Joe Biden--In His Own Words

‘Why is it that the one ally we have in that part of the world [Israel], that we have the right to publicly chastise them? We would not do that with any other friend.”  Sen. Joe Biden, 2001

“As much as the Middle East is always on our minds, the best thing we can do is keep it off the U.S. and world press...[criticism] emboldens those in the Middle East and around the world who still harbor as their sacred goal the elimination of Israel."  Sen. Joe Biden, 2001


“It is not right for you to tell them [Israel], nor for me, what is in their best interests...we should give them the right to determine what chances they will take.” Sen Joe Biden, 2001

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem...The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel.”
V.P. Joe Biden, March 2010

Peter Schiff: Krugman is Krazy

Or something.

Palestinian "Day of Rage" Sponsored by Obama

Oh, thats not me saying that.  Its the Palestinians:

Palestinian leaders are taking encouragement from the Obama administration's harsh campaign against Israel of the last five days as their big chance to embark on another violent war of "resistance" to Israel. They are convinced that the Jewish state is in such bad odor with its best friend, America, that it will be held responsible for the outbreak by the entire world, even if it is initiated by the Palestinians.

Do you suppose the Administration might have assumed this would be the necessary and logical consequence of its intimidation campaign against Israel?  If not, they are idiots.  If so, they are bastards.

Perfidy, Too.

Many years ago Ben Hecht, the famous Jewish playwright and Zionist, wrote a book called "Perfidy," which chronicled a libel trial in post-war Israel involving a Hungarian Zionist named Dr. Rudolf Kastner.  Dr. Kastner claimed that Machiel Greenwald, a writer, wrongfully accused Kastner of collaborating with the Nazis in Hungary, resulting in the death of thousands of Hungarian  Jews.  Kastner, who became something of a cause celebre among many of Israel's elites, lost the case, appealed, lost the appeal and then died under mysterious circumstances before he could be called to account under Israel's anti-collaboration laws.

The book is  a gripping tale of intrigue and betrayal in which Hecht lays out a case against not only Kastner but the entire left-wing Zionist political establishment for selling out the Jewish people in furtherance of its own political and ideological agenda.  In Hecht's telling, the true heroes of Israel's founding were the followers of rightist European intellectual Zev Jabotinsky, like Menachem Begin and other leaders of the Irgun.  David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weitzman and the Jewish Agency establishment were no better than the British overlords who ruled over Palestine with a fist clenched toward the Jews, a view crystallized by the incident involving the weapons ship Altalena in 1948.

Needless to say, the book was and remains controversial.  Some suggest that facts revealed in the decades since the book was published tend to support Hecht's stark accusations of the Left's collaborations with the Nazis.  Others, including most American mainstream Jewish intellectuals and organizations, reject that charge strenuously, arguing that the real "perfidy" was in Hecht's imaginative rewriting of history to suit his own rightwing political agenda.  (Hecht had been reviled by the Jewish establishment ever since--over their objections-- he joined with Hillel Kook (aka Peter Bergson) in the 1940s to pressure the U.S. government to take more aggressive actions to save European Jewry from the Nazi death machine).

The book was immediately banned in Israel.  It is almost impossible to find in libraries, and its subject matter has been off limits for discussion in polite, elite circles for decades.  One cannot help but wonder: if the historical narrative presented in "Perfidy" was as inventively fictional as Hecht's detractors suggest, why did the Jewish Establishment go to such lengths to hide it from public view and analysis?

I mention all this because the public reaction this past week of the American government to the announcement by Israel of its intent to build 1600 units in the Jerusalem community of Ramat Shlomo carries a stench that is reminiscent of the sort of political betrayal by putative allies which was the subject of "Perfidy."  The week's events present a shocking example of how the United States of America treats one of its most faithful allies even while it bows and appeases it enemies.  Even the Jewish elites have taken notice of what appears to be an intentional ratcheting up by the Obama Administration of diplomatic hostilities with Israel. 

By all accounts, the Interior Ministry's announcement of the planned construction caught visiting V.P. Joe Biden off guard, and reportedly even the Prime Minister was surprised by the timing, which is not hard to believe given Israel's fractious political climate.  Still,  Biden's reaction was

swift and severe, if not unprecedented.  In a statement drafted by the White House, Biden "condemned" Israel for its decision and accused Israel of "undermining the trust" needed for continued discussion with the Palestinians.

In pure diplomatic terms, the statement is an outrage, and an intended one.  The term "condemn" is used sparingly in public diplomacy, and typically against a nation's adversaries.  A case in point: in December, after almost a year's worth of provocation and indisputable evidence of brutality, President Obama condemned the "violent and unjust suppression" by Iran of its citizens.  Obama has also condemned violence against Americans in Mexico, anti-semitic language by Louis Farrakhan, an anti-gay bill in Uganda, the nuke policies of Iran and North Korea and the virulent comments of his own pastor.  But I am hard pressed to find the term employed against any actions of our allies.

Many sources in diplomatic circles believe that the Obama administration is deliberately overblowing a diplomatic faux pas into a crisis.  According to Abe Foxman, executive director of the Anti-Defamation League and a figure with whom I have taken issue publicly, none of this is accidental.  "We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem," he said. "One can only wonder how far the US is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians."

Then came Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the once and (hopefully) not future presidential candidate, to warn Israeli prime minister Netanyahu that the relationship was at risk unless Israel toed the administration's line in renewed talks with the Palestinians.  This included the outrageous demand that Israel puts Jerusalem in play in talks with the Palestinians.  According to Debkafile, Clinton threatened Israel with the possible withholding of arms and military equipment in any upcoming engagement with Iran if Israel didn't bend to the will of the U.S.  

(Late breaking news suggests that Netanyahu has caved to U.S. pressure by now extending the freeze on building that was in place in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) to Jerusalem as well.  The irony here is that Ramat Shlomo is an area never considered subject to negotiation with the Palestinians.)

It is clear that Obama has taken advantage of a misstep by Israels' diplomats to turn the screws against Israel publicly in a manner that is unprecedented, at least since the days of President Eisenhower. In forcing this crisis the administration seems to be the doing the bidding of American left-wing organizations like J Street, Israeli academic leftists, Netanyahu's Laborite opponents and even Israel's Arab enemies by trying to bring Israel's government to its knees.  A humiliated and weakened Netanyahu will either do Obama's bidding or pave the way for a Leftist government that will.

Some observers suggest that  having failed to rally America's allies to take substantive action against Iran, Obama has no choice but to bully Israel into refraining from military action against Iran using the "bluntest instruments in its diplomatic armory to a degree unheard of against a friendly government."  The implications are breathtaking: because America has failed to remove the greatest existential threat to Israel in its history, Israel must be prevented from doing so.  It is almost as if Israel must risk annihilation so as not to show America to be the feckless power that it appears to be.

As a conservative critic of Obama, the open hostility towards Israel by Obama is neither surprising nor unexpected.  Anyone who did even cursory reading into Barack Obama the candidate (and church-goer) could have seen this coming.  But as a Jew and a frequent visitor to Israel, the events of this past week have been shocking and dispiriting.  Someone ought to write a book about this frightening turnabout in American-Israeli relations.

If there wasn't already a book by the same name they could call it "Perfidy.

Scott Brown: Healthcare Bill a "disastrous detour."

Not bad for a Massachusetts Republican.

GOP Leadership: All Hat, No Cattle

Sadly and accurately that appears to be the conclusion of Andy McCarthy over at nationalreview.com.

McCarthy laments the manner in which the GOP let Sen. Jim Bunning hang out to dry in the latest budget battle on Capitol Hill.  Bunning objected to the Senate passing by unanimous consent a $10 billion bill extending unemployment insurance (yet again) without offsetting these expenditures with spending cuts or revenue increases as required by the PAYGO rules adopted by Congress.  While the bill's cost is modest when compared to the $3.6 trillion in 2010 anticipated outlays, the GOP had before them an excellent opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy and irresponsibility of the Dem's spending addiction.  All they had to do was to stand with Bunning and refuse to join in the passage of an extension of unemployment benefits without corresponding offsets.

Instead, Bunning stood alone as he took waves of withering fire from Democrats and their sycophantic allies in the press for daring to oppose our compassionate and beneficent government's  gift of taxpayer dollars to the poor,  hungry and pitiful masses who remain on the government dole primarily because of the self same government's incompetent stewardship of our economy.  He clearly had no desire to take the proverbial food out of the mouths of the unemployed; rather he was trying to make a rather serious point, to wit: if extending a helping hand to our unemployed fellow citizens is a priority then we ought to be able to cut a measly $10 billion from some dreary corner of the unspent stimulus to pay for it.

And what did his Republican colleagues do? Why, they ran for the hills of course.  According to McCarthy, Susan Collins of Maine took to the floor to declare that  Bunning's views about accountability “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.”  Indeed.  For all the talk by GOP leaders of how they have learned from their mistakes leading up to their election debacle in 2006, when it comes time to act they shrink from the fight.

In fairness to the Senate GOP, its leaders may have concluded that they have to carefully husband the "shoot" in their eyes, and that this was not the time to pick a fight with the Dems.  There is no question that they have held the line to oppose big ticket items like the stimulus and health care reform (to this point, anyway), and there will be higher-stake opportunities to stand firm against Leviathan. 

In truth, Bunning's procedural ploy could not have changed the outcome, and indeed he finally relented to give the Dems the victory that was assured them from the beginning.  Still, it would have been nice if his fellow Republicans had reinforced his message that a government that cannot pay for unemployment benefits for its citizens out of an existing $3.6 trillion budget is a government that is truly out of control

Health Care: Giant Gov't Leap Backwards

So says Larry Kudlow in his March 5 commentary. Among others, note especially this insight:

A government takeover of health care will cripple one of our most productive job-creating sectors. Over the deep two-year recession, while overall corporate payrolls fell by about 7.5 million, private health-care firms created almost 700,000 new jobs.

And the health-care industry is one of our fastest-growing, most technologically advanced areas. With constant breakthroughs in biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and diagnostics, the growing demand for more health care could elevate this prosperous job-creating sector to a third of the economy in the decades ahead. What’s wrong with that? Why crush it?

Where is The Mainstream Media on this story?

Jeez. This guy is shameless.

Obama Caught Lip-Syncing Speech.

Warning: this is satire. Something else that Americans used to be good at.

Backfire!

After watching this video (and pay close attention to the President's body language), you have to wonder whether the Obama administration committed political hari kari when it proposed Thursday's "Health Care Summit" at Blair House:

Paul Ryan is one of the brightest and most articulate stars in the firmament of Republican congressional officeholders. To give him 6 minutes of uninterrupted media in order to demolish the President's policy assumptions while the President himself looks on silently is a faux pas of the highest order.

By descending from the heights of Mt. Olympus to engage with pols from both parties Obama inadvertently bestowed a presumption of seriousness and credibility on the attendees. He thus gave the Republicans a prominent platform from which to showcase their opposition to Obamacare.

Worse yet (from the Dems point of view), he gave GOP members highly valuable media face-time to demonstrate to a national audience their command of the issue of health reform and the fact that they have positive ideas for real reform. The summit undermined the Dems' primary line of attack on Republicans, which is that the GOP is the party of "no" which has no health reform ideas of its own. In retrospect, the GOP leadership's decision to attend the summit--a decision excoriated by prominent conservative voices--turned out to be politically astute.

The summit was a disaster for Democrats. Someone in the Obama White House should be fired and sued for political malpractice.

Thousands of Descendants, For G-d's Sake

Some people collect jewelry, others silver and gold. But perhaps Yitta Schwartz, who recently passed away at 93, knew a thing or two about real treasure.

Politics Takes a Back Seat

I wish I could say that I have received dozens of emails during the past 2 weeks begging me to end my self-imposed "radio silence," aka bloggus interruptus. One of my faithful readers told me yesterday that the sight of me reminded him that he hasn't seen a blogpost from me in quite some time, and he went on to say he generally like what I wrote. But in general my readers' lives seem not to have been much affected by a fortnight without the Eye of the Beholder.

My experiences over the past two weeks have sort of made the day-to-day thrust and parry of the various political and ideological warriors seem sort of silly and meaningless. The first half of the period found me in Jerusalem with 18 other guys from Atlanta on a men's "bible-study mission" if you will. We didn't study the bible text directly, but instead learned a portion of what is called the "gemara," the Talmudic discussions of the Sages inscribed about 1700 years ago. It is difficult to focus on modern politics when your head is wrapped around a piece of spiritual wisdom that transcends time itself.

Not to say that we spent all of our time in a state of asceticism. There was plenty of touring, eating, drinking and other pleasurable activities. In fact we were so busy that even if I had time to post a blog I was so un-plugged from the news cycles I wouldn't have known what to write about. The little time that I spent online was for reading and sending emails.

On the last day of the weeklong trip I found out that my youngest son Josh, age 10, was taken to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, known locally as "Scottish Rite." Josh has been suffering from gastro-intestinal issues for many months, and had been particularly unwell for a few weeks with a low-grade fever and, well, bathroom problems. He had become increasingly dehydrated and anemic and his Mom really had no choice but to take him in.

I landed in Atlanta early Tuesday morning after a fretful flight and arrived at the hospital in time to smother Josh with fatherly kisses before he was taken down for the upper and lower GI series intended to diagnose his problem. We had known for weeks that Crohn's was suspected and indeed the initial diagnosis pointed in that direction. The colonoscopy didn't confirm Crohn's, so the diagnosis for now is ulcerative colitis, which is somewhat less severe than Crohn's but treated more or less the same, at least initially.

The boy will be fine but can't come home until the meds are working properly and his bathroom habits approach normalcy. His Mom has spent every night with him in his room and will continue doing so until he is discharged. Josh's stepmom (my wife) and I spend as much time as we can with him, as do Josh's brothers and sister and other visitors.

I am fully aware that many families have suffered with a great deal more than we are facing. We know that with modern medicines and access to the greatest health care system in the world Josh will soon resume a normal life, which is not the case with most chronic diseases. At Scottish Rite, which is a terrific children's hospital, we see on a daily basis precious children who face challenges and struggles that I hope none of my children--or yours--ever have to face.

Nevertheless I experienced, if only for a short while, the feeling of helplessness and worry that a parent feels when his or her child is sick without a definitive diagnosis. I also felt the gnawing angst of a father who is 18 hours and thousands of miles from home when he discovers that his child is in a hospital bed. That is a feeling that I could happily do without for the rest if my life.

I thank G-d for the blessings of health for me and my family, a loving and devoted wife and stepmother to my children, caring friends and family members and my kids' mom, who has made Josh's hospital room her home.

I am sure I will be back to blogging about politics and the news of the day soon. But the past two weeks has put all of that in a different, less illuminating light.

Is this the New Populist Obama?

From the U.K Guardian on Monday:

President Barack Obama today will send to the US Congress a budget with a record $1.6tn (£1tn) deficit, as he boosts spending on job creation, his healthcare overhaul and defence while ending Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

The budget deficit is the largest ever in dollars, and at 10.6% of US gross domestic product it is the largest proportionally since 1945, when the the war-time US ran a budget deficit of 21.4% of the economy.

A 1.6 trillion dollar projected deficit for FY 2011. Thats four times larger than the projected deficit in George W. Bush's last annual budget proposal.

Not to worry. The same folks who told us last year that the way to avoid national bankruptcy is to spend more money tell us now that the way to save money is...to spend more money:

"We must do what families across the country are doing," Obama said at the White House today, "save where we can so we can spend where we need."

The proposed budget assumes increases in revenues from cap-and-trade legislation--which will never pass the Senate--and from elimination of the Bush tax cuts--which may never pass either the House or Senate. It also assumes that Congress will pass Obama's punitive banking tax, which is not at all certain.

The budget also assumes federal tax revenues and interest payments on the national debt will reflect current economic conditions, which are pretty shaky already. If the economy enters into an inflationary recession or depression--not outside the realm of possibility--expect federal tax revenues to plummet and interest on the national debt to rise significantly. The budget proposal is a train wreck under the most optimistic assumptions and a national disaster under the more plausible ones.

The president's proposed budget document--like those of all presidents- -was dead on arrival in Congress almost from the day it was announced. Democrats are already balking at its fiscal irresponsibility (see below). But as an indication of an administration's political and fiscal priorities budgets are a window into the civic morality of our leaders. This deceptive and cynical budget proposal tells us much about this president, and none of it is good.

Obama’s budget assumptions, which by law must project out 10 years, would result in almost $50 trillion in new outlays and combined additional deficits of $9 trillion. By 2020 the national debt would total over $20 trillion, exceeding 1o0% of projected GDP in that year. Experts acknowledge that once cumulative fiscal deficits total 75% or more of national GDP, nations have almost no recourse but to declare national bankruptcy.

Pundits and economists of both the left and right acknowledge that our cumulative deficits are a looming national catastrophe. Last year, The Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson--no conservative --warned that Obama’s spending plans (he was discussing Obama’s 2010 budget proposal) augured a future fiscal crisis. Samuelson wrote: “The Obama budgets flirt with deferred distress, though we can't know what form it might take or when it might occur. Present gain comes with the risk of future pain. As the present economic crisis shows, imprudent policies ultimately backfire, even if the reversal's timing and nature are unpredictable.”

That was then. Things have only gotten worse, given that last year’s budget--the one Samuelson was analyzing--projected a 10-year deficit of $7 trillion and this year’s projects a 10-year deficit of $9 trillion. Thats a 30% increase in projected deficits year over year.

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal--a moderate to liberal commentator--concedes that the budget deficit has “graduated from a nuisance to a headache to a pressing national concern.” He goes so far as to deem it a national security threat, in that half our accumulated debt is owned by foreigners, many of whom aren’t interested in our welfare. Dangers abound--from China and foreign central banks who “could put pressure on the U.S. in a way that no military could” to a run on the dollar by foreign investors who suddenly lose confidence in the currency.

The New York Times--which by the way applauded Obama’s budget proposal--sort of concedes that fiscal deficits are a problem. But one that can wait, apparently. The Times admonishes Congress to not “waste any more time posturing about the deficit rather than doing what is needed to get Americans back to work.”

Many in Congress aren't listening to The Times, it would seem. Even Democrats--fresh from the wake up call of Massachusetts-- are spooked by Obama’s budget nightmare. When Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, testified at Capitol Hill yesterday, lawmakers of both parties took him to task over the administration’s joke of a deficit reduction plan. Senator Kent Conrad--a Democrat from North Dakota and Chair of the Senate Budget Committee--went so far as to declare that "the president's 10-year-outlook is not a path we can take.”

Obama's budget--probably willfully--sets the stage for a massive tax increase even beyond the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. But crushing new taxes will only reduce the pool of income producers who can be taxed to finance even the interest on the debt, much less to payoff the debt itself. That leaves only two options: Reduce spending to match revenues, which isn’t going to happen; or borrow the difference between outlays and income from domestic and foreign lenders.

The problem is that half of our debt--about $6 trillion-- is owned by foreign lenders. At some point they will conclude that the U.S. has no intention of putting its fiscal house in order. At some point thereafter they will avoid U.S. Treasuries and agency issues like the plague.

Enter then the third option, which is no option at all, but a fiscal imperative: run the printing presses. When the creditors balk at lending the Federal Reserve must raise short-term interest rates to attract them. But if they lose confidence in the dollar, even interest-rate premiums won't help. The Fed must then “monetize” the debt; that is, buy the bonds that no one else will.

In essence, the Fed will have no choice but to inflate the dollar by increasing its supply, thus lowering its value. This is tantamount to stealing wealth from the American people and a stealth default on our obligations to foreigners. This is the kind of scenario that results in trade wars--and shooting wars.

Barack Obama and most Democrats in Congress may be long gone by the time all this plays itself out, but that doesn't fully explain their willingness to subject this and future generations to the prospect of becoming the world's economic pariah. While both parties have contributed to our fiscal straits, the fact is that our fiscal nightmare accelerated once Democrats re-took control of the country's purse strings in 2007. Now they seem hell-bent on crushing any prospect for reversing course, preferring instead to pass an unpopular and divisive agenda.

There is something tragically, pathologically wrong with political leaders who would sacrifice the prosperity and economic well-being of its citizens for political and ideological ends. We can only speculate as to what it is that drives such men and women to put its citizens at risk. At times like this, political wisdom is not sufficient to address what increasingly looks like a psychiatric problem.

"The Audacity of Oops"

Satirist and former Republican Christopher Buckley voted for Obama. I don't think he'll do that again. Read Buckley's preview of the State of the Union speech tomorrow night. Its funny.

The Day ObamaCare Died

(We can only hope).

Lyrics by Rush Limbaugh's house satirist Paul Shanklin

War on the Left: Aftermath of Massachusetts

Even before all the votes were counted in Scott Brown's special election victory over the Democrat machine's Senate candidate in Massachusetts, some Senate Democrats who value their political survival more than Barack Obama's ideological agenda ran for the middle. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania signaled a desire to turn away from the toxic issue of healthcare and towards jobs creation in order to appeal to independents like those who voted heavily for Scott Brown. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland expressed similar sentiments, suggesting that Congress should move on to more do-able issues with clearly defined "finish lines."

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh was blunter than most. He famously said that "if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.” Bayh also worried some in his party would be in denial about the results, which would "lead to even further catastrophe" for the Democrats.

For a minue and a half I worried that the Obama Administration, Democrat strategists and Congressional leaders might heed the warnings of Bayh, et al. and plot a "course correction," as the pundits call it. I knew that in the run up to the Massachusetts election administration insiders promised that whatever the results Obama would "double down" and move his agenda forward. But I figured that was political posturing designed to buck up their voter base, and that in the cold light of day Obama's advisers would be channeling Dick Morris, the godfather of Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy of 1995-96.

I needn't have worried. Even as the squishy moderate Democrats headed for the hills, other voices called for a "damn the torpedoes" strategy. South Carolina Democrat Party Chair Carol Fowler called for a greater effort to"hold Republicans accountable for objecting to the Democrats plans." The Democrat governor of Delaware cited a failure on the Democrat's part to "be responsive," and called for the party to "do something." Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell--typecast by the media as a pragmatist--called those claiming that the loss of the Ted Kennedy seat was a defeat for the President's agenda as "just wrong." Oh happy day, I thought, they are this stupid.

The piece de resistance was President Obama himself telling ABC's George Stephanopolous the night after the election that what swept Scott Brown into office was the same populist anger that swept him--Obama--into office a year earlier. According to the president, anger at what has been happening to the country the past eight years--that would be the Bush years--accounted for the Republican victory in Massachusetts. Get it?

Within days a meme developed among the liberal chattering classes. The problem isn't Obama's policies, they said, it's his style and demeanor. Words like "narrative" and "messaging" began to appear with remarkable frequency and consistency. John Heilemann in New York magazine suggested that Obama failed to "provide a compelling explanatory framework" for his ambitious policy agenda. If only the White House had produced an "overarching argument at once coherent and compelling" to the American public, all would be coming up roses today.

Columnist E.J. Dionne asserted that by failing to offer a "coherent Democrat narrative" independents were "confused" by Republican mischaracterizations of Obama's goals. Obama's "soothing pragmatism" is in direct contradiction to his desire for sweeping political change. Dionne's prescription for undoing the damage is for Obama to resolve his inner contradictions and "come out fighting."

Other liberals took up the populist "fight" cudgel. William Greider of the leftist magazine "The Nation," advised Obama, among other things to "clear out the cobwebs" of his policy aspirations and take on the establishment. Go toe-to-toe with the political forces opposing you, lectured Greider, and urge the people to join you in "the fight."

By Friday of last week, Obama had swallowed this line of reasoning whole. In Ohio, striking a defiant "no retreat, no surrender" tone, according to the Seattle Times, he promised to "never stop fighting" for his domestic agenda of jobs, homes, education, and banking overhaul. He acknowledged the "fear and anxiety" that his healthcare legislation had created, but insisted that it has to pass nonetheless.

And on Sunday, Obama sent three of his top officials to the Sunday talk shows to demonstrate to the American people just how out of touch the president is. Robert Gibbs, the press spokesman, insisted that we ignore the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate race and instead look at exit polls that suggest Obama's agenda is still popular. David Axelrod, the strategist, asserted that the voters of Massachusetts "don't want us to walk away from health care" and want Scott Brown to not be obstructionist." Valerie Jarrett, the president's close pal from Chicago, said that the Massachusetts results show not that the president needs to change his priorities but that people are "sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them."

Its not yet been a week since the political earthquake in Massachusetts rocked the nation's entire political calculus. It is possible that Team Obama's new faux populism will soon fade to conciliation and compromise once the political fallout settles. But all signs suggest that the Obama administration will only increase the pressure on Congress to pass his radical agenda, even if this means turning his guns on members of his own party.

If Obama pursues this course he will become increasingly isolated from the rank and file of his own party, who will pay for his hubris at the ballot box this November. As even Nancy Pelosi is signaling, Members don't have the stomach for more death-defying feats of sausage-making after Massachusetts. The question is how Obama will react when he cannot persuade a recalcitrant Congress to pass any significant items of his agenda.

Some predict he will finally capitulate and adopt a more centrist governing strategy to save his party from ruin in November, but I am not convinced. Barack Obama is petulant, arrogant and shallow, and I think he will lash out at those--especially fellow Democrats- who stand in the way of progress, as he understands it. He will attempt to obtain by fiat what he cannot achieve through consensus, testing the limits of executive power.

This will throw Democrats into an even deeper crisis than they are in now, which is obviously good news for Republican electoral prospects. But it may also do real damage to the country in the process, which is not good news for the country.

Abe Foxman Doesn't Speak for ME.

On last Wednesday's Rush Limbaugh program--which I heard in its entirety as I was driving home from Tennessee--Rush touted Norman Podhoretz's excellent new book Why Jews are Liberals. As the title suggests, Podhoretz's book attempts to answer a question that is often asked of Jewish conservatives by non-Jewish ones. Rush--an admirer of the estimable Mr. Podhoretz--distills his analysis down to its essentials: Liberal Jews are liberals first, last and always, and their political liberalism trumps all their other "isms," including Judaism.

(I would add that liberal Jews, being in the main irreligious, have filled the void left by lack of religious belief with a secular catechism: the belief in man's ability, through the force of government, to solve the ills of mankind. Many of these Jews are woefully mis-educated in normative Judaism, and have been taught that "social justice" is the primary avenue for fulfilling the Jewish ideal of "tikkun olam"--repairing the world. No one doubts the purity of motive of these Jews; but the result has been--in my view--a self-destructive allegiance to liberalism (and the Democrat Party) that has become synonymous with Judaism since the days of FDR's New deal.)

Rush wondered whether Jews--often self-labeling as "independents"--had been a factor in Scott Brown's decisive win over Martha Coakley for the "Ted Kennedy" Senate seat in Massachusetts. Independents broke for Brown almost three-to-one, and Rush opined that if Jewish independents had voted in the same proportion as independents as a whole, that would be an astonishing political sea change. Rush suggested that Jews--who are well represented in the worlds of finance and banking--might have been antagonized into voting for Brown by Obama's new War on Wall Street.

Apparently this was a bridge too far for Abe Foxman, the long-time national director of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the nation's oldest Jewish activists groups. Foxman issued a press release accusing Rush of anti-semitism, or something close to it. Foxman seems to think that Rush was playing to his audience of bigots and Jew-haters who buy into the ancient and persistent stereotypes that Jewish bankers control not just the money but even much of the U.S. and global government. Foxman then demanded an apology from Rush.

Foxman is either an idiot or a liar. Anyone who has listened to Rush knows that he is a faithful and passionate friend of Israel and the Jewish people. He has often taken on the Left for their growing intolerance of Israel and their blind acceptance of the Palestinian anti-Jewish narrative. Foxman no doubt knows this, and intentionally took Rush out of context to gin up his own base of Rush-haters.

As Norman Podhoretz points out in a post at Contentions, Commentary Magazine's main blog, Rush was suggesting that Obama--by attacking Wall Street--might be the one playing on the fears of anti-Jewish bigots for whom "banker" is code for 'Jewish.' Podhoretz says Foxman "has a long history of seeing an anti-semite under every conservative bed." Foxman has "blinded himself to the fact that anti-Semitism has largely been banished from the Right in the past 40 years, and that it has found a hospitable new home on the Left, especially where Israel is concerned." Podhoretz says Mr. Foxman's charge of anti-semitism against so openly loyal a friend of the Jews as Rush is "chutzpah," and states that it is Foxman who owes Limbaugh an apology.

I must disagree with Podhoretz. It doesn't take "chutzpah" for Foxman to ingratiate himself with his elite supporters and contributors by calling a conservative a Jew hater. It just takes a willingness to foment hatred against conservatives, which the ADL under Foxman has often shown. Late last year the ADL published an outrageous report entitled "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," which essentially casts the Tea Party movement and populist anger at government spending and meddling in the free market as a dangerous lurch into right-wing anti-government extremism and violence akin to the white supremacists of the militia movement.

I would link to the "Rage" report here, if I could find it. Both that report and the diatribe against Rush have mysteriously vanished from the ADL's website, although the front page of the website refers to both. Excerpts from the report have found their way onto various "Tea Party" websites, including this one. Foxman lays the blame for the "dangerous" new political environment squarely at the feet of talk radio hosts like Rush and Glenn Beck, who broadcast "extreme sentiments, including Nazi imagery, racist imagery, and imagery that implicitly or explicitly promotes violence." Foxman's report seems almost as if it were ghost written by the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is at the forefront of the campaign to rid the country of the scourge of talk radio under the banner of...wait for it...free speech.

As a Jew, a conservative, and a fan of both Limbaugh and Beck, I am appalled--though not surprised--at the venomous charge by ADL that these great and good Americans are fomenting hatred and violence, when the opposite is surely true. Both Beck and Limbaugh have cautioned against violence or civil disobedience of any kind, calling instead for Americans to engage in politics as the preferred vehicle for reigning in government excess.

Any attempt to marginalize Rush and Glenn Beck and their colleagues on talk radio is nothing short of an attempt to marginalize you and me. It is unseemly in the extreme for a Jewish organization that purports to stand against bigotry to wantonly accuse their political opponents of same through innuendo and lies. It is disheartening that an organization that regards free speech as a religious value would vilify those who are among its greatest champions.

I don't know who Abe Foxman speaks for, but he does not speak for me.

Sick of the Mass. Senate Race?

Not me...I can't get enough of this:

Massachusetts: Reagan Country.

How's that Reset Button Working So far?

Remember how Barack Obama was going to rebuild the reputation of the U.S. in the eyes of the world, so badly damaged by the "Cowboy" diplomacy of President George W. Bush? Within a year after his inauguration, Obama has managed to antagonize almost every foreign ally worth having. Oh sure, the elites in European intellectual circles still adore him, but policymakers and power brokers inside the European Union undoubtedly view Obama with scorn and suspicion.

Consider France. President Sarkozy may have harbored doubts about Obama for months, but those doubts turned to contempt in late September when Obama addressed the U.N. General Assembly and then went on to chair the U.N. Security Council. Obama lectured the world body about the urgency of removing nuclear weapons from the globe, even while possessed with the knowledge, yet to be made public, that Iran had a second secret weapons development site. Instead of using his platform to call out the mullahs, he instead acted like a dreamy adolescent prattling about a world without nukes.

"President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to Iran and North Korea.

A few days later at the G20 summit, with Sarkozy and British P.M. Gordon Brown flanking him, Obama announced the new secret Iranian facility. Sarkozy was reportedly furious that Obama had been acting as if the mullahs could be trusted when he knew the extent of their deception.

Sarkozy has since referred to Obama and/or his foreign policies as "arrogant," "immature," and "empty." He may as well have called Barack Obama the Chauncey Gardner of statecraft.

Now comes word, courtesy of the foreign press (which seems to be the only media source for news critical of our Dear Leader), that France is accusing the U.S. of fumbling the Haiti rescue operation. According the the Financial Times, France complained about the U.S. military tying up resources at the airport in Haiti and waving off French aid flights trying to land with supplies. According to FT.com., "the French news agency AFP also quoted people trying to leave Haiti as complaining that the US was giving priority to its own citizens."

Granted, earthquake-ravaged Haiti is not going to yield operational perfection or perfect cooperation between competing players. With one airport runway, lack of fuel and anarchy on the ground, the tension between military and security considerations on one hand and rescue and aid concerns on the other are bound to result in chaos and confusion. Still, the extent to which the Europeans are already pointing the finger at the U.S. is remarkable.

I suppose this explains Obama's appointment of George Bush--of Hurricane Katrina fame-- as special envoy to the Haiti relief effort, along with Bill Clinton. If the U.S. shines in its response to the Haiti disaster, Obama and Clinton will share the credit.

And if all goes awry, who better to blame than the Cowboy diplomat himself.

Obama: Is the Magic Gone for Democrats?

Could you have imagined a year ago that Barack Obama would have trouble filling a room with Democrats? In Massachusetts?

"Massachusetts Miracle"

The music and images alone will give you chills.

Mass. Senate Seat: Scott Brown Wins.

Tomorrow's headlines today? Hardly. No one really knows whether the Republican challenger for "Ted Kennedy's Seat" in the U.S. Senate can really upset the "favorite," Democrat Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley next Tuesday. The conservative blogs, FoxNews and talk radio all tout polls showing a Brown "surge," but Scott Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster around, still shows Brown behind.

And yet. In a sure sign of growing panic among Dems, the White House has decided to send President Obama in to Massachusetts to make a last- minute appeal to the faithful. This is a high-risk and dubious decision, as it is designed to rally the already committed base voters who might otherwise sit home. The desperate tactic (for it is just that) will have no effect on independents for whom the Obama magic has long ago worn off, and will only energize those independents and Republicans who see a Brown victory as the death knell for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.

Whether it works or not remains to be seen. Obama has so far failed to positively influence the outcome of elections in which he was a factor, including the New Jersey and Virginia governor's races. And he will have to share the spotlight with another Coakley stand-in, one Wm. Jefferson Clinton, who also has a less than stellar record when it comes to endorsements and appearances on behalf of his fellow Democrat office-seekers.

Whatever the outcome of the Tuesday election, Scott Brown has already won. He has forced the hand of the Democrats by exposing them to ridicule for risking the political capital of the President on a race that should have been a no-brainer. (We're talking Massachusetts for crying out loud). He has shown that the Democrat's drive to push health care "deform" onto an unwilling public is deeply unpopular. And he has revealed the arrogance and sense of entitlement of the Democrat elite who believed the "Ted Kennedy seat" was bequeathed to them in perpetuity.

Most important of all, Scott Brown has shown that the center-right is alive and well, and that

whenever conservative principles of limited government, lower taxes and a strong national defense are articulated they resonate with American voters. Even in deep-blue Massachusetts.

Win or lose, Scott Brown has given millions of conservative and independent voters a reason to believe that 2010 can be avery good year for the American republic.

Haiti Relief

As you know by now a massive earthquake has devastated Port-au-Prince, Haiti's capital,

and has killed, injured or left homeless untold hundreds of thousands.

You can help by donating to:

Red Cross's International Response Fund

Save the Children's Haiti Relief Fund

Food for the Poor's Relief efforts

B'Nai Brith International's Haiti Earthquake Fund

Catholic Relief Service's Haiti

Relief fund.

Or, click on the website of your favorite charity--they are bound to have a "Haiti Relief"

fund.

Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day.

Caption : Its So Cold...I saw a Democrat with their hands in their own pockets.

Happy New Year. Lets Get Busy.

After two weeks focusing on my wife, my kids and other diversions I am back to work with a heart full of thanks to my Creator for the blessings of a wonderful spouse, a great family and good friends. I am also filled with a renewed purpose: to make a contribution, however small, to the fight to take back our country from the professional politicians.

I will explain how I intend to do my part. But first, I have been remiss in taking care of some important housekeeping matters. Specifically, I want to do two things:

1. Remove from my email list any recipient who is not interested in reading my posts.

2. Add to my email list as many recipients as possible who would likely read, enjoy and benefit from my posts.

Here's how you can help:

1. If you do not want to read my emails, for any reason or no reason, I will be happy to take you off my list. No explanation necessary. Please email me at scottitaliaander@gmail.com and I will be happy to remove your name.

2. If you like what you read and want to keep receiving my posts, thats great. But if you also agree with me that our freedom and our liberty are endangered by the policies and politics and corruption of the governing elite--of both parties, and all branches--then I urge you to send me the names of at least five other friends, acquaintances or family members who can either be influenced or encouraged to engage in the struggle ahead.

I do not seek to gain from any contacts you send me. I would love to get paid for my writing some day, but in 2010 my mission is simply to do what I can to restore our country to its political, cultural and fiscal senses. Everyone who is so inclined has something to contribute to the effort. Some people can organize people and events; others can fundraise; and still others can run for office. Me, I write, in the hopes of informing and inspiring others. And I'd like to reach as wide an audience as possible.

I intend to devote a substantial amount of my free time reading, researching and writing about the issues that affect our nation and world in ways, hopefully, that will be useful to you, my reader. I will try to give information and ideas that will inspire you to action if you are so motivated. I will endeavor to put the events of the day in the context of our country's founding values and ideals as I understand them. I confess I know far too little about our nation's unique and mostly noble past, and am hurriedly trying to make up for years of lassitude and laziness in this regard.

Last year I spent a lot of time trying to keep up with the arcana of this or that legislative process or Administration proposal in order to give myself and my readers insight into the governing philosophy of our self-appointed betters. I have concluded that sometimes the devil is not just in the details, the devil is the details. We don't have to read subparagraph 12001B(a)(1)C of Senate Bill XXX to get a sense of where things are headed. After a year of Barack Obama and a hard-left Democrat congressional majority, I think we all know.

Less attention will be given in this space to the sordid and soul-deadening minutiae of the news, and more to a discussion of what the news means for those of us who want to change the future. 2009 saw unbelievable strides towards European-style Statism in America, but it also saw the first stirrings of a people's movement determined to thwart it. Tens of thousands of Americans showed up at hundreds of town hall meetings last summer and dozens of rallies at state capitols and in our nation’s capitol to express their frustration with the new regime's contempt for them.

Time magazine named Ben Bernanke as Man of the Year, but a more apt selection would have been Rick Santelli of CNBC who first called for a modern-day "Tea Party" to get the attention of the bunkered political class. The Tea Partiers are only vaguely organized, yet I expect that the Tea Party movement, whatever it ends up looking like, will be a permanent force in American politics for the foreseeable future. The movement may be in its winter dormancy, but undoubtedly it will sprout new “green shoots” come spring.

Americans might indeed be wedded to their comforts, but millions of us will not go gently into the black night of a social welfare state. We are not Europeans. Many of us will gladly risk being mocked by Nancy Pelosi and her media enablers--and worse-- if that's the price to be paid for regaining our liberty.

The movement doesn't require that a majority of Americans take part in order to prevail. Far from it. Most American adults rejected the drive for “independency” in the 1760s and 70s, and yet a motivated and passionate minority ultimately achieved a great victory. You and I and our fellow citizens can achieve a victory no less great.

If you want to join me in my efforts to help redeem America from the creeping tyranny of a professional and corrupt governing class-- then please stay on board.

And please send five or more names and email addresses, to scottitaliaander@gmail.com.

Lets get busy. Our country needs us.