How Can Any Sane Person Tolerate This?

1. Sanctuary Cities. This writer has argued for years that city council members and mayors enacting sanctuary city laws should be prosecuted for interference with, and disobeying, federal immigration laws. Never happened. Instead, as we know, the Feds are prosecuting Arizona for attempting to actually enforce the law. How can any sane person tolerate this?

2. The mosque at Ground Zero. It appears that the City of New York will not prevent the mosque from being built. This type of insensitive behavior is nothing new for the muslims. Most readers have probably either been to Jerusalem or seen pictures there of the golden Dome of the Rock. It is adjacent to the Al Aqsa Mosque; both of which were built on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. It is the place where the two great Temples stood before they were destroyed. And what did the muslims do - they built on top of that destruction, where the Western Wall of the Second Temple still stands. They built on top of the destruction, just like they want to do at Ground Zero. How can any sane person tolerate this?

3. Financial Regulatory Reform. The main backers of the so-called reform bill of our financial institutions are none other than Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. These two guys were prominent backers of the lax practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and encouraged them to purchase sub-prime mortgages on the secondary mortgage market. Those two quasi-governmental agencies were significantly responsible for the mortgage crisis, and the subsequent economic meltdown. And what did Dodd and Frank put in the new legislation about Fannie and Freddie? Nothing. How can any sane person tolerate this?

4. Liberty or veggies? In the July/August edition of Commentary is an interesting piece on behavioral science, and how the Obama administration wishes to use it to help people make "better" decisions for themselves. Really, wouldn't you rather eat veggies and be thin than have that piece of cake? Wouldn't you rather not smoke and not get lung cancer? Wouldn't you rather invest that money in a retirement account for your future than get that big screen TV? Who could even argue against veggies, not smoking, and an IRA? If we just thought it through we would come to the right decision. The Obama team wants to help us make the right decisions for ourselves; but just in case we don't, they gave us Obamacare, the stimulus, and now financial reform, along with all the new bureaucracies and regulations to go with these new laws. They will gently nudge us into making the "wise" choice; but if we don't, there is always the coercive power of government to make sure that we do.

And therein lies the rub. No matter what efforts business makes to get us to buy their products, we have the power and the RIGHT to say "no." But when the government uses its' power to coerce - there is no saying "no." Instead, we should be grateful for what they have done to "better" our lives, even if we have given up a little liberty along the way. Americans generally do not like to be told what to do. We will need that "rugged individualism" to save us from the tyranny of government. But so far Obama and his transformationist team are winning - Obamacare, the stimulus and now financial "reform." So I ask: How can any sane person tolerate this?

5. How Obama learned to love the (Iranian) bomb. In the above-referenced issue of Commentary is another interesting article on what to do about Iranian nukes: acceptance and containment or attack? Notwithstanding lots of tough talk by both Presidents Bush and Obama about Iranian nukes being "unacceptable," it appears that their actual policy was one of acceptance and containment. For all his tough talk, Bush denied Israel's request to fly over Iraq in order to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama has demonstrated that he believes that diplomacy and sanctions can work, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary. So that leaves containment for Obama. Can we contain Iran, as we did with Russia and China?

Can we rely upon the sensibility of a regime which martyred (murdered really) its own young children during their war with Iraq, by sending them to clear Iraqi minefields for Iranian soldiers?

But Iran will fear the fear the power of the US. Really? Why would they? They have successfully snubbed their noses at us on countless occassions, with no repercussions other than some harsh words. They took over our embassy. They supported Hezbollah when it bombed our Marine barracks in Beirut. They are fighting against us in Iraq through their proxies and by supporting our enemies with materiel. And the consequences? Harsh words.

Well, maybe they will fear the Europeans. (Okay, you got me. That was put in for comic relief.)

The CIA was caught off guard when India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons. Bush was not able to reverse the tide of nuclear proliferation, as North Korea joined the club, and Iran was well on its way. Will our allies in the region sit idly by, on the assumption that the US will protect them? Not likely. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will want their own nukes. The United Arab Emirates' ambassador to the US says the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf cannot live with a nuclear Iran. The ambassador supports a military strike on Iran. But if the US will not act, he says that the Arab states in the region will have to end their alliance with the US in order to appease Iran. (Now there's a concept that Obama can get his head around - appeasement. Information about the UAE ambassador from the 7/13/10 Caroline Glick article on JPost online.)

We are in this mess partly because Bush went along with the politically correct mainstream media, who were horrified at the thought of a war with a third Islamic country. Of course, the consequences of doing nothing were ignored. And Obama clearly has an infatuation with the muslim world that seems likely to deter him from taking military action against Iran - which means (sans an attack by Israel) the Ayatollahs will have nukes. How can any sane person tolerate this?

6. The Tea Parties. The Tea Parties have attracted large numbers of supporters. Their message of smaller government, and government living within its' means, resonates with many people during these recessionary times. But the NAACP does not see things that way. Instead, they see racism. (Of course, in all fairness to the NAACP, they have to justify their continued existence after the country demonstrated its LACK of racism by electing a black president.) You see, when tea party people speak of smaller or "limited" government, it's really a code word for racism. (Can someone please send me the secret code book?) Yes, I know that the KKK and other racists justified their opposition to civil rights laws by arguing for a limited role of the federal government and for states' rights. But does the NAACP not think anything has changed in the last fifty years? Do they not feel the pain of millions and millions of Americans who have lost their jobs and have had to tighten their belts (if they did not lose everything) while the federal government has gone on a giant spending spree? And where is their outrage over the comments by Mr. Shabazz of the New Black Panthers: "You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" But the problem is with the extraordinarily peaceful Tea Party movement. How can any sane person tolerate this?

More on Obamacare; and the PA and NY Times vs. Israel.

1. Obama announces recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick as the head of CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). This is no minor appointment as 47 million people are enrolled in Medicare and 58 million in Medicaid (as reported by the 7/7/10 LA Times). The Times also reports that the White House claims that the Republicans planned on stalling the nomination, "solely to score political points," according to White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer. But the Times reports that Berwick has praised the British system; and even said: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly." So maybe asking a few questions of this nominee would be in order.

The NY Times reported that this recess appointment was "somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information." (July 7, 2010 edition.) With this, Obama bypasses the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Of course, other Presidents have also used the recess appointment. According to the Times, Dr. Berwick also supports efforts to "reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care."

As reported by the Investor's Business Daily, and as previously reported here, Berwick's support for the British system is misplaced. The IBD reports a breast cancer mortality rate in the US at 25%; in Britain 46%! Prostate cancer has a 19% mortality rate in the US; in Britain it is 57%! The British system that is much admired by Dr. Berwick announced that they plan to cut steroid injections to the back from 60,000 per year to 3000. The IBD then quotes another doctor who indicates that less steroid injections means more opiate use, more addiction, and more surgeries. Or maybe not - maybe the government will just say "drop dead." And for those who think that argument is over the top, go back and look at the mortality rates for breast and prostate cancers again. And undoubtedly, Obama must love this quote from Dr. Berwick: "Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well." (Quotes and data from the 7/9/10 IBD.)

This writer does agree with Dr. Berwick on one thing: "Excellent health care is by definition redistributional," when the MARKET is doing the distributing and not the GOVERNMENT. Our free market system has encouraged significant technological advances that help keep millions of people alive, and millions more to have an increase in functioning and improvement in quality of life. And we do redistibute wealth through our tax system. As I have asked of others who share our President's disdain for the capitalist system, just name one country that has created more wealth for more people in the history of the world than the USA. The same can be said for our medical system - more health for more people. After all, if the above mortality rates are correct, then a lot of poor people, statistically speaking, must undoubtedly benefit from the USA's higher survival rates. There are not enough wealthy people to create those numbers.

2. The palestinians and NY Times versus Israel. According to Caroline Glick, as reported in the 7/9/10 Jerusalem Post online, a London based newspaper (Al-Hayat) says that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas gave Obama's mideast mediator, George Mitchell, a letter specifying what the PA would accept, including "permanent Israeli soverignty over the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem's Old City and over the Western Wall." Sounds rather surprising, given that the Old City is in east Jerusalem, which the palestinians are claiming as their new capital city. Less surprising, therefore, when Abbas' chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, denied the story.

Not surprising either Abbas' recent eulogy of one Muhammad Daoud Oudeh, whom Abbas described as "a wonderful brother, companion, tough and stubborn, relentless fighter." Or, as noted by Ms. Glick: "the mastermind of the PLO's massacre of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics." And she describes Abbas as the paymaster for that operation. Abbas was and is a terrorist.

According to Ms. Glick, the NY Times decided to print a front page article about certain tax deductible charitable contributions made by certain Americans. The article apparently took weeks of research by 5 Times to reporters to uncover the fact that mostly conservative Christians and Jews donate money to organizations that support Jewish communities in the West Bank. The Times has no great love for Evangelical Christians or religious/Orthodox Jews, as they tend to be conservative politically. The Times has no great love for Israel either, as this one-sided "story" just happened to appear on the day Prime Minister Netanyahu was meeting with President Obama. What an amazing coincidence!

Of course, the above referenced donations violate no laws. The Times just does not like the idea of supporting Jewish communities in the West Bank. But the Times would like such donations to be illegal, or at least get no charitable tax deduction. After all, the Times does not believe Jews should be allowed to reside in any communities in the West Bank once the palestinians take over. See, the palestinians can reside in Israel (over a million do) OR the newly formed palestinian state, but the Jews should only be allowed to reside in Israel. Clearly, the type of "ethnic cleansing" that does not offend the sensibilities of the people at the NY Times.

Buried deep in the article is a little tidbit that points out that "Islamic judicial panels have threatened death to palestinians who sell property in the occupied territories to Jews." But, as Ms. Glick points out, the second law passed by the PA after its founding in 1994, "criminalized ALL (emphasis added) Arab land sales to Jews as a capital crime." Now that PA law would have made for quite a story. So would the murder of those Arabs, in Israel or the territories, accused of selling land to Jews. That's a real story; not the perfectly legal charitable donations by groups the Times despises. But writing that story would require some actual journalistic integrity, something in very short supply in the mainstream media.

The Bill of Rights - Still

The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, contain most of what we consider to be our basic, fundamental rights: free speech, freedom of religion, the right to gun ownership, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and the right to a jury trial. These rights were understood by the Founders to put constraints on the power of government. At the time of their passage, these constraints were understood to apply to the newly formed federal government only. The First Amendment even begins: "Congress" shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

After the end of the Civil War, Congress passed and the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868. Most famously, it provided that no STATE shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Subsequently, the Supreme Court has used the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee many of the rights within the Bill of Rights from being limited by the states. For example, although the First Amendment constrains the power of Congress with regards to speech and religion, through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has held that the states are similarly constrained. The Court has done the same with other rights in the Bill of Rights, but has never so applied the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment provides as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Two years ago, in Heller vs. DC, the Supreme Court held that individuals in the District of Columbia had the right to bear arms. The left believes that the right to bear arms lies with the militia (now, the National Guard), while the right believes that it is the "right of the people." In the term just ended, the Supreme Court has now held that the people have the right to bear arms; and through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause the States may NOT outlaw the possesion of guns (at least not handguns). The case was McDonald vs. Chicago. This was a 5-4 decision. Notwithstanding the placement of the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, and notwithstanding that it says "the right of the people," and notwithstanding that at the time of its drafting the militia WAS the people, four of the justices were prepared to hold that the people have no such right. If that viewpoint prevailed, states could outlaw gun ownership.

Those four Justices adhere to the belief that gun ownership is dangerous and results in numerous deaths and injuries. Justice Breyer, in dissent, noted guns cause "well over 60,000 deaths and injuries in the United States each year." The LA Times, in their 6/29/10 Editorial agreed: "we wish states and cities were able to do even more to prevent gun violence." As this writer has noted on numerous occassions, the left will never be persuaded by the facts, when those facts fly in the face of their beliefs. So, as Justice Alito, for the majority, noted, Chicago's handgun murder rate actually increased after Chicago passed its handgun ban. Criminals are not going to obey the law, so that left honest citizens defenseless. Yes, guns can be very dangerous; but a constitutional right should not be denied on the basis of an unsupported factual belief that more guns means more violence. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less gun violence, because now the criminals have to think twice.

The right to free speech also held on, but barely, in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case, holding that corporations and unions could not be restricted in their campaign ads as long as those ads were independent expenditures, not affiliated with any candidate. This case was discussed in greater detail in an earlier blog. The mainstream media (such as the NY Times and LA Times) was generally offended by the decision granting basically unfettered political speech rights to corporations; not seeing the irony that they themselves are corporate owned. Now, in another free speech case, the Court upheld a federal statute that made it a crime to provide "material support" to a designated foreign terrorist group (Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project; herinafter referred to as the HLP). Here, the mainstream media saw an assault on free speech when the Court denied the right to advise terrorist organizations, even though the members of the HLP claimed that they were merely advising these terrorist groups on peaceful methods of accomplishing their goals. The Court did NOT take away the rights of these individuals to speak and write their opinions; it said they could not ADVISE these terrorist groups, regardless of the nature of the advice. A distinction missed by the mainstream media.

It is clear to all by now where President Obama would like to take the Supreme Court - on a far left turn. In only 18 months he has been able to appoint one leftist Justice (Sotomayor) and is on his way to getting another in Elena Kagan. A Justice Kagan would have little adherence to the actual wording of the Constitution. When she was Dean of Harvard Law School, she invited the former head of the Israeli Supreme Court (Aharon Barak) to speak. This is a man who believes that judges should "make" the law, essentially as a legislative body. Yet she described Barak as her "judicial hero." (Per article by Phyllis Schlafly in the 6/30/10 Investor's Business Daily.) Kagan also hired one Noah Feldman, who believes in the "use of international materials in Constitutional decision making." (Per same IBD article.) Kagan agrees, as she testified to the Senate on her nomination to be the Solicitor General: "reasonable foreign law arguments" could be used to interpret the US Constitution. (Again, per the same IBD article.)

In testifying before the Senate on her Supreme Court nomination, she was asked by Senator Tom Coburn if the government could order Americans to eat three servings of fruits and vegetables every day. (It remains to be seen what the government might order under Obamacare.) The Solicitor General replied as follows: "I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from...the question of whether it's constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless." (From the 7/6/10 IBD.) As noted in a prior blog, this is a woman who would weigh the value of speech to society before giving it constitutional protection.

But it should be a surprise to no one that Obama wants such people on the High Court. In 2001 he even opined that the Warren Court was not "radical" enough. He was disappointed that that Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, in order to allow for a 'redistribution of wealth.'" Remember that "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the plumber? That was no slip of the tongue. Sadly, Senators like Republican Lindsey Graham, believe that since Obama won the election, he should be able to get his nominees on the Court. If he believes that Democrats will return the favor when a Republican is in the White House, he is mistaken. When John Roberts was nominated for the Court by President Bush, one Democrat Senator who voted against him noted that Roberts was, nonetheless, well qualified. That same senator voted against now Justice Alito, President Bush's other Supreme Court appointment. And that Senator...is now President Barack Obama.

Right vs. Left; & Who Needs Israel as an Ally Anyway?

I. Right vs. Left. 1. Following Israel's refusal to let the Gaza flotilla pass through its blockade, there was, as usual, worldwide condemnation of Israel. The New York Times had this to say: "It has damaged Israel's ties with Turkey, once its closest ally in the muslim world..." (From their 6/2/10 Editorial.) If the editorial writers actually spent some of their time READING the news (or this blog) they would know that Turkey has been moving away from the West and towards the Iranian bloc since Erdogan and his islamist party came to power in 2002. What kind of ally has Turkey shown itself to be to Israel when IT sponsored the flotilla that had the sole purpose of breaking Israel's blockade, which is in effect to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza? What kind of ally is Turkey, when Erdogan was the first world leader to host the terrorist leaders of Hamas, a group sworn to Israel's destruction? What kind of ally spews venom through its media outlets describing the US and Israel as "demonic, murderous nations that kill innocent people for entertainment." (From Caroline Glick, 6/4/10 Jerusalem Post online.)

If it was a humanitarian mission, the flotilla would have docked at Ashdod as instructed and allowed themselves to be inspected and accepted Israel's offer to offload the food and other legitimate supplies for delivery to Gaza. But they refused. The NY Times went on: "This is a grievous self-inflicted wound." Contrast their view with the Investor's Business Daily: "Israel really had no choice but to respond to the clear provocation of the phony Turkish "peace flotilla"...filled with terrorist-linked Islamist and extremist left groups, bonded by their fanatical hatred of Israel." (From the 6/2/10 Editorial.) The IBD went on: "It's obvious that Turkey, a NATO member...is no longer in any meaningful sense an ally of the West." They note that in 2003 Turkey denied access to US troops for the Iraq invasion. And since this editorial, Turkey was one of only two members of the UN Security Council to vote against sanctions for Iran. (Brazil was the other and Lebanon abstained.)

2. In the last two issues of the LA Jewish Journal there has been a give and take between Dennis Prager and a Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater, of Pasadena. Prager had used a piece by the Rabbi to explain leftist thinking. The Rabbi then replied, and said: "I believe in diplomacy over warfare." He also added this incredible gem: "War should always be a last resort, and I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about even that choice. Addressing the root causes of social injustice - such as poverty, hunger and fear - is usually a more effective weapon for combating evil than a gun or a missile." Of course war should be a last resort, but I am almost at a loss for words as to the rest of his comment. (Okay, not really; do you know me?) First, the left has to make excuses for evil; here, it's "poverty, hunger and fear." Amazing how poor people do not have the ability to be decent human beings and distinguish right from wrong! A typically elitist and leftist attitude. Second, the Rabbi's views are emblematic of the continuing refusal/inability by the left to acknowledge that evil exists, and that - on a societal level - such evil is usually motivated by an ideology.

Prager replied as follows: "Diplomacy to stop evil? Please. This is another example of the make-believe world of the left I described. Diplomacy did nothing for 2 million Cambodians, the Congolese (6 million killed in the last 10 years while the world's diplomats were busy condemning Israel), the Tutsis in Rwanda, the North Koreans, the 75 million Chinese under Mao, the 30 to 40 million under Stalin, or the tens of millions slaughtered by the Nazis (in large measure because of European "ambivalence" about war)." It is astounding to this writer that an American Rabbi can not understand that it was the sacrifices made by American soldiers - in war - that helped to liberate the Nazi concentration camps.

3. Iranian sanctions. The UN Security Council, as noted above, did pass another set of sanctions against Iran. Having predicted it would not happen in my last blog, this writer stands corrected. However, the sanctions had to be watered down to ensure passage. Putin had indicated he did not want "excessive" measures that might cause "hardship" in Iran. (Per the 6/10/10 JPost online Editorial.) And it bears noting that Bush, the "warmonger," managed to get through three sets of sanctions during his term, without a single dissenting vote; while Obama, the "diplomat" (appeaser?) got only 12 of 15 votes for his resolution. (Per Charles Krauthammer in the 6/11/10 IBD.) And whose votes did he lose? Turkey and Brazil, supposedly two of our close allies. Obama, as a leftist, wants the world to love him and the USA. As Dennis Prager notes in the June, 2010 issue of "Commentary,": "A fundamental characteristic of the left is a desire that America be loved, or at least liked, by the world. That is far more important than being strong..." Maybe, just maybe, it is better when other countries fear us and perhaps have respect for the United States; but that would be thinking like George Bush. And Teddy Roosevelt. And FDR. And Jack Kennedy.

4. In the June 11-17, 2010 edition of the LA Jewish Journal is a discussion by two writers (right and left)of what role US Jews should play vis-a-vis Israel. One view is expressed by UCLA Professor David Myers. He bemoans what he perceives as a movement by American Jews having fallen into lockstep with the government of Israel and their policies. He is concerned that Israel and its supporters have lost their "moral and political bearing." He is concerned that Jews minimize palestinian suffering. And he believes that "fear pervades the Jewish community today." That Jews think we are back in 1939. (Has he read my blog?)

In reply, one David Suissa (founder of Olam magazine and columnist for the Journal) notes that the Arab press in Israel is the freest in the Middle East. Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament) have visited Israel's enemies, and some have called for Israeli Arabs to side with the palestinians in any armed struggle. Suissa notes that aside from all the criticism of Israel from the Arab/Muslim world, and the Europeans, and the UN, and even the US, there are plenty of anti-Israel Jewish groups such as J Street, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and the New Israel Fund. But if some Jews do not engage in Israel bashing maybe it's because "they're too busy trying to push back against the onslaught of hypocritical and disproportionate global criticism that is poured almost daily onto the Jewish state."

The professor, however, does not see things that way. (Like Obama, a professor may be filled with information but not understanding or common sense or wisdom.) He is concerned about what he calls "unholy alliances that Jews forge with putative friends outside of the Jewish world who have their own theological motives for supporting obstructionist policies in Israel." First, my apologies for the professor's comment about "unholy alliances" to my Christian friends who are strong supporters of Israel. Second, he imputes bad motives to those non-Jews who support Israel. Maybe, professor, some non-Jewish supporters of Israel see Israel as a democracy with shared values, and have an understanding and appreciation of the Jewish origins of their own religion, and have an admiration for what such a tiny country has been able to accomplish, surrounded on all sides by people who want them dead. But let us assume you are right, professor, and that all Christians who support Israel do so because it will hasten Armaggeddon and the return of Jesus? So what? Israel has precious few friends in the world. Whatever beliefs you think these Christian supporters have, they are doing no harm! They are not blowing up buildings, they are not blowing up innocents on buses and in cafes; and they are not picking up guns and shooting "infidels" like one Major Hassan did. In case you did not notice, that would be the muslims.

II. Why does the US need Israel as an ally anyway? This notion was given prominence by the book "The Israel Lobby" by professors Walt and Mearshimer. Now, one Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. put out an article describing Israel as a "strategic liability." Caroline Glick, in the 6/7/10 JPost online, begs to differ. She believes that Israel has been the greatest strategic ally for the US.

She notes that in arab/muslim countries, their allegiance to the US may vary with the leader in office. Witness the change from the Shah to the Ayatollahs; and most recently, secular Turkey shifting alliances under the islamist leader Erdogan. Not so with Israel, which shares the same democratic values. Yes, there are differences when it comes to Israeli security; described as differences between "friends." As Ms.Glick points out, no Israeli leader could "sway the Israeli people away from America." You will never see Israelis (not Jewish ones anyway) saying "death to America" or referring to the US as the "Great Satan."

After 9/11 hit, she notes that US military and intelligence officials said Israeli intelligence was "worth its weight in gold for US operations in the Middle East and around the world." She states that pilotless aircraft (drones) used extensively by the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan were originally developed by Israel.

She makes a point that is obvious to those of us on the right: that "Israel is on the front line against America's enemies." The people who hate Israel hate the USA. (Even if the Obama Administration does not understand this.) Israel fights these battles and never asks for American troops to get involved.

She argues that in June, 1982, when Israel took out Syria's Soviet made anti-aircraft batteries (with US made planes), it was a demonstration of the "superiority" of US military technology and hardware over Russia's; perhaps convincing Reagan that we could win the Cold War.

The stronger Israel is, the more US interests in the region are protected. Just like US strength in the world has allowed for a certain level of stability, Israeli strength has done the same for US interests in the Middle East. Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, preventing Iraq from becoming a nuclear power. If an unstable regime like Iraq had nukes in 1991, would Bush I have invaded and liberated Kuwait? If not, what would have happened to the flow of oil?

Israel's nukes (an open secret) have been a stabilizing force in the Mideast. Others understood Israel had them for defensive purposes only. But Glick points out that with Iran about to have nukes, we are seeing the beginning of an arms race in which many countries in the region now feel a need to get them: Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, among others.

As Obama has pulled back from supporting allies like Israel, it has encouraged more radical elements to move forward. These elements see there is no point in moderating their positions, as the US will reach out to them regardless.

So who needs Israel as an ally? The American people overwhelming believe we do. (Although I would point out that far more republicans than democrats believe this.) I am waiting to see if the Obama Aministration comes to the same realization.

The End of US Supremacy in the World

No country has been dominant in the world in perpetuity. Some would say that the end of American dominance is a historic inevitability. Others would say it is a good thing, as the US should not be sending troops all over the world to enter into countless conflicts. But as the US falls by the wayside, look who is stepping up to replace us.

Russia and China announced their support for the transfer of uranium for enrichment from Iran to Turkey and Brazil. The odds of Russia and China supporting sanctions now are minimal, especially given that the US proposed a similar plan last year. Of course, sanctions are meaningless, anyway. And today's NYTimes reports that the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran already has enough highly enriched uranium to make TWO bombs.

Meanwhile, Russia announces that it will move forward with the sale of the S-300's to Iran. The US is seeking to open diplomatic relations with Syria, a client state of Iran. Syria recently provided Hezbollah with M600 rockets able to carry 1000 lb. warheads up to 186 miles. With all the rockets and missiles provided by Syria, our Defense Secretary says that Hezbollah has more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world! Russia also announced that it will help Syria build nuclear power plants and provide them with "advanced air, land and sea platforms."

Hezbollah is the effective government of Lebanon. Yet the US continues to supply the government of Lebanon with weaponry. The Prime Minister of Lebanon just had a meeting in DC with our President. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has terrorist cells throughout the world. Hezbollah, like Hamas and Syria, gets substantial funding from Iran. (Much of above information from the 5/26/10 posting by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post online.)

A flotilla of ships, sponsored by Turkey, attempted to reach Gaza. On board were various Hamas sympathizers from throughout Europe. Israel offers to offload the humanitarian cargo at the port of Ashdod and deliver it to Gaza (which they have since done). The offer was refused; because as noted in my last blog, this was all about symbolism and propaganda - used effectively by these Hamas supporters to further isolate Israel. (One might wonder where the UN action was against North Korea for killing 46 aboard a South Korean ship. The UN and its various departments and agencies are effectively controlled by the 57 muslim members, along with their sympathizers - dictators and foolish Europeans. How much time does the UN spend on resolutions condemning Israel, a country of 7 million people. Anti-semitism is alive and well and will lead us into the next major war.)

What Obama still does not get (and probably won't until a major war breaks out) is that you cannot make nice to dictators and thugs and expect them to stop acting like dictators and thugs. It's what they do. Obama's incredibly naive attitude is reflected in various comments by his chief anti-terrorism advisor, John Brennan. Brennan said that we should not use the term "jihadists" to describe America's enemies because jihad is a "legitimate tenet of Islam." (Can we use the term "moron" to describe Brennan?) He said Obama wants to "try to build up the more moderate elements" in Hezbollah. Those moderates who have amassed 50,000 rockets and missiles, to be used as soon as Iran gives the go-ahead in its plan to "wipe Israel off the map." (And why does it not seem to bother Obama or the media or anyone else that as these muslim countries become more radicalized, they purge themselves of other religious groups - first it was the Jews, and more recently the Christians. No, it is the one tiny Jewish country that gets the world's attention and constantly qualifies for the world's condemnation.)

Brennan has referred to Jerusalem as Al-Quds, the arabic name for the city. He says that violent extremists are victims of "political, economic and social forces." (Again, the naive and ideological view that when people engage in evil acts they do so because they are the victims of something or other. They are not motivated by an ideology and they are not adults who can distinguish between right and wrong.) He went on to say that "those plotting against us should not be described in religious terms." (So, even though they describe themselves in religious terms - fighting a "holy war" - we should not do so. Combining US withdrawal from world dominance with this insane political correctness will surely result in a major Middle Eastern war that can spread worldwide.) (Brennan quotes from a 5/27/10 email from the Republican Jewish Coalition.)

Our President recently announced some new US policies with regards to nuclear weapons. We will not use them in retaliation for chemical or biological attacks from countries that do not possess nukes. Also, he has put an end to all testing of nuclear warheads: "The US will not develop new nuclear warheads or pursue new military missions or new capabilities for nuclear warheads." Russia already has a 10to 1 advantage in tactical nukes. (Information from the June, 2010 Newsmax.) As Obama does not understrand that peace comes from strength, and as Israel will be forced to stand alone against the increasingly powerful Iranian axis, it just seems that war will be inevitable.

Obama continues to put reliance on the thugs in the UN. Whereas Bush would not let the US participate in the UN Human Rights Council (with the name made a mockery with the likes of Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia being members), it does not bother Obama that Libya, Angola and Malasia are members. And let's not forget that Iran is on the UN's Special Panel on Women's Rights! (Information from the 6/7/10 National Review.)

So are we really in a much different position than the world was in, in 1939? We have a world leader (substitute Obama for Chamberlain) who believes in appeasement. We have an increasingly anti-semitic Europe. And we have the Axis Powers (substitute Iran and its clients Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah and Hamas for Germany and its allies, Italy and Japan), who seek world domination and annihilation of the Jews. Ultimately, England had to stand alone until the US joined the fight. Now Israel will have to stand alone. Will the US join the fight this time?

Some More Quick Hits

1. I was asked today how we could allow the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Certainly, a good question. Apparently, the land is already owned by the Cordoba Co., a muslim group taking its name from when Islam controlled Spain. Yesterday, a local community board in NYC approved the building of the mosque. Will the City Council or Landmark Commission stop it? Who knows. Even liberal New Yorkers can be pushed only so far. I think the more interesting question is: why are the peace loving muslims seeking to build a symbol equated with both their religion and the destruction of the Twin Towers at that site, knowing it will obviously cause much pain and anguish to their fellow New Yorkers? Why not build elsewhere? Obviously, the message and symbolism is not lost on these people. What better way to show the entire muslim world that they can destroy us and then build their religion on top of the destruction? What better way to get more supporters for their goal of jihad and a worldwide Caliphate under sharia law? What better way to stick it to the infidel?

Our enemies understand the importance of symbolism and propaganda - and they are good at it.

2. Another Case in Point. On the third page of today's (5/26/10) LA Times is an article about North and South Korea. North Korea sank a South Korean vessel on March 26, killing 46 on board. South Korea (foolishly) wants a UN resolution condemning the incident and imposing sanctions. (Foolish because China will never allow it; and a UN resolution has pretty much the same value as a piece of toilet paper.) In any event , North Korea now says that the South is engaging in a "deliberate provocation aimed to spark off another milirtary conflict." Beautiful! The North attacks the South, the South wants only a UN resolution, but the South is the one engaging in "provocation." Always turn the tables. Try to create an equivalency that, to the average person, sounds reasonable. And no lie is too big because said loud enough and often enough people will either come to agree or think that both sides are equally at fault.

3. Third Case in Point. Also in today's LA Times is an opinion piece by the Prime Minister Of Lebanon, Saad Hariri. It sounds so reasonable. But for the Middle East tensions and wars between Israel and the palestinians, peace would break out everywhere. After all, it is the frustration and rage of the palestinians that understandably results in people doing desperate things. Uh, no. Arabs slaughtered Jews in the 1920's before there was an Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler in WWII before there was an Israel. How to explain the awful treatment of Christians in muslim countries; Christians do not run Israel. How do YOU explain Mr. Prime Minister why so many Christians have left Lebanon, a once majority-Christian country. The Truth-uncensored (okay, a little plug) is that radical islam has a philosophy that seeks jihad and to take over the world. That is the motivating force - not poverty or frustration. That is why the 9/11 terrorists were mostly middle and upper middle class. They were not suffering. They had a philosophy they believed in. Same with Bin Laden, whose family is worth billions.

Hariri goes on to say that a solution should be imposed by the UN or the Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia). This is all quite odd coming from a man who says his country will never make peace with Israel. But maybe not. Without a US veto, the rest of the participants all line up on the side of the Arabs. Think the US will still protect Israel? According to Aaron Klein in a 5/18/10 posting in the Jewish Press, one palestinian negotiator says absent an agreement, the US is willing to impose a solution "that the Israelis won't appreciate." I had argued that same point in my last blog, in light of Obama declaring a resolution to be of "vital national security interests."

Hariri makes one other interesting point (LIE). He notes Israel refused the offer of the Arab world (3oo million people he notes) and the entire muslime world (1.3 billion people) to just return to the pre-1967 borders, return "occupied" Syrian and Lebanese land, and voila - peace. Of course, he can't tell the whole truth. He neglects to say they also wanted a return of all palestinian "refugees" and their descendants, effectively eliminating Israel as a Jewish state (either immediately or shortly thereafter). Yes, they just yearn for those 1967 borders; the ones they could not live with then, and instead provoked yet another war. And Hariri can't say how all the palestinian groups have in their charters a call for the total destruction of Israel and annihilation of the Jewish people. But, I (Hariri) am so reasonable; I just want peace.

Propaganda. Know it. Recognize it. And explain it to your liberal friends.

4. Iran - still. Iran was given until 12/31/09 by our President to open its nuclear facilities. No dice. And why should they cooperate? The US has done NOTHING since. Oh sure, Secreatary of State Clinton is still trying to get that worthless piece of paper known as a UN Security Council Resolution on sanctions. Meanwhile, in a world which sees the US withdrawing, others are coming to the fore. So Brazil and Turkey have offered to take some of Iran's low-enriched uranium and convert it to commercial use only. Of course, Iran is keeping enough uranium on hand to still make bombs. As Thomas Friedman noted in today's NY Times: "Is there anything uglier than watching democrats sell out other democrats to a Holocaust-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thug just to tweak the U.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table?" Of course, he means democratic countries selling out the reformist democrats within Iran.

But they are not the only ones selling out democracy. According to the 5/17/10 National Review column "The Week," the Egyptian government is much fonder of Obama than they were of Bush. And why not? Obama apparently slashed the funding for pro-democracy groups in Egypt. Bush, on the other hand, spoke harshly to the Arab world when he suggested that they bring more freedoms and democracy to their peoples. At the time, the mainscream media criticized Bush for being naive in trying to force our values on other people. So good for Obama - he is supporting the dictatorial values of other countries: Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and on it goes. You morons in the mainscream media feel better now?

5. Elena Kagan for SCOTUS. Obama gave a commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia. In discussing how these students live in an age of 24/7 media, he noted: "...all kinds of content exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter...information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation." This is pretty scary. He is right in some ways; people are distracted by the likes of Lindsay Lohan, for example. So do we censor those stories? Does the government decide for us what we need to read and hear? And what do we need to be emancipated from? And has he found someone willing to make those hard decisions for us?

Enter one Elena Kagan. According to Aaron Klein in a 5/12/10 posting in the Jewish Press, Kagan had signed onto a brief to which Obama would undoubtedly subscribe. (Admittedly, no date was given for this brief and it may have been years ago. But it eerily, and scarily, seems to track Obama's thinking.) The brief said: "whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the speech against its societal costs." I wonder if Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and many others would meet the Obama/Kagan test for First Amendment protection. So little respect for our Constitution from this Administration.

6. On a final note, the press was all over Bush after about 2 to 3 days post Katrina for not getting the federal government involved sooner. It took the press over THIRTY days to finally challenge Obama over his Administration's inaction with regards to the Gulf oil spill. But while the Obama team did nothing, they certainly got their stories aligned. One after the next said how horrible BP is and that they will have to pay civilly and possibly criminally. No surprise there, given Obama's intense dislike of Business. But my favorite line was one that was well-coordinated and which Hannity played several times: each and every member of the O. team said the government was there "from day one." They weren't doing anything, but so what - they were there.

The Liberal Mind, Part II; & Obama vs. Israel, Part III.

I. The Liberal Mind, Part II. 1. The liberals are all worked up over Arizona's new immigration law. President Obama called the law "irresponsible" and "misguided." But his Attorney General, Eric Holder, is considering challenging the law in court. Never mind that the health (lives even), welfare and property of American citizens are being threatened by Mexican drug cartels - a group that the Mexican government cannot even control. So instead of acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General instead wants to challenge a state law that seeks to enforce a federal law that he will not enforce! As long as we are clear on that.

The liberal media is all in a tizzy about Arizona's law also. Richard Cohen (in the 4/27/10 Investor's Business Daily) opined that "the people of Arizona are not totally crazy. They are merely misguided and scared." He is amazed that 70% of the people of Arizona support the law. He says there is a better way to deal with the immigration problem, but does not tell us what that might be. Instead, he recognizes the "scream of pain and anger from a constituency that has seen immigration laws turn meaningless and the impotence of the government flaunted on a daily basis." Mr. Cohen is obviously a rarity among his fellow liberals - he actually acknowledges that a problem exists! And, by inference at least, recognizes a difference between legal and illegal immigrants.

One Linda Greenhouse, a columnist for nytimes.com and a lecturer at Yale Law School, does not even see the issue of legal vs. illegal. She notes that the Arizona law makes it a trespass to be present on any public or private property while lacking authority to be in the U.S. She refers to it as the crime of "breathing while undocumented." That is one way to look at it. Another way is that the Feds will not enforce the law that says if you want to come here you must do so legally (follow certain procedures). Basically, the Feds (and I blame both parties) have ignored the laws and have followed a de facto open borders policy. So what if EVERY state made it illegal to BE in that state without authorization obtained through federal immigration laws. Then the states could do the job the Feds refuse to do. After all, if it's illegal to come here improperly, should it not be illegal to stay here improperly?

Even the LA Times got it partly right. After refering to the Arizona law as "wrongheaded" in their 4/16/10 editorial, they acknowledge the "state's sense of abandonment by Washington..." The bottom line is that we are in fact a nation of immigrants. But those of us on the right can still differentiate between right and wrong, and legal and illegal. Every other country - including Mexico - enforces their immigration laws. Why can't we? If the laws need to be amended, then so be it. Otherwise, our elected officials should vote to abolish all the immigration laws and acknowledge that anyone and everyone may come here without limitation.

2. "Any Faith Can Become Violent." So was the title of an opinion piece in the 4/19/10 USA Today by Philip Jenkins. Not surprisingly, Mr. Jenkins is a professor - at both Penn State and Baylor Universities. As you may have guessed from the title, he is telling us how any religion, not just Islam, can cause people to behave badly. He takes us back to the time of the Roman Empire to demonstrate just how badly Christians have behaved. Frankly, as a Jew, I only have to go back to the Holocaust to know how badly Christians can behave. But that's not the point either. The point is that radical islamists are the ones using their religion as an excuse to act badly TODAY. Not 70 years ago, not centuries ago, but today. We do live in today, do we not? We do not need a professor to tell us that "any religion can be used to justify savagery and extremism." We cannot change the past. We need to deal with the here and now - and not make excuses for islamic terror. Who is threatening to kill the producers of South Park? Christians? Jews? Hindus? No, it is muslims who take ANY comments they do not like as an insult to their religion or their honor - and any insult warrants the DEATH PENALTY! So let's stop making excuses for people who give such little value to human life.

3. "Yes, I Love Taxes." This was the title of a 4/15/10 opinion piece in the USA Today by a Rich Benjamin. He thinks it is "unpatriotic to demonize the funding of our government." He says he is "proud and glad" to pay his taxes. Nowhere is there any discussion of the tremendous fraud and waste in government spending. Nowhere is there any discussion of whether certain activities are best left to the private sector and not to government. Nowhere does he talk about the corruption of elected officials such as Harry Reid - who used my tax dollars to bribe Senators to vote for the healthcare bill. Does he think Senator Reid was being "patriotic" when he used tax dollars in that fashion? He does, however, make one particularly good point. He notes that "paying taxes makes real my commitment to a functioning America." Too bad he did not use that point to criticize our current income tax structure which allows 40% of Americans to NOT pay taxes. How do those Americans get their sense of "commitment?" Or do those people just get a sense of "entitlement?"

4. "Can We Live Too Long?" Such is the title of an opinion piece by Gregory Rodriguez in the 4/19/10 LA Times. He notes that by 2050 25% of Americans will be 65or older, and 20 million will be 85 or older and 1 million over 100. He discusses how Japan already has 25% of its population over age 65. He mentions the "loneliness and ennui" of the elderly population in Japan, and even increased rates of suicide in that same group. His discussion focuses on the societal problems related to an increasingly elderly population. And no doubt about it, there are significant problems. But do we look at it only through those social lenses? Are there moral and religious issues to be considered also? Or should we just get prepared for the "death panels?"

II. Obama vs Israel, Part III. We already know that our President is more concerned with Jewish homes in Jerusalem than nuclear weapons in Tehran. We already know that he has adopted the leftist propaganda that Israeli housing in the West Bank are all "illegal settlements" in "occupied" land. His latest announcement is that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is now a "vital national security interest of the United States." The basis for this lie is the same as that told in "The Israel Lobby," the anti-Israel and anti-semitic diatribe by professors Walt and Mearsheimer: that Israel is no longer an asset/ally of the United States but rather is a liability. The lie that says all the problems and tensions in the arab and muslim worlds are due to the conflict between Israel and the palestinians. I will not repeat why that is simply untrue (refer to earlier blogs).

The significance is Obama's declaring the conflict to be of vital US interest. Such a declaration warrants the US imposing a resolution to the conflict; and we know which side Obama will favor in any imposed settlement. According to Aaron Klein, as reported in the 4/8/10 Jewish Press, "the US has been negotiating with Israel on behalf of the PA, assuming all palestinian positions and bargaining with Israel from the palestinian side." According to Klein, unnamed sources in the Israeli government said such behavior by the US is unprecedented.

A point that this writer has frequently made was recently stated by Moshe Ya'alon, Strategic Affairs Minister of Israel. He asked: "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the (palestinian) insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?" Why indeed? Or is this a type of ethnic cleansing with which Obama will see no problem? It's just the Jews, and Obama's people are the...muslims?

And what about the real threat to vital national security interests of the US - Iranian nukes. Recently, a top secret memo by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to National Security Advisor General James Jones was leaked to the press. Apparently, Gates was complaining about US lack of preparedness for a military response to Iran in the event diplomacy and sanctions fail. As noted before, diplomacy has failed and sanctions have and will continue to fail. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Obama has accepted the fact of Iranian nukes. Clearly, he is not concerned about our security, and definitely not about Israel's security.

Meanwhile, Steve Walz reported in the 4/21/10 Jewish Press that the Israeli Air Force nearly attacked a Syrian arms convoy along the Lebanese border. Supposedly, the atack was called off to allow US and Israeli diplomats a chance to dissuade Syria from providing advanced missles to Hezbollah. Israel allegedly got a message to Assad that if Hezbollah launched the Scud missiles against Israel, Israel would bomb Syria "back to the Stone Age." At least some in the Israeli government believe that Netanyahu is rapidly running out of time to decide on a stirke on Iran. Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a member of the Knesset and National Union party, opined that "the only way for Israel to prevent a war with Lebanon and Syria is to show it has a real deterrence capability and that deterrence should be represented by a strike against Iranian nuclear sites." He goes on that "the lack of an aggressive American strategy has put Israel on a direct collision course with the Iranian regime." Instead, Obama thinks that if the US reduces (and eventually gives up) its nuclear arsenal, then others will do the same. But, as pointed out by Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, there is "no historical basis" for Obama's belief. The US nuclear arsenal has been reduced by 80% since the end of the Cold War, yet China has increased their nuclear arsenal, and India and Pakistan and North Korea have all joined the nuclear club since then. (From an opinion piece in the 4/13/10 USA Today.) But as I have frequently noted, Obama is a liberal, and liberals do not need to comport their beliefs with reality.