March 23, 2011

Muslims take over a Europe afraid to open its eyes

(Rep. Peter King - please open America’s eyes!)

Soeren Kern, Senior Political Analyst

Hudson New York,  January 20 th, 2011

Europeans often fantasize about America's so-called Jewish lobby, which they claim has a chokehold over American finance, media and politics and is responsible for all manner of conspiratorial evil. But few Europeans like to talk about the growing influence of Europe's Muslim lobby, a conglomeration of hundreds of Muslim political and religious organizations — many of which are media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam that openly pursue anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Semitic agendas and often receive financial support from Islamic fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.

In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe's Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe.

Some of the most effective Muslim lobby groups are located in Britain, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, and include organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB], Britain's largest Muslim umbrella body with around 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It recently pressured the British government into adopting Islamic law and giving Sharia courts full powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The British government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whereas previously, the rulings of Sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims, rulings issued by a network of five Sharia courts are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in Birmingham, Bradford, London and Manchester and the network's headquarters are located in Nuneaton, Warwickshire; and two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Overall, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed. A study by the Civitas think tank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques. The study warns of a “creeping” acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.)

Although the MCB, which represents half of the country's 3 million Muslims, presents itself as the moderate face of Islam in Britain, the group has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics of Pakistan. The MCB and some of its affiliates sympathize with, and have links to, conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by Sharia law.

Far from promoting moderate Islam, the MCB's real objective, critics say, is to help Muslims in Britain become more radical in their beliefs. Among other positions, the MCB believes death is the appropriate penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. The group recently endorsed a pro-Hamas declaration that calls for Jihad against Jews and Israel, and condones attacks on British troops. The MCB also regularly makes headlines for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies in Britain; it is also campaigning for the establishment of an alternative Genocide Memorial Day that will “incorporate similar tragedies.”
Another Muslim group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom (MPACUK), has the outspoken aim of mobilizing Muslim voters to affect the outcome of British elections. During the general elections in 2010, MPACUK was pivotal in de-seating six members of parliament (MPs) who were perceived as being not sufficiently pro-Muslim.

During the 2005 general elections, MPACUK launched a smear campaign against Labour Party MP Lorna Fitzsimons. MPACUK distributed a leaflet claiming that Fitzsimons had done nothing to help the Palestinians because she was Jewish. Another leaflet said: “Lorna Fitzsimons is an ardent Zionist and a member of the most powerful anti-Muslim lobby in the world, the Israel lobby.”Fitzsimons is not in fact Jewish, and MPACUK later withdrew the leaflet. But MPACUK did succeed in unseating Fitzsimons; ever since then, many British MPs have been bending over backwards to appease Muslim voters.

MPACUK recently worked with Britain's Channel 4 television to produce a documentary titled “Operation Muslim Vote.” With the aim of pressing for a larger participation of Muslims in British politics, the documentary tells the story of two MPACUK activists who head to northern England to take on the safe seats of several “pro-Zionist war mongering MPs.”

MPACUK's website says its work is defined by the core principle of anti-Zionism: “MPACUK opposes the racist political ideology of Zionism and aims to counter the influence of the Zionist lobby. Openly available evidence demonstrates a Zionist agenda to dominate the Middle East and push a 'clash of civilisations' between Islam and 'The West'. We therefore believe that anti-Zionism is a strategic priority to counter the greatest and most urgent threat facing the Ummah [the Muslim Diaspora].”

Its website also says Muslims in Britain should be pro-actively engaged in mainstream media and politics as the most effective way to “reviving the fard (obligation) of Jihad.” Muslim lobby groups have also pressed the British government to enact the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime: intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds.

Predictably, the new law has established new limits on free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration. The growing power of Europe's Muslim lobby was most recently demonstrated by the European Union's decision in mid-December to quietly abandon a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label to help non-Muslim consumers identify their origins. With the exponential growth of Europe's Muslim population, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.

By bowing to Muslim pressure groups — such as the World Halal Forum Europe and the Halal Monitoring Committee — and dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU is effectively establishing Sharia law as normative for Europe's meat industry. The halal controversy, in which Muslim lobby groups are seeking to impose the requirements of Islam, not just on their own people, but also on the rest of society, illustrates how the rise of Islam is influencing the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.

In France, which has the second-largest Muslim population on the continent after Germany, several Muslim lobby groups are vying to represent the country's estimated 4.1 million Muslims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) serves as the official interlocutor with the French state in the regulation of Muslim religious activities, and as such it is the de facto representative of all French Muslims before the national government. The other main Muslim lobby groups are the Rally for French Muslims (RMF),backed by Morocco, and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Germany, home to Europe's largest Muslim population in absolute terms, the powerful Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), itself a branch of the Turkish government's religious affairs authority, has succeeded in persuading the city of Cologne to approve the construction of a new mega mosque. The futuristic mosque will hold up to 4,000 worshippers, and will have a large dome and two 55-meter (180 feet) minarets, each as tall as 18-story office towers. The 4,500-square-meter (48,000-square-foot) mosque, which has a price tag of €20 million ($26 million), is being financed by donations from more than 800 Muslim groups inside and outside Germany. Critics of the project say the mosque is a deliberate effort to spoil Cologne's skyline by taking attention away from the city's Gothic cathedral, a globally famous Christian landmark.

In recent months, Muslim lobby groups have also persuaded the German government to adapt Germany's secular education system so that it caters to Islamic preferences. The German Education Ministry has, for example, agreed to fund Islamic studies at several state universities to train Muslim prayer leaders and religion teachers. Germany's Education Minister, Annette Schavan, says: “We want as many imams as possible to be educated in Germany. Imams are bridge builders between their congregations and the communities in which their mosques stand.” She states further that Germany would need 2,000 imams and teachers if all 16 states offered Islam courses.

Elsewhere in Germany, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Muslim lobby groups are working with the Culture Ministry to design Islam-friendly classes for public schools. The new guidelines recommend cancelling all school trips during the month of Ramadan; taking into account the sensitivities of Muslims when planning internships and school events; and assigning less schoolwork during Ramadan because fasting could lead to loss of performance and concentration among Muslim students.

In the German state of Lower Saxony, the German Muslim Central Council is urging the Education Ministry to include Islam in its schools' core curriculum as part of a politically correct initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiments in the country. In Berlin, the Ministry for Education, Science and Research recently published a guide called “Islam and School,” which gives teachers practical advice on how to avoid offending Muslim students.

In Scandinavia, the Muslim Council of Sweden, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups in the country, is pressuring the Swedish government to implement special legislation for Muslims in Sweden. The demands include: the right to specific Islamic holidays; special public financing for the building of mosques; a demand that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam; and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam in public schools.
As Europe's Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel.

Several European countries, for instance, eager to maintain good relations with local Muslim communities, are laying the political groundwork for the EU to recognize a Palestinian state, possibly as early as October 2011,even if negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not concluded — a total abrogation of the UN's signed Oslo accords.

In December 2009, the EU adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of a Palestinian state. The move not only reflects the EU's efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, but in December 2010, an influential group of former EU leaders and officials published a letter urging the EU to implement sanctions against Israel.

Europe has also been “ground zero” for a series of anti-Israel lawsuits which exploit the legal principle of universal jurisdiction in order to harass current and former Israeli political and military leaders, with the twin aims of tying Israel's hands against Palestinian terror and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Such “lawfare” is often aided and abetted by Muslim lobby groups in Europe by means of financial and logistical support.

The steady demonization of Israel by European officialdom is also affecting the European street, where the line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is becoming dangerously blurred. A survey conducted by the University of Bielefeld, for example, shows that more than 50% of Germans equate Israel's policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews, and that 68% of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, an official EU poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Another report commissioned by the EU's Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) found that Muslim immigrants are largely responsible for the sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe. Predictably, Muslim lobby groups pressured the EU into preventing that report from being released to the general public.

Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2011

A Beautiful Gesture from a True Friend, Glenn Beck

By Jerome S. Kaufman

One can't help but wonder the reaction of the mainstream media if a killing squad of Israeli Jews had in the dead of night cut into the protective wiring surrounding an isolated peaceful Arab village and cut the throats, while they slept, of an innocent husband, his wife and three of their children - age 11. 4 and 3 months?

The New York Times. Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc. etc. would have the story all over the front page for a week plus gruesome pictures and endless condemnation editorials. And, in that case, rightfully so. But, what happened when exactly that occurred on March 11, 2011, with Israeli Jews on the receiving end of these brain-washed, insane Arab fanatics taught since infancy to kill Jews? Not very much. The story barely made the innermost pages of these papers and only a momentary mention was made on the various Left wing TV and radio networks and gone within 1-2 days. Naturally even these abbreviated news items were accompanied by the usual countering garbage excusing these horrendous inhuman acts with some sort of moral equivalency and just another incident in the cycle of violence.

Only one problem - Jews and Israelis have never been party to such inhumane acts. Israelis have responded with military not terrorist incursions, only after full warning to the civilian population. The incursions have alway been to eliminate military and terrorist locations repeatedly harassing Israeli civilian populations. Individual isolated acts of violence, and never of this sickening nature, are immediately condemned by the Israeli government and the perpetrators brought to trial and punished. Unlike the Arabs, the names of these rare, if any, perpetrators are not eulogized in the Israeli media, in the schools or have streets and sport teams named after them.

Glenn Beck, to his great credit, took notice of the grossly uneven and unfair coverage of this awful massacre and produced a beautiful memorial program of his own. It was just shown on Fox TV, on what Glenn respectfully called Shabbat eve, Friday, March 18, 2011. He related the despicable Arab killings of the Fogel family in Israel. He then thoughtfully had a rabbi on the program to explain the importance of candles and hope generated by light, in the Jewish tradition. He had the rabbi explain the significance of the memorial candle (the Yar ziet candle) and asked every one in the nation-wide viewing audience to please light a candle to commemorate the slain Fogel family.
My candle is still burning.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor


Please see accompanying video with introduction by noted Arab lecturer, Nonie Darwish. A link to the video is at the bottom of this article.

You will have to paste the url address below into your search engine and hopefully the video will come up.

I have been told that YouTube quickly removed the direct link that had been created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUGhRTNYaSI

Copy and paste the above url

II An original poem submitted by a reader.

LIKE IN RAMALLAH

by Elaine Rosenberg Miller

In the dark, the guiltless, moonless night

They made their way along the walls of the modest house, along the stuccoed walls

Soundless, sightless

On they crept, swiftly, stopping to listen for restlessness, recognition, awareness, life

Soon to be dawn, soon to be day, they hurried on

Soon, blood, glistening blood, molten blood, then darkening blood, stiffening blood, streaking blood

As in Ramallah

In Ramallah, the young man raised his hands, palms up, fingers splayed

On his hands, his scarlet hands, death

In Ramallah, in Ramallah, one man's blood painted another man's upraised hands

Blood!

Blood coursing through the body

To the heart, to the brain

Bringing warmth

The child fell back on his bed

A single thin mattress

He fell

And his blood pulsed onto the mattress

They slit the neck of the baby, the dewy folds offered no resistance

They killed the parents.

Young parents

And when they were done, they fled into the darkness, softly, softly, the ancient stones recoiling in horror under their feet

And when they returned to their children, their parents, their neighbors, the blood of the family was on their hands

Garments

Faces

Souls

Like in Ramallah


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:24 PM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2011

Purpose of Arms Sales to the Arabs?

Time to Rethink Arab Arms Sales

Cal Thomas
Palm Beach Post, March 12, 2011

For many years American policy has been to sell modern weaponry to Arab states. The reasons given are to maintain the "balance of power" in the region, but the unstated and most likely reason is to keep the oil flowing.

The Obama administration has approved billions in arms sales and transfers to Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But public attitudes about arms sales to Arab countries appear to be changing, especially in light of the current upheaval in the region with some dictators using "Made in USA" weapons against their own people.

According to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal entitled "U.S. Reviews Arms Sales Amid Turmoil," even the government now, "has launched a review of military assistance and prospective weapons sales to countries caught up in a wave of popular revolts, underlining growing uncertainty about how the turmoil sweeping the Middle East will alter fundamentals of U.S. policy in the region." And the review is long in coming given that Bloomberg reported way back in September 2010 that the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that "the U.S. authorized as much as $37 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations over five years without always documenting the potential effect on foreign policy and national security."

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that "only 20 percent of American adults think the United States should continue providing foreign aid to Arab countries in the Middle East." Along party lines, the survey also showed that 76 percent of Republicans, 48 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of adults "not affiliated with either major party" think this way.

On the question of continued aid to Israel, the poll found 61 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of unaffiliateds in favor.

The idea of maintaining a balance of power in the region might make more sense if the Arab states had any real enemies. But their only declared enemy is Israel, which isn't a threat, as long as it is not attacked again, as it has been many times by Arab states since 1948. There also have been, and continue to be, numerous attacks by non-states, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, all with the intention of destroying the Jewish state and eradicating the region of Jews. A "balance of power" policy against such aggression is not in the interest of our strongest Middle East ally, nor is it in America's interest, as long as we still stand for freedom.

Two other arguments one hears most for maintaining the arms sales to Arab states are: (1) If we don't sell them arms, other countries will; and (2) Such sales bring money back into this country. A nation that prides itself on doing the right thing should abide by a higher standard than that of other arms providers. For the high ideals we profess, but don't always attain, consider the lyrics from "America the Beautiful," which includes, "Till all success be nobleness and every gain divine!"

Foreign aid that produces results in America's interest is a good thing. Helping to fight AIDS in Africa, for example, meets both American humanitarian and policy goals. Sending aid to Arab nations that teach in their schools, broadcast in their media and preach from their minbars that America and Israel are evil and must be destroyed serves neither of these objectives. At the very least, U.S. aid to Arab states should be tied to a change in ideological and theological behavior in those countries.

Lack of aid isn't the problem. The oil resources of many Arab states give them more than enough to care for their own people. Lack of modernity is the problem. So long as many Arab states continue in their feudalistic mentality and suppression of half their population (women), prosperity and the "blessings of liberty" will not wish to pay them a visit.

No matter how these numerous uprisings turn out -- and some could turn out very badly for the people of those nations and for U.S. policy -- America's policy of arms sales to Arab states definitely needs to change.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2011

Deliberately Crippling America

by Richard W. Rahn

The Washington Times
March 1, 2011.

The Obama administration's policies are causing Americans to pay far more for gasoline and other fuels than necessary. America is awash in fossil-fuel energy sources with almost 30 percent of the world's coal and 80 percent of the world's oil shale which contains an estimated three times the recoverable oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Canada, with its oil sands, has the world's third-highest oil reserves, after the United States and Saudi Arabia. New technologies that enable low-cost natural gas production from shale mean that many countries, including the United States, will have gas for centuries at current production rates.

Fossil fuels at some prices are interchangeable. Coal, gas and oil can all fuel electric power plants. Liquid motor fuels can be made easily from natural gas, and, in fact, many auto, truck and bus fleets already use natural gas. For more than 70 years, the technology has been available to turn coal into liquid motor fuel.

Natural gas now sells in the United States for a British thermal unit (BTU) equivalent of $30 a barrel of oil, and coal sells at roughly half that price. Much of the Canadian oil sands, U.S. domestic oil shale and offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico can be produced at prices well below $75 per barrel. The United States should be an energy exporter; Canada already is and is the single biggest source of oil for the U.S.

Most countries try to produce oil, gas and coal and sell it on the global market as a way of increasing the real incomes of their citizens, but not the United States. The Obama administration has a hatred of fossil fuels and is determined to reduce their use despite the economic damage. So-called green energy often is not very green and cannot possibly serve as a substitute for most fossil fuels. Windmills and solar panels are far more expensive than coal and gas; their production is intermittent, unreliable and largely unstorable. Because of the physics of the electrical grid, wind and solar can never produce more than about 18 percent of electrical production at least not until low-cost storage devices are developed. Many biofuels, and in particular corn-based ethanol, are not only more expensive than the natural fuels but have a bigger total carbon footprint.

The Obamaites believe carbon dioxide (CO2) is evil because they think more of it will cause global warming. They ignore the facts:

Earth has been at times in the past both cooler and warmer with higher concentrations of CO2.

Other factors, such as sunspot activity, are more important than CO2 in determining Earth's temperature.

Scientists are in the process of finding new commercial uses for CO2 and are experimenting with the use of biological agents to turn CO2 back into a useful fuel. CO2 always has been part of our atmosphere and is necessary for plants to grow.

Just think for a moment of all the scientific advances that have been made during the past century. There is every reason to think that long before fossil fuels become truly scarce, meaning that their extraction cost begins to rise rapidly, mankind will have come up with cheaper and better energy sources and will have figured out what to do with excess CO2 if it really does prove to be a problem. For at least 100 years, "experts" have been saying we will soon run out of oil, but we are still finding more oil and gas than we have been producing in recent years.

It makes no sense for the United States to hobble itself with less and more costly energy while much of the rest of the world is greatly increasing its use of fossil fuels. Both India and China have found huge new deposits of natural gas in recent weeks. Are they going to say to their still-poor populations, "We will not use this gas to better your lives"? Of course not. The Brazilians are about to enter the ranks of major oil producers. Are their leaders going to say to the people, "You may not have the benefits of these new oil discoveries"? Of course not.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has stopped the new oil-production process in the Gulf of Mexico, even in the face of a court order requiring it to issue permits. The administration, through executive orders, has denied oil and gas producers access to millions of acres where large deposits of oil and gas are known to exist. The administration also is holding up permits for many new power plants, pipelines and industrial plants, all of which are costing Americans jobs and driving businesses to other countries.

It is not unnoticed that the president is demanding that businesses create more jobs while at the same time denying them the ability to do so because of his environmental, energy and regulatory policies. It also is not unnoticed that the bureaucrats and officials in Washington who are so keen on killing job opportunities for those in the productive sector keep theirs. And, it is not unnoticed that people within the Obama administration and Congress are deliberately and unnecessarily making millions of the lowest-income Americans even poorer.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growt

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:24 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2011

What hallucinogenic drugs are Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak on?

I On Friday night, in the city of Itamar, there was a horrific terror attack in which 5 members of the Fogel family were brutally murdered. They were deliberately slaughtered by Palestinian Arabs with knives, while lying asleep in their own home.
The Victims included the Parents Rabbi Udi and Ruth and three of their children Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and Hadas, 3 months. Their crime? - Being Jews in the land that G-d had given to his people over 3500 years ago.

At the funeral yesterday, attended by some 20,000 people, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, quoted from the book of Iyov (Job) 2:1
"So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spoke a word unto him; for they saw that his grief was very great."

No words can rationalize or provide comfort for such a tragedy. The only words worth sharing are those of the parents and siblings of Udi and Ruth who said that such acts of terror don't weaken their resolve and love for Eretz Yisrael. "This land is our life, we cannot be separated from it."

The Fogel family was murdered on Friday night of Shabbat Parshat Vayikra, when we begin reading the discussion of the sacrifices which were offered to G-d in the tabernacle...

Hashem Yenakem Damam - May G-d avenge their blood.

Rabbi Shneur Silberberg, Bais Chabad, West Bloomfield, MI

II What hallucinogenic drugs are Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak on?

By Yehudit Tayar

What we so obviously see from here (Judea and Samaria - "West Bank") that they are not willing to see from there! (Jerusalem, Government of Israel)

Just this past week my family sadly commemorated the brutal murders of Rabbi Elnatan and Dina Horwitz, my cousins HY"D, who were murdered in their home in Kiryat Arba, Hevron, Friday night Erev Shabbat Kodesh in 2003.

Then, just like this past Erev Shabbat, the brutal murders of the Fogel family, mother, father and three children as they slept innocently took place. The murdering terrorists went from one member of the family to the next and slaughtered them with blind hatred.

We hear Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, and of course Ehud Barak - the "Minister of Defense" condemning these horrific murders. They have the audacity to stand in front of us and demand condemnation from the world for these actions, while they along with all of the heads of the Israeli governments since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, refuse to see or accept the truth.

They continue to meet with the heads of the PLO and plan to continue to make "painful concessions" while willfully ignoring the reality that the hatred is bred inside of the official education facilities of the PLO. That no matter what Israel is willing to do in order to achieve the long anticipated and longed for "peace," the other side will never stop hating us and trying to destroy us.

How blind can these heads of government be? We open the official web sites of the PLO and learn what they are teaching their people including the lessons of hatred and lies to their children. We learn what their maps show - that there is no Israel - not only Yesha or Jerusalem, but they do not recognize our entire Land or our existence.

We witness the official educational texts of the PLO and learn that these are identical to the official Nazi propaganda used before and during the Holocaust in Europe to annihilate six million Jews, including one and half million children.

We hear the heads of the PLO declare that they will never accept that Israel is a Jewish State. So why do our leaders continue to ignore all of this blatant hatred and incitement? Why do they continue to play into the hands of the United States and the rest of the world who do not care if we disappear tomorrow from the face of the earth?

Only a few days ago mass forces were sent with weapons against families living in Chavat Gilad in the Shomron in order to destroy two dwellings. Daily on our roads we are continuously attacked and do not see any proper response from the security forces.

No matter how many cameras, guards etc, we use in our communities in order to try and protect our lives and the lives of our children it will not resolve the problem. The infrastructure of hate that is teaching would-be murderers like those who came in the night and butchered our families will continue to train and direct more murderers like them - that it is acceptable to continue to murder innocent people as long as they are Jews and especially if they are "settlers".

Let's face it, the Israeli government led by the Prime Minister and the so called Minister of Defense continue to ignore the real situation in their dangerous and pathetic attempt to pretend that if Israel is only willing to make more concessions and accept a "Palestinian State" we would be left alone.

There is a popular saying, "What is seen from here cannot be seen from there". This is constantly used to explain that we, the simple folk, are unable to comprehend what our leaders face and how they understand what is needed to be done.

I accept this theory but not in the way the media and government representatives wish for it to be understood. I accept that those heads of the government are disconnected from the reality of the situation and that they TRULY DO NOT SEE THE REAL PICTURE.

It is us, the simple citizens of Israel, who continue to pay an unacceptable horrific heart-breaking price for their refusal to accept the truth. Israel does not have nor will she ever have a partner for peace let alone peaceful co-existence.

I wish to quote a former leader of the Jewish people, David Ben-Gurion, who was also a settler. (Speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, Basil 1937) "No Jew is at liberty to surrender the right of the Jewish Nation and the Land of Israel to exist. No Jewish body is sanctioned to do so. No Jew alive today has the authority to yield any piece of land whatsoever. This right is preserved by the Jewish People throughout the generations and cannot be forfeited under any circumstance."

Even if at some given time there will be those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the jurisdiction to negate it for future generations to come ... Our right to this Land, in its entirety, is steadfast, inalienable and eternal."

Perhaps if our so-called leaders were reminded of these words declared long before our Nation established a Jewish State in our eternal Land, they would accept the truth. The truth that must Israel stop pretending that there is some Arab leadership, including or perhaps especially the PLO, who will ever be willing to allow us to live safely in our Land.

We do not wish to hear words of comfort, anger or sorrow, unless the remorse of these same leaders prompts them to immediately stop endangering us, and allowing the despicable murderers to come in to our homes and butcher innocent families-including infants and children.

Yehudit Tayar is a veteran spokesperson for the Jewish pioneers who live in Yesha, and lives with her family in Bet Horon in the Benjamin Region of Samaria.

Comment from reader, Rev. Legasi,
March 14, 2011

Dr. Kaufman,

May i extend our condolences to you all who are in grief to the Brutal Murder of the Foggel Family. These Muslims are like the Philistines in the time of King David, They Have NO plan but for the Elimination of Israel. Mr. Kaufman i know it is near because The E.U. is now involved in the peace process. Remember Madam Merkel of Germany betrayed Israel last week by siding with PA. As i watch Prophecy unfolding in the Middle East i felt cold on my spine for what I saw and am seeing. Example, October 14,2009 Turkey, a Friend of Israel, turned her back. Four weeks ago Egypt sold out Israel. They even permitted two Iranian Warship to pass the Suez Canal. Last December Lebanon became the nation of HeZbollah. Time will come when Israel will have no friend but their King, the Son of David and Israel Herself.
Zechariah 14:1-9

Rev. Legasi

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:30 PM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2011

Letter from Ambassador Henry Kissinger to President Barack Obama

HENRY KISSINGER - FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, & NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER - CALLS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA TO FREE POLLARD

As the calls for clemency for Jonathan Pollard continue to intensify, Henry A. Kissinger, an elder statesman, well-respected diplomat, and experienced member of the United States intelligence community, has become the latest American governmental leader to issue a public call for Pollard's release. Pollard has spent more than 25 years languishing in a federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States.

Kissinger, who served as United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, sent a letter to President Obama requesting that he commute Pollard's sentence to time served (the full text of the letter appears below.

Like former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who also recently called on the President to grant clemency to Jonathan Pollard, Kissinger has served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is a nonpartisan and independent body of the Intelligence Community that has full access to the complete range of intelligence-related information. Kissinger was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board at the time of Pollard's sentencing.

In addition, Kissinger served as a member of the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy of the National Security Council and Defense Department.He is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board.

Kissinger served as Secretary of State from 1973-1977 and as National Security Advisor from 1969-1975. In addition, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, and was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ford in 1977.

Kissinger graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1950 and received his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University in 1952 and 1954. He has served as a faculty member at Harvard University, in both the Department of Government and the Center for International Affairs.

"Having talked with George Shultz and read the statements of former CIA Director Woolsey, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman DeConcini, former Defense Secretary Weinberger, former Attorney General Mukasey and others whose judgments and first-hand knowledge I respect, I find their unanimous support for clemency compelling," wrote Kissinger in his letter to the President: "I believe justice would be served by commuting the remainder of Pollard's sentence of life imprisonment."

Over the past several months, many prominent government officials, high-ranking individuals in the national intelligence arena, leading professionals in the legal world, and renowned religious and communal leaders have issued public calls for clemency for Pollard.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former Deputy Attorney General and Harvard Law Professor Philip Heymann, former Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dennis DeConcini, and Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York, each of whom had the opportunity to thoroughly review Pollard's classified file and is fully familiar with the circumstances of his case, have called for Pollard's release.

Lee Hamilton, a former U.S. Congressman from Indiana who served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time of Jonathan Pollard's sentencing, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and is currently member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, also called on President Obama to free Pollard.

In addition, a wide array of American leaders have called for a commutation of Pollard's sentence, including former Vice President Dan Quayle, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Arkansas governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, former Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Arlen Specter, Senator Charles Schumer of New York, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, former New York City Mayor and former Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, well-known conservative leader Gary Bauer, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, Pastor John Hagee, and Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, who was President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama's law professor at Harvard and remains friends with them today.

Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private in letters to many Presidents and others. His health has deteriorated significantly during his two-and-a-half decades in prison.
Pollard's life sentence is grossly disproportionate when compared to the sentences of others who have spied for allied nations. Despite the fact that Pollard entered into a plea agreement and fully cooperated with the prosecution in his case, he nonetheless received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled, which was in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.

The following is the text of Henry Kissinger's letter to President Obama:

March 3, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I would have written this letter sooner but for a long trip abroad, from which I have just returned. While I was gone, I gave much thought to the question of clemency for Jonathan Pollard. At first I felt I did not have enough information to render a reasoned and just opinion. But having talked with George Shultz and read the statements of former CIA Director Woolsey, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman DeConcini, former Defense Secretary Weinberger, former Attorney General Mukasey and others whose judgments and first-hand knowledge I respect, I find their unanimous support for clemency compelling.

I believe justice would be served by commuting the remainder of Pollard's sentence of life imprisonment.

Respectfully yours,

Henry A. Kissinger

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:31 PM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2011

I don't really care how many marriages Gingrich has had!

Far more important, who has the most smarts and ability and genuine patriotism to become the 2012 President of the United States?

A New Newt: Gingrich Tries to Reconnect With America

Redacted from an article by JEFF ZELENY
New York Times, February 26, 2011

Newt Gingrich needs no introduction to most Republican audiences. It is the reintroduction that is the challenge. If Mr. Gingrich moves forward with a presidential bid, as his advisers and friends say he is poised to do as soon as this week, he will start with a reputation as one of his party's most creative thinkers and a record of leading Republicans back to power in the 1990s and confronting Democrats on spending.

But, he will also have to grapple with aspects of his life and career that could give pause to elements of the Republican primary electorate, including a lack of a well-established association with religious conservatives and attendant questions about his two divorces. So as he travels the country, he is striking two related notes: that the nation faces not just a fiscal crisis but also a loss of its moral foundation, and that his conversion to Catholicism two years ago is part of an evolution that has given him a deeper appreciation for the role of faith in public life.

On a recent winter night here, Mr. Gingrich, 67, stood on stage at a Catholic school with his wife, Callista, and introduced a film they produced about the role Pope John Paul II played in the fall of Communism in Poland. As Mr. Gingrich looked out over a crowd of 1,300 people, he warned that the United States had become too secular a society. "To a surprising degree, we are in a situation similar to Poland in 1979, he told the audience, which had gathered at a banquet for Ohio Right to Life, one of the nation's oldest anti abortion groups. In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life. To most audiences, Mr. Gingrich does not talk directly about converting to Catholicism, but his faith has become an important part of his dialogue with conservative voters.

In an interview, Mr. Gingrich said he knew that a campaign would bring new attention on the full scope of his personal and political background. Last week, in an appearance at the University of Pennsylvania, he grew testy when he received a question from a Democratic student activist about the details of his two divorces. "There are things in my life I'm not proud of, and there are things in my life I'm very proud of," Mr. Gingrich said in the interview when asked what effect his background would have on a candidacy. "People have to decide who I am. Am I a person they want to trust to lead the country or not?"

In Washington, Mr. Gingrich, one of his party's best known and most polarizing figures, may still be remembered for a spectacular rise and fall: the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, the confrontation with President Bill Clinton that led to a government shutdown the next year, ethics battles and his resignation as speaker in 1998. He also acknowledged having an extramarital affair with Callista Bisek, then a House staff member, while leading impeachment proceedings against Mr. Clinton for lying about his own sexual transgressions.

But elsewhere, Mr. Gingrich's reinvention has long been under way, amplified through regular appearances on the Fox News Channel, as he tries to build support among the voters who will choose the 2012 Republican nominee. Rival Republicans marvel at his deep well of ideas, his innate intellect and his knowledge of government. They also point to the strategic approach taken by the Gingrich team in the 2010 elections, including holding training sessions for a new generation of elected officials. He has secured important endorsements, including one from the new majority leader of the Iowa House, who has been courted by all potential presidential candidates.

Mr. Gingrich said he believed that the 2012 election was comparable in historic scope to 1932, when Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover and ushered in the New Deal, and to 1860, when Abraham Lincoln prevailed over Stephen A. Douglas, setting the stage for the Civil War. He urges Republicans to not settle for rejection conservatism, which simply casts aside liberal arguments, instead of replacement conservatism which would fundamentally change institutions that he believes have outlived their effectiveness.

"That's part of what the Republican Party has to come to grips with," Mr. Gingrich said. "Does it want to be a party prepared to replace the failed institutions and move to a very bold new approach? Or does it want to try to muddle through accepting the framework of the systems that are failing?" As always, Mr. Gingrich continues to mix the abstract and the more politically concrete.

The man who introduced the Contract with America in 1994, which still stands as a gold standard of political branding, now has a snappier jingle for today's shorter attention span. The message is so concise that he pulls it from the breast pocket of his suit, no matter if he is delivering an intimate dinner speech or addressing a large audience, as he did recently at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

The note card reads: 2 + 2 = 4

It is an elementary lesson on spending and debt, he said, that has eluded the Obama administration. He uses it to present his broader view that the next presidential election should be a major debate over the size and scope of government.

When President Obama changed his position last week and said he believed that the 1996 law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, Mr. Gingrich waited a full day to offer his reaction. In a statement on Thursday, Mr. Gingrich kept his criticism confined to process, rather than the merits of marriage, saying: "The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama."

It remains an open question how a new inspection of Mr. Gingrich's record would hold up to scrutiny by voters, including his own spending votes and the 1995 government shutdown, but his advisers believe that it could be well received, given the sentiment of Tea Party supporters. And, in the early going, Mr. Gingrich appears to be getting another look from religious conservatives, especially Catholics, a traditional swing constituency.

Before and after his appearance here, dozens of people lined up to buy books, movies and other mementos that help finance the operations of Mr. Gingrich's array of business enterprises and provide a window into his growing popularity among some social conservatives. Mr. and Mrs. Gingrich sat for more than an hour signing inscriptions, with his best-selling book, "Rediscovering God in America," a particularly popular item on this snowy night in Ohio.

When the conversation turned to his marriages at the end of the 30-minute interview, Mr. Gingrich seemed displeased, but fully expecting questions about his personal life along with his ideas to change the country. He said he hoped voters would look at the totality of someone who is 67 years old and a grandfather.

Asked if he believed that people were forgiving, he replied,
" We'll find out."

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2011

Obama puts his obvious hostility to Israel right on the table!

Now how many Jews will vote for him or help the Democrats in the 2012 elections?

And, the question is, whose soul should be searched?

Obama tells Jewish Leaders that Israel bears responsibility for advancing peace!

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has expressed concern over some of President Barack Obama's remarks to American Jewish leaders at the White House this week, including his statement urging Jewish communal leaders to speak to their friends and colleagues in Israel and to search your souls' over Israel's seriousness about making peace. This strongly suggests that President Obama holds Israel, not Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority (PA), responsible for the lack of peace, as was indeed the reported impression of many attendees who said that the President stated 'that Israel bears primary responsibility for advancing the peace process.'

We were pleased that President Obama affirmed his deep commitment to Israel's security but troubled by his stating that Jerusalem would be divided when he reportedly said that the Jewish sections of eastern Jerusalem would remain in Israeli hands as part of any peace deal, strongly implying that the Arab sections would not.

It was also troubling that President Obama also reportedly said that the Palestinians don't feel confident that the Netanyahu government is serious about territorial concessions. Some participants interpreted the president's comments either as hostile, naive or unsurprising. One participant also said that many people felt that their worst fears about Obama were confirmed with respect to Israel. They felt an enormous hostility towards Israel.

President Obama also said that Israel has not sufficiently tried to make an acceptable offer to Mahmoud Abbas, a remarkable statement in view of the peace offers of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, who offered statehood to the PA on 93% and more of the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, only to be rejected by Yasser Arafat and Abbas. This meeting thus suggests that President Obama's view have changed little since the July 2009 meeting he had with selected Jewish leaders when he also said that he wants to help Israel, but that in order to do so, Israel would need to engage in serious self-reflection. Obama and his Administration repeatedly condemn, criticize and pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions and almost never condemn, criticize or pressure the PA to make concessions. The President has not even criticized the PA over its refusal to negotiate with Israel.

In a detailed interview in TIME Magazine in January 2010, President Obama also indicated that he holds Israel responsible for the failure of his peace efforts when he ignored Israel's unprecedented concessions - a 10-month unilateral freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria and qualified endorsement of the idea of creating a Palestinian state - and said that the Israelis still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.

This week's meeting between President Obama and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which was attended by ZOA National President Morton A. Klein, was respectful, outwardly cordial and without any public display of tension, although some attendees strongly disagreed with some of what they heard and in fact privately acknowledged feeling strong, internal tension that was not visible to the group.

Leaders of the group thanked the President for his veto of the recent vicious anti-Israel resolution in U.N. Security Council. This occurred despite the fact that the Administration stated in casting its veto that we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity which has corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution, as well as the fact that the Administration sought to obtain the agreement of the Arab states to a different resolution, which it would have supported, condemning these Jewish communities as illegitimate

Also worrying was President Obama's belief that the present time presents a great opportunity for peace - a remarkable view in light of the fact that, across the region, long-established autocrats are falling, even relatively stable states like Jordan are experiencing rumbling, and within the PA, there are calls for Salaam Fayyad to step down, while Mahmoud Abbas is threatening resignation.

In such circumstances of great uncertainty, turmoil and instability, in which Arab signatories to existing agreements might be swept away from one moment to the next, the ZOA wonders whether seeing to achieve signed agreements with such leaders is appropriate.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:53 PM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2011

What the American military recommended prior to Barack Obama

Impact of Mideast Turmoil on Israel's Security Requirements

By Yoram Ettinger

The dramatic developments in Tunisia and Egypt and the potential regional destabilizing ripple effects which could dwarf the Egyptian upheaval have a dramatic impact on the state of national and regional security, and therefore have dramatic consequences upon national and regional security requirements. The lower the stability and life-expectancy of Middle East regimes, the shiftier their ideology, policy and commitments, the higher the volatility of domestic and regional affairs, the higher the security threshold and requirements. Moreover, President Obama's policy of engagement, the announced evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan are perceived by Arab/Muslim regimes as a policy of retreat, undermining the US posture of deterrence.

In 2002/2003 the White House projected an assertive posture in the Middle East, in the battle against terrorism and in global affairs at-large. In 2011, the White House projects a relatively timid posture. The more uncertain the US global posture, the more eroded the US posture of deterrence, the more adrenalized are rogue regimes, the more acute is the threat of war and terrorism and the higher the security requirements.

Security requirements are peaking as a result of the long-term (and possibly immediate-term) potential of the Egyptian turmoil. It could traumatize northern Africa, the Horn of Africa, the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, the Middle East in general and pro-US Arab regimes (e.g. Jordan) in particular, threatening vital US interests, undermining Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and emboldening enemies of the Big and the Small "Satan," the USA and the Jewish State.

Key US military officials expressed their assessments of Israel's security requirements in general and of the unique role played by the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges. For instance, Lt. General (ret.) Tom Kelly, Chief of Operations in the 1991 Gulf War: "I cannot defend this land (Israel) without that terrain (West Bank)...The West Bank mountains, and especially their 5 approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only 8 miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible."

The late Admiral Bud Nance: "I believe if Israel were to move out of the Golan Heights and the West Bank, it would increase instability and the possibility of war, increase the necessity to preempt in war, and the possibility that nuclear weapons would be used to prevent an Israeli loss, and increase the possibility that the US would have to become involved in a war."

General (ret.) Al Gray, former Commandant, US Marine Corps: "Missiles fly over any terrain feature, but they don't negate the strategic significance of territorial depth. The key threat to Israel will remain the invasion and occupation by armored forces. Military success requires more than a few hundred missiles. To defeat Israel would require the Arabs to deploy armor, infantry and artillery into Israel and destroy the IDF on the ground. That was true in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and it remains true in the era of modern missiles."

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the most effective tank obstacle (a 3,000ft steep slope over-towering the Jordan Valley, 40 miles away from Tel Aviv and pre-1967 Israel) and a dream platform of invasion to 9-15 miles wide pre-1967 Israel (a 2,000ft moderate slope) in the most conflict-ridden, unpredictable and treacherous neighborhood in the world. Israel's control of the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges provides Israel with the time, which is required to mobilize its active reservists (75% of the military force!) in face of a surprise offensive mounted by a few Arab countries.

The pre-1967 width of the Jewish State is equal to the distance between JFK and La Guardia airports, to distance between RFK Stadium and the Kennedy Center, the length of Dallas-Fort Worth airport, to the width of Washington, DC, San Francisco and Miami and to the distance between Wall Street and Columbia University. The pre-1967 sliver along the Mediterranean is less than the distance between downtown London and Heathrow Airport, equal to a roundtrip distance between Albert hall and the Tower of London and to the distance between Bois du Boulogne and La Place de la Bastille.

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the "Golan Heights" of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire pre-1967 coastal plain of the Jewish State, the core of its population and infrastructures. Relinquishing them is tantamount to national suicide.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:07 PM | Comments (0)

March 05, 2011

Obama enjoining the States into his Federal Stimulus Bankruptcy Programs

HIgh Speed Rail to Nowhere

The Weekly Standard, February 28, 2011
From the Scrapbook
William Kristol, Editor

"Government can only give to us what it has previously taken from us."

President Obama's high-speed trains hit another bump last week. Florida's governor has now agreed with Wisconsin's and Ohio's that the president's dream would be a nightmare for taxpayers in his state.

As Stephen F. Hayes reported in these pages two months ago (Railing Against Big Government, December 20), Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Ohio governor John Kasich both said thanks but no thanks to the offer of federal stimulus funds to be used as a down payment on the build-out of high-speed rail service. Both of the incoming governors had in fact come out against the project in their successful election campaigns last fall.

As Hayes noted, Walker in particular was highly vocal on the campaign trail about the obligation Wisconsin taxpayers would incur to cover shortfalls and operating costs for the $810 million line that would have connected Madison and Milwaukee. It was a foolish undertaking, he thought, for a state with a $3 billion deficit and on a route for which there was little demand for better rail service.

Kasich, for his part, turned down $400 million in stimulus money to connect Ohio's three biggest cities - Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati - with high-speed rail. There was little public enthusiasm for the project, Hayes noted, which wouldn't even have allowed an Ohio State fan to travel from Cleveland to Columbus and back on game day. And, as in Wisconsin, Ohio would have been on the hook for operating expenses and cost overruns. A happy outcome for taxpayers? Not so fast. The depressing postscript was that while both governors wanted to see the stimulus funds returned to the Treasury, thereby lowering the federal deficit, the Obama administration simply redirected the funds to states like California, which are friendlier to the administration, taxpayers be damned.

Last week, Florida governor Rick Scott also rejected federal funds for high-speed rail connecting Orlando and Tampa, a decision that could send up to $2.4 billion in stimulus money back to the federal government. Scott said that the red ink in President Obama's budget and the higher taxes the White House is proposing would hurt the business environment in Florida. As Hayes noted on this magazine's website, the decision came after Scott's administration conducted a feasibility study to determine whether such a rail would be cost effective. It came back with the unsurprising conclusion: No, it wouldn't be.

An independent study conducted for the Reason Foundation by Wendell Cox found that Florida taxpayers would almost certainly be on the hook for additional funding for the project, potentially a lot of money. Bob Poole, a transportation expert with the Reason Foundation, served as a campaign adviser to Scott. He told The Weekly Standard that funding shortfalls were almost inevitable. Historically, 90 percent of high-speed rail projects have had cost overruns.

In a statement announcing his decision, Scott listed three specific reasons for rejecting the money:

First - capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion.

Second - ridership and revenue projections are historically overly-optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur (from $300 million-$575 million over 10 years).

Finally - if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds to D.C.

Despite this well-deserved rebuke from three governors and counting, the Obama administration's new budget proposes an additional $53 billion for high-speed rail, one of the administration's keys to winning the future. In his State of the Union, Obama pledged to make high-speed rail available to 80 percent of Americans in the next 25 years. As he did when Wisconsin and Ohio said no to the high-speed rail boondoggle, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, predictably, has promised to redistribute the money not spent by Florida to more politically compliant states.

The administration should, instead, heed Scott's admonition: Let us never forget, whether it is Washington or Tallahassee, government has no resources of its own. Government can only give to us what it has previously taken from us.

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

March 03, 2011

Never Mind the Politicians - An Israeli Soldier Speaks out

Click on to Video

Video

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:58 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2011

Can we make room for each other in Christian/Jewish thought after the Holocaust?

Lecture by Dr. (Rabbi) Eugene Korn, Scholar Jewish Ethics, Law, Theology

Review by Jerome S. Kaufman

The Schmidt College of Arts and Letters at Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL, February 27, 2011 treated us to another scholarly dissertation. Dr. Alan L. Berger, Director, Study for the Center of Values & Violence after Auschwitz, introduced Dr. Eugene Korn, scholar and teacher in the fields of Jewish ethics, law and theology and interfaith relations. Dr. Korn lived in Israel from 1992 -1996, is fluent in Hebrew and has extensive knowledge of Israeli culture and society and also has an arm load of credentials that we have no room to list.

The primary message he presented was that there is no question that Judeo-Christian relations have improved tremendously over the last 100 years. Dr. Korn dates the Holocaust as the watershed event that precipitated this huge change in Christian thinking. He did mention the fact that many main stream establishment American churches - the Episcopalians, the Methodist, the Presbyterians - to name a few, continue to indoctrinate their congregants with anti-Israel sentiment. I personally have always felt that Israel has become the politically correct fall guy for this mindless hatred and it has not disappeared as much as we might hope.

Dr. Korn's discussion further revolved around the fact that the Catholic Church has indeed made a watershed change in their thinking relative to Jews. This occurred thanks to the great work of Pope John XXIII, the "good Pope" who presided over the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI who, a couple years later, proclaimed the doctrine of Nostra Aetata. This Papal directive categorically refuted the doctrine wherein Catholics supposedly superseded the Jews and their bible (Old Testament) in the eyes of G-d.

Finally, some 1900 years later, this claim of super-cession was modified in the Papal declaration, Nostra Aetata, of October 28, 1965. In this new proclamation, Jews and Catholics are declared to share a common heritage and live together as equals with no form of superiority considered or implied. This great change was enthusiastically embraced a few years later by Pope John Paul II, who was born and raised in Poland and saw personally the destruction of the Jews in his own country. John Paul II, in addition, made the magnificent supportive gesture of the first Papal mission to Israel. He visited the Second Temple Wall in Jerusalem and placed a note of reconciliation within its cracks.

The Nostra Aetata statement pertaining to the Jews and other Non-Christians appears below:

NOSTRA AETATE
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

How beautiful and how reassuring. Dr. Korn then proceeded modestly to admit, however, that he could not forecast what would happen in years to come. He did declare that this sea change proved that two different peoples could eventually learn to get along but, to me, proved virtually nothing. In this case, it unfortunately took 1900 years to become supposedly resolved. He also took great solace from the fact that the Jews had survived even the onslaught of Adolph Hitler. With these two statements he lost me.

Yes, the Jewish people survived but they have never fully recovered and most likely never will. At the initiation of Hitler's killing machine, there were approximately 18 million Jews in Europe. At the end there were apx. 12 million. Now, 60 years later, 3 generations, and we number worldwide only 13.3 million Jews. We have not recovered anywhere near the 6 million lost. Even more terrifying is the fact that over 37% of the Jewish population now lives in Israel and we have another maniac, Ahmadinejad of Iran, who openly declares his hatred of Jews and his ambition to destroy Israel with its Jews.

Furthermore, under Islamic theology it is demanded, by Muhammad, that Islam supersede both the Christians, the Jews and any other faith that dares not embrace Islam. This imposed conversion is to come about by whatever means necessary with nuclear war at the top of Ahmadinejad's list.

What to do? I don't think proclaiming an optimistic, popular message of peace furthers Jewish or Christian or world interests. I don't think Jews or Christians or the immediate world can afford to depend upon Islamic fanaticism to run its course in the same manner as that of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, we don't have 1900 years to see what happens this time. The enemy must be confronted right now and his fanaticism laid to rest. Messages of universal peace and love, although understandably popular, must be placed on hold, at least until the current problem is soundly and irrevocably defeated.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:49 PM | Comments (0)

March 01, 2011

Obama's Cash for Education Clunkers

By Michelle Malkin
The Washington Times, January 31, 2011

"We're going to have to out-educate other countries," President Obama urged this week. How? By out-spending them, of course! It's the same old quack cure for America's fat and failing government-run schools monopoly. The one-trick ponies at the White House call their academic improvement agenda "targeted investing" for "winning the future." Truth in advertising: Get ready to fork over more Cash for Education Clunkers.

Our government already spends more per capita on education than any other of the 34 wealthiest countries in the world except for Switzerland, according to recent analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Overall inflation-adjusted K-12 spending has tripled over the past 40 years, the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy points out. Yet American test scores and graduation rates are stagnant. One in 10 high schools is a dropout factory. And our students' performance in one of the most prestigious global math competitions has been so abysmal that the U.S. simply withdrew altogether.

Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget already represents "one of the largest increases" in federal education spending history, and hikes total discretionary spending to nearly $51 billion. Toss in another $35 billion for mandatory Pell grants. And add another $4 billion for the illusory "Race to the Top" charade to improve academic standards.

Then there's the $10 billion for the Education Jobs Fund signed into law last August -- a naked payoff to the public teachers union, which also includes $50 million for the Striving Readers comprehensive literacy development and education program; $82 million for Student Aid Administration; and $10.7 million for the Ready to Teach program.

Oh, and don't forget the $100 billion in federal stimulus funding for school programs and initiatives administered by the U.S. Department of Education. As he extols the virtues of "innovation" and "accountability," the last thing Obama wants you to think about is the actual results of these profligate federal ed binges:

-- As education analyst Neal McCluskey accurately described the real impact of the $4 billion Race to the Top paperwork theater: "States must say how they would improve lots of things, but they actually have to do very little. It is decades of public schooling -- from the Great Society to No Child Left Behind -- in a nutshell." You need a chainsaw to cut through the bureaucratese of the winning state applications, but the bottom line is that the "race" is "won" only when school reformers get buy-in from the teachers unions -- the most stalwart enemies of introducing choice and competition to the atrophying system.

-- Despite massive multibillion-dollar "investments" in teacher training, America's educators are horrifyingly incompetent at even elementary math. Explaining why American grade-school students can't master simple fractions, one math professor confessed: "Part of the reason the kids don't know it is because the teachers aren't transmitting that." Instead, they've ditched "drill and kill" -- otherwise known as the basics -- for costly educational fads ranging from "Mayan Math" to "Everyday Math" that substitute art, self-esteem and multiculturalism for the fundamentals of computation.

-- Among the supposedly cutting-edge programs funded by Obama's federal stimulus program is the $49 million technology initiative for the Detroit Public Schools. The urban school system is overrun by corruption, violence and incompetence. The teachers union sabotaged classroom instruction and denied schoolchildren an education through an apparent illegal work stoppage. Yet, Washington went ahead and forked over a whopping $530 million in federal porkulus funds to reward yet more Detroit government school failure and bail out the reckless-spending boobs who mismanaged the DPS budget and engineered a fiscal crisis. The $49 million technology program distributed some 40,000 new (foreign-made) ASUS netbook computers, plus thousands of printers, scanners and desktop computers to teachers and kids from early childhood through 12th grade.

One teacher was caught late last year trying to pawn his shiny new booty. No doubt, he has company. Nationwide, in both urban and rural school districts, large and small, these technology infusions have turned out to be gesture-driven boondoggles and political payoffs that squander precious educational resources -- with little, if any, measurable academic benefits.

Mark Lawson, school board president of one of New York state's first districts to put technology directly in students' hands, told The New York Times in 2007: "After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement -- none. The teachers were telling us when there's a one-to-one relationship between the student and the laptop, the box gets in the way. It's a distraction to the educational process."

That about sums up federal intervention in public schooling: It's a taxpayer-subsidized distraction to the local educational process that throttles true competition, rewards failure and mistakes blind government largesse for achievement.

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:47 AM | Comments (0)