2002 – Newly elected Senator Barack Obama given $126,349 payola from Fannie Mae


Wifey enthusiastically applauds (I don’t blame her)

See video below:

2008 – Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer defend and promote FNMA-FMAC

See second video below:

How did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get into this awful position where it is bleeding taxpayer dollars and is a huge factor in our financial demise. We seem to have completely forgotten the outspoken supporters of this fiasco. Fortunately, in this modern era of intense media coverage, we have videos at that time of exactly what happened in the US Congress – the primary culprit.

In the meantime, the financial carnage continues with no end in sight and no assumption of guilt by the Congressional perpetrators. They remain in power with no end in sight for their reign, either. Incidentally – prima facie evidence of why we desperately need term limits. How about two 2 year terms in the House, one 6 year term in the Senate?

And just now, the news item below appeared in the newspaper:  $112.6 Billion Fannie Mae loss charged to the American taxpayer.

Fannie Mae seeks additional billions  Nov 13, 2011

7.8 Billion aid for the third quarter July-Sept 2011. It lost 7.6 billion. Low mortgages rates reduced profits and declining home prices caused more defaults on loans it had guaranteed. Fannie has received 112.6 billion so far!

Then to really add salt to the wide-open wound:

Fannie, Freddie executives score $100 million payday bonus!!

Redacted from article by Chris Isidore @CNNMoney

November 15, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received the biggest federal bailout of the financial crisis. And nearly $100 million of those tax dollars went to lucrative pay packages for top executives, filings show.

The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, while the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million.  And each company has set pay targets of as much as $17 million for its top managers for 2011.

That’s a total of $95.4 million, which will essentially be coming from taxpayers, who have been keeping the mortgage finance giants alive with regular quarterly cash infusions since the Federal Home Finance Agency (FHFA) took control of the companies in September 2008.

Video – Newly elected Senator Barack Obama:


Video – Congressmen Barney Frank, Senator Chas. Schumer, Alan Greenspan, Pres. GW Bush

(Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman)

How dare Susan Sarandon smear Pope Benedict XVI!

(Another Hollywood bimbo waxes political pundit or useful idiot)

Susan Sarandon, Smear Artist

The Weekly Standard Scrapbook

OCT 31, 2011


Susan Sarandon’s left-wing “activism” is too well known to be recounted here in much detail. The actress has embraced causes as various and predictable as the 2008 presidential campaign of John Edwards and the bona fides of author-murderer Jack Henry Abbott (1944-2002), for whom she named her son. Last week, however, Sarandon hit a nerve.

In a question-and-answer session with actor Bob Balaban at the Bay Street Theatre on Long Island, she recounted her role as the anti-death penalty nun Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking (1995). Indeed, so impressed was Sarandon by Sister Helen that she sent a copy of Prejean’s memoir, on which the movie was based, to the pope: “The last one [John Paul II],” she specified, “not this Nazi one we have now.” When Balaban gently rebuked her for this slur of Benedict XVI, Sarandon pointedly repeated it.

The Scrapbook does not expect, or require, that Susan Sarandon count herself among the pope’s admirers: People are entitled to their own opinions. However, as the late Senator Moynihan once ruled, they are not entitled to their own facts. Benedict XVI, born Joseph Ratzinger, is German, as everybody knows; but he was not a Nazi, as Sarandon should know. At the age of 14 (1941), he was conscripted into the Hitler Youth, as required by law, but is reported to have skipped most meetings. Later, while a seminarian (1943), he was drafted into the German Army’s antitank corps but deserted to his family’s home (1945) when his unit ceased to exist, and was briefly incarcerated in an Allied POW camp. By November 1945, age 18, he was back in the seminary.

In the many decades during which Benedict XVI has been a senior Roman Catholic cleric there has never been any suggestion, or even hostile allegation, that he was a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. Indeed, quite the contrary, as his subversive attitude toward the Hitler Youth would imply. The Scrapbook need hardly add that visible contempt for the Hitler Youth and reluctant conscription into the Wehr-macht during the Third Reich would have required considerably more courage—indeed, courage at the risk of death—than any of the fashionable causes embraced by Susan Sarandon.

The real problem, however, is that “Nazi” has become an all-purpose epithet, especially as applied to conservatives, employed by progressives ranging from TV personality Keith Olbermann to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights veteran. “Only in the Hamptons,” commented Newsday, which reported the incident, “could Sarandon get a laugh with such a comment.”

Well, the Hamptons—and a lot of other comfortable locations as well. Susan Sarandon and friends are free to find Pope Benedict objectionable, as they wish. But “Nazi” is a term with very specific meaning and horrific connotations; and its abuse is an insult to the memory of the millions killed by the Nazis or—left, right, and center—who risked their lives to rid the world of Hitler.



This week’s Torah portion – G-d begins the creation of the Jewish people



God said to Avram (later re-named Abraham),

“Go away from your land, your birth place

and your father’s house to the land which

I will show you.

I will make you into a great nation.

I will bless you. I will make your

name great and you will have the

power of blessing (other people).


I will bless those who bless you.

I will curse those that curse you.

All the families of the earth will

bless you.


Avram left, as God had told him,

and Lot, his nephew went with him.

(Traditional Jewish date circa 1825 BCE)


Avram was seventy-five years.

Avram took Sarai (later re-named Sarah)

and Lot, his brother’s son,

all the possessions which they had

acquired, and the people they had

(converted to Judaism) in Charan,

and they departed, heading for the

land of Canaan.


They arrived at the land of Canaan.

Avram traveled through the land,

as far as the area of Shechem,

in the plain of Moreh.

At that time, the Canaanites were

conquering the land from the

descendants of Sheim.


God appeared to Avram, and He said,

“I will give this land to your



Avram built an altar there to God,

who had appeared to him. He moved

his tent from there to the mountain

which is to the east of Beis Ail,

where he pitched his wife’s tent

first and then his own tent.


Beis Ail was to the west and

Ail was to the east. He built

an altar there to God, and he prayed

in the Name of God.


Avram traveled (periodically),

always traveling southward towards




Eric Holder’s Brazenly Corrupt Department of Justice

If one wants to read a comprehensive litany of evidence dictating the immediate indictment and likely imprisonment of Barack Obama’s appointee as Attorney General of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, a very good start would be to read the October issue of Whistler Magazine published by Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of World Net Daily.


Here is Joseph Farah’s introduction which is followed in the magazine by 20 other pertinent, factual articles.

Letter from the publisher

I just don’t know how to put this more delicately or diplomatically.  Barack Obama should not be sitting in the White House. He should be sitting in the Big House. Forget all the questions about his identity and qualifications for office, his scandalous associations, his anti-American worldview and his attacks on the economy over the last three years.

As a prelude to this special issue of Whistleblower magazine focused on injustice under the Obama administration, lets just focus on two instances of official corruption and cover-up.

The latest example is the Solyndra scandal. Remember the name. Don’t forget it – even if the press and Congress try to sweep it under the rug. Solyndra represents the perfect storm of Obamas misguided ideology, his reckless political ambition and his eagerness to squander trillions of public dollars to promote both.

It was only two years ago that Joe Biden hailed Solyndra as the centerpiece of the Obama administrations initiative to develop “clean energy technologies,” boasting of $535 million in federal loan guarantees to ensure the politically connected company would have all the resources necessary to produce solar power.

Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration pressured the Office of Management and Budget to finalize the one-sided deal, over the objections of OMB reviewers who preferred due diligence before handing over half a billion to company officials and investors who had, coincidentally, bundled tens of thousands of dollars into Obamas campaign a year earlier and had an open door at the White House ever since – or – at least, until recently when the highly favored company went belly up before ever producing a single kilowatt of electricity.

First of all, solar energy is not some cutting-edge technology. It is being used legitimately and effectively, without public subsidies, to power homes and reduce reliance on traditional power plants. But, whenever Big Government enters the picture, promoting so-called “clean energy” like its a panacea for the future power needs and economic growth potential of the nation, it becomes nothing more than a money suck based on false promises. But Solyndra is much worse than that. It’s clear that Obama granted special favors to its investors and executives after collecting an enormous amount of campaign money from them.

A local or state official who engineered a deal like this would be indicted, tried and convicted of bribery – but this one was orchestrated by the most powerful members of the Obama administration, with his direct involvement.

The second example I would like to offer is the aptly named “Fast and Furious” scandal. This was the plot by the Obama Justice Department to sell American guns to Mexico’s drug cartel – some of which were used to kill people including, at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent.

A congressional probe into sensational, unbelievable, criminal enterprise – again, carefully directed by the highest official in the land with Obama’s oversight – has been stone walled by Attorney General Eric Holder and the White House.

I want you to try to imagine if this were a different administration, perhaps the previous one. What would the press and Democratic members of Congress be saying about scandals of this magnitude if they were the handiwork of George W. Bush

Do you think there would be any hesitation to call for impeachment, trial  and conviction? What if the scandals were discovered  after the Bush team left office?  Do you think there would be any hesitation to prosecute those involved to to the fullest extent of the law?Can you even imagine that scandals  like this would not be at the top of every news report day after day after day?

Neither can I.

In fact, I believe people would be on their way to prison for the crimes and cover-ups that have been perpetrated by this administration. And that’s just what they would deserve. So do the members of this administration – including the man at the top who has been presiding over this kind of  corruption for nearly three years,  It’s taking too long for justice to be done. Tolerance for the secrecy and scandals is destroying the very fabric of this country.

Just what we should expect, I suppose, from the Department of Injustice.

Until next time,

Joseph Farah





As we fall perilously behind in the nuclear race …

Nuclear Modernization – A  fading commitment

The Weekly Standard
OCT 10, 2011
The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review adopted the goals of reduced reliance on nuclear weapons, continued nuclear weapons reductions, and the ultimate, if controversial, goal of “nuclear zero”—the elimination of those weapons altogether. At the same time, it pledged to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent as long as other nations have nuclear arms. These goals are difficult to achieve simultaneously, and the Obama administration has stated explicitly that its priority “atop the U.S. nuclear agenda” is movement toward nuclear zero.

The commitment of the administration to sustaining an effective nuclear deterrent force became a contentious issue in 2010 during Senate debate on ratification of the New START Treaty. Senate critics of the treaty were concerned that it effectively demanded only U.S. force reductions and that the Obama administration lacked commitment to maintaining the U.S. nuclear triad (bombers, ICBMs, and missile submarines). Each element of the triad has attributes that support deterrence: ICBMs are the most secure, alert, and responsive, bombers the most flexible, and missile submarines the most likely to survive an attack.

The Obama administration argued that it would maintain a “robust” deterrent, claiming that it planned to “invest well over $100 billion to sustain existing strategic delivery systems capabilities,” modernize these aging U.S. systems, and replace decrepit facilities to fabricate uranium and plutonium parts with modern plants.

Under congressional pressure, in May 2010, the administration outlined its modernization plans in a report to Congress, the so-called Section 1251 report. In November 2010, an update to the report provided additional detail, presumably to calm critics of the administration’s New START Treaty. The November 2010 report promised “modernization” of “America’s nuclear arsenal,” but options were constrained by the administration’s simultaneous policy of no “new” U.S. nuclear weapons or weapon capabilities. The November report promised pursuit of a new heavy bomber and a new cruise missile to assure the continued effectiveness of the bomber part of the triad. The report also pointed towards a replacement ICBM by 2030.

These administration commitments succeeded in gaining Senate approval of the New START Treaty. Skeptics warned, however, that this commitment to modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent would prove temporary, given the Obama administration’s higher priority of movement toward nuclear zero. Unfortunately, the skeptics appear to have been correct.

The administration’s pledges to sustain and modernize U.S. nuclear forces now look short on substance and long on rhetoric. There has been minimal progress on the commitments to a new bomber, a replacement air-launched nuclear cruise missile, and possibly a new ICBM. Instead, budgetary pressures and further U.S. force reductions appear to threaten one or more of these programs.

The Obama administration has funded a replacement for the Trident missile submarine in 2029. But the number of submarines will be reduced as will the number of missiles per submarine, and a replacement for the Trident II missile is not scheduled until 2042. And judging by recent administration statements, the capabilities of the replacement submarine may be downgraded to reduce costs.

The administration’s approach to fixing problems with nuclear warheads and facilities for nuclear materials, which initially appeared to be robust, also may be flagging. The administration did submit the promised funding request for FY2012 to fix parts of our broken nuclear weapons complex. However, to date it has made no effort to sustain that funding in Congress. Both House and Senate appropriations committees have made cuts that will delay critical nuclear weapons life extension programs.

The House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee has cut $500 million from the $7.1 billion budget request for nuclear weapon activities. The comparable Senate committee has cut $440 million. These cuts, if they stand, will put in jeopardy life extension programs for W78 warheads for ICBMs, B61 nuclear bombs deployed to Europe in support of NATO, and for completing the life extension of W76 warheads on our ballistic missile submarines.

In addition, cuts eliminate over $200 million for nuclear warhead infrastructure and over $130 million from science and technology at our national labs. Of specific concern is a cut of $100 million from funds to build the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility, the nation’s only plutonium research and engineering facility, to support the nuclear stockpile and nonproliferation programs.

One reason the Obama administration came under pressure to modernize U.S. nuclear deterrent capabilities for the long term is the obvious fact that Russia, China, and others are engaged in extensive nuclear modernization programs. For example, Russian press reports state that Russia will triple its strategic missile production over the period 2011-2015. Russia is deploying new silo-based and mobile ICBMs and new ballistic missile submarines, which will carry a new type of ballistic missile. By 2018, Russia plans to deploy a new “heavy” ICBM, which reportedly can carry 10-15 nuclear warheads.

Russian plans call for developing a stealthy bomber and deploying a new nuclear cruise missile. New advanced nuclear warheads are being deployed, including low-yield warheads to make nuclear threats more credible. Additionally, Russia enjoys a 10-to-1 advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons.

The Chinese nuclear buildup is slower but steady. China is deploying two new mobile ICBMs. Reportedly, China is developing multiple warhead ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It is also building new missile submarines to carry these latter missiles. North Korea, Iran, and possibly India are also developing ICBMs. Apparently these nations have not been inspired by the “nuclear zero” slogan.

Recently, administration officials have made explicit statements revealing lukewarm support for their earlier commitment to nuclear modernization. For example, in early 2011, White House arms control coordinator Gary Samore said the U.S. government was considering further unilateral nuclear weapons cuts and eliminating a leg of the nuclear triad. When asked about this, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would not rule it out. In September, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a decision will have to be made” in the future “of whether we keep the triad or drop it down to a dyad.

Reporting in the Washington Times, Bill Gertz wrote that the Obama White House is determined to “make deeper cuts on strategic nuclear forces.” In July 2011, according to AOL Defense, General James Cartwright, then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opined that “America does not need a stealthy long-range bomber able to penetrate deep into remote, well-defended places.”

The $400 billion cut in defense spending announced by President Obama in April 2011 probably means that the prospect for the new bomber or a replacement ICBM is poor unless Congress takes the initiative. As the Pentagon is forced to consider huge budget cuts, the ICBM force may be on the chopping block or subject to large unilateral reductions. Either move would be a mistake. So much for the Obama administration’s expressed resolve to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

In 2009, the bipartisan U.S. Strategic Commission recommended “retention of the current Triad.” The large defense budget cuts being considered today are very risky. At a minimum, the long-term commitment to the U.S. nuclear deterrent as outlined in the administration’s November 2010 report needs to be protected. If the Obama administration does not give sustained attention to these issues, further erosion and atrophy of U.S. capabilities are inevitable along with serious risks of a weakened U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Mark Schneider was special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the New START Treaty negotiations. He now serves as a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy.

An evil wind in the Arab Spring – Usual Christian Massacre

 By Wesley Pruden

The Washington Times


Friday, October 14, 2011

We’ve “enjoyed” the Arab Spring, celebrated by one and nearly all. But if you’re a Christian under the wheels of an Egyptian army truck, it looks a lot like winter.

Compassion fatigue runs endemic in the West. The rest of the world succumbs to the temptation to tune out the news from the Islamic world, because news of “the religion of peace” (as George W. Bush famously called it in the wake of Sept. 11) is nearly always bad.

The horrific details of what happened in Cairo on a Sunday night in early autumn has only slowly dribbled out in the days since, and mostly through the work of freelancers, an occasional columnist, and bloggers working on the scene at considerable risk to life and limb. The big news organizations have been occupied elsewhere – covering the continuing Michael Jackson inquest, the latest celebrity sighting in Hollywood, who’s up and who’s down among the Republican presidential impersonators.

The Egyptian government, the one we’ve been told is the one we’ve been waiting for, succeeded for a time in suppressing the news, portraying the Christian protests against Muslim church-burnings as a brutal attack on brave and innocent soldiers. The government said only that three soldiers were killed in trying to keep order, and nothing about dozens of dead Christians.

Almost no one in the West seems bothered. “It is unclear what either Western governments or Western churches think they are achieving by turning a blind eye to the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world,” observes Caroline B. Glick, a deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post, writing in the Jewish World Review.

She cites Coptic sources in Cairo for the details of how Christian protesters were beset by Islamic thugs backed by the Egyptian army, how up to 40 Christians “were run over by military vehicles, beaten, shot and dragged through the streets of Cairo.”

The massacre was observed firsthand on the streets by Sarah Carr, a resourceful freelance correspondent: “And then it happened: An [armored personnel carrier] mounted the island in the middle of the road, like a maddened animal on a rampage. I saw a group of people disappear, sucked underneath it. It drove over them. I wasn’t able to see what happened to them because it then started coming in my direction. … The Coptic Hospital tried its best to deal with the sudden influx of casualties. Its floors were sticky with blood and there was barely room to move among the wounded, the worried and the inconsolable.”

Massacres of Christians go athwart the story line of the great Islamic peoples’ revolution, the so-called “Arab Spring,” which it turns out is nothing like the “Prague Spring” on which it was modeled in the imaginations of weepy sentimentalists in the West. Robert Gates, who was then the chief at the Pentagon, assured everyone that the Egyptian army had “conducted itself in exemplary fashion” and “made a contribution to the evolution of democracy.” The uprising in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the British Broadcasting Corp. assured everyone, was proof that “Egypt’s religious tensions have been set aside,” with Muslims and Christians (and maybe even the odd and foolish Jew) joining forces in anti-government solidarity. But months later, the Egyptian military has lost whatever good will it had, except in the West where fantasy reigns unchallenged.

Sad to say, the West is complicit in the Islamic persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world. When Bechara Rai, the patriarch of Maronite Catholic Christians in Lebanon, went to Paris to warn President Nicolas Sarkozy that the overthrow of the Assad regime by opposition forces dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood could lead to a harsh Islamist regime, eager to massacre Christians, he was all but invited to leave town. The French Foreign Ministry said it was “surprised and disappointed” by the patriarch.

From Paris, the patriarch was meant to travel to Washington to see President Obama, but his visit was abruptly canceled when the White House learned of the patriarch’s politically incorrect warning. Mr. Obama, who never sees a Muslim potentate without bowing low enough to bang his head on the floor, was eager to avoid the patriarch lest meeting him offend harsh Muslim regimes.

Saddest of all is that self-satisfied pastors, priests, prelates, bishops and assorted other divines in the West have been uninterested in speaking up for their fellow Christians marooned in the Islamic world. Fear, indifference and cowardice reign.

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.


Reverse Racism Institutionalized by Eric Holder

By Thomas Sowell

Reverse Racism Institutionalized by Eric Holder

The Washington  Times
October 17, 2011
Among those who have been disappointed by President Barack Obama, none is likely to end up so painfully disappointed as those who saw his election as being, in itself and in its consequences, a movement toward a “post-racial society.”Like so many other expectations that so many people projected onto this little-known man who suddenly burst onto the political scene, the expectation of movement toward a post-racial society had no speck of hard evidence behind it — and all too many ignored indications of the very opposite, including his two decades of association with the egregious Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Those people of good will who want to replace the racism of the past with a post-racial society have too often overlooked the fact that there are others who instead want to put racism under new management, to have reverse discrimination as racial payback for past injustices.Attorney General Eric Holder became a key figure epitomizing the view that government’s role in racial matters was not to be an impartial dispenser of equal justice for all, but to be a racial partisan and an organ of racial payback. He has been too politically savvy to say that in so many words, but his actions have spoken far louder than any words.
The case that first gave the general public a glimpse of Attorney General Holder’s views and values was one in which young black thugs outside a voting site in Philadelphia were televised intimidating white voters. When this episode was broadcast, it produced public outrage. Although the Department of Justice’s prosecution of these thugs began in the last days of the Bush administration, and the defendants had offered no legal defense, the case was dropped by the Justice Department after Eric Holder took over. One of the lawyers who were prosecuting that case resigned in protest.

That lawyer — J. Christian Adams — has now written a book, titled Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department. It is a thought-provoking book and a shocking book in what it reveals about the inner workings of the Department of Justice’s civil rights division. Bad as the Justice Department’s decision was to drop that particular case, which it had already won in court, this book makes painfully clear that this was just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Despite the efforts of some in the media and in politics to depict the voter intimidation in Philadelphia as just an isolated incident involving a few thugs at one voting place, former U.S. Attorney Adams shows that these thugs were in fact part of a nationwide organization doing similar things elsewhere. Moreover, the civil rights division of the Justice Department has turned the same blind eye to similar voter intimidation and corruption of the voting process by other people and other organizations in other cities and states — so long as those being victimized were white and the victimizers were black.

This is all spelled out in detail, naming names and naming places, not only among those in the country at large, but also among those officials of the Justice Department who turned its role of protecting the civil rights of all Americans into a policy of racial partisanship and racial payback.

The widespread, organized and systematic corruption of the voting process revealed by the author of Injustice is on a scale that can swing not only local but national elections, including the 2012 elections. The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has not only turned a blind eye to blatant evidence of voter fraud, it has actively suppressed those U.S. Attorneys in its own ranks who have tried to stop that fraud.

Even in counties where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of people legally entitled to vote, Eric Holder’s Justice Department sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil — if the end result is the election of black Democrats. It has become the mirror image of the old Jim Crow South.

This is an enormously eye-opening book which makes painfully clear that, where racial issues are concerned, the Department of Justice has become the Department of Payback. A post-racial society is the last thing that Holder and Obama are pursuing

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist

When will the Israelis awake to the reality of Gilad Shalit?

(With the support of 79% of the Israeli electorate and a huge majority of the Knesset)
Redacted from a courageous, politically incorrect, article by Uri Kaufman
The Jewish Press, October 21, 2011
In March 1978, at the conclusion of the Litani Operation in South Lebanon, five Israeli soldiers and a civilian jumped into a car and decided to go on an outing. The group took to the road in defiance of army regulations and somehow got waived through a forward checkpoint. Moments later they found themselves surrounded by heavily armed Palestinians. Four of the five soldiers were killed instantly, while the civilian miraculously made it back to Israeli lines the next day.

The fifth soldier was taken captive by the PFLP-GC, the Palestinian terror group headed by Ahmed Jibril. Up to that point, Israel had a firm policy of trading soldiers for soldiers. Terrorists sentenced to life in prison were expected to spend life in prison. Exchanges with terror groups sometimes occurred in hostage situations, but they were rare and always premised on trading one for one.

In 1970, an Israeli farmer in the northern village of Metulla was kidnapped by Palestinians and taken to Lebanon. The Palestinians demanded the release of dozens of jailed terrorists. The Israeli government held firm, and in the end the farmer’s release was secured for just one terrorist.

With this in mind, a team was assembled in Jerusalem in 1978 to negotiate the release of the soldier. A terrorism expert named Ariel Merari,  circulated a memo that concluded the captured Israeli had “no market value.” Accordingly, he advised the government to set a low value and stick to it. Above all, he urged political leaders not to meet with the soldier’s family. Both pieces of advice were ignored. The family of the soldier first met with Defense Minister Ezer Weizmann. Merari later remembered that “Weizmann had a hard time standing up to the pressure, he folded, he promised and he declared that they had an open line to him whenever they wanted.” The same thing happened when the family met with Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The initial offer from the Jibril camp was to swap the soldier for 19 Palestinians captured during the Litani Operation plus another six or seven in Israeli jails. It was deemed a reasonable offer. The 19 captured in the field were combatants, not terrorists, and the six or seven were all low value prisoners that were either sick or wounded.

Merari advised going slow. This was, after all, the way it worked in the Arab souk (market place). You showed little interest for what the other side was offering and then slowly negotiated your way to the finish line. Were Israel to accept the first offer, it would send the message that it would pay more. The general placed in charge of the negotiations wanted to wrap up the talks quickly and ignored this advice as well. With that, Merari tendered his resignation.

A year later, Merari was asked to return. Every dark prophecy of his had come true. The price from Jibril had climbed to the original 19 Palestinians captured in the field plus 76 terrorists held in Israeli jails, many of whom were murderers. Merari couldn’t believe his ears. He advised walking from the negotiating table, breaking off all contact. His advice was ignored once again. In the end, Jerusalem released the 19 combatants together with the 76 terrorists. Merari later calculated that the freed Palestinians had combined sentences remaining of over 2,800 years.

Ahmed Jibril had learned a valuable lesson. You didn’t need to hijack an airplane to free jailed terrorists. In fact, not only was it unnecessary, it was undesirable. When the Palestinians held large numbers of hostages, the Israelis sent in commandos to free them. When they held a single soldier, the Israelis refrained from any heroics because of the inevitable loss of life. The Israelis took four killed to free 106 hostages in Entebbe. But they wouldn’t take four killed to free just one soldier. Instead they gave in.

This logic, if one could call it that, was carried to a further extreme just a few years later. At the conclusion of the First Lebanon War in 1982, eight Israeli soldiers were captured by a smaller number of Palestinians. There was clear dereliction of duty on the part of the soldiers.  A little over a year later they were traded for 4,700 Fatah fighters who had surrendered during the war plus 63 terrorists in Israeli jails.

The remaining two Israeli soldiers had the misfortune of falling into the hands of Ahmed Jibril. He already held a third soldier named Hezi Shai who had been captured after fighting with great valor in an unrelated battle. Jibril knew from his previous experience that Israel would pay dearly to win the release of three soldiers so he held out for more.

For the freedom of just three soldiers, Ahmed Jibril received 1,150 convicted terrorists including some 400 murderers, many of whom were among the most notorious in Israeli history. One of those freed was Kozo Akimoto, who together with two others carried out the 1972 Lod Airport massacre in which 26 people were killed. The victims in that attack included Aharon Katzir, one of Israel’s most prominent scientists and brother of Israeli President Ephraim Katzir.

The Gemara (commentary on the Oral Laws furthering the Hebrew Torah) states in Gittin [45A] that “it is forbidden to redeem hostages for more than their value because of the common good.” After Rabbi Meir from Rottenberg was kidnapped by a medieval king, he commanded the local Jewish community not to pay any ransom on his behalf. Instead, he spent the last seven years of his life in captivity, dying in prison in 1293.

Professor Merari summed it up as well as anyone in a newspaper interview. “The moral obligation of the government,” he said, “is to act so that the fewest possible number of Israelis get attacked. The defense minister is charged with protecting the entire country, not any particular family. If you free 500 terrorists, you do so knowing that you are sentencing dozens of Israelis to death.”

The Israelis of an earlier generation that had actually experienced the Holocaust never caved in to similar pressure. Ben-Gurion, Dayan and Eshkol had plenty of opportunities to engage in similar arrangements, but they never did. They only traded soldiers for soldiers and they always kept the price within reason.

That Israel invariably pays a terrible price in blood when it lets terrorists go is a fact acknowledged by all. SHABAK, the Israeli equivalent of the FBI, performed a study and found that fully two thirds of those freed go right back to terrorism. Some 6,912 terrorists were freed between the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993 and the outbreak of the al-Aksa Intifada in September 2000 – mostly as good will gestures to the Palestinian Authority, though some had served out their term. A victims group called Almagor released a study that found that in the first five years of the al-Aksa Intifada the freed terrorists killed at least 177 Israelis.

In January 2004, Israel turned 435 terrorists over to Hizbullah to win the freedom of a kidnapped drug dealer named Elchanan Tenenbaum. So far, those freed terrorists have killed 27 Israelis.

And those were just the direct costs. The indirect costs were incalculably higher. And yet, time and again the Israeli public supported lopsided exchanges, even as the price climbed ever higher. Somehow, the Israeli public internalized nothing but the pain of the families in a hostage predicament.

Other democracies learned the futility of negotiating with terrorists and ceased the practice. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration swapped hostages for arms, only to see more Americans snatched off the streets of Beirut. Washington no longer negotiates with terrorists, and so Americans are no longer kidnapped.

All of which brings us to the sad story of Gilad Shalit.

Since his kidnapping by Hamas in June 2006, the floodgates of Israel’s emotion have burst open, submerging and overwhelming any attempt at a rational response. The mainstream Israeli media have abandoned any pretense of objectivity, condemning any refusal to free terrorists as cowardice and praising every concession as courageous. One popular news show ends each daily broadcast with an update of how many days Gilad has spent in captivity.

And so last week over 500 Israeli families received notices from the Defense Ministry: those who had murdered their loved ones were about to be freed. The final tally in this latest exchange dwarfs every deal that came before it. In return for a single soldier, the State of Israel has agreed to free 1,027 convicted terrorists.

One woman, Ahlem Tamimi, drove the suicide bomber who killed 15 in the Sbarro Pizzeria in Jerusalem. She has already been seen on Israeli television smiling and saying she has no regrets. And why should she? She has served only ten years in prison and she will soon be free to plan the deaths of more innocent people.

Don’t believe a word of the fashionable nonsense pulsating through the Israeli media in praise of Netanyahu. The likely price yet to be paid for this historic blunder is too painful to contemplate. Either way, we are witnessing a complete victory for Hamas and the forces of terror.

Uri Kaufman is the author of  “Low Level Victory,” to be released shortly by Harmony Books

It’s the Fat Cats’ Fault

October 16. 2011

By Nolan Finley

Big Gov’t vs. Big Biz in 2012


Next year’s presidential election won’t be about personalities — it’ll be a battle between Big Government and Big Business.

And whoever controls the finger of blame will likely come out on top.

President Barack Obama is standing on Al Gore’s old “People versus the Powerful” platform to convince voters the economic mess he’s presided over for nearly three years is not his fault — the culprits are the “Fat Cats” (his words), the CEOs, Wall Street brokers and wealthy layabouts who’ve stolen the jobs and paychecks of the middle class.

And although voters thought last year that it was smaller government they wanted, Obama’s pitch is that what they really need is a larger, more potent government to stand between them and the robber barons.

He’s getting a boost from the small but noisy Occupy Wall Street movement, which his media allies are covering 24/7. They’re only too eager to help him turn the conversation away from the failings of government and toward the failings of business.

This new “mad as hell” crowd has an edge to it, and lets the media get back to a story line it loves — that there are two Americas, one for the privileged and one for everyone else, and the lines never cross.

Voters usually reject this sort of class warfare.

But in persistently hard times, it’s easy to blame those with more power and more money.

To counter, Republicans have to play, “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”

The answer is “everyone.”

Americans have a primal quest for wealth. It’s what made us the most prosperous people on Earth, and the most innovative.

Business makes millionaires, government doesn’t — except for the politicians and their friends who abuse the public trust.

Obama is offering policies that destroy wealth. There are fewer millionaires today than when he took office.

Republicans succeed if they make Americans believe again that they can roll the dice and win.

When people stop believing in their opportunity to hit the jackpot, they turn to the security of the nanny state.

The challenge for the GOP will be to remind voters of the everyday incompetence and inefficiency of government, and that every dollar it squanders comes out of their pockets.

Making government larger and more powerful means even more wasted dollars.

Republicans also have to make a stronger case for free markets and private initiative.

Explain basic economics. Profits aren’t evil; they keep factory and office doors open. (We learned the hard way in Michigan what happens when profits disappear.)

A corporation that pays less in taxes has more to spend on jobs and salaries.

And “fair share” doesn’t mean anywhere near the 50 percent of wealth Obama hopes to confiscate.

Big Business has its flaws and its scoundrels.

But stack them up next to those of Big Government and business wins in a landslide.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The News.

Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama on Foreign Policy and Ties to Israel

The Jewish Press

Oct 16 2011

Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama on Foreign Policy and Ties to Israel

In the first major foreign policy speech of his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said he would increase defense assistance to Israel, raise the U.S. military profile near Iran and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and frontrunner for the Republican nomination, delivered the speech last Friday at The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina – a key early primary state he initially was given little chance of winning.

Now, with Texas Governor Rick Perry’s campaign in the doldrums, Romney is making forays into the state. Another sign of Romney’s growing confidence is that he departed from his signature issue of economic competence to concentrate on foreign policy in his speech. Romney’s address demonstrated the extent to which Israel has become a consensus issue for the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party and nearly all its presidential candidates.

Romney promised his audience that as president he would restore the United States to its position as undisputed world leader by rebuilding the sources of American strength: “a strong economy, a strong defense, and the enduring strength of our values.”Obama, argued Romney, had permitted all three of these sources to atrophy. Despite America’s weakened economic position, he said, America under a President Romney would not heed the isolationist siren nor would it seek refuge in a balance of power system where the United States is merely one player. “I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today.”

Romney hammered Obama for appearing to accommodate America’s rivals while displaying coolness to allies. “Our friends and allies must have no doubts about where we stand,” he said. “And neither should our rivals.” Romney returned to this theme later in his address:  ” I will bolster and repair our alliances. Our friends should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our special relationship with the United Kingdom.”

Administration spokesmen note that the Obama and Netanyahu governments have smoothed relations in recent months and that Israeli officials credit the administration with tightening defense ties and backing Israel at the United Nations. Obama also refers to Israel as a Jewish state, though he has not issued a formal declaration of such recognition.

Romney raised the subject of Israel repeatedly in his address, starting with the foreign policy hazards he saw facing the U.S. in the immediate future. The first problem he mentioned was the threat posed by a nuclear Iran, and he suggested Israel might be further isolated by 2015 if Obama remains in office. “Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?” he asked.

“In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world. By 2015, will Israel be even more isolated by a hostile international community? Will those who seek Israel’s destruction feel emboldened by American ambivalence? Will Israel have been forced to fight yet another war to protect its citizens and its right to exist?”

Romney said that as president he would “enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” Romney said those “who seek Israel’s destruction” feel emboldened by American ambivalence and this might force Israel into fighting another war for its existence.

Romney pledged to help transform the UN and other international bodies that have become “forums for the tantrums of tyrants and the airing of the world’s most ancient of prejudices: anti-Semitism.” He also said he would centralize U.S. Middle East policy to ensure “that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter.”

The speech came a day after Romney published a list of his foreign policy advisers, including many who have been active in or are close to the pro-Israel community. Nearly all of Romney’s 22 special advisers held senior defense, diplomacy or intelligence positions in the administration of George W. Bush, including former homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff and former undersecretaries of defense Eric Edelman and Dov Zakheim.

A budget cut we cannot afford – “Sequestration”, an ugly word.


Weekly Standard, OCT 10, 2011
Among the many shortcomings of the Budget Control Act and its spawn, the “Super Committee,” is that the threat of a sequestration “nuclear option”—in which some $600 billion would be cut automatically from national security accounts (to my mind, the brain child of a president who has never had our national security as a consideration – jsk) if congressmen do not find savings elsewhere—diverts attention from the damage the law has done already to America’s military.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey have been quick off the mark in pointing out that sequestration would be “unacceptable” and “very high risk.” Various military service leaders have said that, if sequestration does come to pass, the country would have to “rethink” its entire military strategy. But the corollary to such criticism has been that the cuts already in law, though painful, can be “managed.” The Air Force’s second-ranking general told the House Armed Services Committee that “we will not go hollow” despite the $400 billion cut provided in the Budget Control Act.

But there’s good reason to wonder whether this is right. To begin with, the size of the current cut has grown. Last week Reuters reported that the level of defense reductions has increased to $489 billion, after the Obama administration decided to exempt veterans’ benefits from any cuts whatsoever. The White House is making a rather predictable political judgment that cutting Veterans budgets would cause them more pain than gutting defense budgets.

A better understanding of how the military is already being weakened can be found in a memo prepared for House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon. Although most news reports about the memo focused on the deep, indeed shocking, cuts in force structure that may result from sequestration, no less important was the memo’s accounting of the long-term effect on the military of current funding under the Budget Control Act.

Consider the personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Even with 771,400 soldiers and Marines on active duty, both services remain stretched well beyond their limits. Based on current funding, the committee estimates that end-strength will fall to 654,000—smaller than pre-9/11 levels. Similarly, the Navy could slip to something on the order of 260 vessels—more than 50 ships below what the Navy consistently has argued it needs to carry out the country’s national security strategy. As for the Air Force, in 2000, it was flying more than 3,600 fighters; with cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, that number may drop to less than 1,740.

The McKeon memo does not specify with equal precision the budget’s effects on future weapons programs, but there’s no reason to think such effects won’t be commensurate to the service cuts. The committee is correct to point out that every modernization program is “at risk”; the only real question is the level of risk. We are told that sequestration will create “unacceptable” risk, but because the Pentagon has yet to fully reckon the consequences of the current cuts, or even to reckon their overall size, there’s no way of knowing how much damage has already been done. So the service chiefs’ assurances that all is well should be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism.

The real problem is not the mechanism of sequestration, brutal though it may be. The fact is that the United States has been in an extended “defense drawdown” since the end of the Cold War, reaping substantial “peace dividends” throughout the Clinton years, during the Obama years, and now under the Budget Control Act. Indeed, more than $800 billion has been cut from planned spending in just the past three years. It’s time to say “enough” and to refuse not only sequestration but also a deal that avoids automatic reductions by substituting “just” a couple of hundred billion more in defense cuts. These are “savings” the nation cannot afford.

Honor Killings right here in the US!!

Have the Arabs learned about US Payola Corruption or Lobbying or Political Correctness or is it Self-Delusion or  Fear or What?

October 5, 2011 | Filed under: Florida Review

By Javier Manjarres and Pamela Geller (AtlasShrugs)


The abhorrent practice of ‘honor killings’ by radical Islamists beholden to the precepts of Sharia law is going on right here in the United States– some say that these killings are becoming more prevalent, although no statistics for such killings are recorded.  Unfortunately, political correctness and fear of the “Muslim street” here in America are restraining not only the media from accurately reporting on these cases, but law enforcement as well from aggressively investigating these cases as well as identifying that these murders are indeed “honor killings”.  One such case that appears to have been grossly mischaracterized and likely was an honor killing involves the death of Fatima Abdallah from Tampa, FL.

Abdallah was found dead in in the home of her brother, Muhammad Abdullah Hmeid on August 17th, 2009.  The Tampa Medical Examiner’s Office determined that the cause of death was that the “Decedent fell and struck her head,” and ruled the death to be accidental.

Subsequent to this finding, the Tampa Medical Examiner’s Office has come under fire from critics who charge that the office may be attempting to quash any further questioning of the Office’s determination which ruled Abdallah’s death to be an accidental death- possibly done out of fear of Muslim reprisal. Tampa Police Crime Scene Technician Shelby Garman requested that her name be removed from the Tampa Police Department GO report because of “fear of Muslim reprisal.”

The Tampa Police Department and the Medical Examiners Office both concluded that Abdallah died by  banging her own head against a coffee table repeatedly- yes, you read that right.  A member of Tampa Rescue called the Tampa Police’s explanation “illogical” and reported that Abdallah appeared to have been badly beaten.  What’s more, there was a history of abuse against Abdallah by certain members of her family, and she was quoted before her death by a neighbor who said that Abdallah’s brother did “unspeakable things to her.”

The Florida Family Association took note of this case early on and ultimately hired its own independent private investigator who raised a major red flag about the investigation.

“There is a glaring absence of any suspicion, from either report (TPD and ME reports), that the decedent could have possibly been a victim of an assault that eventually caused her death.” – Prestige Investigations, Inc. report on the death of Fatima Abdallah 

If Florida law enforcement agencies are reluctant to investigate and aggressively pursue charges in the context of honor killings for fear of reprisal, it means that we are effectively being governed by the vile precepts of Sharia that command these honor killings.  Our communities should stand united, break through the silent complicity of family members that too often attends these killings, and pursue justice.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s attention was also solicited on this case, and her office issued the following reply-

We understand that you are requesting an investigation of “the Tampa Police Department and Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s office.”  If you are requesting an outside investigation of local officials, you may wish to contact the Governor’s Office.  The Governor has the power to appoint what is known as a special prosecutor to investigate criminal allegations outside a state attorney’s normal circuit when there are concerns about possible conflicts of interest.  The Governor may also direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to perform special investigations and investigations on public officials and agencies. 

 Upon reviewing the crime scene investitgation images, it was obvious the injuries Abdallah sustained to her face and head, not to mention the broken rib(s) that was not a ‘suicide-by-coffee-table’, but a murder case that needs to be reopened. Also in reviewing the notes and documents regarding the case, it was also troubling to learn that the of the 5 family members present, it took all of them 2 1/2 hours before they called 911, and then gave conflicting stories as to what happened to Fatima.

With all of the evidence in the case pointing towards murder and not towards an accident or suicide, pressure must be brought on Florida authorities to revisit the determination that he 48 year-old Abballahs’ death was an “accidental suicide” and to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice.  As it presently stands, this case can only be reopened by Governor Rick Scott via a special prosecutor.  We strongly urge Governor Scott to review this case and order an investigation into the highly questionable conclusions that have been reached thus far by the various branches of Florida law enforcement.

A pact signed in Jewish blood

October 13, 2011
No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.
There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn’t empathize with their suffering. It isn’t simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF. It isn’t just that it could happen to any of our families. As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family’s suffering is our collective suffering.victims of Arab terror.jpg
And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others. Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family. Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit.
Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family’s sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.
Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly. Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their (useless, ineffective and defeated)  bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.
For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14-month-old granddaughter, Sinai Keinan, did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002. And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren’t planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem. Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.
The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu’s brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.
The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts. IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony. The only thing we don’t know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.
Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.
There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die. In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews. This deal – like its predecessors – is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.
The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu’s current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu’s part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.
Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position. He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider. Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition. But this rationale ended with Barak’s resignation from the Labor Party in January. Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu. They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu’s government. He doesn’t need to pay any price for their loyalty.
So Netanyahu’s decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale. (as if such a position would ever have a moral rationale) WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas’s position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas’s patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas’s leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.
Hamas’s leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood’s oppressor. With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas. But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt. What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface. Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.
At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel’s radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel’s leaders to capitulate to Hamas. At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.
What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer’s convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: “The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best. “Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse.”
The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists. Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu’s abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

Herman Cain not Black enough for Al Sharpton


By Conservative Byte

October 9, 2011

Rev. Al Sharpton said Friday that no matter how “black” presidential candidate Herman Cain is, his conservative views are fundamentally at odds with the rest of the black community — and white people only like him because he says what they want to hear. Speaking on his radio program with Professor Karen Hunter — the same person who accused the Associated Press of racism for dropping the g’s in its reporting of a President Barack Obama speech — Sharpton essentially accused Cain of forgetting his roots when it comes to his politics.

“How could anyone in their right mind — they grew up in the south and saw what they saw — and act like everyone that is unemployed and that is not rich did it to themselves?” Sharpton said. “So I would assume he is either socially ignorant or playing games to get votes, that he couldn’t possibly have grown up and come to that conclusion unless he was one or the other.”

Video of Al Sharpton explaining Cain’s lack of Blackness


Democratic Party running scared – Are Florida Jews finally escaping?

Joe Biden stepped forward as a guest and featured speaker at the Boca Raton mansion of former Democrat congressman Ron Klein. The Democratic Party came out in force to the closed door, no press invited event.  Included with Biden were:

Ron Klein, former Democratic Congressman, roundly defeated November, 2010, against all odds, in a predominantly Jewish district, by upcoming Congressional star, Republican Alan West. One voter wrote at the time, “I’m a blue-dog Democrat who expected to vote for Klein. But, his immediate and then relentless negative campaigning turned me off. West  campaigned with dignity and addressed the issues. Klein underestimated the intelligence of voters.

Robert Wexler, former seven term Congressman who “curiously” resigned from the Congress, October 14, 2009 to accept a lucrative job with a far left multi-millionaire as his President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Peace. The institute he’s joining is, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted at the time, kind of “moribund.” It was founded by Slim Fast magnate, S. Daniel Abraham but hasn’t really done much over the past eight years.

The Center has evidently become more active with Wexler’s arrival, honoring at a dinner, September 10, 2010, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas,  the present leader of the PLO and protege of Yasir Arafat; and mastermind of the Munich Massacre which murdered Jewish athletes at the Olympic games; and author of a thesis to prove that the Holocaust never happened!

Also, of interest, found on the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Peace web site, were maps and diagrams describing the numbers of Israeli settlers that would need to be evacuated in each “peace” land giveaway scenario, varies between roughly 70,000 (under the 7% alternative) and 165,000 (under the  1.8% alternative).  

(This is just what the Israelis need for “Peace” – Shades of the Gaza forced withdrawal. From under what rock do these “Peace” advocates crawl?)

The organizer of the event was Debbie Wasserman Schultz – Chair of the Democratic National Committee and outspoken, frequently factually incorrect and super partisan mouthpiece for Barack Obama,  who recently, on TV September 25, 2011, claimed:

“We’re (our economy) is no longer dropping like a rock. Now we are moving forward. We’ve had 18 straight months of job growth, added 2.4 million jobs to the private sector, month after month, passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saved the American automobile industry, which every Republican candidate for president would have let go down the tubes.”

The facts are considerably different, as stated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: “ During Obama’s presidency the annualized growth in the real Gross Domestic Product peaked at 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2010. By the first two quarters of this year, it had dropped to 0.4 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. Republican National Chairman, Priebus, in addition, cited the 9.1 percent national unemployment rate (2.4 million people unemployed) and the huge increase in the national debt.

Wasserman Schultz is also a founder and  supporter, along with Robert Wexler, of notoriously anti-Israel Washington based lobbying group called JStreet.

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, blasted J Street, saying the organization was “fooling around with the lives of 7 million people (Israelis).” According to an article in The Jewish Daily Forward, Oren described the left-wing group as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israel government, it opposes all positions of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.”

The visiting fireman for the Democratic Party, VP Joe Biden, is known for his recent vicious, orchestrated attack on Israel when he visited there earlier this year. The  recent event at Ron Klein’s mansion was a closed one (why?),  during which he met with at least 15 local rabbis chosen, we must assume, for their political leanings. Strange, that only two among them, had their names   revealed  to the press to this date – Rabbis Scheiner and Kurtz.

We’d all like to know just who those other invisible rabbis were and why they did not come out and identify themselves as part of what appears to have been a  political brainwashing meeting on their home turf? Aren’t the dues paying members of their synagogues entitled to know of their political activities while on the payroll of 501c3 institutions? After all, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also heads the Democrat National Committee, as well as being a J Street heavy, was the coordinator for the event.

What other Democrat big-wigs were in attendance? Any Republicans? This was not a “Getting to know you” event. Were they given crib sheets to use during their Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur  services to their captive audiences? Were they all supportive of Obama’s open dislike for Israel? This report below, and others do not mention any rebuke of the VP for his administration’s hostility toward Israel.

Why did none of these “leaders” stand up and speak out in support of their people? What opposition was there to having our country abandon Israel? There are no reports of Biden having curve ball questions thrown at him. Did all of these rabbis have stars in their eyes having the honor of meeting the guy who was sent to sell them a dangerous bill of goods? With so many questions going unanswered it’s logical for us to speculate and draw our own conclusions.

From: Petfa4@aol.com and other Internet sources.

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

Reader Comments:

I am not Jewish, but all my adult life I’ve identified with Jews and Israel.
   Your “Running Scared” commentary gives me hope that Jews (not just in Florida, but across the country) will wake up and realize that Obama is NOT their friend.  From the very beginning, he has telegraphed his intent to fray the alliance the U.S. has always had with Israel.  He worshipped at the feet of Rev. Wright, a vicious anti-Semite.  Are we to believe that none of the vitriol rubbed off on him?  And his first major address (given in Cairo, not exactly a friend of the U.S.) and announced his primary foreign relations mission would be to “reach out to the Muslim community”.  He had to know he couldn’t do that and still maintain the close ties to Israel.  He can’t have it both ways.  Islam will not permit that.
  I know that the Jewish community has traditionally identified themselves with Democrats.  But Obama is not a traditional Democrat.  In spite of his denials, he leans toward Socialism.  If he is re-elected, with nothing to lose, he will be much more open in his Socialist leanings, both idealogical and policies.  And, also with nothing to lose, he will throw Israel under the bus.  I sincerely hope the Jews of America can see that.
Frances Haase
Tucson, AZ
Hi Jerome,

Great article…I am going to a dinner for Allan West in a week or so in LA, but no doubt he is on your mailing list to receive this piece.  I will get it to him also.

My best