Where are the Jewish Extremists calling for Jihad?

If National Security Advisor James Jones had told a joke about Muslims you can be sure some Islamic group would have issued a Fatwah by now.  So far all I've heard from Jews offended by Jones' so-called "joke" is...wait, I haven't heard anything from Jews offended by Jones!

Of course, its possible that Jews-- who voted overwhelmingly for Obama-- have no problem with his advisor making Jewish jokes.  Then again, it is also possible that Jews know a real threat when they see one.  Given all of the actual dangers lurking in the world--from growing anti-Semitism in Europe to the Iranian bomb-in-the-making to increasing global diplomatic isolation--perhaps American Jews can put Jones' comments in the proper perspective:



Obviously, James Jones is an embarrassment--not only was the joke inappropriate, but his delivery stinks.  He could use some lessons in comedic timing.  But the point is that if anything this video will elicit from Jews a "feh," not a Fatwah.  ("Feh" is a Yiddish term for disgust).

A case in point is Comedy Central's cowardly appeasement in the face of death threats by a fringe Islamic group the other day.  If South Park's Matt Stone and Trey Parker had mocked Jews instead of Muslims, Comedy Central wouldn't have even considered censoring the episode.  And Jews offended by it would have risen in disgust and...changed the channel.

Re: Israel: "Break the Silence" Rally in NYC

Mayor Ed Koch's taped message to today's rally to protest President Obama's anti-Israel policy:



"The silence is deafening!  Where are the Jewish Democrats? Do you see them getting up every day and denouncing what the President did?"

I would ask a different question: Where are the Jews who voted for this president, who, according to the New York Times, is now changing the policy of the United States vis a vis Israel to make it more acceptable to the Arabs?

Peter Schiff on Financial Regulation, Moral Hazard and Goldman

"Consumers need protection from government...That is the consumer's worst enemy."

"The Energy Policy Morass" by Stephen Hayward

This is a long and thoughtful piece on energy policy by energy and environmental writer Stephen Hayward that takes aim at Democrats, Republicans, "peak oil" fear-mongers, environmentalist obstructionists, oil companies, coal interests, the "green" movement, conventional wisdom, et al.

Hayward's thesis is that hardly anyone understands the nuances of the energy sector, and that the confusion that reigns leads to simplistic political grandstanding by all sides.  I don't know enough about the subject to have much of an opinion, other than the fact that such a complex and thorny issue probably does not lend itself to a command and control government regulatory scheme.  The private sector and free market is best positioned to determine what technologies are viable and where capital should be directed.

This is not to eschew the necessity for a national energy policy or some amount of government regulation and coordination.  As Hayward writes, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the International Energy Agency provide important backstops to short-term disruptions in oil supply, as was the case during Hurricane Katrina. But history has proved that when government gets too involved in complex industrial policy it distorts the private market(s) through bureaucratization and regulation and--worst of all--politicization.  Government inevitably thinks it can pick and choose among competing interests better than the free market can, often with abysmal if not disastrous results.

To me, the most surprising conclusion of the writer comes at the end, when he endorses alternative energy projects such as algae biofuels.  But he doesn't pretend to know which project will bear fruit, preferring instead to permit private entrepreneurs to sort it out.  That is an attitude that would be welcome were it to be shared by policy makers both inside and outside of government.

Read the article here.

Happy Independence Day!

No, I am not 3 months too early.  Today WAS independence day...Israel Independence Day, the 62d anniversary of Israel's declaration as a State on May 14, 1948.  (I know, I know: it isn't May 14th.  But it was the 5th of Iyar, the anniversary date according to the Hebrew calendar).

Some Jews observe Israel Independence day as a religious holiday, some as a secular one, some as a hybrid of the two and some not at all.  Many Jews don't even know or care the day exists and that is a little troubling.

Whatever one believes about the religious significance of the founding and continued existence of the Israeli state, no one can doubt its significance in the history of mankind.  Anyone who fails to be astonished at the improbability of the entire enterprise either has no sense of history or is cynical in the extreme.  62 years ago European Jewry had been decimated by Hitlerism and its bedraggled remnants left homeless and penniless.  For many, little Palestine was the only refuge, but it was a poor and troubled land surrounded by hostile Arab countries and governed by the brutish and arrogant British who did all they could to keep the Jewish refugees away.

Israel today is still troubled, still surrounded by the same hostile forces (and pestered by some new ones).  But it is now home to almost as many Jews as were lost in Europe, and now represent a plurality of Jews living on the planet.  Its economy is the envy of the Middle East and its standard of living exceeds that of most European countries.  It boasts on a per capita basis more patents and more start-up companies than practically any country in the world.

Along the way, tiny Israel managed to beat back the armies if its many enemies in three major wars and many other skirmishes.  Its soldiers liberated its capital with its cherished Western Wall, and once again Jews were able to pray near the site where Abraham (almost) sacrificed Isaac and where two holy Temples stood.  Israel expanded her borders not through conquest but as a consequence of war that it never sought.  (If only she had annexed rather than administered the captured territories, we would hear little talk from the global elites about population withdrawals from "occupied" lands).

With all the talk about Israel's material success it is possible to forget that Israel is only quasi-democratic and vaguely socialist.  It is ruled by a governing elite which is quite deaf and blind to the best interests of all its citizens.  Its political parties are comprised mainly of rent-seekers and fixers who finagle the system to extract as much money for their constituents as possible.  With nearly free healthcare and education, housing subsidies, immigration subsidies, almost universal military service and an expensive security apparatus, its citizens are among the highest taxed anywhere.  The government--even Likud-- is beholden to Left-leaning interests in the media, academia, the police and the judiciary.  There is no constitution to restrain the ruling elite's voracious appetite for authority over the people.

Still, Israel being Israel, all of this is accepted with barely a shrug.  Jews have been dealing with this and worse for millenia.  And besides, there are common enemies which almost everyone takes seriously, and so the day-to-day grind of bureaucratic ennui seems benign by comparison to the real dangers that lurk inside and outside the country.

Finally, it must be remembered that Israel is first, last and always a Jewish state.  The Jewish State.  As much as its elites may want Israel to be a "state of all its citizens", there is no escaping its Jewish character.  And it is not just the Jewish State, but a Jewish state in the land of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rachel and Leah.  It is where most of the great events of the bible took place, where Jews forged their religious and historical identity, the heart and soul of Jews for 3500 years.  The daily prayer for the return to Zion and the rebuilding of the Temple is not merely aspirational; it represents our unshakeable belief  that God will speedily--and in our days--gather the Jews from the four corners of the earth and bring us home.

Those who commemorate Israel Independence Day as a religious holiday believe that the establishment of the Jewish State and its continued existence is the "first flowering" of the ingathering promised by God.  Others are less sure, believing that only the Messiah can usher in the final redemption.  Still others celebrate the day out of national pride, much like Americans celebrate the 4th of July.  And as I said above, many others don't think of Israel at all.

We ought to be able to all agree that whatever one's worldview--Jew or non-Jew, religious or not--the story of Israel is a remarkable one and its birthday should be heartily acknowledged.

Happy Birthday, Israel.

Ed Koch Weeps for Israel in Age of Obama

A DANGEROUS SILENCE

By Ed Koch

April 12, 2010

I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.

For me, the situation today recalls what occurred in 70 AD when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans.

In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem.

Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out.

The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem - its Jewish quarter - took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states - Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq - seeking to destroy the Jewish state. At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were "Judenrein" -- a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews..

Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it - so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims and Jews -- "where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah," which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place? He replied, "When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter," whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it. And I did.

I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays. When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. Those who leave their religion, remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don't think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them. I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel in an interview with a reporter stating that while he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew. I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture.

My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel. My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976.

I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides. The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking.

The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways - the president's own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan - and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S. is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity. Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don't stop making demands on him. Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times of April 10th reported, "...that Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. ‘It was a respectful letter,' General Jones said."

On the other hand, our closest ally - the one with the special relationship with the U.S., has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan I suspect is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch.

I believe President Obama's policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran - The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon. If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it.

I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel's most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama's mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak. They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama.

What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders - Jew and Christian. Where are they? If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens. I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King's memorable speech was given? His reply was "Fifty people might come." Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent. Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"

We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel?

If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies.

To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I'll be happy to apologize if I am proven wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?

Ahmadinejad: Obama is a Callow Fellow.

Ok, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't actually call Barack Obama "callow" (as in "immature" or "inexperienced").   But he essentially meant that when he taunted our beloved President in a speech in Iran the other day. "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics)," said the Fanatical One.  "Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience."

While any American is right to get his blood up when a foreign dictator mocks our Dear Leader, who can doubt the truth of that statement in light of the President's stunning new "nuclear posture" policy?  In his new formulation of America’s long-standing policy regarding possible use of nukes, the President has rhetorically-- if not legally-- committed to tie America's hands in responding to threats or, for that matter, acts of war by our adversaries.  According to Fred Kaplan of Slate.com, a liberal foreign policy analyst, Obama’s strategy rejects the use of nuclear weapons against any country that has signed and/or is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  In other words, if such a country attacked or sponsored an attack on the U.S. (or on U.S. interests abroad) using conventional, biological or chemical weapons, the U.S. would rule out a nuclear retaliatory strike, whether or not justifed militarily.

Mr. Kaplan attempts to downplay the impact of the new policy by suggesting that since it rejects a doctrine of “no first use” it is hardly a radical change from prior policy.  A "no first use" doctrine would have committed the U.S. to never use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear threat or attack.  But the fact that the policy isn’t as unhinged from reality as it might have been doesn’t make it any less foolish or irrational.

Kaplan suggests that, among other salutary effects, the new policy will “provide another incentive for countries—even unfriendly countries—not to develop nuclear weapons (if they believe the U.S. declaration, anyway), and... further isolate those countries that are in violation of the NPT—which is to say, Iran and North Korea.”  Yet it is hard to square that conclusion with another assertion by Kaplan--an accurate one--that the Obama policy removes the “strategic ambiguity” of prior policy.

For the long duration of the Cold War and beyond, the doctrine of “strategic ambiguity,” along with that of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” not only kept the bad guys guessing what the West’s response to an attack of any kind would be, but it gave aid and comfort to our allies.  A bad actor could never really be sure that the U.S would act with restraint, and therefore would govern his action accordingly.  Now we are told that the doctrines that have prevented the firing of nuclear weapons in anger for the past 65 years are relics of the past.

Michael Goodwin points out that Obama’s portrayal of the new policy as a middle course between liberals and conservatives is absurd.  The fact that the policy is only merely dangerous and not suicidal (although it may be that) doesn’t make it a “middle course.”  Goodwin notes that the policy is grounded in a childish fantasy of a nuke-free world and a complete misreading of human nature.

As for the true effects of this policy on our enemies, Goodwin writes that outlaw states will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and now feel emboldened to use them.  And as for our allies: “If we are no longer able or willing to protect them, they would probably side with our adversaries or ramp up their own militaries to defend themselves. That could destroy the peaceful equilibrium that has kept major nations in Europe and Asia from fighting full-scale wars for more than 50 years.”

Journalist Claudia Rosett, who understands rogue nations as well as anyone given that her beat was the United Nations--expects a surge in the development of chemical and biological weapons even by countries that are NPT compliant.  With “strategic ambiguity” relegated to the ancient past, our adversaries need not worry that a mass-casualty attack of the non-nuclear sort will trigger a nuclear response.  Claudia points out that rather than welcoming the new U.S. posture as a gesture of friendship, our adversaries--like the aforementioned dictator of Tehran--will view it as a lessening of our resolve to defend ourselves and our allies.

The nuclear posture review doesn’t just consist of a change of rhetoric vis a vis our enemies.  It also promises not to replenish our aging arsenal of nuclear weaponry.  According to Fred Kaplan, the U.S. will not build any new nuclear warheads, “period.”  But we will spend tons of money redesigning our multiple-warhead ICBMs so that they can carry only one bomb instead of three.  Rosett ruefully refers to this as "preemptive disarmament."

The difference between the liberal and conservative perspectives on the consequence of this policy change couldn’t be starker.  Kaplan says that it “will greatly reduce...any fear in the Kremlin that the United States might be planning a disarming first-strike against Russia...[t]his could do much to build trust and stabilize relations.”  But Rosett counters: “Obama is introducing into global affairs a growing measure of wild uncertainty over what will replace the folding U.S. security umbrella. If anything, this will fuel a rush across the board for nuclear weapons.”

Aside from the moral sophistry of the liberal argument, it misses the important point of any nuclear policy, which is to deter the world’s bad guys from ever testing our resolve and mettle.  Obama, on the other hand, intends to use the new policy to signal to our enemies our good intentions and our peaceful motives.   Think about this:  would a president and administration comfortable with American power and confident of American motives ever feel the need to convince our enemies that we mean them no harm?

When you strip away all the high-minded sentiment of the President's vision of  a nuclear-free world,  three things are evident.  One is that Obama’s policy is unilateral to the core; America’s disarmament is not conditioned in the least on the behavior of our adversaries or enemies.  In fact, it is based entirely on the notion that our preemptive disarmament will make the world feel safer and thus induce the world’s malefactors to follow suit.

Second, the policy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of countries.  Nations, like people, act out of self-interest, and it is well nigh impossible to believe that our adversaries will simply suspend their development of weapons of mass destruction because we retire our MIRVs.  It is more reasonable to conclude they will instead exploit the gap created by our move towards a “no first use” policy and a standing down of our nuclear arsenal.

Third, the policy pokes a finger in the eyes of our allies.  Whatever the effect of the policy on our enemies, there can be no doubt that our allies will come to doubt our resolve in coming to their defense (especially since it appears we will not come to our own).  This will lead them to reconsider strengthening their own non-conventional capabilities-- or worse, seek protection under the nuclear umbrella of one of our adversaries.

Speaking of adversaries,  you have to hand it to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  For all his faults, he doesn’t mince his words.  Obama’s own actions prove that Ahmadinejad is right-- he is but a newcomer on the world stage whose sweat has yet to dry.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the sweating has barely started.

Dems' Phony Hate Crime Charge: the Scandal the Media Ignores

This scandal is the Duke 'rape' case on steroids.

Warning: This is NOT an SNL skit

And to think he actually represent folks in my state.