"Finish Strong."

Remember November.

Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Fenn Little for Congress: GA 05

Ok, so as the picture illustrates, maybe Fenn is not so Little.  But after meeting him the other evening in the Atlanta metro City of Sandy Springs-- just inside I-285 near the Glenridge Connector--I can attest that Fenn is a man whose heart is as big as his waistline.  It takes a lot of heart, after all, to engage in what many initially saw as a valiant but ultimately hopeless struggle to topple his opponent, civil rights icon and 24-year incumbent Congressman John Lewis (D-GA 05).

If Fenn manages to upset Lewis on Tuesday, he will likely become instantly famous as a Giant-killer, as would Sean Bielat of Massachusetts should he prevail in his contest to unseat liberal icon Barney Frank.  In normal election years, Little would be guaranteed a one-way ticket to obscurity on the Wednesday after Election Day.  But in a wave election that promises to be historic, one has the sense that anything is possible, including a self-described North Georgia redneck succeeding one of the longest serving black liberals in Congress.

Fenn considers Lewis a hero for his role in the civil rights movement, including the famous 1960s march to Selma, Ala., during which Lewis got his head bashed in on the Edmund Pettis bridge.  He challenges Lewis's policies and voting record, not his personal character, which is refreshing in an election year in which negative personal attacks are the norm.  Little's focus is on the issues, not on personal attacks.

That Little admires Lewis' civil rights record is not surprising.  Little is himself a civil rights lawyer, representing individuals, including many minorities, in civil rights, police misconduct and free speech cases.  He has also defended first amendment rights in the arena of freedom of religion, and so has some real "street cred" when talking to people of faith of all colors and affiliations.

Fenn has been asking for votes everywhere throughout his district, which includes a vast number of minorities who are reliable Democrat voters.  Through his legal work Fenn has established deep personal ties with clergy and other leaders in the black community, which gives him entree into churches and other venues where he can meet regular folks.  When he gets a chance to convey to them his message of jobs, lower taxes, faith, freedom and smaller government he is amazed at how many people who have never voted for a Republican come up to him to shake his hand and say they will vote for him.

Fenn is careful to state that he is not a "Tea Party" candidate, although he respects and values the Tea Party's contribution to politics.  He has received endorsements from some Tea Party groups, and shares many of the same positions on spending, taxes, government, and the Constitution.  Both as an article of his Christian faith and his geo-political sensibilities, Fenn is pro-Israel, and is dismayed at the lengths the Obama Administration has gone to alienate one of our best friends in the world.

Little is clearly not a politician, and that is one of his strengths.  He doesn't claim to have extensive or detailed knowledge of the "legislative process," but he is obviously quick enough to catch on.  In an election in which the voters are willing to boot the experienced pols, Fenn's status as a Washington outsider can only help.

As far as I can tell this race is not on the radar screen of the pundits and pollsters.  I don't even know if this race has been polled, other than by the Lewis' campaign's internal pollsters.  Thus, it is fair to say that if Fenn does triumph over Lewis on Tuesday, he will catch the nation's political and media class by surprise--and not  a happy one for most of them.

Could Fenn Little, husband, father of two young girls and accomplished chef, become Georgia Fifth's next congressman.  The odds are long, but then again, in this political year, I wouldn't bet against it.

To help Fenn cross the finish line, please visit his website here.

25 Minutes to Change America.

Having trouble deciding whether to vote on Tuesday? Think the stakes aren't high?

Please watch the video "Breaking Point," in 3 eight-minute segments, and pass to everyone you know.   The National Republican Trust (not affiliated with the national GOP) produced this compelling review of the past 20 months since Obama the Destroyer took office.

Just in case you forgot why you should vote on Tuesday.

Click here to watch "Breaking Point: 25 Minutes to Change America."

"I Worked so Hard to Get that Title"

From David Zucker of "Airplane" fame:

Bnei Akiva Hachshara Gap Year Program

Michelle, you might want to take a look at this video and also click here to see more about this program, called Tafnit.

Thatcher Honored by Murdoch

Please read this inspiring essay by Rupert Murdoch about the importance of Margaret Thatcher in her generation, and the necessity of her virtues in our.

Why Democrats Hate Our Guts

They Hate Our Guts...and they’re drunk on power.

by P.J. O'Rourke (from The Weekly Standard, October 23, 2010)

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Our Chinese Masters?

Ken Buck: "They Will Ignore us No More."

Israel's Front Porch

By Moshe Feiglin

2 Cheshvan, 5771
Oct. 10, '10

Translated from Ma'ariv's NRG website.

I get to Elmatan almost every morning - on my mountain bike. The dried creek beds and mountains on the way there and back provide me with half an hour of solace and physical fitness that are the dream of every mountain rider. After ten years of riding here and playing catch with the sun's first morning rays, I thought that I had already seen all the different views from Elmatan. Nevertheless, it is important for me to share this picture of the Elmatan synagogue with you:

Elmatan is a "mixed" outpost - a neighborhood of the Ma'aleh Shomron settlement that is open to everyone - with or without a kippah on his head. They built the synagogue pictured here about a year ago. Israel's Supreme Court has ordered the synagogue to be sealed off. Mosques are popping up like mushrooms after the rain in this entire area - which is under Israeli jurisdiction - and nobody dares touch them. But the synagogue within the boundaries of the Elmatan settlement unhinges the "rule of law" clan. Their norms dictate that the Arabs here are permanent while the Jews are a passing phenomenon. I am talking about Tel Aviv, of course.

Due to the fact that last week it looked like the government was going to seal off the synagogue, the residents of Elmatan asked the residents of Ginot Shomron, where I live, to come and boost the regular prayers there. And so, after my bike ride and shower, I picked up my son and we drove over to Elmatan for the morning prayers.

There are more panoramic views of the country than from Elmatan. From Moshe Zar's house at the top of the mountain, for example, the entire State of Israel is laid out on the palm of your hand; from the slopes of the Carmel Mountain all the way down to the shores of Gaza. I stood there once on a clear day and watched the unloading of coal for the power plant in Hadera through my binoculars. In his better days, Arik Sharon would bring US senators to the home of his buddy from Israel's famous battles and explain the strategic importance of Judea and Samaria to the American lawmakers from Moshe Zar's back yard. "Israel's front porch," he would call it.

I do not believe in basing our claim to the Land of Israel on security interests. It simply does not work. We are here in the Land of Israel because it is ours, because this is our Land and our home and this is our life. Without it, we have no ability to build, strengthen our character and fulfill our destiny. We are here in the most simple and natural way and whoever tries to take this Land from me will have to kill me first. If you are not feeling up to the task of keeping and guarding this Land, you can leave. But nobody has the right to uproot Jews from their homes and their Land. This is very simple and has no connection to the welfare of Tel Aviv with or without the Shomron.

Nevertheless, when a photographer arrived in Elmatan, I asked her to take a picture of the view glittering before my eyes at 6:30 a.m. from the synagogue that the High Court ordered sealed.

Never mind the fact that from here they will fire Katyushas at Tel Aviv, just like they fire them now at Be'er Sheva from the ruins of Gush Katif. That is really not the point. I just felt that there is so much symbolism in this surrealistic sight of the state of Tel Aviv spread out below the small synagogue from which - among other things - it draws the justification for its existence - and which it insists on destroying.

All the towers there, at the feet of the small synagogue, all the modern interchanges and even the permanent cloud of pollution over Tel Aviv that can be detected in the photo - all this amazing achievement of Zionism is planted on shifting sands. The more that we have disengaged from our Land and our identity, the more we have lost the legitimacy for the very existence of a Jewish state on the face of the earth. We have all the military prowess necessary to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. But we lack the fortitude and courage to do what we must for the coming generations because deep down, we have lost our faith in the justice of our existence here.

If it is illegal to build a synagogue in Israel's heartland, then certainly the Azrieli Towers there on the coastal lowlands are not legitimate. Soon there will be Congressional elections in the US. Afterwards, the cat in the Oval Office will come back to derisively torment the Israeli mouse and invigorate world anti-Semitism. And then what will we do? On whom and on what will we rely after we have invalidated the justice of our existence here with our very own hands?

Physically, Elmatan hinges on Tel Aviv. But the opposite is also true. Just look at what happened to the State of Israel after the destruction of Gush Katif. Just look at how our international legitimacy has eroded, how the dangers surrounding us have intensified and how the ability to defend ourselves has been abrogated.

This week the sealing of the synagogue in Elmatan has been postponed. Tel Aviv can breathe a sigh of relief.

EarMarx

I've had my doubts about the Republican leadership's commitment to earmark reform.  This article by Rep. Eric Cantor, current House minority whip, is therefore a welcome sign that the Republican leadership (in the House, anyway) "gets it."


Words are not deeds, but they are a starting point.


A step toward curing Washington’s spending disease – eliminating earmarks 

Originally published in Politico
By: Rep. Eric Cantor

October 13, 2010 12:20 AM EDT
House Republicans took an unprecedented stand in March, imposing an immediate moratorium on earmarks for the remainder of the Congress. Yet, because the governing rules of one Congress cannot bind the next, this moratorium will expire on Jan. 3, 2011. I do not believe that should be allowed to happen.


A lot has happened over the last eight months. Unfortunately none of it has done anything to rein in spending, eliminate waste or send the message to frustrated people across this country that Washington gets it.


That is why the next Republican Conference should immediately move to eliminate earmarks. Should Republicans be elected as the majority party, I believe that we should extend the moratorium to the entire House – to Democrats and Republicans alike. And I encourage President Barack Obama and the White House to take a similar step.


There is no question that earmarks – rightly or wrongly – have become the poster child for Washington’s wasteful spending binges. They have been linked to corruption and scandal, and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington far too long. These reasons alone would justify completely eliminating earmarks, but the basis for my position doesn’t end there.


The old adage that he who can’t be trusted to reform the “small” problems can’t be trusted to reform the “large” ones applies as much to government as to individuals. Both Republicans and Democrats have an enormous task before us if we are going to get America’s fiscal house in order.


We will have to propose and execute real reductions to existing programs. If we hope to preserve Social Security and Medicare for seniors, younger workers and our children, we must begin the conversation about common-sense ways to reform both programs.


These are big things – and there is little question that turning trillion-dollar deficits into surpluses, while starting to pay down our national debt, is an enormous mountain to climb. Yet the long climb to fiscal responsibility must begin with a few smaller, but necessary, steps.


If Republicans put forward real federal spending reductions while simultaneously returning to the old way of earmarking billions of dollars, we will rightfully forfeit the people’s trust. After all, how can anyone defend reducing spending for housing programs, for example, while still earmarking for their favorite local museum?


Additionally, over the last decade, Congress has spent too much time in the process of earmarking. Not only did the number of earmarks explode, but the amount of time spent by members and their staff soliciting, vetting, submitting and attempting to secure earmarks soared as well.


Congress must change its ways from the inside out. That means time once spent securing earmarks would be far better spent overseeing federal agencies, reforming federal programs, cutting spending or eliminating barriers to job creation and economic recovery.


The challenges confronting our country — and our Congress — are far too great for so much time and money to be spent on earmarks.


I have little doubt that this position is going to be controversial in Washington. I have heard the arguments from those who believe we need to return to earmarking. I believe it’s important to answer a few of them:

• Some assert that members should represent their constituents’ needs. Of course they should! Yet we, as conservatives, must not lose sight of the fact that Congress is the national legislature. It is our duty to consider those things that cannot be accomplished by state or local governments or, even better – private associations. When Congress spends a single dollar, that dollar is taken from the paycheck of a family in Culpeper, or a young worker in Richmond, or, as is now the case, borrowed and placed on their already maxed out credit card. We have an obligation to uphold the national interest, and that means ensuring that decisions about funding local streetscape improvements are returned to local officials.
• Some make the case that if Congress doesn’t earmark, unelected bureaucrats will decide how to spend the same money. In the next Congress, however, our mission must be to ensure that time is spent reducing spending — period. If bureaucrats are misspending funds or wasting them on low priority projects, our responsibility should be to conduct the proper oversight to hold them to account and fix the problem. Taxpayers deserve that we hold the administration accountable. In recent years, earmarking has taken the place of setting guidelines and conducting strong oversight. We will change that.

Earmarks are a symptom of a disease — and that disease is Washington’s runaway spending. There is no silver bullet. For us to successfully eliminate the sickness, several prescriptions are needed. One is to apply the current House Republican earmark moratorium to all House members.


Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is the House Republican whip.

Christine O'Donnell's New Ad: "The Taxman"

Devastatin'.

Re: Israel: Obama's Underwater Fantasy

Courtesy of the satirical group "Latma:"

"J" Stands for "Jackals"

J Street, Down the Rabbit Hole

SEP 30 2010, 3:00 PM ET

by Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic. 

[From the editor of Eye of the Beholder: Right- leaning Jews always knew that the liberal "pro-Israel" J Street lobbying group was a front for self-hating, Israel-bashing leftist Jewish activists trying to influence American policymakers to abandon the U.S. bias towards Israel and adopt a more "even-handed" (i.e., pro-Palestinian, Arabist) point of view.  Now, it seems, thanks to the revelations that Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's chief, has engaged in a lying campaign to cover-up J Street's funding sources (most prominently the well-known anti-Israel financier George Soros), even left-of-center opinion leaders have concluded that J Street's days are numbered.

Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic magazine article detailing this delicious scandal, follows below:]                                                        

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and president of J Street, the liberal Jewish group, e-mailed Goldblog last night: "Reports of our demise (including from you) are greatly exaggerated...." He was referring to a question I posted earlier in the day: "Will J Street even be around in its current form in coming days, now that it is enveloped in a scandal (more of a cover-up than a crime, in the traditional Washington style)?"

The scandal grows from a decision by Jeremy Ben-Ami to cover-up, over a long period of time, something he knew to be true: That George Soros, the billionaire investor and non-friend of Israel, provided J Street with almost $750,000 in funding. James Besser, at The New York Jewish Week, frames the impact of this cover-up in stark and simple terms:

There's no way this isn't going to make the politicians supported by J Street and those who may be considering accepting its endorsement incredibly nervous. Instead of  providing protection for the politicians they supported, J Street essentially hung them out to dry - not by accepting Soros money, but by lying about their connection to the controversial philanthropist.

And there's no way this doesn't sow mistrust among commentators and reporters who write and speak about J Street, and who were repeatedly misled by its officials. J Street sought to create a climate of trust with a press corps that was being spun heavily by its opponents; this news undoes a lot of that effort.

An Atlantic reporter, Chris Good, was one of the journalists lied to by J Street; he ripped the organization a new one once he learned he was the target of a disinformation campaign.

News of the Soros donation, first brought to light by Eli Lake of the Washington Times, was accompanied by disclosures about a larger, and stranger, donation, by a resident of Hong Kong named Consolacion Escidul, who according to Ben-Ami, is a "business associate" of a prominent J Street supporter named William Benter, a well-known Hong Kong-based horse bettor. Escidul is responsible for contributing seven percent of all the money collected by J Street since its founding, but nothing is known about Escidul, or about the sources of her wealth, but the mere fact that she is not, as far as anyone can tell, an American citizen has J Street supporters on Capitol Hill worried that the organization is using foreign money to provide help to American political candidates.

And now there is a completely new scandal, brought to us, again, by Eli Lake and another Times reporter, Ben Birnbaum. According to an article posted on The Washington Times site last night, J Street helped arrange visits by Judge Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist appointed by the U.N. to investigate the most recent conflict in Gaza, to Capitol Hill. Goldstone's work, heavily reliant on Hamas for uncorroborated information, has been condemned on both the left and right, here and in Israel (including by the left-wing Israeli human rights group B'Tselem), for its fairly obvious biases. From the Times story:

Colette Avital -- a former member of Israel's parliament, from the center-left Labor Party and until recently J Street's liaison in Israel -- told The Washington Times that her decision to resign her post with J Street earlier this year was a result in part of the group's "connection to Judge Goldstone."

"When Judge Goldstone came to Washington, [J Street leaders were] suggesting that they might help him set up his appointments on Capitol Hill," she said.

In the Times story, Jeremy Ben-Ami denied that his group assisted Goldstone in his visit in any way:  "J Street did not host, arrange or facilitate any visit to Washington, D.C., by Judge Richard Goldstone." Then, in the same response, he contradicted himself, acknowledging that J Street assisted Judge Goldstone in his efforts to meet members of Congress: "J Street staff spoke to colleagues at the organizations coordinating the meetings and, at their behest, reached out to a handful of congressional staff to inquire whether members would be interested in seeing Judge Goldstone."

This statement is of a piece with Ben-Ami's non-denial denial concerning Soros. On the J Street website, however, Avital issued a more straightforward denial:

I made clear (to The Washington Times)  that I was and am completely unaware of any effort by J Street to facilitate visits by Judge Richard Goldstone to Capitol Hill.

I do not know how it is possible for a newspaper to run a story like this after I have specifically told them they have the story wrong.

Unfortunately for Avital, and for J Street, the reporter who interviewed Avital by telephone, Ben Birnbaum, recorded their conversation, and The Washington Times has posted the audio. The recording shows that Avital was quoted accurately, and more than that: It shows that it was Avital, and not Birnbaum, who first raised the subject of Goldstone.

On one level, I understand what is happening here: J Street is made up of liberal Zionists, as well as non-Zionists, and even a few anti-Zionists, and it has been difficult for it to please its differing constituencies. This is why Ben-Ami, its president, might have felt the need to cover-up the involvement of George Soros, because liberal supporters of Israel know that Soros is unfriendly to the Jewish state, and some, presumably, would not want to be part of a group that counted Soros as a prominent supporter.  But on another level, what is going on here is inexplicable, and terribly dispiriting to people who thought that J Street was going to make a useful contribution to the debate over the future of Israel.