on education isn't improving the product, especially for the poor, whom Democrats are supposed to be championing, more money will not help. Competition through school choice would improve education. The speech was another sop to teachers' unions that care more about their members than students' futures.

INNOVATION: Government doesn't innovate. It regulates. It taxes. According to The Cato Institute (www.cato.org), the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 40 percent, first among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Japan comes in second with a combined rate of 35.7 percent. In his speech, the president said he supports reducing the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years, but then came the caveat: "without adding to our deficit." Cutting taxes without reducing spending will add to the deficit and so the president can eschew responsibility when Democrats refuse to vote for business tax reductions.

DEFICIT REDUCTION: Where to begin? A president and until recently an all-Democratic Congress has put our financial house in jeopardy by running up a $14 trillion debt. In March 2006, when he was a senator, Obama called the $8.27 trillion debt ceiling "a sign of leadership failure." If the debt ceiling during the George W. Bush presidency was a sign of failed leadership, who's failing in his leadership when the debt has climbed to $14 trillion? Deficit reduction will come when the government cuts (not caps) spending.

REFORMING GOVERNMENT: The best way to "reform" government is to reduce unneeded and unnecessary programs and agencies. Congress should establish a commission similar to the successful Base Realignment and Closing Commission (BRAC), which shuttered outmoded military bases. Every government agency and program should be required to justify its existence consistent with its cost and benefit to the greatest number of Americans. If they can't, they should be eliminated.

INFRASTRUCTURE: From better roads to high-speed inter- and intra-city trains, the U.S. lags behind many European and Asian countries in providing low-cost, efficient and fast transportation for its citizens. It is one of the few areas where Americans would be willing to pay more in fares or even taxes to improve the way we move around.

Included in infrastructure ought to be the mining of America's considerable natural gas supply and a "to the moon" emphasis on nuclear power and drilling for more oil in America's backyard to ease our dependence on foreign oil. It will take years to break our foreign oil addiction and so new sources of petroleum on American territory must be explored, something this president won't do.

Curiously, Obama invoked a space analogy, mentioning the Russian "Sputnik" satellite launched in 1957 and the American Apollo program that sent astronauts to the moon in 1969. And yet this president has effectively mothballed our space program at a time when China is moving rapidly forward with theirs.

The president's speech was all about new spending ("investment" he called it), no matter what he said about reducing the deficit. Spending on big government is what liberals do. No one should be fooled by the rhetoric, or the theatrics of congressional Republicans and Democrats sitting together. The Republican challenge is to stop the president's liberal agenda while making the case for a better one.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:51 PM | Comments (0)

January 27, 2011

Numbers made to lie in order to sell Obamacare

Why Everything Starts With Repeal of Obamacare

by Charles Krauthammer
January 21, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Suppose someone -- say, the president of United States -- proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I've got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion.

He'd be laughed out of town. And yet, this is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare. During the debate over Republican attempts to repeal it, one of the Democrats' major talking points has been that Obamacare reduces the deficit -- and therefore repeal raises it -- by $230 billion. Why, the Congressional Budget Office says exactly that.

Very true. And very convincing. Until you realize where that number comes from. Explains CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in his "preliminary analysis of H.R. 2" (the Republican health care repeal): "CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion."

As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin pointed out when mining this remarkable nugget, this is a hell of a way to do deficit reduction: a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in new taxes.

Of course, the very numbers that yield this $230 billion "deficit reduction" are phony to begin with. The CBO is required to accept every assumption, promise (of future spending cuts, for example) and chronological gimmick that Congress gives it. All the CBO then does is perform the calculation and spit out the result.

In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the new entitlement it creates -- government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans -- doesn't kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would only cover six years of expenditures -- while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenues. With 10 years of money inflow versus six years of outflow, the result is a positive -- i.e., deficit-reducing -- number. Surprise.

If you think that's audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one new entitlement (health insurance for everyone); it actually creates a second -- long-term care insurance. With an aging population, and with long-term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state.

And yet, in the CBO calculation, this new entitlement to long-term care reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. By $70 billion, no less. How is this possible? By collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years. Presto: a (temporary) surplus. As former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and scholars Joseph Antos and James Capretta note, "Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used as 'offset' to grease the way for another entitlement." I would note additionally that only in Washington could such a neat little swindle be titled the "CLASS Act" (for the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act).

That a health care reform law of such enormous size and consequence, revolutionizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy, could be sold on such flimflammery is astonishing, even by Washington standards. What should Republicans do?

Make the case. Explain the phony numbers, boring as the exercise may be. Better still, hold hearings and let the CBO director, whose integrity is beyond reproach, explain the numbers himself.

To be sure, the effect on the deficit is not the only criterion by which to judge Obamacare. But the tossing around of such clearly misleading bumper-sticker numbers calls into question the trustworthiness of other happy claims about Obamacare. Such as the repeated promise that everyone who likes his current health insurance will be able to keep it. Sure, but only if your employer continues to offer it. In fact, millions of workers will find themselves adrift because their employers will have every incentive to dump them onto the public rolls.

This does not absolve the Republicans from producing a health care replacement. They will and should be judged by how well their alternative addresses the needs of the uninsured and the anxieties of the currently insured. But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete nonstarter. Everything begins with repeal.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:28 AM | Comments (0)

January 26, 2011

Israeli Political Science Professor Efraim Inbar - Brilliant, Except ...

By Jerome S. Kaufman

On January 24, 2011, Palm Beach Synagogue and The American Friends of Bar-Ilan University welcomed Professor Efraim Inbar, Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Professor Inbar was introduced by Sherri Siskin, Associate Director for Bar-Ilan of the SE Region of Palm Beach County. Professor Inbar's topic for the evening was, "Time is On Israel's Side."

He was born in Romania (1947), educated at the Hebrew University (B.A. in Political Science and English Literature) and at the University of Chicago (M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science). His area of specialization is Middle Eastern strategic issues with a special interest in the politics and strategy of Israeli national security. He has written over 60 articles in professional journals and has authored five books. Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper.

He began his lecture by stating that in his travels, he has met many Diaspora Jews and has been struck by the pessimism of these people relative to Israel. He believes, as a Realpolitician, that this pessimism is unwarranted.

The continued existence of any state is dependent upon two considerations
- its strategic environment and the domestic strength of the country. No question that Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood with power and force as the rules of the game. There have been many wars plus terrorism but Israel has repeatedly demonstrated it cannot be beaten, thanks to its strong military machine, a nuclear arsenal (and the great will and dedication of the Israeli people).

As a result, our enemies have decided to make peace with us. There has not been a large scale war since 1973 (Yom Kippur War). We do continue to face terror but terror is the last resort of the weak. The Arab world is itself, in the throes of far-reaching political and social crises. They have failed to establish strong, modern states. They are weak and have had to adopt a different discourse vis-a-vis Israel. They no longer speak of pushing the Jews into the sea but, speak of peace. (Of course, they have their own definition of 'peace.' )

There are circumstances that do genuinely threaten Israel - the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. He believes this can be prevented primarily due to the economic shambles within Arab countries plus their political instability. It is also wonderful to have with us a Big Brother like the United States. Israel is part of the winning team and he does not subscribe to the view that America is on the decline. America will undoubtedly recover from the weakness of the current administration. America will snap back.

We should not be discouraged by Israel's lack of popularity in much of the world. When were Jews popular? What else is new? We must remember that over half of the developing world, India and China, have no elements of anti-Semitism. They look upon Israel as a great civilization, a sister civilization. Just last week, a delegation of Chinese scholars came to Israel specifically to check upon the Jewish genius.

Israel is no longer a divided country. The cleavages between Ashkenazi and Sephardim have disappeared as has the cleavage between socialism and capitalism. The role of the government has been redefined. Israelis are now all good capitalists. The cleavage relating to the importance of the territories (Judea and Samaria, 'West Bank') has also disappeared. The discussion whether to annex the territories, create a 'Greater Israel' (this term always frosts me. For anyone to look at minuscule Israel and describe it as 'greater' in any sense is beyond ridiculous) is no longer an option. Everyone is for partition whether we like it or not. Everyone is willing to make concessions. He did candidly state, as an aside - "Of course, we don't know to whom to make these concessions!"

At this point, this part of the Professor's discussion went awry as far as I was concerned. By some sort of serendipity, I had spoken to the Professor before the lecture and he was happy that the Israelis were finally recovering from the disaster of Oslo. What this truly brilliant professor obviously had chosen to not recognize is the fact that the Israelis have not recovered from Oslo at all but have, in fact, been deluded and brain washed into embracing it. What else did Oslo promote but a Palestinian state, the giving up of Judea and Samaria and retreat to the 1967 Auschwitz borders that existed prior to the heaven sent miracle of the Six Day War?

At the question and answer period, I demanded of the Professor how could he possibly subscribe to this general acceptance of giving up more territory when the last retreats from territory shriek at the stupidity of such decisions. The retreat from southern Lebanon created the massive military force of Hezbollah which, under Syrian authority and huge Iranian support, has completely replaced the government of Lebanon. Hezbollah has amassed continually growing man power and lethal weaponry on Israel's northern border. It will attack Israel at the very first moment they think they have any chance of destroying it. Exactly the same situation has occurred with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza with the complete take over by Israel's mortal enemy, Hamas, defeating Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah

I asked the Professor how in the world could he and the rest of the Israelis remotely consider giving up Judea and Samaria when it would take less than five minutes for Hamas to take over that area too and indeed, shrink Israel into the defenseless Auschwitz borders. The Professor's answer was unimpressive. In retrospect, I should have also admonished him for subscribing to the abject, mindless suicidal retreat from more territory and the acceptance of a Palestine State. As a dedicated political scientist and world renown educational leader he should rather take it upon himself to begin a long neglected project to educate the Israeli people against a continuation of this national self-destruction.

The professor ended his lecture on a high note. He stated what characterizes Israeli society now is a willingness to fight. The youth (especially the Orthodox) are increasingly volunteering for the most dangerous combat units. We are not going anywhere. This is our country and we plan to keep it, despite all the apparent drawbacks of our current position and the fact that we don't expect peace anytime soon. Finally, the Professor mentioned a heart warming study. He spoke of a Patriotic Index which determined that 90% of Israelis were happy people. Confirming this index, a recent Gallup Poll ranked Israel as the eighth happiest country in the world.

Let us pray that the Lord keeps it that way.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Comment from Christian reader. Jan 26, 2011

Jerry congratulations for your knowledge about OSLO. Your Leaders had accommodated Arafat when they took refuge in Tunisia after Israel Banished from Lebanon and therefore Israel is now paying a great price by giving up the Land that God gave to Abraham. Now that Hizbollah Controls Lebanon what else do you expect but more bloodshed. May your Leaders do Something before its too late.we are experiencing that in the Philippines,the enemy keep on talking about ceasefire and PEACE but the are realy buying time for a take OVER. May the Lord help us. WE LOVE ISRAEL

Velasco Legasi
The Phillipines

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:19 PM | Comments (0)

January 24, 2011

The anti-oil production bias that is killing our economy and deliberately

The Oil Spill Commissioner's Anti-Oil Bias

First, All his numbers are wrong!


Erick Erickson, Editor, RedState.com

Posted by Vladimir
January 23, 2011

Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida is co-chair of the President's Oil Spill Commission. The Commission, stacked with environmentalists and Harvard lawyers and notably absent any working industry expertise, delivered its report to the President earlier this month. Its contents were predictable, calling for more regulation and more government.

Here's what Sen. Graham had to say this week:

This is a wake-up call to the American people. Why are we drilling in deeper and inherently more risky offshore locations? The United States is consuming about 22 percent of the world's daily extraction of petroleum while it sits on top of less than 1.5 percent of the world's proved reserves. If we drill baby drill in an attempt to go totally independent, and if our thirst for petroleum continues at its current level, the United States will drain its remaining proven domestic oil reserves by 2031.

If we stay at our current 48 percent domestic and 52 percent imported oil, that date will only be extended to 2068. Unless we develop and sustain a national energy policy which will fundamentally change our petroleum addiction, the only choice our generation will have is whether to leave to our children or to our grandchildren an America totally dependent on foreign oil producers for its national security, economy and way of life.

Uh, I have a few problems with this.

First off, his numbers are wrong. In round numbers, worldwide production is about 85 million barrels a day. Domestic production is about 5 million barrels a day of crude plus a couple of million barrels of natural gas condensate and liquids. Domestic production is about 30-35% of consumption, not 48% as Graham asserts.

Oil companies don't just drill for oil. Probably 80% of the drilling on the shallow-water Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico is for natural gas. It's much less risky than deepwater oil, but it has been shut down, too. When you consider that we have 100 years of domestic resources (mostly as yet undiscovered), and that gas is environmentally superior to coal and oil, then Sen. Graham should do everything in his power to get behind gas exploration.

Even more troubling is that Graham has bought into the Leftist lie, that the U.S. has only 1.5% of the world's reserves but consumes 22% of its oil. As I've pointed out previously in these pages, there's a lot of confusion between oil reserves and oil resources.

As practiced in the U.S. proved reserves are a conservative, audited estimate of production that will be produced mostly by existing wells. The SEC requires that American companies report reserves to their shareholders. "Resources" is the term applied to the quantities that are expected to be found by future drilling. Resources are converted to reserves by drilling (unless politicians, greens and NIMBYs prevent development of resources, which is the subject of another diary)

Not only that, but most of the reserves in the world are owned by National Oil Companies in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Angola, Nigeria, etc. Their reserves are whatever they say they are, because they are not subject to the SEC rules. And usually they guess high. As a result, the U.S. proportion of the world total deceptively low. Our policy makers don't seem to understand that the U.S. is resource-rich, but reserves-poor. That is a result of policy, not a fact of life.

Imagine a situation where I had $500,000 in savings and home equity, plus $10,000 in my checking account. My living expenses are $2,000 per month. If I told you I would be broke in 5 months, you'd say I was an idiot. And you would be right.

"Our only choice" Hardly. Sen. Graham's case against oil is specious, while betraying a total ignorance of natural resource planning issues. That we put unqualified, biased politicians in a position to influence important policy decisions boggles the mind. I don't understand why such important policy has been turned over to neophytes and Leftist ideologues, but that seems to be the pattern under Obama.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:28 AM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2011

Palestinians receive highest per capita foreign aid in world

Provided - mostly by the US taxpayer

From: Yoram Ettinger (yoramtex@netvision.net.il)

January 17, 2011

Since 1994, there has been an unprecedented intensification of Palestinian anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-US hate-education and incitement in PA-controlled schools, mosques and media, an all-time high PA non-compliance with commitments made to the US and Israel and an unparalleled expansion of Palestinian terrorism infrastructure and activity.

Thus, foreign aid has not moderated the PA.  Foreign aid has rewarded PA
hate-education, non-compliance and terrorism. The following study documents
that foreign aid has also been abused by the PA, enticing corruption and
inefficient economy.

Study shows over 60% of Palestinian Authority's GNP comes from US, EU, UN,
World Bank. "Donations go toward entrenchment of government institutions
instead of development of infrastructure, industry, human capital," say
research authors, economic analyst Eyal Ofer and President of Financial
Immunities consulting firm Adam Roiter.

According to the study's findings, during 2009 and 2010 the PA's reliance on
donations increased - with a 20% growth in donations, totaling some $3.96BN
per year. In real values, the scope of donations more than doubled within a period of four years. The research, similarly to OECD reports, points to the PA's steadily increasing dependence on donation funds. In fact, the Palestinian people receive the largest amount of donations worldwide.

Yes, an economy can be built from donations - if these are allocated for
development, production and infrastructure, but this is not the case. "The donations toward the entrenchment of government institutions instead of the development of infrastructure, industry, human capital etc'," explained Roiter. "What we have here is a schnorrer (Yiddish for chiseler) country, without which it does not exist," he added.

Ofer and Roiter noted that since 2000-when the rate of donations reflected 10.47% of total GNP - there has been a steady increase in the scope of foreign donations. The most significant boost began in 2007, immediately after Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip, and following the PA's claim that it needed more funds to establish its regime.

There is 'No genuine industrial sector' Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's links with the International Monetary Fund, as well as his "Western" rhetoric vis-Ă -vis transparency, the building of government institutions and preventing market monopolies have helped him with the task of fundraising. However, according to the study, the facts on the ground indicate that the governmental apparatus and international aid organizations impede the growth of the business sector, while donations are used to preserve the ruling party rather than build a separate economy that is not dependent on foreign donations.

Ofer and Roiter are not the only ones pointing to the worrying trend. A piercing article published in UK-based the Guardian newspaper last November claimed that [Palestinian] NGOs have become synonyms with corruption and incompetence, hinting at international donors who the paper claimed thwarted
the Palestinian economic development by overinflating the aid industry without supplying long-term solutions. The latest study reinforces this claim, pointing to the absence of an industrial sector in the Palestinian Authority. "Employers lack the ability or the will to go into industry or development, because they cannot compete with the salaries of governmental organs and that of the aid workers on the ground," said Ofer, adding, "In reality, their economy is solely based on the trade of services."

(Is this beginning to sound familiar to American taxpayers?)jsk

According to Roiter, although it is in Israel's interest to see the PA reinforced rather than the Hamas but, in fact, the Authority's conduct may be dangerous in the long run: "Without the donations, the Palestinian Authority's economy will collapse, and this by turn will affect the security of Israel's residents. "The funds go into the pockets of bureaucratic echelons and to the monstrous administrative apparatus that mostly deals with allocation of funds and fundraising," he added. "Governmental services operate on the expense of the business sector, which is left at a standstill - instead of developing alongside it," he noted.

The study also reveals that while the Palestinian prime minister brags in front of foreign institutions over the scope of tax collection in the PA, he forgets to mention that 77% of all taxes are collected by the Israeli Finance Ministry as part of a joint agreement between Israel and the PA. The former then transfers the latter more than NIS 5 billion (about $1.4 billion) per year, which amounts to approximately a third of the PA's annual budget.

"The PA may create a false display of assuming responsibility, but does nothing to prevent a possible scenario of economic collapse, because it is easier to live on someone else's expense," they conclude.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:18 AM | Comments (0)

January 21, 2011

Liberal? Jews embrace Mr. HymieTown

Have the Jews on the Left no shame, no self-respect?

By Professor Steven Plaut - Haifa University, Israel

Anshe Emet is the name of an upscale ultra-trendy leftwing synagogie in Chicago associated with the "Conservative" movement. Its clergyperson, one Michael S. Siegel, is part of the movement calling itself Hechsher Tzedek, which argues that a kosher certificate should be a confirmation of the political correctness of the establishment. These are the same guys who persecuted poor Mister Rubashkin and his meat factory (in Iowa for employing Mexican illegals - just like thousands of other American businesses - jsk). Obama's ex-sidekick Rahm Emanuel attended Anshe Emet's Hebrew School.

Well, now this crowd has decided to host Jesse Jackson on January 21, 2011. Jackson is best remembered for his Israel bashing, (His unapologetic racism, his extortion of funds from American businesses via his Mafia-like Rainbow Coalition demanding black representation in their work forces regardless of qualification - jsk) and his "Hymietown" remarks,

In the official announcement, it says, "We continue our celebration of the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. with special speaker Reverend Jesse Jackson, a gospel choir and a (sic) Oneg Shabbat to follow!"
Silly me. I thought it was the legacy of Moses and King David that mattered.

We guess that they brought old Jesse because Louis Farrakhan was not available. Chicken Lou could have addressed them about the legacy of Elijah Muhammed. Another Second-City bigot.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)

January 19, 2011

America : Going the way of Greece, Persia, Rome? Ouch!

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Washington Times
January 10, 2011

With 2010 drawing to a close, the American moment is ending not with a bang but a whimper. The 2000s will be remembered as the era of American decline.
Instead of trying to reverse this, Washington is hastening it. The lame-duck Congress, with help from Republicans, passed President Obama's tax deal, which adds nearly another trillion to the debt. It is a massive stimulus in disguise with no offsetting spending cuts.

Moreover, Mr. Obama again with GOP help succeeded in getting "don't ask, don't tell" repealed, enabling homosexuals to serve openly in the military. This is one of the most revolutionary and damaging acts ever done to a core American institution. It will decimate the greatest fighting force on earth, undermining unit cohesion, morale and discipline the lifeblood of a successful military. It is an act of national suicide.

This will add another layer of difficulty to our already inconclusive wars. Consider that the last time the United States won a major war was 1945. Korea was a stalemate, Vietnam a defeat; the first Gulf War failed to topple Saddam Hussein; Afghanistan and Iraq have become prolonged quagmires. Total victory has become alien to us.

A small example of how far we have fallen, how pampered and coddled we have become, was the decision by the NFL this week to postpone the game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Minnesota Vikings in Philadelphia. Football players are supposed to be the closest thing Americans have to modern Roman gladiators. The game exemplifies the rugged individualism and grit at the heart of the American character. The reason for the delay: Philadelphia was expecting 11 inches of snow. By comparison with historical Northeast winters, this was a minor storm - something previous generations simply shoveled and plowed through as they got on with their daily lives. If 11 inches of snow brings America's gladiators to a halt, it is clear we have lost our resilience.

This is evident, too, in the kinds of leaders we elect. Conventional wisdom holds that Mr. Obama is the antithesis of his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama is a liberal Democrat. Mr. Bush was a conservative Republican. Mr. Obama is a cosmopolitan internationalist, while Mr. Bush was a unilateralist cowboy. In fact, they have much more in common than either the left or the right would like to admit. Mr. Obama is simply continuing and intensifying many of the disastrous Bush policies.

Runaway government spending, new entitlements (for example, the prescription drug benefit), soaring deficits, bailouts, the troubled Asset Relief Program, expensive stimulus packages, a porous southern border and nation-building abroad - all of this began under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama is accelerating the big-government corporatism and social-engineering militarism that marked the Bush years. At its core, Mr. Obama's presidency is a culmination of, not a break from, Bushism.

Economic stagnation has set in. Mr. Obama's trillion-dollar deficits have pushed us to the brink of national bankruptcy. The greatest domestic threat to America is the skyrocketing national debt - which is approaching Greece-like levels. Instead of slashing spending, Washington continues to party like it's 1965. Obamacare is the final nail in America's fiscal coffin. We are spending money we simply do not have.

Moreover, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined account for more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The stark reality is that we cannot afford these huge and popular entitlement programs. To restore fiscal sanity and prevent crushing taxation, these programs must be privatized or substantially scaled back. The public, however, has no appetite for these kinds of draconian measures.

Like many Europeans, Americans have become addicted to la dolce vita, the good life. Generous social programs combined with increasing consumerism and sexual hedonism characterize the modern West. It is the end result of a society stripped from its Christian moorings.

The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche claimed "God is dead." Nietzsche's point was that the loss of faith would constitute our civilization's seminal cultural reality. The passing of the Christian West signifies the end not only of a worldview, but of a character type - one based on honor, family, self-help, blood-and-soil patriotism, personal responsibility and a God-centered moral order. Self-indulgence and self-expression have filled the vacuum. Life is no longer about sacrifice and duty; it's about maximizing pleasure and self-fulfillment.

Most Americans can no longer endure pain. This is why unemployment benefits keep being extended. This is why nearly every industry is "too big to fail." It is the inevitable consequence of statism: the transformation of freeborn and productive citizens into de facto serfs who look to Uncle Sam for handouts. Decades of liberalism have led to the servile state.

In the 2000s, as we became soft, self-indulgent and mired in foreign interventions, a new great power emerged: an ultranationalist China. During the past decade, Beijing became the world's No. 1 manufacturer and automaker, premier exporting nation and No. 2 economy. China is engaged in a massive military buildup and menaces its neighbors. It owns much of our public debt. It is to America what we once were to Great Britain: the rising force in the world.

All civilizations rise and fall - Ancient Greece, Persia, Rome, medieval Europe, the great Italian city-states, the Ottoman Empire, the vast European empires. The past is littered with the corpses of once unparalleled and dominant powers that are now a distant memory. So too has America passed its zenith.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a radio talk show personality and a columnist at The Washington Times and WorldTribune.com.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:00 PM | Comments (0)

January 18, 2011

Hurray! Maybe Ehud Barack finally saw the light of day and relinquished his surrender mentality

"Never underestimate the 'army ties' factor in Israeli politics."

Another Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton anti-Israel Fiasco goes awry, I hope.

Ehud Barak Splits From Israel's Labor Party

January 17, 2011

BY Rob Miller

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has formed a new faction and split off from the Labor Party. Apparently he and Bibi Netanyahu had this planned for a while.
Barak plans to set up his new faction with Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, Deputy Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Orit Noked and Knesset Member Einat Wilf. 

The new faction will be named Independence, according to what Barak told a press conference at the Knesset today. "We are setting up a faction, a movement and later on a party, which will be Zionist, central and democratic, and will follow David Ben-Gurion's legacy," the defense minister said, promising that the new faction would put Israel first. "Then comes the party and then come we," he added. "The motto will be what is good for the State of Israel."

"We are facing difficult challenges, focusing on the peace process with the Palestinians, security-related and economic and social challenges. We are ready and willing to deal with all these challenges. "We are leaving a party and a home we like and respect... Many of its members have experienced over the years the difficulties of daily life and the ongoing and unhealthy situation in the Labor Party, and they too were victims of the ongoing squabbles, the troubling drift to the left."

Barak slammed Labor members whom he said "have been dragged to the Left, to post-modernism and post-Zionism." This means several things. As the article notes, Likud PM Bibi Netanyahu was fully aware of this and facilitated it. That's obvious even without the article saying so, because otherwise the ex-Labor politicians could hardly have held on to their ministries. 

So Netanyahu has decided to let Labor bolt the coalition and shift to its natural home on the Left, while creating a formula for keeping the more conservative and useful members in government and maintaining a governing majority that will probably be more stable... and somewhat more on the center/right.

It also means that Obama's efforts to meddle in Israeli politics by having Netanyahu's government fall and getting a Leftist government elected in its place have failed, at least as far as Barak is concerned. A tipoff on this was the huge amount of time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, who has a long standing and personal feud with Ehud Barak. Livni is where the Obama Administration's efforts will be concentrated from now on, to the extent that they continue to try to unseat Netanyahu.

There never was much of a chance to turn Barak against Netanyahu anyway, and Clinton and Obama should have known that. One should never underestimate the 'army ties' factor in Israeli politics.

Reader's comment

Congratulations for your new Hero, Ehud Barak. Late president Ronald Reagan Said "the Best Defense is Offense". It is time for your Air Force to obliterate Hisbulah And Hamas. If you will wait for the whole U.N. except U.S. go against you then by that time it will be too late to fight. Please read 1 Samuel 15 in your Hebrew Bible. The U. N. is against Israel, so whether you like to obliterate Hamas or Hisbulah or not the U.N. will Side with the enemies of God's Chosen People - ISRAEL.. I read in the Jerusalem post that the Russian President had stepped into Israel without visiting your Prime minister. Jerry, to us this is a sign that the Prophecy in Ezekiel chapter 38 and 39 is about to be fulfilled.

Velasco Legasi

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:51 PM | Comments (0)

January 16, 2011

Left desperately trying to eliminate Sarah Palin

Before she puts them into deserved political oblivion in 2012 elections

Alan Dershowitz, Defends Palin on ‘Blood Libel’

By JOHN HUDSON | January 12, 2011

Noted Jewish academic and Harvard Law professor Allan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin's "blood libel" remark today. Though many Jewish groups have expressed dismay over Palin's use of the term, in a statement to Big Government, Dershowitz said "there is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic" about Palin's comments. Originally, the term was most often used (in a European context) to falsely accuse Jews of murdering children and using their blood for religious rituals. Dershowitz argues that the term has since evolved:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:15 PM | Comments (0)

January 15, 2011

US Government "saving" American Postal System. Is your Health Care next?

Post Office Bait and Switch

By Newt Gingrich
Weekly Standard, January 12, 2011

A new initiative by the U.S Postal Service that appears on the surface to be a good deal for customers is in fact setting the stage for bankruptcy and a future bailout of the Post Office with taxpayer money. This week, U.S. Postmaster General Patrick Donahue plans to announce that all future stamps sales will be so-called “forever stamps,” which can still be used even if postage rates go up.

Anyone who has had to hunt around for 1 or 2 cent stamps to add to their old stamps after an increase may consider this good news. However, consider the implications of this action. The Post Office is currently experiencing a severe budget deficit and has been unable to gain approval for a postal rate increase.  In addition, they are threatening to stop delivering mail on Saturdays as a way to cut costs. 

As Peter Schiff astutely points out in this interview with Daily Bell, the Post Office is trying to solve their short term revenue problems at the cost of even bigger problems down the road. The Post Office will try to use any short term increase in sales from these forever stamps to solve their immediate fiscal problems. 

But if the Post Office is already having trouble operating at full capacity with current prices, imagine how difficult it will be to do so in five or ten years after inflation has pushed their costs up AND they are selling even fewer stamps because so many people already purchased them in the past. In fact, this move is setting the stage for a future taxpayer bailout of the Post Office because it virtually guarantees its future bankruptcy.

The low price of stamps is not the reason why the Post Office is facing such huge deficits. The Post Office is seeking a 5.6% increase in the price of stamps despite an inflation rate of just 0.6%. Instead, the Post Office is facing budget shortfalls because it is unwilling to engage in the necessary reform of its operations necessary in the modern economy.

As I discussed in To Save America which is now out in an updated paperback version, the Post Office’s union work rules require it to pay a large group of employees more than a million dollars a week to do nothing.  Instead of being able to lay off redundant workers, the Post Office (and by extension, every American who uses the mail) keeps them on salary through a program called “standby time.” 

If the Post Office really wants to solve its fiscal challenges, it needs to engage in the difficult work of reforming its operating procedures, including its suffocating and costly union work rules like “standby time.” Congress should block the Post Office from implementing this genuinely dumb move and force it to confront the true cause of its budget woes and implement real reform.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)

January 14, 2011

From Ambassador John Bolton, my personal hero

U.S. Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations (2005-2006)
Member: Board of Directors, American Conservative Union

Dear American Patriot:

The left-wing NEW YORK TIMES newspaper won't like me warning you about how President Obama is now undermining American leadership in the world and our freedoms under the Constitution.

They've already called me a "bully" in the past because I wouldn't let foreign bureaucrats at the U.N. tell us Americans how to govern our nation. As a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., I know what America must do to protect our borders, our citizens, and our way of life, not just from terrorists, but from the long arm of U.N. "globalists."

That's why I've written a short book for patriot activists to sound the alarm about the dangers posed to our freedom and our personal safety by the Obama Administration's post-American, globalist policies and tell what you and I can do to stop him. It's called, HOW BARACK OBAMA IS ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY. And in a moment I'll tell you how you can receive an autographed copy.

But first, I want to alert you as to why you and I urgently need to get my book into the hands of as many American patriots as possible. You see, I'm appalled by President Obama's and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's globalist efforts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and the American peoples' right to self-governance.

Just consider that Barack Obama recently called himself a "citizen of the world. Those are his words. Obama is our first post-American president - someone who sees his role in foreign policy less as an advocate for what he sees as America's "parochial" self interests and more as an advocate of global governance.

That means we risk having the U.N. tell us Americans ...

* when we are allowed to take military action to defend our own
national interest;
* to charge foreign terrorists in civilian rather than military
courts, giving them the same legal rights as American citizens, as if
terrorists were similar to bank robbers rather than national security
* to accept an open borders immigration policy in the name of "human
* our 2nd Amendment gun rights are taken away;
* the death penalty is outlawed;
* we must accept abortion on demand and pay for it with taxpayer
* to pay taxes to the U.N. independent of the U.S. Congress voting on
whether or not to provide American tax dollars;
* that our citizens operating under our Constitution to make decisions
that affect their lives are restricted in their powers by U.N. NGOs
(nongovernmental organizations), which know what's best for us.

Incredibly, Obama even had his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, report the
state of Arizona to the U.N., saying Arizona's law enforcing federal law on illegal
aliens is a human rights abuse. Whose side are you on President Obama? I think you and I realize he is not on our side.

What makes these dangers to our nation and to our liberty I've listed so
alarming is that they are not from an armed enemy nation outside our borders.
Rather, the danger threatens us from inside our own government because of
the globalist ideology of the self-described citizen of the world, our first post-
American president.

Now I think you can see why I feel HOW BARACK OBAMA IS ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY needs to be read by patriot activists all over America. Without it, many Americans may mistakenly think that after losing the mid-term elections, Barack Obama is no longer much of a threat. But as commander in chief of our armed forces and as our nation's chief executive, Barack Obama, is well positioned to make mischief in the White House with the U.N. for two more years, especially if the American people don't know what he is doing to undermine American self-government.

As a member of the board of directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU), I'm hoping you care too much about America to let Obama's power giveaway to the U.N. go unchecked.That's why I urge you to take meaningful action by making your most generous contribution to the American Conservative Union (ACU) and by purchasing my book. HOW BARACK OBAMA IS ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, your short book for citizen activists, intended to arm citizens with the facts to take action.

The American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 836-8602
Fax: (703) 836-8606

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)

January 12, 2011

French Prostitutes

BOOK REVIEW: How Paris survived occupation
By John M. Taylor

The Washington Times
Sunday, January 2, 2011

On June 13, 1940, following a series of stunning military defeats at the hands of Hitler's army, the government of France declared its capital an open city; German forces entered Paris the next day. The city had lost more than half of its prewar population, and the only vehicles on the road were German. The five years of German occupation that followed are described in riveting detail by Alan Riding, a resident of Paris and a longtime correspondent for the New York Times.

"In the face of defeat and occupation," Mr. Riding observes, "the French responded successively with anger, despair, resignation and accommodation."
They also responded, on occasion, with resistance. It was a time for questioning. While Hitler rebuilt Germany, France had struggled with the effects of the Depression and had gone through no fewer than 34 governments. Even before Paris fell, leftist writer Jean-Paul Sartre asked rhetorically why France was fighting. "To defend democracy? There is no such thing anymore. To preserve things as they were before the war? But, it was the most complete disorder ... social discontent everywhere."

What were the objectives of the German occupiers? Militarily, they had achieved the objective denied to them in World War I: capture of the enemy's capital. But, as occupiers, the Germans were conflicted. Notwithstanding their military might, the Nazis felt vaguely uneasy about their relationship with the city that epitomized European culture. "Germanic culture had produced its share of great artists, writers, and, above all, musicians," Mr. Riding notes, "yet it was Paris - not London, not Rome, not Vienna and certainly not Berlin - that defined style and taste for the region."

There was soon a consensus for a revival of the city's cultural life. "For musicians, dancers and actors, it was a matter of necessity. They needed to work and saw no reason not to. They bore no responsibility for the country's disaster, and they had no power to redress the situation." The Germans were amenable. The collaborationist government they established in Vichy to administer France's unoccupied south was eager to showcase French culture.

But anti-Semitism, never far below the surface in France, would flourish during the occupation years. Since Hitler's rise to power, thousands of Jewish intellectuals had relocated to Paris. Overall, France's Jewish population had tripled in four decades to a total of 300,000.

In October 1940, the Vichy government implemented a Statute on Jews, designed to exclude Jews from the government, the press and other professions. What interested Germans the most, however, was the great art collections in the hands of those Jewish collectors who had not already fled. To facilitate the pillaging of those collections, the Germans promulgated an order that all art was to be "safeguarded" pending a formal peace treaty. For whatever reason, the Parisian art market took off under the occupation.

In the author's words, "Parisians began selling off paintings and art objects as never before." With a few exceptions, French writers were eager to continue publishing, even though their work was subject to censorship. Most of the Paris press served as outlets for German propaganda in return for financial support from the occupiers.

Classical musicians were better off. Because music is the most abstract of the arts, there was no problem with censorship. In July 1940, composer Francis Poulenc wrote an exiled colleague, "Musical life is intense, and everyone finds in it a way of forgetting the present sadness." When German bands or choirs performed outside the Paris Opera, crowds quickly gathered, drawn by the music. To some, such performances were dangerous, for they served to humanize the occupying army. Music halls and cabarets had to clear their lyrics with German censors, but the censors employed a light hand, and songs poking fun at the occupation were approved sometimes.

Not every Frenchman could take the occupation in stride. Blue-collar workers, sometimes influenced by the communists, had little truck with the occupiers, and in August 1944, they staged an armed uprising in Paris. There were acts of quiet resistance as well. Singer Edith Piaf was so popular that she was allowed to take her show into camps for Allied POWs. There she would persuade the commandant to allow her to be photographed with some of the prisoners. The resulting photos were then used to create false documents for escapees.

One of the art world's few heroes was Rose Valland, "a frumpy-looking forty-two-year-old spinster" employed by one of Paris' great museums, the Jeu de Paume. Valland kept a record of all art entering or leaving the building, including art destined for the Hitler or Goering collections. She advised the resistance of which trains contained valuable art and therefore should not be attacked. After the war, Valland's notes assisted Allied officers seeking to track down the looted art.

After Germany's surrender, the government of Charles de Gaulle launched investigations into who had collaborated with the enemy. Defining who was a collaborator was not easy. The investigations led to a purging of books and to the jailing of many writers, one of whom complained of discrimination: "The engineers, entrepreneurs, and masons who built the Atlantic Wall walk among us undisturbed."

The trials of collaborators continued until 1951 and came to include upscale call girls who had profited from their German clients. Not all were repentant. A movie actress, Arletty, was tried for having had a very public affair with a German officer. In her defense, she testified, "My heart is French but my [body] is international." In a footnote, Mr. Rider notes that between 100,000 and 200,000 Franco-German babies were born during the occupation. The story of the occupation has been dealt with elsewhere, but this fine book reminds the reader of the many shades of collaboration in an occupied country.

Biographer and historian John M. Taylor lives in McLean

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:42 AM | Comments (0)

January 11, 2011

Radical Islam vs. Christianity

Contrary to liberal myth, Islam is not a "religion of peace."

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Washington Times
January 3, 2011

As Americans celebrate Christmas in peace in our nation, many Christians across the Middle East are in peril: Muslim fanatics seek to exterminate them. Over the past several years, Christians have endured bombings, murders, assassinations, torture, imprisonment and expulsions. These anti-Christian pogroms culminated recently with the brutal attack on Our Lady of Salvation, an Assyrian Catholic church in Baghdad. Al Qaeda gun men stormed the church during Mass, slaughtering 51 worshippers and two priests. Father Wassim Sabih begged the jihadists to spare the lives of his parishioners. They executed him and then launched their campaign of mass murder.

Their goal was to inflict terror - thereby causing chaos in the hopes of undermining Iraq’s fledgling democracy - and to annihilate the country's Christian minority. After the siege, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia issued a bulletin claiming that "all Christian centers, organizations and institutions, leaders and followers, are legitimate targets for jihadists.

Since the 2003 war in Iraq Christians have faced a relentless assault from Islamic extremists. Many of these groups, such as the Assyrians, consist of the oldest Christian sects in the world, going back to the time of Christ. Some even speak Aramaic, the language used by Jesus. The very roots of our Christian heritage are being extirpated.

Religious cleansing is taking place everywhere in Iraq - by Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Before the toppling of Saddam Hussein there existed more than 1 million Christians in Iraq They are now mostly gone - scattered to the winds, sacrificed on the altar of erecting an Islamic state. Churches have been closed or blown up. Hundreds of thousands have been expelled. Nearly two-thirds of the 500,000 Christians in Baghdad have fled or been killed. In Mosul, about 100,000 Christians used to live there. Now, just 5,000 remain. Soon there will be none.

The rise of radical Islam threatens Christian communities not only in Iraq but across the Middle East. In Egypt Coptic Christians routinely are murdered, persecuted and prevented from worshipping - especially during religious holy days such as Christmas and Easter. In the birthplace of Christ, Bethlehem, Christians have largely been forced out. In Nazareth, they are a tiny remnant. In Iraq Muslim converts to Christianity are executed. Churches and synagogues are prohibited. In Turkey, Islamists have butchered priests and nuns. In Lebanon, Christians have dwindled to a sectarian rump, menaced by surging Shiite and Sunni populations.

The Vatican estimates that from Iraq to Iran there are just 17 million Christians left. Christianity is on the verge of extinction in the ancient lands of its birth. In short, a creeping religious genocide is taking place. Yet the West remains silent for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities. This must stop - immediately.

For years, Pope Benedict XVI has been demanding that Islamic religious leaders adopt a new policy: reciprocity. If Muslims - funded and supported by Saudi Arabia - can build mosques and madrassas in Europe and America, then Christians - Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox - should be entitled to build churches in the Arab world. For all of their promises, however, Muslim leaders have failed to deliver. In fact, the situation has only deteriorated.

Clearly, some Muslims cannot live in peaceful coexistence with non-Muslim peoples - especially in countries where Muslims form the majority. Christian minorities living in the overwhelmingly Muslim-dominated Middle East pose no possible danger to Islamic hegemony. Hence, why the hatred against them?

This is a repeat of an old historical pattern: the periodic ebb and flow of Islamic jihadism. From its inception, Islam has been engaged in a struggle with Christian civilization. Led by the Prophet Muhammad some 600 years after the birth of Christ, the Muslim faith spread across the Middle East through violence and war. Christians were either forcibly converted or slowly expelled from their ancestral lands.

Following the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula, Muslim armies invaded North Africa, Spain, France and the Balkans. At one point, they even reached the gates of Vienna - until they were repelled by the brave knights of Catholic Croatia. The sword of Islam sought to conquer Christian Europe.

Bernard Lewis, the foremost historian on the Middle East, rightly argues that the Crusades were not the result of Western imperialism; rather, they signified a belated - and only partially successful - effort to liberate once-Christian territories from Islamic aggression. Europe was saved; Jerusalem and the Middle East were not.

Today's anti-Christian pogroms are not new. They are what Christians have historically faced - persecution, death and martyrdom. In Roman times, Christians were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum. In the Islamic world, they are being murdered, raped, beheaded and thrown out of their homes. The only difference is the means, not the end.

The Christians of the Middle East are dying for their convictions, as did so many others before them. For this, they will receive their just reward in heaven. Their deaths are a salient reminder that, contrary to liberal myth, Islam is not a "religion of peace." Instead, it contains a militant segment bent on waging a holy war against infidels and erecting a global caliphate.

There is, however, a true religion of peace. It began with a baby boy born in a manger in Bethlehem. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, came to shine a light into the dark souls of men. As Christians recall and celebrate that humble birth, we also should stand in solidarity with those who are, 2,000 years later, still being persecuted in His name.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:58 AM | Comments (0)

January 08, 2011

Another Court Jew, Dennis Ross, resurfaces to help Barack Obama and the American State Dept. destroy the state of Israel

Article below the Quick Takes news item, is an article by Jerome S. Kaufman on Dennis Ross, published in the Detroit Jewish News dated November 14, 2004 with a follow up article December 24, 2008

Quick Takes by Aaron Klein

US Pressing for Israel-Syria Talks
The Jewish Press, December 31, 2010

The Obama administration is pressing Israel to enter negotiations with Syria leading to an Israeli retreat from the strategic Golan Heights, this column has learned. Syria which maintains a military alliance with Iran, has twice used the Golan, which looks down on Israeli population centers, to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

Informed Middle East security officials say that Dennis Ross, an envoy from the White House in the Middle East, visited both Israel and Syria last week to discuss specifics of a deal in which Syria would eventually take most of the Golan. According to the security officials, Ross is slated to become Obama’s main envoy regarding Israeli-Palestinian affairs, with the current envoy George Mitchell to step down.

With Israel, Ross discussed specifics of a deal with Syria, including which territory would be expected to evacuate in both the Golan and the Jordan Valley, the security officials said. The officials said that Ross told Syria it needs to scale back its relationship with Iran and stop facilitating the rearmament of Hizbullah. The Iranian backed Hizbullah reportedly now has over 10,000 missiles and rockets, including a large number that can reach Tel Aviv. and beyond.

December 24, 2008



By Jerome S. Kaufman

(Reprinted - with today's additional commentary - from the Detroit Jewish News of November 12, 2004)

It was quite a show at the West Bloomfield, Michigan, Jewish Community Center Jewish Book Fair on November 4, 2004 - watching former Ambassador Dennis Ross mesmerize an adoring audience of naive Jews as to his great contribution to the so-called “peace process” in the Middle East.

His press agent wrote him up as, “A highly skilled diplomat, Ambassador Ross was this country’s point man on the peace process in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He was instrumental in assisting Israelis and Palestinians reach the 1995 Interim Agreement; he also successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997, facilitated the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together.” ('assisted Israel!' Huh!)

Evidently, the man who wrote the promo piece was not on the scene when these events occurred. Ross was indeed the point man along with the other great “assisters of Israel” in Clinton’s State Department: i.e., Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haase and, of course, Madeleine Albright and Clinton himself. Their “assistance” has all but brought Israel to its knees.

Way back in April 1991, in a Moment magazine article, former Near East Report editor Eric Rozenman described Ross as a “Jewish Arabist.” He wrote that Ross was responsible for shaping the Bush-Baker policy that was “indifferent to what Israel claimed as vital interests and undiplomatically hostile to Israel’s prime minister” and had made it “the least sympathetic American government toward Israel in that country’s 43 years.”

That government embraced the deluded Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Haim Ramon that brought the Oslo Accords, under cover of darkness, to Israel. Along with the Accords came a powerless, discarded Yasser Arafat isolated in Tunisia following the 1982 Lebanese war. Israel then made the colossal error of empowering this lethal enemy. The Palestinian Arabs were given rifles and sophisticated military equipment supposedly for use against riots among their own people. In short order, these weapons were instead, quickly used to kill Israelis. (Deja vu - all over again)

Despite the obvious Arab lack of cooperation and compliance with the agreements sculpted by Ross, the Israelis continued with the insanity giving up the greater part of Judea and Samaria and all the major Arabs towns to the point where 97 percent of the Arabs were under Arafat’s rule.

As a sign of his gratitude, Arafat orchestrated the even greater killing of Israelis that continues to this very day. In the 30 months after that date, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (213) than in the preceding 10 years — (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). In the following year, there were over twice as many Israeli terror fatalities! The situation has gone from bad to worse. In the four years of the current Intifada, September 2000 to September 2004, 1,032 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab violence and there have been 6,665 casualties.

Nevertheless, Ross continues to promote the same concept. He implores the Israelis to “get out of the lives of the Palestinian Arabs.” If the Israelis could only make the Palestinian Arabs accept the gracious deal of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak - all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, unlimited Arab right of return to Judea and Samaria, etc.

Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Israelis threw Barak out of office immediately after learning of what Barak, Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton and the American State Department had offered. They replaced Barak with another general in the hope that this general would address the issue the way generals are supposed to deal with terror. This general, Arik Sharon, unfortunately has also fallen into the trap of “land for peace” despite the years of its abject failure.

Finally, Ross made his most incredibly, damaging statement of all. He said that he knew, at the time, that Yasser Arafat was incapable of sticking to any deal he made! Furthermore, in all those years of negotiation, the Ross mediators did not obtain one concession from Arafat himself. None were obtained all the while Israelis were bleeding to death and coerced to give up more and more vital territory!

It is also obvious at that Jewish Center lecture, that Ross wants his point man job back. Thankfully, this is extremely unlikely with a Republican administration. But, from recent reports, under the Obama Administration, may succeed!
(And, just now, as I predicted November 4, 2004, he has! - jsk)

Unfortunately, at least for public consumption, President Bush continues to urge Israel to accept another terrorist Arab state in its back yard. He has not accepted the fact that such an entity will not help the interests of the United States. It will backfire upon us. America will have one more enemy to deal with and, God forbid, eventually obtain instead, the loss of a fellow democracy and a stalwart military and political ally sold down the river.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:00 PM | Comments (0)

January 06, 2011

Death Panels! Huh!

Government's 'Final Solution'

By Cal Thomas
The Palm Beach Post, January 1, 2011

Sarah Palin deserves an apology. When she said that the new health-care law would lead to "death panels" deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not, she was roundly denounced and ridiculed. Now we learn, courtesy of one of the ridiculers -- The New York Times -- that she was right.

Under a new policy not included in the law for fear the administration's real end-of-life game would be exposed, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives. These could include directives to forgo aggressive treatment that could extend their lives.

This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats deciding who is "fit" to live and who is not. The effect this might have on public opinion, which by a solid majority opposes Obamacare, is clear from an e-mail obtained by the Times. It is from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who sent it to people working with him on the issue. Oregon and Washington are the only states with assisted-suicide laws, a preview of what is to come at the federal level if this new regulation is allowed to stand. Blumenauer wrote in his November e-mail: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren't out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the 'death panel' myth."

Ah, but it's not a myth, and that's where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms and animals.

Doctors once swore an oath, which reads in part: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Did Dr. Berwick, a fan of rationed care and the British National Health Service, ever take that oath? If he did, it appears he no longer believes it.

Do you see where this leads? First the prohibition against abortion is removed and "doctors" now perform them. Then the assault on the infirm and elderly begins. Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don't measure up to constantly "evolving" government standards.

It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public as the ultimate benefit. The killings, uh, terminations, will take place out of sight so as not to disturb the masses who might have a few embers of a past morality still burning in their souls. People will sign documents testifying to their desire to die, and the government will see it as a means of "reducing the surplus population," to quote Charles Dickens.

When life is seen as having ultimate value, individuals and their doctors can make decisions about treatment that are in the best interests of patients. But when government is looking to cut costs as the highest good and offers to pay doctors to tell patients during their annual visits that they can choose to end their lives rather than continue treatment, that is more than the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.

It can't happen here? Based on what standard? Yes it can happen in America, and it will if the new Republican class in Congress doesn't stop it.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:32 PM | Comments (0)

January 05, 2011

PM Netanyahu addresses the Knesset and President Barack Obama on behalf of Jonathan Pollard

Redacted from his address, January 4, 2011 to the Knesset

Plus Personal letter to President Obama

My fellow members of Knesset,

I wish to open my remarks with a subject that unites us all ˆ members of Knesset and the entire country ˆ and that is the release of Jonathan Pollard.

On January 7, 2002, almost nine years ago, I travelled to Butler Prison. This prison is in North Carolina, and I travelled there in order to visit Jonathan Pollard.  I entered the prison facility and was led to some sort of break room.  I waited patiently for the meeting, and after some time, Jonathan Pollard entered,accompanied by a guard, who was with him throughout the meeting. We shook hands warmly; he sat next to me and we began to talk.  

I would like to remind you that at that stage Jonathan had already been in prison for over 16 years. I expected to see a bitter man, an angry, abandoned, frustrated man, but that is not what I found.  I found an intelligent, I would even say brilliant man, a calm and realistic man.  Jonathan spoke with determination and seriousness.  He maintained maximal restraint.  I asked him what it was like living in prison and he told me what is was like living there in his special conditions day after day, year after year for over 16 years, 6,000 days.

My friends, over nine years have passed since then, and Jonathan has been in prison for over 9,000 days.  I must tell you that he spoke with me about his situation in a very matter-of-fact manner, without any self-pity.  I asked him several specific questions regarding the conditions of his incarceration and he said, in the most laconic manner, it’s not easy.

I saw before me a warm Jew, a proud and very Zionist Jew.  I have no doubt his inner strength and his special character are the unique qualities that have allowed him to hang on for the 25 years he has been in prison ˆ to hang on and maintain his mental stability. I told him at the time: “I swear to you, Jonathan, that the State of Israel, and I personally, will do what must be done to bring you home to your family, to your people, to bring you back to Israel”

It is true that throughout the years, Prime Ministers, ministers and many others have acted to advance Jonathan Pollards release. Unfortunately, these actions have not yet been successful. In the summer of 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asked President Clinton to grant Jonathan Pollard clemency as a humanitarian gesture.  In January 1996, then-Minister of the Interior, Haim Ramon, granted Jonathan Israeli citizenship after a decision made by his predecessor, Minister of the Interior Ehud Barak in November 1995.  

When I became Prime Minister halfway through 1996, I asked the government ministers to combine visits to the prison when they visited the United States in order to visit Jonathan Pollard publicly.  Several people sitting here today who were government members at that time did so.  I see you nodding, Yuli Edelstein. You did that. Limor Livnat, you did that.  Yaakov Neeman, Mickey Eitan, Eli Yishai, they also did that.  I also asked official government representatives - the Attorney General, Elyakim Rubenstein, Government Secretary, Danny Naveh ˆ to visit him in prison, and they did.

On May 11, 1998, my government made a formal announcement.  I quote it now: “Jonathan Pollard was an Israeli agent who was handled by senior officials in an authorized Israeli authority, the Bureau of Scientific Relations.  In light of this fact, the Government of Israel recognizes its obligation to him and it is willing to bear the full responsibility resulting from this situation.”

Before the Wye Conference in September 1998, I asked President Clinton to release Jonathan Pollard in the framework of the agreement we were about to sign with the Palestinians.  Based on those conversations, I had a foundation, even a strong one, to believe that Jonathan would come back to Israel with me. Regrettably, for me and for you, this did not happen and the reasons for that are well known.

As to the Prime Ministers who followed: Barak, Sharon, Olmert, they all asked American presidents, including Clinton and Bush, to release Jonathan, and the Presidents of Israel also asked.  Later on, I served as head of the opposition.  I met with President Bush during his visit to Jerusalem.  I asked him to release Jonathan Pollard.  I wrote him a letter formally requesting that he do so towards the end of Bush’s term.

When I was elected for the second time to serve as Prime Minister, I raised the subject during my first visit to Washington in my conversation with President Obama.  Since then, I have raised the subject many times with many heads of state, including during the past several months.  You too, members of Knesset, did not spare any efforts over the years to bring about Jonathan’s release, including the letter you recently sent to President Obama signed by nearly every member of Knesset 109 in total.  

I can say today that the Government of Israel, the Israeli Knesset, we all tried and tried and tried and did not succeed.  Two weeks ago, I received a letter from prison, from Jonathan, asking me as the Prime Minister of Israel to openly appeal. I repeat openly appeal to the President of the United States and formally and openly ask for his release.  I heard from many of you over the past several days that you support this request.  I thought about it, and I know you have pondered it a great deal as well.

I believe that after 25 years that Jonathan has been serving time in prison, after 15 years of unsuccessful efforts to secure his release, I decided that his request must be met, and that it was the right thing to do openly, here from the Knesset in Jerusalem, in a step that represents and unites all the sectors of the nation.  I would like to read you to the letter I sent to President Obama about Jonathan.

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of the people of Israel, I am writing to you to request clemency for Jonathan Pollard. At the time of his arrest, Jonathan Pollard was acting as an agent of the Israeli government.  Even though Israel was in no way directing its
intelligence efforts against the United States, its actions were wrong and wholly unacceptable.  Both Mr. Pollard and the Government of Israel have repeatedly expressed remorse for these actions, and Israel will continue to abide by its commitment that such wrongful actions will never be repeated.

As you know, Mr. President, I have raised the question of Jonathan Pollard’s release numerous times in discussions with your administration and with previous U.S. administrations.    Previous Israeli Prime Ministers and Presidents have also requested clemency for Mr. Pollard from your predecessors.

Since Jonathan Pollard has now spent 25 years in prison, I believe that a new request for clemency is highly appropriate.   I know that this view is also shared by former senior American officials with knowledge of the case as well as by numerous Members of Congress.

Jonathan Pollard has reportedly served longer in prison than any person convicted of similar crimes, and longer than the period requested by the prosecutors at the time of his plea bargain agreement. Jonathan has suffered greatly for his actions and his health has deteriorated considerably.

I know that the United States is a country based on fairness, justice and mercy. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that you favorably consider this request for clemency. The people of Israel will be eternally grateful.

That is the letter.  I know it reflects all our genuine feelings. Members of Knesset, on behalf of the entire nation, I wish to send from the Knesset in Jerusalem a message to Jonathan Pollard.  Jonathan, you held on for 25 years. Keep strong. The people of Israel strengthen your hand; the people of Israel wait for you; and G-d willing, you will be with us soon.

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

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

January 03, 2011

Sweden embracing Rape!

Goodbye Sweden

Video featuring Pat Condell’s Politically Incorrect Commentary

Goodbye Sweden

Please search out other videos with Pat Condell on YouTube. They are well worth viewing on a variety of pro-American subjects.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:39 PM | Comments (0)

January 01, 2011

A Differing View of the Moshe Katsav Verdict

By Professor Steven Plaut
University of Haifa, Israel

I think I would be more inclined to believe that justice was done in the trial of Moshe Katsav if the Israeli leftist chattering classes, led by Shimon Peres himself, were not running about giddily pronouncing that the trial proves that Israel has one single uniform fair justice system for all. It does not.

Israel has a dual justice system, under which one standard of justice applies to far leftists and another to everyone else. The Israeli judicial system is corrupt and highly politicized.  It is biased and functions in many ways as an appendage of the radical Left, and this is true going all the way to the top of the system,
where so many of the country's senior jurists are still openly practicing and preaching  courtroom political bias in the name of "judicial activism." (And, let Americans beware of the new Obama appointments on the US Supreme Court- jsk)

The court system refuses to defend the basic constitutional rights, especially freedom of speech, for non-leftists.  At the same time it refuses to prosecute and indict Arabs and leftists for treason even in the most egregious cases.  Some Arab judges misuse their courtrooms as arenas of a judicial intifada against Israel.  The courts castrate the military and prevent Israel from fighting
terrorism properly.  The judicial system openly persecutes "rightists" and "settlers," denying them their constitutional rights.  All the while pandering to the political petitions of the Far Left.

So while the self-righteous chatterers are patting themselves on the back over Israel's judicial system being so fair and equitable, it behooves us to wonder out loud if Moshe Katsav would be headed to prison if he were a leftist.  It also behooves us to wonder if he would be headed to jail had he not trashed Shimon Peres in the Presidential election of 2000, when Katsav blocked Peres and his Labor Party minions from seizing the Presidency.  (Peres did manage to become President later, but he and his Labor Party bolshies always nursed a grudge against Katsav.)

(What shocked the world was that Katsav, a complete unknown at the time, did trash the exalted Shimon Peres in the Presidential elections of 2000. Peres has been traipsing, undeservedly, around the world stage as a great Israeli patriot for the last 60 years when he has been nothing of the kind, His main forte and claim to fame has been his dedicated egomania. It was Peres who designed and promoted and possibly hood winked Yitschak Rabin, and for sure, the Knesset and the Israeli public with the completely destructive Oslo Accords of 1993. Tragically, Israel continues to go downhill politically ever since. This is all thanks to Peres, Beilin, Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Chaim Ramon and virtually all of Israeli academia on the Left in Israel, many of whom continue to wallow in the aura of power, and still determined to destroy their own country. Go figger. I never have) jsk

Moshe Katsav was well liked before the charges of sexual misbehavior were raised against him, much better liked than Shimon Peres.  Large portions of the Israeli general public and several leading jurists in Israel are still convinced that Katsav is innocent and was railroaded, perhaps as political payback.

Me personally?  I have no doubt that Katsav was always a lech and a skirt chaser and I believe he did engage in inappropriate sexual advances against anything with two X chromosomes.  An Israeli Bill Clinton.  But did he actual perpetrate violent rape?   The court says he did.  The court might be correct. And it might not be.  I reserve the right to retain a bit of skepticism.

There have been too many abuses of public trust and too many politicized decisions by the Israeli courts to presume in all cases that they are competent and reliable and fair and objective. The burden of proof is today upon the courts to prove they did not judge Katsav in a politically biased manner.  It is the fault of politicized judges that things have gotten to this - where the courts themselves must convince the public that they did not produce politicized
miscarriages of justice.

I have no evidence that the Katsav conviction was such a mis-carriage. But I am not willing to presume that Israeli judges are ALWAYS neutral and fair until proven biased.  There are too many cases that have already proved otherwise.

Steven Plaut (born in 1951) is a Professor on the faculty of the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Haifa and a writer.His editorials are often published in The Jewish Press, Front Page Magazine and other periodicals. In 2002 he authored the book The Scout. He is also a member of the editorial board of the Middle East Quarterly, a publication of the Middle East Forum think tank.

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