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.

For Jews, "The Trust is Gone"

by Ed Koch

I consider the Obama administration's recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust. I refer to the denunciations by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials The world knows what happened; nevertheless, I will try to put it into context.

Vice President Joe Biden was in Jerusalem to convey to the Israelis and the world that the United States government is committed to protecting and assuring the security of Israel from attack. While he was there, an Israeli government minister announced that the Israeli government had authorized the construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem to be occupied by Jews. Currently, 280,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, and these apartments were to be added to an existing complex, built on land owned by Jews; about 250,000 Jews live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem.

The timing of the Israeli government's announcement was unfortunate and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for it, but it did not mark any change in the Israeli government's policy. That policy is and has long been to allow construction of homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.

Now a little history. In 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a Jewish state 
Jordan conquered East Jerusalem, separating it from its Western half.
within the British Mandate of Palestine. After it declared independence in 1948, Israel was immediately attacked by the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Although Israel repelled the attack, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem, separating it from its Western half. Ultimately, a cease fire was arranged by the U.N. and for the next 19 years until 1967, Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, including the old city, which historically had been the capital of King David's ancient kingdom.

In 1967, the Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria again sought to destroy the State of Israel, but Israel prevailed in six days and conquered the Jordanian-held East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. During the 19 years that Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, it expelled all of the Jews living in what was historically the Jewish Quarter, and literally destroyed every synagogue and the homes of the Jews. When Israel reunited all of Jerusalem, Jews were, of course, allowed to live in any part of the city, and today, more than a quarter of a million Jews live in East Jerusalem. Numerous Arabs live there as well.

For quite some time and certainly since the Gaza War, the Palestinian Authority has broken off direct negotiations with Israel which had been ongoing since about 1993, in an effort to create two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace. This so-called two-state solution always seemed out of reach, notwithstanding the efforts of Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to jumpstart negotiations.

President Obama has sought to revive the negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to assist by committing Israel to stop building new apartments in East Jerusalem and new settlements on the West Bank. In a move that Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, praised as "unprecedented," Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month settlement moratorium on the West Bank. However, he refused to stop Jews from living in any part of East Jerusalem, which is considered by Israelis to be an inseparable part of their capital. Both the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. government, ultimately accepted Netanyahu's offer, albeit grudgingly, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to engage in indirect talks through the American mediator George Mitchell.

Given this history, it was a shock to the Israeli and American supporters of Israel to have Joe Biden, a great friend of Israel, make the extraordinary harsh statement he made denouncing the future construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem. The Vice President's condemnation was even more baffling because, as The Times of March 12th reported, "he spent most [of the previous day] expressing his personal devotion to Israel, as well as the Obama administration's ‘iron-clad commitment to Israel's security.'" As someone high in political life once said to me after I mentioned to him the violation of his iron-clad commitment to me on a subject involving the mass transit fares in New York City, "Next time, get it in steel. Iron breaks."

But even more disturbing than the Vice President's reaction were the comments and implicit threats voiced by Hillary Clinton in a telephone conversation she had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, described in The Times of
Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there.
March 12th. "In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel's plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a ‘deeply negative signal' about Israeli-American relations."

Under President Clinton and George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Ministers have offered the Palestinians a state of their own on virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza, with land swaps to compensate for any portion of the West Bank that would remain in Israel, but those offers were rejected by the Palestinians.

What is most disturbing about the truly harsh and inflammatory rhetoric of both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton directed at the government of Israel, is that it is speculated President Obama himself may have ordered Biden and Clinton to make the statements they made.

The Times of March 16th reported, "...the President was outraged by the announcement of 1,600 housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden's visit, administration officials said. Mr. Obama was deeply involved in the strategy and planning for Mr. Biden's visit and orchestrated the response from Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton after it went awry, these officials said." President Obama and his administration's overly harsh public reaction to the construction in East Jerusalem appears to have emboldened Israel's enemies and provided a cover for their extremist views. It has also created a serious crisis of confidence among the Israeli public that it can depend on this administration for its security.

There will be an effort this week when Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with President Obama to mend fences. There will be huggy-kissy pictures with Hillary and handshakes by Bibi Netanyahu with Joe Biden and the President, but the relations will never be the same again. Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of new York City and a liberal Democrat.

Liars.

Rep. James Clyburn, Democrat House Whip, suggests that GOP leaders are giving aid and comfort to terrorists and racists (aka Tea Party activists):



Really? In this country you have the right (still) to say anything you want. But as a public official--and a member of the leadership of the governing party at that-- you also have the responsibility to refrain from outrageous and incendiary allegations without a shred of evidence.

Believe me, if there was any evidence that Republicans were behind the threats that Democrat congressmen say they have received, we would have seen it by now.  But then again, with liberals it is the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the quality of the evidence.  So the charges--lies, actually-- get repeated by other Democrats and amplified by the media wing of the Democrat party.

You'd think the Democrats would be so happy their monstrous legislation passed that they'd be on all the cable shows talking it up.  But no.  Instead they are all over the airways accusing Americans scared and angry about the direction they have taken the country of being kooks, racists and terrorists.  Could it be that they are more comfortable attacking ordinary Americans than they are defending their votes to pass this wretched bill?

Since members of Congress have received death threats since time immemorial, why all of a sudden this hand-wringing over the issue?  And why suddenly accuse the GOP of inciting this so-called spate of violent threats?  My guess is that they know the lapdog media will try to put Republicans on the defensive and get them off their game of attacking the policies of the Democrats.

Based on the video I have seen of the comments of John McCain, Eric Cantor and Michael Steele, it looks like the Republicans aren't taking the bait.  In various interviews they were asked if they would urge their supporters to refrain from threats of violence.  Instead they forcefully called out the Democrats for their insidious and shameless attempts to politicize allegedly criminal behavior and to criminalize political discourse.

The only question after the Democrats year-long march to pass a bill unwanted by the majority of the American people and the attendant corruption of the political process is what, if anything, will Democrats NOT do to advance their thirst for absolute power and control?

I fear that we'll find out soon enough that the answer is "nothing."

Sometimes a picture really is worth 1000 words

"A Dark Day for Freedom in America"

What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.


--Nile Gardiner, Foreign affairs analyst, The U.K. Telegraph

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?